New York State Bar expands definition of pro bono work.

The New York State Bar Association has revised its pro bono policy to include participation in activities other than those involving service to benefit the poor, as some other states have done.

"New York lawyers render a broad range of essential services for the public good," said Cynthia Feathers, the bar association's director of pro bono affairs. "Some of these services were not encompassed within the prior definition of pro bono, and the association hoped to 'capture' such services when statewide surveys of pro bono activity are conducted."

The new policy urges but does not require--lawyers to provide at least 20 hours of services to people of limited means or organizations that serve their basic needs. In addition, members are encouraged to provide legal services at no fee or a substantially reduced fee to nonprofit organizations and the judicial system; contribute financially to nonprofits that provide legal services to the poor; and participate in activities that improve the law, the legal system, or the legal profession.

Previously, the New York Code of Professional Responsibility defined pro bono as legal work for the poor but did not specify a goal for hours of service; the state's Administrative Board of the Courts had set a goal of 20 hours. These guidelines didn't mention nonprofit organizations other than those serving the poor directly.

The Code of Professional Responsibility now includes the 20-hour goal and clarifies that "the expanded activities can be encouraged and recognized, but service to the poor remains paramount," said Bernard McCarthy, a New York City lawyer involved in the bar association's change.

About 46 percent of New York lawyers have provided some pro bono work to the poor in recent years, according to a 2004 report of the New York State Unified Court System. Bar members disagree about whether that percentage is adequate. Feathers said this level of participation is high compared with that of most other states.

"However, many of those lawyers provide less than the aspirational goal of 20 hours a year of pro bono, funding is inadequate, and the unmet legal need of the poor is huge," she added.

To address the problem, a working group within the bar proposed expanding the definition of pro bono work, rather than making pro bono mandatory. Initial proposed revisions included a "buyout" provision that would have allowed lawyers to donate money instead of legal representation, which McCarthy said he and other critics viewed as "diluting" the goal of providing service to the poor.

The working group's final proposal, which did not include the buyout, "clarified that the 20 hours [of service] for the poor remained, stated that there was a separate duty to provide financial support, and indicated that the new, expanded pro bono activities ... were in addition to the 20 hours," McCarthy said.

Examples of pro bono outside the 20 hours include working as an arbitrator and volunteering with a government agency or civil rights group whose resources might be depleted. Some lawyers reportedly have donated their services to New York police officers and City Hall.

"Pro bono work has always encompassed a broad array of activities," said Debbie Segal, chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service. She said she sees a trend in "states codifying that pro bono is a fundamental responsibility of attorneys and encouraging lawyers to provide more pro bono services however they best see fit."

States that specify annual pro bono goals generally call for between 20 and 50 hours (the ABA recommends 50). Reporting of pro bono hours is mandatory in only four states (Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, and Nevada); none currently requires pro bono work.

"Each of the states that has addressed [its] policy on pro bono has done so with the idea of encouraging more services," Segal said. "It is important to test these different approaches to help find the ways that work best for each area."

Steven Fineman, a New York City plaintiff lawyer, said he perceives pro bono as extending beyond the poor to include people "who otherwise would not be represented--whether it's because they're poor; because they're otherwise disenfranchised; because of their race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation; or because they have an unpopular case or are unpopular people."

Providing pro bono services is "important because otherwise the principle of access to the courts doesn't mean anything," Fineman said. "At some level, although firms are for-profit entities, we are not doing our jobs--we're not contributing meaningfully to the broader community and to the law--if we don't make sure that worthy cases and worthy causes are addressed."