NY Court of Appeals Announces Pro Bono Requirement for Admission to Bar

According to today's New York Law Journal:

Starting in 2013, prospective lawyers must show that they have performed at least 50 hours of law-related pro bono service as a requirement for admission to the New York state bar, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman said today.

The chief judge said in his annual Law Day address at the Court of Appeals that the requirement would serve a two-fold purpose: First, it would address the large unmet need for lawyers to represent the poor. It also would inculcate in aspiring lawyers a career-long duty to serve the public, he added. . . . 

When applying to the four departments of the Appellate Division for admission to the state bar, prospective lawyers would be required to submit an affidavit describing the nature and the dates of their pro bono activities and the organization and individual lawyer who supervised them.

The chief judge said it will be up to the four Committees on Character and Fitness to ensure that applicants have properly completed their pro bono requirement.

I imagine this is causing headaches for Associate Deans, not only in New York but across the country at schools whose graduates might want to practice in New York. I wonder if there was any consultation with law schools as to how to implement this requirement?

 

Comments

[Noah Rosenthal]

This sounds like an impenetrable barrier to entry. Law students perform pro bono legal work to satisfy this requirement, then find their moral character application rejected because they engaged in the unlawful practice of law in order to satisfy the pro bono requirement.

[Noah Rosenthal]

Sorry for the second post, but also troubling (actually, more troubling, since the problems raised by my first post are avoidable if the prospective lawyer takes care) is that the pro bono hours must be performed in NY State. That's a huge impediment to many, many potential NY lawyers who either practice or go to law school out of the NY region. It poses a similar problem for those who practice in the NY region, so need to be admitted in NY, but who primarily practice in NJ or Connecticut.

[Milan Markovic]

This is very interesting, and a very positive step, I think. Although, of course, it will be necessary to review the specific terms of the program.

For example, while the Journal's cover story does claim that the pro bono hours must be performed in NY, that isn't clear from the Judge's actual remarks. The Judge clearly expects most candidates to fulfill the requirement while in law school and one assumes that he is aware that many of the Bar's applicants attend law school outside of the state.

If the program is implemented correctly, it would 1) Ensure that law students receive practical training while still in law school (and would encourage law schools to expand clinical programs and alike) and 2) would provide greater access to legal services. Prof. Leiter is reporting that the California Bar is considering something similar.

However, it is unfortunate that those who are better able to afford to provide pro bono service (generally older, more established lawyers) are not required to provide any pro bono service in order to maintain good standing.

[John Steele]

Jim, thanks for posting. As I understand it, NY will also require a freestanding ethics course (as opposed to, for example, PR credit for an externship) to sit for the NY bar. California is considering a practical skills requirements. Given that NY & CA combined account for about 1/4th of all US lawyers, such requirements could drastically alter legal education in the US.

[Doug Richmond]

If this exercise in judicial arrogance requires schools to expand their clinical programs beyond any present plans to do so, who pays for that? (Students, of course.) Meaningful pro bono opportunities are not as available outside of clinics as the judge and his like-minded colleagues apparently believe. Let's hope the judges reconsider this requirement.

[Milan Markovic]

I agree that there will be a significant effect on law schools, but, as I understand Judge Lippman's proposal, one would not need to complete the 50 hours of pro bono service to sit for the bar exam. Rather, a prospective lawyer would need to complete the requirement only by the time he/she applies to be admitted into the Bar (which in NY is often many months after he/she has passed the bar). Consequently, if a student cannot complete the requirement in law school via clinic, externship, internship, practicum etc., he or she could complete it while working under the supervision of a practicing lawyer. This should not be problematic for those fortunate to work for forms with established pro bono programs, but may pose difficulties for those who are on different career paths and also were unable to find opportunities during law school.

[Trotsky (AKA 2012 NY Bar Applicant)]

The interesting thing about this is that it implies that law _students_ have an ethical duty to provide law-related services to the community. That's very new.

