Saturday, January 7, 2006
The argument that it would be more effective if lawyers donated money, rather than time ["Pro Bono: A Better Alternative," op-ed, Dec. 31], is fundamentally flawed.
Pro bono service -- volunteer legal assistance provided without a fee -- is an essential complement to the work of legal services and public-interest organizations. In 2004, the major law firms that have publicly articulated their commitment to pro bono service through the Pro Bono Institute at Georgetown University Law Center contributed an impressive 3 million hours of legal assistance to those who otherwise would otherwise not have access to legal help.
Josh Sheptow assumes that the legal problems of low-income and disadvantaged clients are less complex than those of corporate clients. But post-conviction capital appeals, the lawsuit successfully brought on behalf of low-income Gulf Coast residents denied benefits by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and similar matters demonstrate that the legal problems of the poor are neither simple nor easy.
An underlying assumption is that lawyers will contribute either their money or their time, but not both. In fact, lawyers who give their time are much more likely to donate money as well to the pro bono organizations with which they work.
The United States provides far less funding per capita for civil legal services to the poor and disadvantaged than any other developed country. Pro bono is not an inefficient response to that dismal reality; undertaken correctly, it is a model private-public partnership that offers hope and justice to those who have been denied them.
-- Esther F. Lardent
Washington
The writer is president of the Pro Bono Institute at Georgetown University Law Center.
I was truly disappointed in Josh Sheptow's op-ed column.
From this bright young man, I would have hoped for a fuller understanding of and commitment to the ideals of personal service. On the last day of the year, I would have hoped for a short treatise on the individual growth that came from his interaction with the low-income clients served by the "elite lawyers" of the Volunteer Attorney Program. I would have even hoped for a short history of the decrease in funding for such desperately needed legal services since the administration of another Californian, Ronald Reagan.
Instead, I read an attack on the dedication and sacrifice of pro bono attorneys. More broadly, the article shows that Sheptow misunderstands the value of individual as well as corporate philanthropic service: the hours of giving one's personal (or the firm's billable) time and considerable talents to the public good, far aside from the 10-second, 37-cent process of mailing a donation to one's favorite charity. The range of technical legal skills provided is often needed by the range of clients affected in pro bono work. Who better to fend off predatory lending practices than the same fine firms that developed them in the first place?
Most of all, I would have hoped that Stanford University would have taught young Sheptow the value of living his commitment.
Checkbook philanthropy, just as checkbook journalism, is no substitute for the real thing.
-- Charles E. Countee
Washington
View all comments that have been posted about this article.