How much free work should a lawyer do?

8 November 2010 by

Today marks the beginning of National Pro Bono Week, with events being held across the country to celebrate the range and impact of pro bono work undertaken by solicitors, barristers and legal executives. A calendar of events can be found here.

How much pro-bono, or free, work should a lawyer do? This is a question which I have heard asked surprisingly rarely. I cannot recall the topic being addressed during my legal training, although pro-bono work was generally encouraged not just as charity but also as an excellent way of gaining legal experience with a view to finding a job. This was certainly my experience, and I cannot stress enough how valuable my work at the Free Representation Unit was in providing an interesting and valuable insight into representing real clients.

The Times asked last week how much free work a lawyer should do, and quoted the quite astonishing statistic that American lawyers at the top of the legal profession take on over four times more pro bono work per year than their UK equivalents. Whereas lawyers at ‘Magic Circle’ firms in the UK do around 30 hours per year, their American counterparts take on 125. This amounts to just over 30 minutes per week in the UK versus over 2 hours in the US. The Times does not say what the equivalent figures are for non-magic circle firms or the Bar, but I would not be surprised if they were similar; from my experience in the US, there is a genuine difference in attitudes. This may reflect a wider ‘can-do’ approach to charitable giving in the US , but that does not mean things cannot change on our own legal community.

This is clearly a failing at both the corporate and individual level in the UK, and it seems that only a cultural shift would improve the situation. Of course barristers should not be excused either, although they are in a slightly different situation as, unlike solicitors who will still be paid their salary if they are permittted to do pro-bono work in ordinary working hours, barristers must take the financial hit personally as they are self-employed. That being said, many solicitors work for free not just in their company’s time but also their own, such as those who work at evening legal advice centres.

With the incoming cuts to legal aid, pro-bono work, which is certainly an important element of the ‘Big Society‘ – if it indeed exists – will take on new significance and the legal profession will have to think hard about how to encourage lawyers to take on more work for free.

The profession needs to work more creatively to encourage lawyers to take the pro-bono plunge. Some will see taking on a full case as too much work. Or maybe they are fearful of client contact, which is normally not a part of their advisory tax practice. But pro-bono work is as varied as the legal profession itself. The Bar Pro Bono Unit or LawWorks can match up lawyers with simple and discrete advisory work, and Liberty ask that lawyers attend their offices for two hours on a Monday or Thursday to answer calls to their human rights advice line. One need never meet a client to do good work.

Also, lawyers can find ways of matching their talents and hobbies to pro-bono work. For example, someone who enjoys writing and is a housing law aficionado could set up a housing law blog, providing expert legal analysis for free, as those who write the Nearly Legal blog did. Or one could become a trustee of a legal charity or help fundraise for the new National Pro Bono Centre (their open day is on Tuesday 9 November). The possibilities and opportunities are huge, and it can be fun too.

Lawyers working for free is not the only way of plugging the legal aid gap, nor should it be: it may be that novel ‘no win no fee’ arrangements will play an important part too. But as things stand, at the beginning of a week celebrating the excellent pro-bono work which many lawyers do, there is clearly much still to be done to convince UK lawyers to do more.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

1 comment;

  1. Jon Coldwell says:

    This is an important issue that is not limited to the legal profession. Those of us who participate as expert witnesses have to ask the same questions. We should be clear what constitutes pro-bono work. There is the clear example where one undertakes to work with no charge. There are also cases – my discussions with colleagues in both the expert witness and legal fields suggest that these are more frequent – where not all work undertaken in a case is charged for. Common examples of the latter include preparation of addendums, answering written questions, failed appointments, research time, cancellations where preparatory work has been undertaken etcetera. It would be interesting to know how the American and British data were constructed. I have no knowledge of legal funding in the USA wnd wonder how it compares with our Legal Aid System. Finally is there a difference between jurisdictions Criminal – v – Civil? Coorporate – v – Family? I suspect there might be

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: