The PBEye

Pro Bono As We See It
August 30, 2021

Help us reach our goal of 200 signatories to the CPBO Challenge® initiative

PBI’s Corporate Pro Bono Challenge® (CPBO) initiative is celebrating its 15th Anniversary this year! 

Since 2006, more than 185 legal departments have signed the CPBO Challenge statement and committed to encouraging their legal staff to use their unique skills to provide pro bono legal services to those in need. We thank our many signatories, which include departments with longstanding pro bono programs and departments that have recently started programs, for their commitment to improving access to justice through pro bono. 

This year, CPBO staff and members of the CPBO Advisory Board are calling on General Counsels and Chief Legal Officers to sign onto the CPBO Challenge initiative on behalf of their legal departments. Please make a public commitment to supporting access to justice through pro bono. We hope to meet a goal of 200 signatories by the end of 2021, to increase the amount of available pro bono services for those who need it most.

Interested in joining the Challenge, but not sure where to begin? Over the years, we have helped many CPBO signatories start new in-house pro bono programs, or grow and professionalize existing programs. We have many resources, guides, and templates, to help, and CPBO staff are available for complimentary consultations.

The Challenge sets an aspirational goal that one-half of the department attorneys and staff will participate in pro bono annually. However, as our annual CPBO Challenge Report shows, many signatories are still working toward that goal! This aspirational goal is intended as a helpful target and a way to benchmark progress. It is not a barrier to joining the Challenge.

Are you ready to become a CPBO Challenge signatory, or interested in learning more? To join the Challenge, please complete this sign-on form, or email Corporate Pro Bono Director Alyssa Saunders for more information.

July 26, 2021

Lifted Eviction Moratorium Will Lead to Thousands of Renters Facing Eviction Without Representation

By Kristen Bolster

Over the past few years there has been action at the local level and increasingly at the state level to implement the right to counsel in eviction cases. This action most recently has occurred against the backdrop of COVID-19, at a time when many low-income renters were unable to work and faced the threat of being evicted during a global pandemic. To aid tenants during the pandemic, the federal government announced a national eviction moratorium to stop landlords from evicting tenants for missed rent payments. However, with the moratorium now expiring on July 31, 2021 and roughly 4.1 million renters not current on rent or mortgage payments, eviction or foreclosure in the coming months is likely for millions of Americans. Housing court will soon be filled with tenants trying to plead their case, many without representation from an attorney.

The movement for a right to counsel in eviction cases seeks to redress the imbalance of power between tenants and landlords in housing court. Having the assistance of a lawyer in housing court can mean the difference between staying in one’s home or being forced out. One study found that two-thirds of tenants who had an attorney were able to stay in their homes, compared with one-third of tenants who represented themselves in housing court. Yet, in jurisdictions across the U.S., the majority of tenants face evictions without a lawyer, while the vast majority of landlords, 85 to 90 percent in some housing courts, are represented. 

Not only is the right to counsel in housing an issue of income inequality, as renters typically have less than half the income of homeowners and therefore have less funds to pay for representation, but there is also a racial justice component. Black and Hispanic tenants are disproportionately affected by eviction; this impact has been heightened during the pandemic. The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University found that Hispanic and Black renters were more likely to lose employment income during the pandemic than other renters, and the share of Hispanic and Black renter households reporting they are likely to be evicted in the next two months is twice as high as that of White or Asian renters. 

Realizing the large increase in homelessness that could result from lifting the eviction moratorium, cities and states across the U.S. have done combinations of passing legislation, passing ballot measures, enacting city ordinances, and creating pilot programs to give more tenants access to counsel when their home is at stake. Even before the pandemic and the greater need for a right to counsel, pro bono attorneys have been and continue to be leaders in eviction defense cases. They have been the backbone of pilot programs that in many cases have eventually led to fully funded programs. 

In our paper on The Movement to Secure Right to Counsel in Housing, Pro Bono Institute has been tracking the right to counsel movement from cities that started out with pilot programs, to cities that created fully implemented and funded programs, to states that have now implemented the statewide right to counsel in eviction cases. 

The right to counsel movement began at the citywide level in New York City and San Francisco and has expanded from there. As the right to counsel in housing has become more prominent, more cities have begun to follow the lead and pass their own legislation. Cities that have secured the right to counsel have done so through a variety of ways, including contracting with nonprofit organizations to manage a right to counsel program or directly funding and managing a program. Each right to counsel city has different qualifications that tenants facing eviction must meet to receive counsel, such as having a certain median household income, being able to qualify for public assistance, or in some cases, having children in the household. 

Not only have cities begun to realize the disparities in representation that tenants face in housing court when they are not able to access an attorney, but several states–Washington, Maryland, and Connecticut–have stepped up to secure the right to counsel in eviction cases. Many cities have also created pilot programs that rely on a combination of city-funded support and pro bono representation to serve low-income tenants and provide counsel to meet the needs of underserved individuals. 

While these cities and states have made great strides to establish a right to counsel in housing, there are thousands of other locales where tenants who cannot afford representation enter housing court, facing eviction, with no legal assistance. Once the eviction moratorium expires at the end of July, many low-income renters will face this reality. Homelessness may become a greater problem in many cities, as having an eviction filing on record can make it much harder for an evicted renter to find a new place to live because some landlords refuse to rent to individuals with an eviction record.

Now more than ever, it is important that pro bono attorneys prepare to get involved and volunteer so that renters have a fair opportunity to make their case before being forced from their home. 

See The Movement to Secure Right to Counsel in Housing to learn more about the right to counsel movement.

