Both Church and Bar focus on need
I procrastinated getting my CLE hours again this year, so earlier this week I attended a brutally boring CLE on recent and proposed ethics rules. One of the major emphases was access to justice and pro bono hours, which is likely a result of the new state bar association president’s opinions on the subject. We all know that we’re supposed to devote some of our time to providing legal services to unrepresented groups and individuals, but my state is trying to make that requirement more explicit.
I had something of a de ja vu moment last night when I happened to see some reports on the Bloggernacle that the LDS Church is adding an element to its currently three-fold mission. The new forth prong of the “purpose” of the Church, as it will now be known, is “to care for the poor and needy.” No one contests that helping people in need wasn’t already part of the Mormon Church’s activities—its humanitarian and philanthropic efforts are well-known—but this explicit language seems to reinforce the Mormon Church’s commitment. And just like my state bar association, this new language change and focus on people in need appears to be directly influenced by new President Thomas S. Monson, whose commitment to personal service is well-cataloged.
You might rightfully ask whether these new statements are more than just words on paper. After all, lawyers are always supposed to provide services to people in need, and an avowedly Christian denomination is always supposed to provide Christian service. But as a legal practitioner I have to believe that words have meaning. I think putting charitable service up front is a worthwhile change for any organization, and as religious historian Jan Shipps noted, this new focus will go farther to establish the Mormon Church as a Christian organization than any logo change or name clarification.
It is sort of an open secret that most attorneys don’t even come close to their suggested quota of pro bono hours, and the requirements are never enforceable. But to Christian believers, such service is not optional. At a time when the need seems to outpace the sources of aide, I think both statements are welcome and even necessary. This is one area in which the Church and Bar are in harmony.
Photo credit: Brian Tibbets.


I have my doubts about some of the pro bono requirements enacted or contemplated by bar associations around the country.
When I was a newbie so many years ago, the Young Lawyers Section of the bar in the first state where I was admitted encouraged pro bono work and set up a system where it was fairly easy to get involved in individual cases, typically landlord tenant law, family law, probate/property transfer issues and other similar issues where indigent folks would have little, if any, access to representation. It was all voluntary and most of the larger firms certainly encouraged participation but played no role in obtaining or assigning work. It was an excellent example of leaving the 99 to rescue the 1.
However, it seems that many of these efforts, especially those that involve mandatory hours, devolve into “cause” efforts dictated by the bar or the powers-that-be within the firm that all too often put a young associate with a conservative belief system in an untenable position.