Last week I had the opportunity to attend a meeting with Dean Larry Raful, who is responsible for determining which pro bono projects count for the newly-enacted 50-hour pro bono requirement for bar admission in New York. I do not envy him. The question "what counts?" was a question constantly in the forefront of my mind while I was managing a law firm pro bono program. When I first started out, I developed a chart that listed three of the definitions I encountered the most often: the American Bar Association definition, the Volunteers of Legal Service definition, and the Pro Bono Institute's definition, each of which differed just slightly from the other. Over the years, the American Lawyer, which required law firms to report their pro bono hours, adopted the Pro Bono Institute definition. After that, I basically used that definition for any/all external reporting.

It is somewhat frustrating that the new New York requirement does not use the same definition (and neither does the new reporting requirement, but that's another story), and in fact, the boundaries of "what counts?" is still evolving. The good news is that Dean Raful is thinking about it, and has been quite open to suggestions from those of us who have been in the pro bono field grappling with definitions for years. Stay tuned!

Earlier this month, New York enacted a rule requiring mandatory reporting of pro bono hours and donations to legal services organizations as part of the attorney registration process. On May 14th, the New York Law Journal published an article by attorney Vess Mitav titled "Pro Bono Mandate Misses the Mark." In his article, Mr. Mitav posits that the new rule "is unlikely to serve its intended purpose of increasing free legal services to those needing them, for the simple reason that most firms in New York are small operations or solo practitioners, who are already stretched to the limit and depend on clients to pay their bills to keep their doors open and the lights on."

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.