States with Right to Counsel Laws Cities with Right to Counsel LawsCities with Right to Counsel Pilot ProgramsStates that have Bills Pending or are Considering Legislation
WashingtonBoulder, COSanta Monica, CANebraska
MarylandLouisville, KYHouston, TXMinnesota
ConnecticutPhiladelphia, PAMinneapolis, MNSouth Carolina
 New York City, NYMultiple Cities in New JerseyNew Jersey
 San Francisco, CARochester, NYNew York
 Newark, NJ Massachusetts
 Cleveland, OH  
July 8, 2021

COVID-19’s Lasting Impact on Small Businesses

by Ron Kharmach, PBI Intern

On May 13, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that fully vaccinated individuals are no longer required to wear masks or socially distance in most circumstances. This milestone is a leap forward toward a sense of normalcy in the United States that has been eroded this past year due to COVID-19. Yet the widespread economic damage—including to small businesses—that the global pandemic caused, and the related need for legal services, is likely to outlast mask mandates. The loss of income and customer base prompted many small businesses to close temporarily. Others have shut their doors forever.

From the first U.S. COVID-19 case on January 20, 2020 to May 5, 2021, the number of open small businesses decreased by 33.8% in the United States. However, the national percentage doesn’t tell the full story: small business closures have disproportionally affected certain states, economic sectors, and minority groups. 

By geographic location, the decrease in the number of small businesses open as of May 5, 2021 is -34.9% in New York, -36.6% in California, -39.8% in Michigan, and -43.7% in the District of Columbia. This decrease, across the board, represents the lost livelihoods and incomes of the workers who are the cornerstone of the U.S. economy. For example, in California, small businesses employ nearly half of the state’s private workforce. The consequences are not isolated; rather they compound to create further financial losses and uncertainty, including bankruptcy, relocation, and increased debt, for business owners and their employees. 

The declines in small businesses are starker when accounting for differences across demographic groups. Metropolitan areas, such as New York and San Francisco, with a high concentration of Asian and Black communities, have witnessed sharp declines in Asian- and Black-owned businesses in proportion to overall business closures. The percentage of minority-owned businesses also declined in non-metropolitan locales. These closures not only impact business owners, but also employees of shuttered businesses and their families. They may face crises like eviction, food insecurity, lack of health care, and other hardships, which, during the pandemic, have disproportionately impacted Black, Latino, Indigenous, and immigrant households.

By industry, the leisure and hospitality small business sector was one of the hardest hit with a 50.7% decrease from January 20, 2020. Its decline has probably been the most visible with local restaurants and traditional bed-and-breakfast locations putting up “Closed” and “For Sale” signs on their front doors. The retail and transportation small business sector was also affected with a 29.9% decrease, following the transition to remote work and an increase in online purchases. There is hope for a rebound after the pandemic, but no guarantee that laid off workers will get their old jobs back. The U.S. Department of Labor reports that at as of the end of May 2021, 3.2 million Americans have been permanently laid off and 1.8 million are experiencing temporary unemployment from a total of 9.3 unemployed persons.

The decline in small businesses across industries also reflects the ways in which Covid-19 affects diverse communities differently. Within the restaurant and food services industry, the decline of 31% includes a high concentration of Asian owners (20%). In the taxi and limousine services industry, the decline of 73% includes a significant concentration of Black small business owners (31%). Whether the data is reflective of disproportionate minority business closures across industries is uncertain because of limited information regarding industry composition. It is likely that as the impacts of the pandemic continue to be documented, pertinent data to that effect will be released. 

However, there are still two key takeaways about minority-owned small business closures. First, the constitution of minority-owned small businesses across industries is closely tied with the proportion of business closures—which have disproportionally affected Asian and Black communities. Second, regardless of the proportion of minority-owned small businesses that have closed, the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AAPI) and Black communities are experiencing critical financial difficulties due to the pandemic. 

The optimistic news about the end of the pandemic being around the bend can still feel distant to struggling small business owners and their staff. The legal community can have an impact in supporting small businesses through pro bono work. Programs such as the Lawyers for Good Government COVID-19 Small Business Remote Legal Clinic have helped hundreds of microbusiness owners and nonprofits over the past year. These and other virtual clinics have been tailored to help small business owners address a number of issues, including applying for Paycheck Protection Plan (PPP) loans, which have an outsized impact in helping a small business remain open and pay their staff. Recent research has shown a positive correlation between government relief packages, such as the CARES Act, and increasing Black entrepreneurship in startup formation. These results magnify the social value created beyond the storefront to the families relying on their loved ones who own and work at small businesses to buy groceries, medicine, and school supplies. To find out more information about pro bono opportunities to support small businesses in your area, please contact Pro Bono Institute

June 8, 2021

Looking Back While Looking Forward

Revisiting the PBI 2021 Annual Conference

The cicadas are chirping and the humid, hot days have arrived here in D.C., yet it doesn’t feel so long ago that PBI hosted its springtime Annual Conference. From March 23 – 26, 2021, PBI virtually welcomed hundreds of pro bono leaders from the in-house, law firm, and public interest sectors. Here are a few takeaways that reflect back on the Conference while also speaking to the future of pro bono:

  1. Pro bono lawyers are innovating and collaborating to address the crises of our time. During a year that changed the way we practice law, pro bono leaders and volunteers stepped up to start new programs necessitated by the pandemic. For instance, back when “social distance” was still a new phrase in our lexicon, a coalition of nonprofits — recognizing that social distance is impossible in prison — efficiently organized a robust Compassionate Release Clearinghouse to represent prisoners seeking compassionate release from incarceration. The project, which went from inception to securing the release of its first two clients in just forty days, drew strength from many participating firms, allowing it to serve more clients, at a time when every delay meant the increased spread of Covid-19 through the facility. 

    As we confront societal crises in the future, consider how coalitions across the nonprofit and private sectors can magnify their impact by working together. (To learn more, check out How We Raised An Army: The Compassionate Release Clearinghouse COVID-19 Project.)

