Four Firms Collaborate with Appleseed on New Report

This week our friends at Appleseed released the report: Children at the Border:  the Screening, Protection, and Repatriation of Unaccompanied Mexican Minors, which exposes noncompliance with the 2008 federal Trafficking Victim Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).  TVPRA, which was intended to prevent human trafficking and exploitation, has not been fully implemented or followed at the U.S.-Mexico border, where Mexican children unaccompanied by an adult are often shuttled back across the border without protection or proper care.  As a result, thousands of children are needlessly exposed to human trafficking by drug cartels and criminal gangs, or repatriated to potentially abusive and dangerous situations without having a reasonable chance to assert their rights to protection.

Appleseed’s investigation reveals that unaccompanied minors are routinely misinformed about their rights to make an asylum claim and appear before a judge.  In addition, the TVPRA screenings are not being conducted in a manner or in environments that would indicate whether the minor is a potential victim of trafficking or abuse.  The manner of interviewing minors doesn’t allow them to make a truly “voluntary” choice about whether to return to Mexico.

The report makes recommendations to significantly reduce the risks that these children face. To read these recommendations, download a full copy of the report here.

A team of 32 pro bono lawyers from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP*, DLA Piper LLP*, Mayer Brown LLP*, and the Mexican firm Jáuregui, Navarrete y Nader S.C. spent two years investigating these border injustices, making 14 site visits in the U.S. and Mexico.

Has your firm collaborated on pro bono matters? Leave a comment and let us know.

*denotes a Signatory to the Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge^®

Did You See This Month’s Wire?

The April edition of The Pro Bono Wire is out, and it’s chock-full of information you won’t want to miss! 

• In the latest “Letter From Esther,” she discusses the Seminar/Forum and how it’s going to shape the work of the Pro Bono Institute moving forward. 
• The Law Firm Pro Bono Project offers two great resources for Member Firms: informational programming for summer associates and the new publication, Talent Management Trends: Law Firm Core Competencies and Pro Bono. 
• We’ve got remarks from Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg honoring Judge Robert A. Katzmann, and his acceptance speech from the 2011 Seminar/Forum Reception, which are not to be missed!
• And check out two new faces at PBI . . . Shannon Graving and Julia Alanen.

Are you missing The Wire in your inbox?  Click here to subscribe.

Getting Others Involved in Pro Bono

In-house pro bono is not just for lawyers.  A recent benchmarking survey published by CPBO found that nearly 92 percent of responding legal departments involve non-lawyers in pro bono work.  Aside from managing the administration of pro bono work and serving on pro bono committees, paralegals and other staff play an important role in serving in-house pro bono clients. 

Involving non-lawyers in pro bono activities increases the department’s capacity to provide legal services.  Quite simply, more hands on deck means that more legal needs are met.  Non-lawyers often possess unique skills useful in the provision of pro bono legal service.  For example, some legal departments utilize contract negotiators and their excellent drafting skills for draw up wills and other legal documents.  Others use non-lawyers as translators with clients who do not speak English.

As PBI President and CEO Esther Lardent points out in The Business Case for In-House Pro Bono, “Studies have consistently demonstrated the value of voluntarism in improving morale and productivity by reinforcing a sense of pride, common values and vision, and deepening personal relationships.”  Pro bono presents an opportunity to expand connections among lawyers and non-lawyers alike, increasing inclusivity within a department.  It allows members of the department who normally may have limited interaction the chance to work together toward a common goal – assisting those in need.

Exelon Corporation* serves as one example of a legal department that regularly involves non-lawyers in department-wide pro bono projects.  In fact, Margarita Llamas-Odom, senior legal coordinator at Exelon, will receive an award for her role in Exelon’s pro bono program. She coordinates and manages Exelon’s participation in the Wills for Heroes program, which prepares vital estate planning documents for Chicagoland first responders.  In addition to overseeing the administration of the program, she serves as a volunteer, providing direct services to clients.  Her work has resulted in immediate, realizable benefits to members of the community, and the program she manages has fostered a lasting bond between the legal community and first responders in Chicago.  The Wills for Heroes project is of personal importance to Llamas-Odom, as her husband is a policeman in the Chicago area.  Congratulations to Margarita Llamas-Odom and all the other non-lawyer staff who help make in-house pro bono a reality!

