I think Mr. Mitav has missed the mark.
In the seven states that have enacted similar rules, pro bono participation rates have increased. Reporting is a simple way to ensure, at the very least, that every two years, attorneys are at least thinking about pro bono, and this might in turn motivate them to do pro bono work. Clearly it seems to have worked elsewhere. It is also a way to capture key information about what pro bono work is currently being done that may not be reported elsewhere. I believe that the current reporting requirement only asks for number of hours and dollar amount. My suggestion to Judge Lippman is that it go into even more detail -- if not asking about particular organizations for whom pro bono work has been done, then at least asking about the subject areas in which the work has been done. The community and courts can then use this data to be more strategic about developing new pro bono programs and redistributing pro bono resources to those who are being underserved.