  2. The future is (not only) virtual. Many session speakers and attendees discussed how their program transitioned to remote pro bono over the past year. This change had some benefits, such as eliminating transportation and childcare barriers for clients seeking to attend a clinic. Attorneys can also deliver services far across the state in which they are licensed, particularly in rural communities and other neighborhoods that have fewer local legal aid and pro bono attorneys. However, a significant problem is that clients who lack access to the requisite technology – be it a computer, a data plan or Wifi to use Zoom, or minutes on a prepaid phone – are not being served. (Many volunteers missed the opportunity to get to know their client in person, too.) 

    In the coming months, we expect to see organizations developing a mix of in-person and virtual pro bono programs, retaining remote delivery for clients who benefit while ensuring that clients who require in-person services do not fall through the cracks. (For more best practices and lessons learned, check out Pro Bono Zooms Into the Future: An Interactive Workshop.)


  3. Check in with your colleagues – and yourself – to curb compassion fatigue. During a session with expert Dr. Tracey Meyers, Psy.D. of Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers Massachusetts, attendees learned to recognize the signs and symptoms of compassion fatigue, a condition that can afflict those in the helping professions who serve an at-risk population. Attorneys experience anxiety and stress at higher rates than the general population already; the onset of compassion fatigue can harm their professional and personal lives. 

    Even with the hopeful reduction of pandemic-exacerbated anxiety and stress, pro bono volunteers serving vulnerable populations — and pro bono program leaders who support them — benefit from the tools and support systems to address compassion fatigue. (To learn more about causes and symptoms of, and solutions to, compassion fatigue, check out Running on Empty: How to Reduce Compassion Fatigue for Legal Professionals.)

  4. Companies and firms are making actionable their commitment to advance racial equity – including through pro bono. Over the past year, in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, many companies and firms made public commitments to work toward racial equity. PBI worked with many law firm and in-house pro bono programs seeking to implement a racial equity lens to their pro bono program. During a Conference session, several expert panelists discussed how a system of discriminatory housing policies over many decades laid the groundwork for ongoing racial disparities in housing today. These inequities include: Black households are at far greater risk of eviction; Black people and other people of color are overrepresented among people experiencing homelessness; Black families are more likely to live in low-opportunity areas (lacking equal access to quality housing, schooling, job opportunities, health care, and nutritious food); and Black people are less likely to own a home. 

    There is a pressing need for pro bono attorneys to help not only with dismantling racist policies, but also serving individual clients who are harmed by these policies. For example, we expect to see pro bono attorneys getting trained to volunteer for eviction defense, as the pandemic-related eviction moratoria come to an end. (To learn more, check out Housing and Racial Justice.)

  5. In turbulent times, PBI continues to forge meaningful connections among in-house, law firm, and public interest pro bono leaders. Though we missed gathering in person in Washington, D.C., Annual Conference attendees took advantage of the many virtual networking and roundtable sessions to share triumphs, empathize over common challenges, crowdsource solutions, brainstorm innovations, and create new partnerships. Attendees also visited virtually with legal services and public interest organizations from across the country, to learn about pro bono opportunities and how they can serve.

    If you’d like PBI to help facilitate an introduction within the pro bono community, or if you’d like to reconnect with a fellow Conference attendee or PBI staff, please drop us a line. We look forward to seeing friends old and new at the 2022 PBI Annual Conference. 

Did you miss any of the programs from the 2021 PBI Annual Conference? Many sessions can be accessed on demand on West LegalEdcenter. Search for programming by Pro Bono Institute under “Content Provider.” Paid 2021 Annual Conference registrants should contact PBI for more information about how to revisit the Conference programs at no additional charge.

May 27, 2021

200+ Legal Department Leaders Call on Congress to Increase Funding for the Legal Services Corporation

For the fifth year in a row, legal department leaders have come together to support funding for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), the largest funder of civil legal aid in the United States. 

Pro Bono Institute (PBI) and its global in-house project, Corporate Pro Bono (CPBO), along with the National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA) and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), recently circulated a letter inviting General Counsel and Chief Legal Officers to sign on in support of increased funding for LSC for Fiscal Year 2022. 

The GCs and CLOs of 207 corporations of all sizes, representing a range of industries, and from locations across the country, signed on to the letter, delivered to Congress on May 25, 2021, calling for an increase in funding for LSC. The letter from the business community’s legal leaders also draws the media’s and public’s attention to the chronic underfunding of civil legal aid in the U.S. 

LSC is the cornerstone of ensuring access to justice in the U.S., providing resources and financial support to legal aid organizations around the country that serve individuals and communities in need, as well as structure and resources for pro bono volunteers from law firms and legal departments. Yet LSC has been historically underfunded. LSC’s FY2021 appropriation level is $465 million. Had LSC funding simply kept pace with inflation from its peak in FY1980, it would be around $1 billion today.[1]

Support from America’s corporate leaders historically has made a difference in securing funding for LSC when that funding was threatened.

Their continued support is critically important this year, because the COVID-19 pandemic has created an access to justice crisis. Due to the pandemic, client eligibility for civil legal aid services, those whose income is at or near the poverty level, has grown, with the poverty rate projected to be around 13.7 percent in 2021. In July 2020, LSC grantees reported an average 18 percent increase in the number of clients seeking help. The incidence of legal problems has also increased, with more than 85 percent of LSC grantees reporting an increase in requests for assistance in each of the areas of housing, income, and domestic violence. Prior to the pandemic, roughly 40 percent of eligible people seeking help from an LSC grantee were turned away because the organization lacked sufficient resources to assist them; the pandemic has made this problem more dire. 