How is your legal department using its non-lawyer staff to advance pro bono? Leave a comment and tell us about it!

*denotes Signatory to the Corporate Pro Bono Challenge^SM

Coming Soon! Talent Management for Law Firm Pro Bono

Just in time for our spring reading list, the Law Firm Pro Bono Project is set to release a new toolkit offering guidance and tips for using pro bono opportunities as part of any core competency and performance evaluation system.

In the aftermath of the economic downturn, numerous large law firms have reevaluated their attorney management strategies.  Many of the nation’s largest and most prominent firms have announced that they transitioned away from the “lockstep” model and turned to one focused on core competencies.  Associates are now required to master certain delineated skills in order to advance in salary, billing rate, and seniority.  The hands-on experience pro bono work provides is especially invaluable to this evolving model.  Developmental pro bono assignments, or targeting pro bono work to develop skills, are particularly effective ways for attorneys to develop and demonstrate many of the “hard” and “soft” skills outlined in any core competency model.  Experience has shown that the kinds of matters that an attorney works on today may be very different from those one works on five or ten years from now, and pro bono can offer opportunities to acquire skills that complement the mix and volume of commercial work at the firm at any given time.  Strategic linking of pro bono assignments with professional development opportunities and thoughtful performance evaluations offers tremendous value both to law firm pro bono supporters and professional development leadership.

This publication, available free of charge to Member Law Firms, will be a valuable resource for law firm partners and professional development staff, including training, assignment, and evaluations committees, who should be mindful of how they can utilize developmental pro bono opportunities to boost their implementation of core competencies and performance evaluations in a cost-effective manner.  Likewise, the publication has been designed as a resource for pro bono responsible staff, who should be aligning their outreach and intake efforts to build core competencies, and satisfy attorney development goals.  The successful integration of pro bono and professional development can serve the dual good of assisting indigent clients and promoting access to justice while fostering the growth and training of firm attorneys.

How does your firm use pro bono to develop attorneys’ skills?  Has your firm mapped competencies and skills specific to pro bono matters?  Send us any material you’ve developed and/or leave us a comment below.

Do you want access to this exciting resource? Learn more about how you can become a Member of the Law Firm Pro Bono Project.

Virginia is for Pro Bono Lovers

The PBEye was delighted to see  that, effective April 15, 2011, the Virginia Supreme Court approved an amendment to its rules, removing restrictions that limited certified in-house counsel’s ability to provide pro bono work to deserving and needy clients in Virginia.  Now, certified in-house attorneys may provide pro bono service, subject only to the conditions that apply to all Virginia attorneys – the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct.  This change empowers the more than 800 certified in-house attorneys in Virginia to provide desperately needed assistance to low-income individuals and organizations.  We hope this amendment will serve as an example for other jurisdictions.

Unlike many states, Virginia previously had a rule allowing in-house attorneys licensed in other jurisdictions but certified to work for a legal department in Virginia to provide pro bono.   The problem was that like nearly every state that has such a rule (the exception being Colorado), it provided for unnecessary restrictions, including a requirement that in-house counsel only provide pro bono work pursuant to an approved legal aid organization program and under the direction of a supervising attorney.  For some matters, the rules also required a letter from the pro bono client and court approval.  The impact of these restrictions was chilling and made pro bono impractical for certified in-house counsel.

