Law for The Poor

2010] MANAGING PRO BONO
2417
c. Resources
In addition to general worries about pro bono participation, some counsel
expressed more specific concerns about the impact of the recession on
program resources. Both the short- and long-term pictures were mixed. As
we reported earlier, some firms indicated no push back on costs--"nobody
says stop spending money on pro bono." 330 But others reported a "big
trend" toward paring back on "large, expensive litigation, such as death
penalty and large discrimination class actions," both because of the fear of
the time commitment and the concern for managing costs. 331 As one
counsel noted, "There are always attitudes that pro bono is only a cost....
When times get tough and people get nervous, those concerns get
louder." 332 Some firms that had ramped up pro bono engagements during
the early phase of the downturn were caught shorthanded as more
downsizing occurred. This created a mismatch between supply and demand
that made firms extremely sensitive to taking on new resource-intensive
matters. One counsel compared the situation to an "aneurism, which is
taking a while to work its way through the system." 333 Although she did
not "know how long that will last," she acknowledged that unlike "two
years ago [when] we were very actively seeking out high impact pro bono,
now we are spending more time managing what we have on board and
making sure that those clients are being served effectively." 334 Another
counsel acknowledged, "I can't pay hard costs. I could take on forty social
security representations, but I can't take on a big death penalty case." 335
Although some counsel viewed recent cutbacks as a necessary short-term
corrective, others suggested that they might be a more enduring legacy of
the downturn. Part of the disagreement centered on how long the avoidance
of expensive cases would last. Some expressed confidence that the
reluctance was "not a long term issue." 336 Others suggested more lasting
adjustments. One counsel predicted that it "will be harder for firms to
bankroll major pieces of public interest litigation," but suggested that they
might "start partnering together to make costs more digestible," splitting
"expert and deposition fees, and working better with providers." 337
Another proposed getting the "ABA to come up with a new idea" to
promote easier cost recovery by firns. 338
330. Interview 13, supra note 80.
331. Interview 20, supra note 148.
332. Interview 17, supra note 166.
333. Interview 30, supra note 232.
334. Id.
335. Interview 20, supra note 148.
336. Interview 24, supra note 197; accord Interview 20, supra note 148.
337. Interview 26, supra note 162.
338. Interview 18, supra note 182.