On May 28, LSC requested an appropriation of $1.018 billion for FY 2022.  This request includes funds to enable LSC grantees to address 60% more civil legal problems than they served before the pandemic, and also to respond to the increased demand for civil legal services due to the impact of COIVD-19 on low-income communities. Also on May 28, the White House proposed a $6 trillion budget for 2022, which included $600 million for LSC. LSC called this request the largest ever proposed by an administration but still insufficient to meet the civil legal needs of low-income Americans.

CPBO is proud to support this effort to secure funding for LSC and thanks the GCs and CLOs for demonstrating their commitment to legal aid, access to justice, and pro bono legal services. For more information, please contact CPBO at cpbo@probonoinst.org. Read the full letter here.


[1] In FY1980, funding for LSC was $300 million (Department of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1980. (Public Law 96-68). Inflation was calculated using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator (https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm). 

May 18, 2021

COVID-19 and Housing Insecurity

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, housing insecurity has increased. With over 20 million Americans having lost jobs or experienced pay cuts, access to stable and affordable housing has become increasingly important. Housing insecurity is defined by the Urban Institute as missing or deferring rent or mortgage payments or having little confidence in one’s ability to make rent or mortgage payments. An August 2020 study by the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) reported that nearly one in three renters experienced housing insecurity each week from late April 2020 to July 2020. With approximately 3.3 million renters receiving an eviction notice or being threatened with eviction since the beginning of March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic marks what could be the most severe housing eviction crisis in American history. Housing insecurity is not equally distributed across the population, and there is a dire need for local, state, and federal assistance for those living in particularly vulnerable communities. 

In the early stages of the pandemic, the CARES Act required landlords to issue a 30-day notice to renters before eviction and offered temporary federal rental assistance programs for those experiencing wage loss. However, this measure and all other relief initiatives have been temporary and partial in addressing the need for housing assistance. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) initiated an eviction moratorium in September, which temporarily prevents some eligible renters from being evicted. This moratorium, now set to expire in June 2021, has protected about 30 percent of renters as a short-term solution to the national housing eviction crisis. However, it does not prevent eviction proceedings from occurring altogether, nor does it absolve ongoing rent payment obligations of tenants. 

The COVID-19 Relief Bill was signed into law in late December, extending the federal eviction moratorium and providing $25 billion through the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) towards emergency rental and utility assistance. Combined, federal and state-specific measures have prevented about 1.6 million evictions since the start of the pandemic. However, only a fraction of the need has been addressed. According to Princeton Eviction lab’s COVID-19 Housing Policy Scorecard, in some states, including South Carolina, Illinois, Texas, and Georgia, many tenants are unaware of their rights under the eviction moratorium, leading to a continuation of proceedings in eviction courts despite the pandemic. There is an estimated $70 billion in back-rent payments owed by renters across the country with limited resources or income. Additionally, 30-40 million Americans now face immediate risk of eviction upon the expiration of the moratorium in June. Thus, there is a pressing need to provide long-term housing assistance to prevent a massive wave of cases overwhelming eviction courts.

Housing Insecurity’s Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Communities 
Discriminatory housing practices have consistently targeted communities of color in the United States, and these communities have faced unequal eviction practices long before the pandemic. This global health crisis has continued to exacerbate existing socioeconomic inequalities, particularly those within low-income Black and Latinx communities. Though progress was made with the passage of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act banning housing discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and marital status, advancements have been largely undermined by ongoing inequities in access to affordable and stable housing, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Although the current economic crisis is universally impacting millions of Americans, there are clear disparities in housing insecurity impacts along racial and ethnic lines. Renters of color have experienced more difficulty with mortgage payments, homelessness, and evictions in comparison to White Americans. When the pandemic first emerged within the United States, an estimated 34 million individuals were already living under the poverty threshold with 3.7 million eviction cases filed each year by landlords. These numbers were disproportionately higher for Black, Latinx, and Native American communities. A September 2020 tracking survey by the  Urban Institute found that nearly 45% of Black and Latinx renters nationwide have experienced housing insecurity since the start of the pandemic—a 13% increase since 2019. Another study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that 78% of eviction filings within the first months of the pandemic in Boston occurred in communities of color. While an estimated 3.3 million renters had received an eviction notice by September, Black and Latinx renters were nearly four times more likely to be threatened with eviction or receive an eviction notice in comparison to white renters. 

Housing insecurity and rising unemployment create an ongoing, vicious cycle for renters facing eviction, since job and housing insecurity impact all other aspects of life. Throughout the pandemic, unemployment and housing insecurity have been mutually linked, as renters and mortgage holders who lost jobs and earnings are nearly three times more likely to experience housing insecurity in comparison to job secure households. Housing insecurity also makes it difficult for renters to maintain employment, and lease violations and evictions remain on tenants’ housing records which negatively impacts a renter’s ability to secure housing in the future. Racially disproportionate housing impacts and evictions also translate to profoundly different outcomes and negative consequences for vulnerable communities. Housing insecurity ultimately leads to limited access to education and increased chances of homelessness, lower income levels and homeownership, food insecurity, and poor health outcomes. 

With limited access to quarantine and isolation protections, people experiencing housing instability are more at risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19. A study by UCLA and Johns Hopkins researchers found that an estimated 433,700 additional COVID-19 cases and 10,700 deaths occurred after state eviction protections expired over the summer. The impact of lifting eviction moratoriums does not only cost Americans their homes and savings, but it also may cost them their lives. The long-lasting impact of the eviction process among households of color contributes to enduring racial inequalities in social, economic, and health outcomes. Federal, state, and legal aid assistance is desperately needed to confront these disparities through racially equitable approaches to securing housing stability. 