Fortunately, many attorneys understood that the restrictions imposed by Virginia’s old rule were unnecessary, insulting to in-house attorneys and, given the extraordinary need for assistance, unjustifiable limitations on the provision of access to justice.  A number of those attorneys gathered nearly a year ago at Virginia’s Pro Bono Summit, including our friend Randal Milch, executive vice president and general counsel of Verizon Communications Inc.*  He spoke passionately about the importance of pro bono while urging the court and the bar to make the necessary changes to take advantage of the expertise of in-house lawyers.  After the summit, a taskforce composed of attorneys from the Virginia State Bar and Virginia Bar Association, with assistance from CPBO, drafted the amendment that was proposed and ultimately passed.  In CPBO’s statement applauding the amendment, Milch said:

Verizon commends the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar, and the Virginia Bar Association for so quickly changing the rules that limited the opportunities for in house counsel to provide pro bono service to Commonwealth’s neediest residents.  Virginia now stands as a leader in the cause of freeing the needlessly restricted capabilities of in house counsel to provide pro bono service.  Virginia’s new rule is an ideal model for other jurisdictions to follow.  Verizon’s attorneys in the Commonwealth look forward to expanding their pro bono work under this outstanding new regime.

For additional comments see CPBO’s complete statement here. For more information about this issue or to join the effort to change the rules in other jurisdictions, contact Eve Runyon, director, Corporate Pro Bono.

*denotes a Signatory to the Corporate Pro Bono Challenge^SM

Do You Track Your In-House Pro Bono?

Should in-house legal departments track pro bono activities?  The answer is a resounding YES!  Even if your company does not track work by time spent, it is still a best practice among legal departments to measure pro bono work.  

When it comes to pro bono, there are several metrics you might consider tracking.  Many departments track the percentage of lawyers and legal department staff that participate in pro bono in a year.  This metric encourages teamwork and engagement and helps a department measure the growth of the pro bono program over time. The Corporate Pro Bono Challenge^SM – the only national and global measure of in-house pro bono – tracks participation percentages among Signatory legal departments.

In fact, some departments also track hours.  Even though it is not the norm for legal departments to track hours spent on work for the company, departments may decide to track the amount of time lawyers and legal staff engage in pro bono work.  In addition to providing useful metrics for staff evaluations, this measure can help a department highlight that it can manage pro bono work and not interfere with work for the company or personal time.

Still other departments track pro bono matters.  This is an important measure for departments interested in growing and expanding individual representation engagements.  It also may help departments understand how many clients it has served.

There are a number of effective ways to track in-house pro bono, and it is important to consider your legal department’s culture and current practices in deciding which pro bono tracking metric and system is best for you.  For example, online databases allow individual attorneys and staff to track and record their own time.  This minimizes the work required for administering a tracking program, and affords individual attorneys a greater sense of ownership of their pro bono work.  These databases can also be used to track expenses associated with specific pro bono matters.  Some web-based tracking solutions allow regional offices to easily report their activities and see what opportunities the legal department is working on as a whole, providing a way for smaller offices to compare their efforts to the company as a whole.

CPBO is currently developing a framework that would provide legal departments guidance on measuring in-house pro bono.  To find out more or to learn about tracking in-house pro bono, contact Eve Runyon, director, Corporate Pro Bono.

Top 10 Things to Consider For Your Pro Bono Partnership

We all learn at an early age how to work together . . . and pro bono is no different!  A successful pro bono partnership between a law firm and a corporate legal department is an important evolution of both pro bono programs.  Done properly and building on existing strengths, a partnership can generate more resources for pro bono and can foster a valuable relationship.  Here is a top ten list of questions to consider before embarking on a pro bono partnership:

