Law for The Poor

2394 FORDHAM LAWREVIEW
[Vol. 78
than traditional civil courts. There are arcane rules ... about representing
minors. It is fraught. There are good reasons why firms are hesitant [to
take on family cases]."' 150
C. Reporting and Evaluation
1. Reporting
Given the size and prestige of the firms in our sample, it is unsurprising
that nearly ninety percent (n=49) respond to inquiries from the major
reporting entities: The American Lawyer and the Pro Bono Institute. Twothirds
also filed reports with a state or local bar. Nearly as many reported to
other entities; most of these indicated that they provided information to
NALP and Vault.com, and a smaller number also mentioned Volunteers of
Legal Service of New York, which asks participating firms to make a Pro
Bono Pledge of thirty hours per attorney, 151 and the D.C. Circuit Committee
on Pro Bono, which oversees the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit's pro bono resolution calling for attorneys to contribute fifty hours
per year of free legal services. 152 Seven firms stated that they reported to
the nonprofit legal groups with which they worked, and two reported their
pro bono activity to some corporate clients.
2. Quality Control
The incentives firms face, particularly those created by rankings, push
toward increasing hours. Within that framework, how do firms ensure that
cases are appropriately handled? There are, to be sure, some pressures to
avoid privileging quantity at the expense of quality. Internalized
professional norms, the oversight of referring organizations, and the risks of
ethical sanctions or malpractice liability make competence a relevant
concern. But no systematic information exists about the effectiveness of
these oversight mechanisms in practice.
To gain greater insight, we asked firms whether they used any systematic
measures to monitor quality in pro bono representation, such as internal
evaluations or case-tracking systems. Nearly half of respondents (n=27)
150. Id. Conflicts issues also make it difficult for large-firm attorneys to participate in pro
bono drop-in centers and hotlines because on-the-spot screening is infeasible. To address
that concern, a number of bars have adopted or are considering rules modeled on ABA
Model Rule 6.5, which limits a lawyer's liability for conflicts to circumstances where the
lawyer knows that a real or vicarious conflict exists. The Rule also limits conflicts imputed
to a lawyer's firm as a result of the attorney's participation in a limited legal services
program. See MODEL RULES OF PROE'L CONDUCT R. 6.5(b) (2009); see also Limited Pro
Bono Work Gets Easier with New Conflict of Interest Rule, CAL. B.J., Sept. 2009, at 4, 14.
151. Volunteers of Legal Service, VOLS Pro Bono Pledge, http://www.volsprobono.org/
RTF l.cfm?pagename=NewPageName 1 (last visited Mar. 17, 2010).
152. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE D.C. CIRCUIT, RESOLUTION ON PRO BONO LEGAL
SERVICES (1998), available at http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intemet/home.nsf/Content/
VL%20-%20RPP%20-%201998%2OResolution%20on%2OPro%2OBono%2OLegal%2OServ
ices/$FILE/Pro%2OBono%2OResolution.pdf.