Pro Bono Opportunities to Address Housing Insecurity
As federal eviction moratorium deadlines are rapidly approaching, there is a critical need for pro bono lawyers to step up and provide access to affordable legal services for low-income renters facing evictions throughout the pandemic. According to the Institute for Research on Poverty by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, approximately 90 percent of landlords have access to adequate legal representation throughout eviction proceedings in comparison to just 10 percent of renters. This lack of representation contributes to an overwhelming majority of renters losing eviction cases in courts, further contributing to the displacement of vulnerable renters.  For example, according to a 2016 study by The New York Times surrounding the legal right to counsel in eviction courts, eviction rates reduce from 90 percent to 50 percent when a renter has adequate legal representation. 

Pro bono attorneys can act in a variety of ways including interviewing clients, negotiating settlements, drafting and settling motions, conducting bench trials, advocating for sealing the client eviction records, and even litigating to prevent a client from reaching eviction courts altogether. For vulnerable renters facing eviction, this assistance can be the critical difference between displacement (and a downward spiral in quality of life) and stability (with an opportunity to build better futures). Linked below is a list of suggested resources and outlets for attorneys looking for ways to get directly involved in the pro bono efforts towards housing stability.

Thank you to PBI interns Nena Burgess and Robin Reikes for writing this blog.

Click here for ways to get involved in addressing housing insecurity through pro bono work.

April 21, 2021

A Holistic Approach to Second Chances

My First Visit to Minnesota Reentry Court
by Grace Dodig, PBI Intern

When imagining a courtroom, one word that comes to mind is intimidating. Even as an observer, I can feel my body stiffen when walking into a court. The security guards seem to watch like hawks, the judge presides above you, the attorneys appear cold and stern, and the courtroom itself feels sterile and detached. This reality can leave those participating in and observing court feeling isolated and nervous.

These preconceived notions about what a courtroom is like are anything but true when it comes to the District of Minnesota’s Reentry Court program. Twice a month the courtroom reconfigures itself into a warm, inviting, and supportive environment where formerly incarcerated individuals join a team of prosecutors, federal defenders, mentors, probation officers, and a judge to try and lessen the likelihood of returning to prison.

For formerly incarcerated individuals, this program serves as an alternative for traditional post-conviction supervision. The goal of the program is to reduce recidivism by providing a plethora of resources and people that can aid individuals with their transition back to the community. With 25% of adults in Minnesota returning to prison for a new felony conviction and 50% returning for a technical violation, programs that support successful reentry are much needed.

Pro Bono Institute was introduced to the District of Minnesota Reentry Court program through the Minnesota Collaborative Justice Project (MNCJP), a project of PBI and dozens of organizations in Minnesota to improve the experiences and outcomes of formerly incarcerated individuals in Minnesota, thus enabling them to lead full and productive lives in the community. MNCJP offers pro bono legal assistance on civil matters to participants in Reentry Court and is one of the many programs that engages with and supports Minnesota’s Reentry Court.

As an intern at PBI, I had the opportunity to observe Reentry Court and witness firsthand the comfort and help this program provides its participants. Normally, the Reentry Court team and the program participants would join the judge in the courtroom. They all would convene around one table to establish a feeling of equality, rather than the typical superiority afforded to the judge when they are elevated and presiding over the courtroom. However, due to the pandemic, the meetings are now virtual and, like so many others, the leaders of Reentry Court have made a nearly flawless transition to life online. Instead of gathering around a table, participants and the Reentry Court team meet in gallery view via Zoom.

My visit began with a pre-meeting that the court holds prior to participants joining the Zoom call. For 50 minutes, I listened as the probation officers, prosecutors, public defenders, health professionals, and judges discussed the progress many participants had made, as well as the setbacks some had experienced in the two weeks since the last session. With every bit of good news, there was a celebratory feeling that was tangible, even through the computer screen. With every challenge faced by a participant, there was immediate brainstorming about what to do moving forward. It was clear how important the participants’ success was to those involved with the program. Once Judge Nelson, one of the two judges who spearheaded this program, had been updated on the status of the participants, the mentors joined the call.

Reentry Court mentors are trained members of the community who are there to provide additional support to the participants. Some of the mentors have served time in prison and struggled to adjust once released. Being able to rely on someone who has been where you are is a type of support that cannot be replaced. For the next 10 minutes, the mentors contributed thoughts or updates they had regarding the participants. Once the mentors finished their discussion, the judge admitted the participants onto the Zoom call.

Reentry Court is all about collaboration, which means that all of the participants listen to one another. At one point, a participant was expressing frustration over something they were having trouble with and were wondering what they could do to address the issue. Without a beat, another participant quickly unmuted themself and offered advice. This type of transparent engagement has fostered a feeling of community that is strong. One participant even remarked that the communal aspect of the program helped them realize that they “were not the only one trying to make it.”

Reentry Court consists of four phases, completed over 12-18 months. During the session I attended, the program promoted a participant to the next phase. The look on that person’s face, as well as the faces of their peers and the team, was reason enough to support this program. Another reason is that participants in Reentry Court have a 40 percent lower rate of recidivism in comparison to formerly incarcerated individuals who do not participate in the program.

For far too many years, our justice system has focused on punishment, with the overarching mantra of being “tough on crime.”  But the District of Minnesota’s Reentry Court program is a step in the right direction and should serve as a model for other states moving forward.

Minnesota’s Reentry Court helps formerly incarcerated individuals adjust back into society by addressing not only the direct consequences of imprisonment, but the collateral consequences as well. Collateral consequences are the informal social and civil restrictions people face when returning to the community. Reentry Court aims to provide participants with the support and safety net they need to be successful. The program emphasizes honesty and accountability. In exchange, the program offers substantial resources. The program’s approach is holistic. It does not target one specific difficulty with regards to reentering society. The team makes it their mission to address all the difficulties individuals may face. They offer help with employment, obtention of identification, substance abuse, housing issues, mental health, and general guidance. The Reentry Court team treats participants like human beings that are worthy of a good life; while this may seem like the bare minimum, many aspects of our justice system have dehumanized those with criminal records.

