Force lawyers to work for free, says Cameron thinktank

A thinktank with close ties to David Cameron has recommended that lawyers should be forced to spend 10% of their time on pro bono work to restore public confidence in the profession.

ResPublica's report, In Professions We Trust, warns that the teaching, legal and medical professions are all seen by the public as "self-serving interest groups propagating their own agenda and interests". It claims that for many lawyers the law has, shockingly, become a "revenue generating business".

ResPublica founder Philip Blond, who has been credited with inspiring Cameron's Big Society project, co-authored the report. It advocates obliging every lawyer to spend 10% of their time on pro bono. For lawyers on "very low incomes", such as those in the legal aid field, it advises that 5% would be permissable. ResPublica predicts that the requirement would produce 30 million hours of free legal advice across England and Wales per year. The report also says that lawyers should take an oath on qualificaton to "re-assert a sense of vocation" and re-establish bonds of trust between clients and lawyers.

"As Gove is my witness, I hereby vow to superplease my clients, record my time promptly, attend all update sessions, even the ones on easements, and above all to smash my false idol Mammon. As a brand on my forehead shall henceforth declare, working for free shall set me free."

Given that there is no compulsory requirement on possibly anyone else in society, other than convicted criminals, to spend their time working for others without pay, it's a pretty racy proposition. Law Society president Jonathan Smithers said that, on average, each solicitor already volunteers more than 50 hours a year of free advice, "benefitting some of the most vulnerable people in society". He added, "We know of no other profession doing so much".

However, ResPublica is understood to regard comparisons with other professions as invalid on the basis that, unlike NHS doctors and state school teachers, lawyers can charge large sums. It would not comment on whether mandatory pro bono was intended as a cheap means to plug gaps in legal aid.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Eh? The premise of ResPublica's comeback in that last paragraph is obviously false.

"Unlike NHS doctors and state school teachers" lawyers are commonly contractually banned from working for others without express permission.

.....unlike NHS doctors with a private list or state school teachers that tutor.

And that's not even the weakest part of this daft proposal.

"It claims that for many lawyers the law has, shockingly, become a "revenue generating business"."

Hi ResPublica

Thanks for the memo.

Love,
Capitalism

Um... how is this going to work for in house lawyers? Or lawyers who have practising certificates but don't work? And what would the logistics be? Do we all have to turn up for 4 hours a week to a free lawyers centre do some advising? Or do we only have to work for free if we're approached for it? How many people need pro bono M&A lawyers? Or are niche specialists meant to offer advice in typical pro bono areas even if they know nothing about it? Who is footing the indemnity insurance bill for this muppet's errand?

This guy seems a bit Blond to me. Still, we should probably listen to his thoughtful proposals because he is a policy wonk after all. A wonk who has.... Who helps people to.... Helps them.... Well no, he more sort of....

He's got a lovely head of hair, you can't deny that.

Have done pro bono work for ResPublica in the past....now wish we'd charged them for it.

So if lawyers are supposed to spend 10% of their time working for free "to restore confidence in the profession", how does this work for bankers, estate agents and (ahem) politicians? I think those three categories would need to pay the public for the privilege of working given how much confidence needs to be restored there...

Why is it that so many so-called 'think-tanks' are staffed by people who quite plainly are unable to think?

As the earlier commenter remarked, it's a bit rich being told by politicians and "snouts in the trough" think-tank monkeys that we need to "restore confidence in the profession." It's like getting a lecture on human rights from Vlad the Impaler.

Presumably the Torrrrrrrrriez will wait until after they have repealed the HRA before enforcing this? Wouldn't want it challenged under Article 4 now would we?

Given the increasing narrowing of specialisms of many lawyers (particularly in larger firms) often in relatively esoteric fields, ResPublica is making a big assumption by thinking some of us have the requisite skills to do the type of work likely to be genuinely useful to those struggling to access justice.

I mean, I'm always happy to do my bit, but wouldn't wish to be represented by me (or someone like me) in family or criminal proceedings.

I've done a lot of pro bono in my time. If somebody tries to force me to do it I shall cease doing it altogether. Meddling pro bone heads like this should donate their salaries to the poor as they don't deserve to keep a penny for spouting utter cr#p.

I have been pro boning ever since tinder hit the scene.

I bet this does not come off in the end as it is fraught with difficulties.
Also the state should fully indemnify and hold us harmless against the advice given for nothing.
There is a competition law pro bono scheme and I am on the panel but some of us do work so specialist we should not stray outside it so it's all going to be very difficult if it goes ahead.

What the hell use is a magic circle lawyer when it comes to pro bono? "Oh yes Mrs Smith let me take you through the finer points of housing benefit." I'm a banking lawyer and have been for many years. My skills are very specialised. Good luck to the government in finding enough pro bono in my geographical area to fill my team's time for an afternoon a week. Take a firm the size of Pinsents with its many specialisms. How is the government going to occupy the whole firm every Tuesday afternoon? Stupid idea.

We will not fill the void for free because this government further raped legal aid.

I assume it'll "work" like this.

Small and impoverished firms probably already practice in the most relevant areas. Large and rich firms will employ pro bono lawyers covering 10% of their billable hours! but not at their usual salaries.

Difficult to see how it will be enforced, HRA or none. Slavery is illegal, even if it's part-time.

Conservatives in "people should work harder for less" shocka.

The NHS has its throat cut, legal aid reinvested in tax breaks. But the professionals are still to blame. Shame on us all.

Whenever I've done pro bono I've barely been able to move for questions about effective tax structuring of offshore assets, it really never ends. Now, thankfully, a sensible proposal is on the table to ensure that people with the expertise that the least advantaged really need are obliged to provide it for free

Fingers crossed the Government will commission a full report on these proposals, maybe using some of the money they saved by slashing legal aid.

What's new?

http://crashbangwallace.com/2012/03/14/exclusive-leak-phillip-blond-donor-dissects-respublicas-unpublishable-and-inadequate-work/