I think that it's a great idea, but I'm not sure how to justify a pro bono obligation that isn't in reciprocity with some contemporaneous professional certification. The status imposes the obligation. In the best of all possible worlds, the schools would impose the requirement as part of ABA accreditation, I think. Otherwise, maybe there should be some formal "studentship/pupilage" status with the local Bar.

(And, ref the comment immediately above, I count bar prep as studentship - we're still reading the law.)

[Doug Richmond]

If you're going to impose this requirement on new lawyers (or lawyers-to-be, I suppose), then why not impose it on all New York lawyers? My personal belief is that pro bono should never be mandatory, but, in any event, it is impossible to defend this ridiculous proposal.

[John Steele]

or what about making it mandatory for judges and law professors with law licenses?

[Milan Markovic]

If this proposal goes through (I doubt it will given the immediate criticism of it from the academy, practicing lawyers, and scambloggers), the most cost efficient thing for law schools might be to require every law license-holding faculty member to supervise a pro bono project or two per year. I doubt that such a proposal would be popular, but it might be preferred to requiring doctrinal faculty members to start clinics and /or work in conjunction with existing clinics. There will also be more pressure on law schools to hire faculty members who are qualified to actually supervise such projects (opinions will differ on whether this is a good thing).

I suppose that I am a bit more sanguine about this proposal than others because I have long believed that participation in clinical programs or pro bono should be mandatory before a law student can graduate. Far too many students graduate without ever having seen a client, let alone representing one.

While I would far prefer this requirement be extended to all New York lawyers, I do think there will be some real benefits to law students, provided that the vast majority are able to complete the requirement while in law school.

[James Milles]

This is going to impose a significant administrative burden on law schools. I don't know how many seats are available in our clinics at SUNY Buffalo each year, but I'm certain there aren't enough for more than a fraction of our students. I fear law schools are going to be scrambling to add new clinics and other pro bono opportunities, with little supervision for the students, but with the added costs of more clinical faculty.

[Trotsky]

Again, I'm in favor of the proposal, but I'd caution against using it as a justification for expanding clinics at the expense of doctrinal education. The present economics of law clinics are very unfair to the student, who is essentially subsidizing the doctrinal education of others. The clinic/employer is happy for the help, and would be equally happy to receive it from someone who wasn't paying all that tuition money. The schools like it, as they can then essentially double-book the desks, taking on more students (in the aggregate) without adding the classroom space. The most doubtful part of it is that the school then leverages this somewhat economically questionable transaction to build relationships with outside entities. I think there should be an ethical precept that clinical hours are non-chargeable by the school, except where a faculty member has integrated the clinic into a workshop/instructional setting - and even then, only according to the proportion of actual instruction.

And I agree with JS's point above about possibly expanding the pro bono requirement to faculty. IMHO, the better profs already see it as an obligation. As currently presented, Lippman's proposal could mean one of two things. Either that pro bono work is a necessary training experience for a potential future lawyer, or that one who has attained a basic proficiency in the law is under a basic obligation to use it to help others, even in advance of seeking admission to the practicing bar. The fact that the check will be performed by C&F folks seems to suggest the second. And that rule seems as if it would apply to the legal academy generally.

[Laurel Rigertas]

There are several law schools that require mandatory pro bono as a condition for graduation (I believe at Columbia it is 40 hours), so some schools do have experience with coordinating enough pro bono opportunities for all graduates. I do, however, agree that this can be a challenge. At my school (Northern Illinois University), we have been working on pairing our students with alumni for pro bono projects as part of our voluntary pro bono program. This allows our students to engage in pro bono work with supervision and also encourages our alumni to provide pro bono work. I don't know what the student practice rules are in New York, but Illinois Supreme Court Rule 711 allows senior law students to provide some limited legal services with supervision for organizations such as legal aid and the PD's office, but does not allow student practice under the supervision of private practice attorneys. If New York has a similar rule, it may want to consider allowing limited student practice under the supervision of a private attorney when that attorney is providing pro bono services as a way to increase opportunities.