Evan Schaeffer’s Legal Underground (http://www.legalunderground.com/) reported on an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that will require all attorneys to submit their total number of annual pro bono hours in order to renew their licensure. Schaeffer doesn’t see it as much of a big deal, just a way of saying to lawyers that pro bono hours are important.



Carolyn Elefant over at MyShingle (http://www.myshingle.com/), however, sees it as more of a subtle jab. While the ruling may appear to be innocent, Elefant thinks it is a slight to solo practitioners and small firms. Big firms will report far more pro bono hours than they really performed, supposes Elefant, while small firms, who actually do far more pro bono work, won’t be able to report as many pro bono hours as the large firm attorneys.





She’s also against the ruling on philosophical grounds. While Don Burnett at the Legal Ethics Forum (http://legalethicsforum.typepad.com/) praises the ruling as highlighting the importance of pro bono efforts, Elefant believes it’s all a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. After all, the ruling doesn’t require attorneys to do more pro bono work or reward excessive pro bono work. It only offers a pat on the back for those who do any pro bono work at all. With legal aid for the poor still lacking, Elefant doesn’t think lawyers deserve a pat on the back yet.