Observing Reentry Court reminded me that everyone shares fundamental desires and struggles, and those who have a criminal record are facing the same issues the rest of us are, but for them, the stakes are higher. I am a second semester senior in college: all of my friends and peers are concerned about job prospects. Many of the participants of Reentry Court were also concerned about job prospects. However, if my friends don’t secure a job, most of them will be okay. They have families and networks to support them. If an individual on parole does not find a job, they may lose their parole eligibility and end up back in prison.

There are many seemingly simple and mundane tasks that many of us complete as a matter of course and with a boatload of help. We take for granted the small things in life, and we never take the time to think about those who are not offered constant help and assistance. Observing Reentry Court, I realized one big difference between myself and the participants is privilege. When you have privilege, a bad day or an unfortunate occurrence is just that. It is one small event in a lifetime of ease. When you don’t have privilege, a broken-down car leads to missing work, which leads to losing your job, which leads to you unable to support yourself, and can often land the formerly incarcerated right back in jail.

People are quick to avoid what is difficult. Sitting in on Reentry Court reminded me of how many people are left behind without a second thought and without help. I think this program forces those in positions of power to look into the eyes of those who have been caught in of our justice system, and I think this country would be a better place if everybody had to look, instead of turning a blind eye.

Grace Dodig is a senior at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, who will attend Suffolk University Law School beginning in August 2021.

April 12, 2021

Two Decades of Exceptional In-House Pro Bono

In 2020, Corporate Pro Bono (CPBO), the global in-house project of Pro Bono Institute (PBI), celebrated its twentieth anniversary, and published the 2020 Benchmarking Report, the sixth biannual report on the state of in-house pro bono. When CPBO was first founded, in-house pro bono was far less common than it is today. Within a decade, in-house pro bono programs had multiplied and expanded. To track and measure pro bono engagement, CPBO began surveying in-house pro bono leaders about their legal departments’ pro bono programs in 2010, and every other year thereafter. Many of the Benchmarking Survey respondents are signatories of the Corporate Pro Bono Challenge® initiative, while others are departments with robust programs that participate in CPBO and PBI programming, including the PBI Annual Conference. These reports capture the growth, development, and expansion in in-house pro bono environments.

Over a decade of CPBO Benchmarking Surveys, in-house pro bono leaders have shared important information about their pro bono programs, on issues including program administration, policies, insurance, engagements, communications, budgets, global pro bono, and more. As CPBO looks back on the past decade of pro bono, we congratulate and recognize all Benchmarking Survey respondents.  We especially thank the following departments who participated in three or more surveys for their consistency and dedication: American International Group, Inc. (AIG)**, Boston Scientific Corporation**, Cargill, Incorporated**, Comcast NBCUniversal**, Deere & Company**, Discover Financial Services**, General Mills, Inc.**, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company**, MetLife, Inc.**, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company**, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.**, Shell Oil Company**, Target Corporation**, U.S. Bancorp**, United Airlines Holdings, Inc.**, Verizon Communications Inc.**, and Walmart Inc.**

Pro Bono Engagements
It’s thanks to the many pro bono volunteers that legal departments collectively devote tremendous amounts of time offering aid to low-income individuals, families, nonprofits, and small businesses through pro bono work. Looking over the six Benchmarking Reports, the top five areas of law in which legal departments have concentrated their pro bono efforts over the years are the following: Corporate Law (including representation of nonprofits), Contracts or Commercial Law, Family Law, Immigration Law, and Real Estate (including Landlord/Tenant cases). The top five client populations served are low-income/minority groups, children/organizations assisting children, nonprofits generally, immigrants, and veterans/emergency responders.

Devoting Time and Funding
CPBO is proud to highlight that from 2010 to 2020, consistently 95% or more of responding legal departments were permitted to engage in pro bono service during normal work hours. This demonstrates the generous amounts of work that these departments do to give back to the community. Companies have also supported pro bono no matter the amount of their budget allocation; they have successfully supported pro bono programs with both large and shoestring budgets. In addition, a majority of the legal department respondents have allowed their staff to exceed the budgeted amount for pro bono if necessary, with approval. 

Partnerships 
As demonstrated on Graph 1, the trend of partnerships between legal departments and law firms stayed strong throughout the decade. Similarly, Graph 2 shows that partnerships between departments and legal services providers have maintained strength after 2010. Lastly, Graph 3 displays that the partnerships between responding legal departments and their in-house peers in other departments have risen over the decade. 

Graph 1:

Graph 2:

Graph 3: 

Celebrating Pro Bono Volunteers 
Although most legal departments do not consider pro bono work in their evaluations, they celebrate participants for their wonderful work! Some of the ways that volunteers have been acknowledged are through recognition at department meetings, awards, newsletters, ceremonies, and in annual reports.

Global Pro Bono
Legal departments had the highest engagement in global pro bono participation when it came to their attorneys and legal staff abroad working on matters in their jurisdiction. The most common types of global projects that members of legal departments participated in were educational/training programs, research, document drafting, assisting with applications, transactional work serving nonprofits, and clinics. Overall, Graph 4 shows engagement in global pro bono since 2012.

Graph 4: 

* The 2010 Benchmarking Report did not ask about global pro bono.

Moving Forward
Despite the barriers that COVID-19 continues to place, CPBO is confident that departments will continue to participate in pro bono work in the decade ahead! In the future, we look forward to a high level of participation in our 2022 CBPO Benchmarking Survey. We commend all volunteers who continuously dedicate their time to pro bono, and the leaders of in-house pro bono programs for their efforts and commitment. 

