User:Varshanekkanti/Legal aid in the United States

[This part will be added to existing Pro Bono Section - added information is in bold, original article text is unbolded. Added sub-heading within article's existing Pro Bono section titled 'Lawyer-Client Relationships in Pro Bono Services']

Pro Bono

The problem of chronic underfunding of legal aid is that it traps the lower middle class in no-man's-land: too rich to qualify for legal aid, too poor to pay an attorney in private practice. To remedy the ongoing shortage of legal aid services, some commentators have suggested that mandatory pro bono obligations ought to be required of all lawyers, just as physicians working in emergency rooms are required to treat all patients regardless of ability to pay. Such proposals have been mostly fought off by bar associations successfully. In their 1993 Model Rule 6.1, the American Bar Association emphasized the importance of attorneys providing a minimum of fifty hours of free legal assistance to low-income litigants annually. To justify this requirement, the American Bar Association has referenced the larger movement to incorporate larger ideals that are central to the legal profession, such as public service and advancing the public good, in actionable ways. Since then, pro-bono legal work has become institutionalized in large firms. Before the 1990s, pro-bono legal work was provided mainly by small firms; however, by the end of the 1990s, pro-bono was distributed “through a network of structures designed to facilitate the mass provision of free services by law firm volunteers acting out of professional duty” . 1/3 of Latino lawyers perform pro-bono work and 49% of Latino lawyers report to meet this 50 hour annual quota with 8.3% report to providing 200 hours or more. Pro bono services are sometimes awarded by Courts in cases related to employment, sex discrimination, consumer credit and fraud amongst others.

A notable exception is the Orange County Bar Association in Orlando, Florida, which requires all bar members to participate in its Legal Aid Society, by either serving in a pro bono capacity or donating a fee in lieu of service. Even where mandatory pro bono exists, however, funding for legal aid remains severely insufficient to provide assistance to a majority of those in need. Along with challenges in funding, legal scholars argue that the current pro-bono system “fails to incentive high-quality legal assistance…[because it] cannot replace the expertise and experience of seasoned lawyers”. The concern is that, since pro-bono services are often viewed as an opportunity for professional development for less experienced attorneys, the emphasis shifts away from the quality of services provided for a client to the attorney’s growth. Moreover, access to pro-bono services is often hindered by geographic access, particularly in rural areas where populations are widely dispersed. Thus, even with an increase in pro-bono services, the delivery of these services remains a challenge that stands in the way of addressing the justice gap as a whole.

The term “pro bono” came into official existence in 1919. Reginald Herber Smith uncovered in his study of how drastically different the poor and rich prevailed in legal matters within the U.S. What Smith honed in on was need for lawyers to serve the "financially unservable", or those that could least afford legal services, but would also significantly benefit from such services. The issue with that notion however, means that a lawyer would not be compensated for their skills, knowledge, and time.  Today, there are the “no costs to you” contingent contracts advertised in order to make a profit in the long run, in addition to the recommendation that private lawyers offer at least 50 hours of “pro bono” services per year in providing legal aid to those that cannot afford their services.  To be clear, there is no mandate requiring any law firm or legal service providers to part take in either of these processes, only a recommendation that all lawyers "should aspire to" serve, and lawyers who wish to extend themselves in such a capacity must decide to render their services free of charge.

Lawyer-Client Relationships in Pro Bono Services

A significant debate around pro bono services focuses on the lawyer-client relationship and the distribution of power within it. Since the 1970s, civil rights and public interest organizations have coined and used the concept of "lawyer domination", which is a perception that lawyers act according to their personal beliefs about what path of action would be best for the client. For low-income or minority clients, their submission to the lawyers’ control and authoritative decision-making was seen as the “price of access to the courts”. With the lack of financial leverage that clients have over their counsel, lawyers have historically held more paternalistic attitudes to pro-bono work, as opposed to a more collaborative approach. From the perspective of legal services lawyers, the assumption is that the “client is interested in a result and comes to you presumably because you know the best way, or the way that is most likely to get that result...So, there has to be some reliance on the expertise of the attorney in establishing and suggesting ways to proceed”. In thirty-two percent of cases, lawyers referenced making strategic decisions with no participation from the client at all.

Critics argue that interactions between lawyers and clients should be dictated by the guidelines laid out in the American Bar Association’s Code of Professional Responsibility. Aside from this code, there is no other description or guidelines for client-lawyer relationships and a great deal of variation, as a result, in practice. The conflict of interest provision of the code ensures that attorneys prioritize loyalty to their clients’ goals over their individual interests or external interests. Generally, the code equips lawyers with more power over the ‘means’ and leaves clients with responsibility for the major decisions of a case (including if a client wants to settle or appeal).