1. Is your firm or legal department ready for a partnership?  Do you have a sustained and effective pro bono program with strong infrastructure?
2. Do you have the right motivation and reasons for partnering?
3. Are the key people on board? (i.e., the relationship partner(s), the general counsel,  and other leaders or management?)
4. Have you identified a likely partner?  Is there an existing commercial relationship, a legal department or law firm with a demonstrated interest in pro bono, a legal department at a company with a strong CSR program, and/or a geographical fit?
5. Do you have the right project?  Is it responsive to critical legal needs, does it fit the firm and legal department’s interests and skills?
6. Where are you getting the work?  Is the infrastructure in place to ensure a reasonable flow of properly vetted pro bono matters?
7. Can you clearly define meaningful and proportionate roles for both the firm and the legal department?
8. Are you prepared to make a significant commitment of time (including start-up time)?
9. Are you willing to be candid about what is working and not working and establish regular and meaningful communication?
10. Are you prepared to make mid-course corrections based on input from all parties?

Leave a comment and tell us about your successful pro bono partnership.  What tips do you have for firms or legal departments considering forming a partnership?  And if you’re already working in a successful partnership, why not submit it for the 2011 CPBO Partner Award?

Submit Your Nomination for the CPBO Partner Award

Corporate Pro Bono is now accepting nominations for the 2011 Corporate Pro Bono Partner Award.  If you know of an outstanding pro bono partnership project involving a legal department, submit your nomination to CPBO by June 3.

The annual award recognizes in-house legal departments that demonstrate an extraordinary commitment to pro bono and will be presented at the Pro Bono Institute Annual Dinner in New York at Gotham Hall on November 3, 2011.  Last year, CPBO presented Accenture plc*, Caterpillar Inc.*, and Merck & Co., Inc.*,  in partnership with Baker & McKenzie** and PILnet (formerly PILI), with the CPBO Pro Bono Partner Award for their innovative work  seeking to empower women in Nepal. 

Accenture, Caterpillar, and Merck, in partnership with Baker &  McKenzie and PILnet, created a virtually unprecedented and innovative inter-company, cross-border approach to meaningfully impact humanitarian issues.  The partnership project convened nearly 70 lawyers in 11 countries.  Together the team analyzed international legal mechanisms and best practices designed to deter workplace sexual harassment; promote principled approaches to equal pay and minimum hour regulations; foster occupational health and safety; and incorporate fundamental rights as defined by international laws, treaties, and conventions.  As a result of the partnership’s work, the Supreme Court of Nepal issued a decision decrying unfair workplace practices and ordered legislation to address the issue.

Know a great partnership to submit for the award?  Recipients must be comprosed of at least one legal department and one or more non-legal department partners (i.e. a law firm or a public interest group).  The criteria for selection are:

1.) A legal pro bono project that has a demonstrated impact on its community/target group;
2.) Substantial involvement by in-house lawyers;
3.) Tangible steps toward making the partnership sustained; and
4.) Innovative substantive and/or structural (e.g., delivery model) approaches to the effort.

Please submit four copies of your nomination by June 3, 2011 to Eve Runyon, director, Corporate Pro Bono via email or by mail at Eve Runyon, c/o Pro Bono Institute, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036.  For more information about the award or the nominations process, please contact Eve Runyon at 202.729.6694.

*denotes a Signatory to the Corporate Pro Bono Challenge^SM
**denotes a Signatory to the Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge^®

Arkansas Decision Good, But Not Good Enough

Unnecessary Restrictions on In-House Pro Bono
While in-house pro bono has grown considerably in the past few years, state restrictions on multijurisdictional practice are still a significant hurdle. CPBO, with PBI, ACC, and a taskforce of in-house counsel, is working to address this important issue and has drafted model language to help.

The rules in most states allow in-house counsel who are admitted to practice and are in good standing in one or more jurisdictions, but are not licensed in the state in which they are working, to provide legal services to their in-state employer. However, many of these states are silent on whether these same lawyers may also provide free legal help to low-income clients.

For states that have addressed the issue, most have adopted rules that impose unnecessary restrictions that in-house attorneys must meet in order to provide pro bono services to needy communities. These restrictions result in fewer attorneys providing pro bono services and fewer low-income people receiving help.