Interested in learning more about how in-house pro bono programs have developed over the years?  Check out the prior Benchmarking Reports here:

2010 Benchmarking Report

2012 Benchmarking Report

2014 Benchmarking Report 

2016 Benchmarking Report

2018 Benchmarking Report

(Corporate Pro Bono Challenge® signatories, 2020 Benchmarking Report respondents, and Law Firm Pro Bono Project members receive a free copy of the 2020 Benchmarking Report. Others can purchase the report by contacting cpbo@probonoinst.org.)

**denotes a Corporate Pro Bono Challenge® signatory

Thank you to PBI intern Cynthia Yepez for drafting this blog.

March 10, 2021

Providing Pro Bono Out-of-State During the Pandemic

The coronavirus pandemic has shifted how and where we work. This has raised ethical questions for attorneys working remotely, but also has presented new opportunities to engage in pro bono work in local communities.

Checking the Ethics Rules
Attorneys in the U.S. must be licensed to practice law by a state agency, or receive a limited authorization to serve as in-house counsel for an employer.  (See ABA Model Rule 5.5 and the rules that govern registered in-house counsel).    

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many lawyers are practicing law at home, but home may not be in the state in which they are licensed.  For instance, lawyers living in Washington, D.C. may be members of the bar of, and employed in, Maryland or Virginia, while lawyers living in New Jersey or Connecticut may be members of the bar of, and employed in, New York.  

These circumstances raise the question whether lawyers practicing law at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic were engaged in unauthorized practice of law. A number of jurisdictions have sought to address this. For example, on March 23, 2020, just a week or two after many lawyers began working from home fulltime, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law issued Opinion 24-20: Teleworking from Home and the COVID-19 Pandemic, stating that “In light of the widespread use of telework occasioned by the need to practice social distancing to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus COVID-19, …persons who are not District of Columbia bar members may practice law from personal residences or other locations within the boundaries of the District of Columbia under Rule 49(c)(13) (“Incidental and Temporary Practice”)” in limited circumstances.

The American Bar Association (ABA) and state bar associations have also issued guidance on issues such as the security of client data, protecting client confidentiality, supervision, and other issues that arose due to COVID-related teleworking.  

On December 16, 2020, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 495 on “Lawyers Working Remotely,” confirming that attorneys “may remotely practice the law of the jurisdictions in which they are licensed while physically present in” another jurisdiction, so long as the attorneys do not hold themselves out as licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in which they are physically present, and the local jurisdiction does not consider the attorneys’ conduct to be unlicensed or unauthorized practice of law. On March 10, 2021, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 498 on “Virtual Practice,” to provide long-awaited guidance on other aspects of the virtual practice of law, including the duties of technological competence, diligence, communication, confidentiality, and supervision, under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

How Does This Impact Pro Bono?
With many attorneys working from home in states where they may not be licensed, we encourage attorneys to consider whether they can engage in pro bono services in their local communities in accordance with local rules. 

A number of jurisdictions permit non-locally licensed attorneys, who are active and in good standing in another state, to provide pro bono legal services. These rules may require the out-of-state attorney to apply for authorization before delivering the pro bono services, and they typically impose restrictions, including that the attorney be “associated with” or “affiliated with” approved legal services organizations, work under supervision of a locally licensed attorney, and, in some instances, abide by limits on the time period in which the attorney can practice pro bono under the rule. However, they offer a pathway to non-locally licensed lawyers to engage in pro bono.

You can find cites to these rules in the updated Guide to Multijurisdictional Practice in the U.S. and the interactive map on the CPBO website, which present rules that authorize non-locally-licensed in-house pro bono practice. 

If you find yourself working remotely in a state in which you are not licensed to practice law, or are interested in potential opportunities to provide pro bono out-of-state, take a look at the rules in your jurisdiction and see whether there are opportunities to provide pro bono legal services that you may not have considered previously!  The need for pro bono legal services is tremendous, with the Legal Services Corporation reporting that “the pandemic has both increased the numbers of Americans falling into poverty and caused a surge in the[ir] legal needs,… particularly for low-income families facing job losses, evictions and other problems stemming from the pandemic.”  We ask you to join us, regardless of where you are located, in increasing access to justice through pro bono legal services.

*The information provided in this article, and all articles on the PBEye blog, does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice.

February 24, 2021

Global Pro Bono: Resources, Projects, and Partnerships

In recent decades, there has been an uptick of interest among law firms and legal departments to expand pro bono engagement by lawyers and legal staff in countries across the globe.[1]  A variety of factors have led to this, including growing emphasis on corporate social responsibility, globalization of the legal profession, greater international emphasis on human rights and access to justice, increasing awareness of economic and social inequities, newly emerging democracies, and newly formed entities that support pro bono engagement.  According to the 2020 Benchmarking Survey from the PBI® Corporate Pro Bono project, 35 percent of in-house legal departments indicated that they already engage in global pro bono work, and law firms around the globe are engaging their volunteers in pro bono. While pro bono services are well developed in many places, there are also many countries around the world where pro bono work is either nonexistent or in a nascent stage. Utilizing appropriate resources and learning from past or current global projects is beneficial to the success of increased pro bono engagement.

Global Pro Bono Survey

Pro Bono Institute, in partnership with Latham & Watkins*, published the latest edition of the Global Pro Bono Survey in early 2020, with the goal of stimulating the growth and expansion of pro bono initiatives around the world. For law firms, in-house legal departments, and individual lawyers, the Global Pro Bono Survey is valuable guidance for how to engage in pro bono work in different countries. One useful aspect of the Global Pro Bono Survey is the Survey Summary Chart, which outlines pro bono requirements in 86 worldwide jurisdictions. This chart provides answers to questions regarding minimum pro bono requirements, specific pro bono licenses, legal practice regulations, professional indemnity insurance, pro bono advertising rules, and receiving “Continuing Legal Education” for pro bono services. For lawyers, firms, or organizations interested in additional information about the pro bono practices and culture in a given country, the survey also includes detailed, country-specific reports. Without an informative resource like this, it can be difficult for lawyers new to pro bono within a region to navigate the varying policies, qualifications, and practices for pro bono involvement.   

