Law for The Poor

2010] MANAGING PRO BONO
2399
have a good sense of quality control .... I don't know what else I could do
in terms of monitoring quality."' 182 Notably, none raised the possibility that
nonprofit staff themselves might lack adequate information about lawyer
performance, particularly when they refer, rather than co-counsel, cases. At
least one counsel thought that emphasizing the nonprofit screening role
often reflected an abdication of responsibility by firm lawyers who wanted
only clients who were appreciative and easy to deal with: "Law firm
attorneys tend to blame people before they look at themselves. Ultimately
[the nonprofit] cannot screen clients that are difficult, Sometimes lawyers
in firms bristle at difficult clients."' 183 Another used lawyer complaints
about clients as an opportunity to educate the lawyers about how to solve
client-relations problems generally. "Younger [lawyers] say 'I think the
client is lying.' I say, 'No, sit down, tell me what happened, this is what
you need to ask, come back and talk to me."" 184
Notably absent from these discussions about client management were any
references to lawyers' cultural competence. Nor did the topic surface in
descriptions of pro bono training programs. It may well be that some of the
"difficulties" that lawyers attributed to the client may have also reflected
their own difficulties in bridging differences of race, class, ethnicity, and
gender. 185
3. Lawyer Satisfaction
Firms generally reported only modest efforts to evaluate lawyer
satisfaction with their pro bono experiences. 1 86 About a quarter stated that
their information was largely anecdotal, received through informal
discussions. One counsel was
embarrassed to say that we haven't thought of ... whether people are
happy [with pro bono] .... I think that the fact that people come back
and take cases [suggests their satisfaction], and anecdotally--[although]
not every case is spectacular-across the board everyone is invested in
their cases and clients. People say, "I was cynical about pro bono, and I
didn't really want to do it, but, oh my god, it was the best experience." 187
At another firm, an informal channel for assessing lawyer satisfaction came
through "monthly conference calls with [the chairs of] each office in North
America," which counsel conceded was not a very "reliable" source of
182. Interview 18 (Aug. 17, 2009).
183. Interview 13, supra note 80.
184. Interview 21, supra note 154.
185. See sources cited infra note 409.
186. Little other information is available on attorney satisfaction with pro bono work.
The 2009 ABA report on pro bono activity did not ask about attorney satisfaction directly,
but did ask whether pro bono work was "[c]onsistent with the [a]ttomeys' [e]xpectations and
[e]xpertise." ABA, SUPPORTING JUSTICE II, supra note 85, at 18. The ABA study found that
"[a]cross settings, most attorneys (94%) reported that they performed tasks that were
consistent with their expectations when accepting the engagement." Id.
187. Interview 21, supra note 154.