Section 7.2: Pro Bono Service, Court Appointments, and Reform

Section 7.2: Pro Bono Service, Court Appointments, and Reform

Attorneys owe a duty not only to their clients but also to the legal system and the public at large. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, in the 6.x series, address these public service obligations. These rules cover the aspirational goals of pro bono legal service, the obligation to accept court appointments except when good cause exists, participation in legal services organizations, and involvement in law reform activities that may impact a lawyer's clients. MPRE questions in this area test the distinction between mandatory duties and aspirational goals, as well as the conflict of interest boundaries that arise in public service roles.

Pro Bono Publico Service (Rule 6.1)

Rule 6.1 sets forth the professional responsibility of every lawyer to provide legal services to those unable to pay. It establishes an aspirational goal of rendering at least 50 hours of pro bono legal services per year.

Crucially, the rule specifies how these hours should be allocated:

1. Primary Target: The substantial majority (typically at least 40 of the 50 hours) should be provided without fee or expectation of fee to persons of limited means, or to charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental, and educational organizations in matters designed primarily to address the needs of persons of limited means.
2. Secondary Targets: Any remaining hours can be fulfilled by delivering services at a substantially reduced fee to persons of limited means, or by participating in activities for improving the law, the legal system, or the legal profession (such as serving on bar committees or writing law review articles).

On the MPRE, it is critical to remember that Rule 6.1 is entirely aspirational. The rule uses the word "should" rather than "shall." Consequently, a lawyer cannot be disciplined or disbarred for failing to meet the 50-hour pro bono target. However, many states have mandatory reporting requirements where lawyers must report their pro bono hours, though the target itself remains non-binding under the Model Rules.

Accepting Court Appointments (Rule 6.2)

In contrast to the aspirational nature of pro bono hours, a lawyer's duty to accept court appointments is mandatory unless the lawyer can demonstrate "good cause" to avoid the appointment. Rule 6.2 states that a lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person except for good cause.

The Model Rules recognize three specific categories of good cause:

1. Violation of the Rules or Law: If representing the client is likely to result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. For example, if the lawyer has a concurrent conflict of interest under Rule 1.7 with an existing client, or if the lawyer is completely incompetent in the subject area and cannot become competent through reasonable preparation (violating Rule 1.1), the lawyer must decline.
2. Unreasonable Financial Burden: If representing the client is likely to result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer. This is a very high bar; a minor financial sacrifice, a low court-appointed fee rate, or having to turn down other prospective clients is not enough. It must be a severe, unreasonable burden that could threaten the lawyer's practice or livelihood.
3. Impairment Due to Repugnance: If the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client. This means the lawyer's personal feelings are so intense that they cannot provide competent or diligent representation. Importantly, merely disagreeing with the client's views, finding the case unpopular, or representing a criminal defendant charged with a heinous crime is not good cause. The repulsion must rise to a level that actively interferes with the attorney's professional capabilities.

Legal Services Organizations (Rule 6.3)

Rule 6.3 allows a lawyer to serve as a director, officer, or member of a legal services organization (such as a local legal aid society), apart from the law firm in which the lawyer practices, even if the organization represents clients whose interests are adverse to the lawyer’s own clients.

This rule promotes attorney participation in legal aid societies by preventing automatic imputation of conflicts. However, the lawyer must not knowingly participate in a decision or action of the organization if doing so would create a conflict. Specifically, the lawyer cannot participate if:

• The decision would be incompatible with the lawyer's obligations to a client under Rule 1.7 (direct conflict).
• The decision could have a material adverse effect on the representation of a client of the organization whose interests are adverse to a client of the lawyer.

Thus, a lawyer sitting on a legal aid board must recuse themselves from any decisions involving cases where the board member's firm represents the opposing party.

Law Reform Activities Affecting Client Interests (Rule 6.4)

Rule 6.4 governs lawyers who serve as directors, officers, or members of an organization involved in reform of the law or its administration. A lawyer may participate in these reform activities even if the reform could affect (benefit or harm) the interests of the lawyer’s clients.

However, a specific disclosure rule applies to protect the integrity of the reform process. If the lawyer knows that a client of the lawyer could materially benefit from a law reform decision in which the lawyer is participating, the lawyer must disclose that fact to the organization.

Importantly, the lawyer is not required to identify the client by name. The lawyer only needs to disclose the existence of the client's interest. This balances the duty of confidentiality to the client with the need for transparency in law reform.

Practice Scenarios and MPRE-Specific Exam Tips

To master the public service rules on the MPRE, keep these guidelines in mind:

• The Corporate Lawyer Appointed to a Felony Case: If a court appoints a corporate tax attorney to defend an indigent client in a criminal case, the lawyer cannot simply refuse because they "only do taxes." They must first try to achieve competence (e.g., through study, or by associating with a criminal lawyer). If the judge refuses to discharge them, the lawyer must represent the client competently or face discipline.
• The Legal Aid Recusal: If a lawyer is on the board of Legal Aid, and Legal Aid is voting on whether to file a class action lawsuit against a local landlord, and the lawyer's partner represents that landlord, the lawyer must recuse themselves from the vote. However, the lawyer does not need to resign from the Legal Aid board entirely.
• The Anonymous Client Benefit: If a lawyer is on a committee to reform state probate laws, and the lawyer has a client who is a wealthy executor who would benefit from a proposed reform, the lawyer must tell the committee: "I represent a client who will benefit from this reform." The lawyer must not say: "I represent John Doe, who will benefit." Revealing John Doe's name without consent would violate the duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6.