Numerous Law Firm Pro Bono Project® members provide important pro bono legal services throughout their global footprints. Firms such as DLA Piper*and White & Case*, as well as many others, have expanded their pro bono services beyond the United States.  The same is true for many large corporations with global reach, such as the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (BNY)**.  The following examples, discussing pro bono programs in, Zambia, Greece, and the United Kingdom, only begin to illustrate the breadth of global pro bono. 

 DLA Piper and New Perimeter’s ZIALE project

DLA Piper, a leader in the global pro bono, provides assistance to many underserved regions of the world through their “New Perimeter” initiative. DLA Piper founded New Perimeter, a non-profit organization, in 2005 with the vision of harnessing the skills of DLA Piper’s lawyers to provide a more just world for all. New Perimeter’s projects center around four categories: access to justice, social and economic development, sound legal institutions, and women’s advancement.  

DLA Piper and New Perimeter do extensive pro bono work on the African continent, and for the past five years have been conducting legal trainings on negotiation and drafting skills to graduate law students at the Zambia Institute of Advanced Legal Education (ZIALE). This project is an example of how global pro bono services can work to build sound legal institutions. On this project, lawyers from DLA Piper, General Electric**, and DLA Piper’s African Member Firm Chibesakunda & Co. worked together to build the capacity and skills of Zambian lawyers by introducing new methodologies, materials, and information to students at ZIALE. These trainings have been part of the ZIALE curriculum since 2016 and are a great example of law firms and corporations working together on a global pro bono initiative. Additionally, this project exemplifies how global pro bono work can act as a bridge between a firm’s worldwide offices, as the DLA Piper and General Electric lawyers came from Brazil, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Tanzania, and Australia. 

White & Case in Lesvos, Greece

White & Case, an international law firm with approximately 44 offices (most outside of the U.S.), has been undertaking a large-scale global pro bono project in Lesvos, Greece since 2019. In collaboration with five other law firms through European Lawyers in Lesvos (ELIL) and Refugee Legal Support (RLS), White & Case is helping asylum seekers prepare for interviews as they seek a new life in Europe. These asylum seekers are stationed at the Moria refugee camp, which is known for its dehumanizing and unsafe conditions. White & Case has committed to having volunteer lawyers in Lesvos year round, on two weeks rotations. The lawyers are provided a 15-hour online self-study program, in person and remote training sessions, and a half day session at ELIL upon arrival. Collectively, White & Case lawyers help 15 to 20 clients per week on their asylum applications. The impact of their pro bono services is clear; according to ELIL, 75 percent of asylum seekers receiving aid from ELIL lawyers are granted international protection, compared to just under 50 percent for asylum seekers in Greece overall. Several participating White & Case lawyers expressed the sentiment that it is their duty, as lawyers, to use their legal skills and services to confront humanitarian crises and aid affected individuals.

In-House Feature: Bank of New York (BNY) Mellon** 

BNY Mellon, a U.S.-based bank, is leveraging its impressive legal department resources to provide crucial pro bono services to those in need around the world. In 2019, BNY Mellon engaged in several international pro bono efforts in the U.K. and Africa. In partnership with Linklaters*, a global law firm with offices in 20 countries, BNY Mellon gave free housing law advice in London via the Mary Ward Legal Centre. BNY Mellon lawyers also provided assistance at the Free Legal Advice Centre in London, with the goal of addressing legal issues in disadvantaged communities. In Africa, BNY Mellon lawyers worked as part of a transnational team to support the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice. Alongside the Vance Center, BNY Mellon monitored and reported on human rights to produce “Women in Prison,” a report on the disproportionately high and increasing number of women in prisons across Africa. These are just a few examples of BNY Mellon’s international pro bono efforts evidencing that in-house departments can deploy their legal skills on a global scale.

Partnerships and Global Pro Bono Success

With the help of resources, guidance and global pro bono examples, more legal departments and firms can become involved in global pro bono work. Many are already extending their pro bono services to various countries, and their projects can help inform those eager to participate on how to become involved. A major theme across the various pro bono projects mentioned in this blog is partnership. The law firms or in-house legal departments partnered with organizations or other law firms in the country receiving assistance. Establishing these transnational partnerships creates meaningful and well-assessed opportunities for global pro bono work. Lawyers at law firms, corporations, and legal aid organizations alike are eager to engage in global pro bono work, and luckily there are great resources and examples out there to help lead the way. 

*denotes a Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge® signatory

**denotes a Corporate Pro Bono Challenge® signatory

denotes a Law Firm Pro Bono Project member

Hat tip to PBI intern Olivia Ross for drafting this blog. 


[1] For purposes of this blog, global pro bono refers to law firms and legal departments based in a country with an established pro bono tradition (such as the U.S.) supporting pro bono in countries with little or no independent pro bono culture and law firm and legal departments in countries around the globe growing their own pro bono cultures from within.  Thus, global pro bono can involve U.S. attorneys (and legal staff) sitting in the U.S. working on matters outside of the U.S., attorneys (and legal staff) based in and outside of the U.S. collaborating on non-U.S. matters, non-U.S. attorneys (and legal staff) working on matters outside of their own local jurisdiction(s), or non-U.S. attorneys (and legal staff) working on matters where they are admitted. 

    Older Posts >