Recent Changes In the Rule Don’t Go Far Enough  
In late March, the Supreme Court of Arkansas adopted language that allows non-admitted attorneys, including in-house counsel, to provide legal services to persons of limited means. Certainly, a step in the right direction, this rule provides guidelines that permit in-house pro bono practice.

Unfortunately, the rule also imposes restrictions that limit the impact and value that these lawyers can bring. Most notably, Arkansas’ new rule restricts the number of needy people that can be served by requiring in-house counsel to work only in association with an approved legal service provider.  This may seem like a good solution. However, 80 percent of the legal needs of low-income people go unmet and only a small percentage of low-income people seek help from legal service providers.  By restricting in-house counsel from working with the array of organizations that serve low-income communities, including law firms that have vibrant pro bono programs, many low-income people are left unserved.

In addition, approved legal service providers often restrict the type of cases they handle, leaving other needy clients without assistance.

Easing Access and Increasing Capacity Should Be the Goal
States may adopt rules that limit in-house pro bono participation for a variety of reasons, including wanting to ensure competent representation. However, given the current crisis in legal needs and the increased number of in-house lawyers interested in pro bono, creating hurdles that restrict the number of lawyers who are able to help or the clients they can serve is not the answer.

The language CPBO has drafted states simply that providing pro bono services by in-house counsel is “the practice of law,” subjecting the attorneys who provide it to the same disciplinary, conduct, and competency rules that other lawyers practicing in state must follow. A viable option for states, the Supreme Court in Virginia approved this type of language just last week and eliminated the previous restrictions it had placed on in-house pro bono. Check back with us to learn more about these exciting changes!

Ultimately, practice rules should ease the ability of in-house lawyers to provide pro bono representation. They should:

• increase the number of lawyers able to assist low-income communities;
• add capacity to and lessen the burden on legal service providers;
• ensure that underserved individuals and the nonprofits that serve them receive support;
• lower the burden on the courts; and
• bring efficiencies to the justice system.

Unfortunately, many of the current in-house pro bono practice rules fail to meet these goals.

Bottom Line
The impact of such restrictive rules is not that work is being done by another lawyer, it is that the work is not being done. Needy people are going without help even when there are lawyers who want to help them. This needs to change.

For more information on these rules or to engage the task force in your state’s effort to address multijurisdictional practice, please contact Eve Runyon, director of Corporate Pro Bono.

Do You Haiku?

The PBEye recently got wind that April is National Poetry Month, and, never wanting to miss a celebration, we’ve decided to dedicate today’s blog to Pro Bono Haiku!  (For those needing a brush-up on haiku, it’s a Japanese form of poetry of 17 syllables in three lines, with a 5-7-5 meter scheme.)  We queried staff here at PBI for their best efforts and the ensuing poems are what we got (and boy were we impressed!):

It is April now
Spring has sprung again this year
Time for pro bono

April, a month
The month to express in verse
Love of pro bono

Access to justice
Access for everyone not just
A few lucky ones

To do pro bono
The yen is not charity
It’s part of the job

The spring brings new hope
For justice and equality
From pro bono aid

Giving to others
Lawyers help society
And the world improves

Legal departments
Law firms, Lawyers giving
Pro bono service

In-house pro bono
Legal departments giving
Justice being served

Law firm pro bono
Legal departments giving
Justice being served 

Cherry blossoms bloom
Communities unify
Lawyers give support 

Pro bono service
Ethical obligation
Real satisfaction

With funding threatened
Lawyers provide assistance
Pro bono service 

Access is denied
The court room doors have been closed
Pro bono brings hope

Pro bono attorneys
Help secure rights and benefits
For those most in need

Now the only question is . . . do you haiku?  Give us your best shot at a pro bono-themed haiku in the comments below!

*Hat tip to PBI Staff Christina Gordon, Shannon Graving, Chris Niebling, Eve Runyon and Tammy Taylor for their poetic masterpieces.