- Background
- Responses
- Aggregate Performance
- Management Practices
- Signatory Firms
- Reporting Firms in 2010
- Other Innovations
In 2001, forty-one (41) of the District's largest law firms committed to provide pro bono legal services at specified levels. They agreed to a benchmark of either 3% or 5% of total client hours, or 60 or 100 hours for every lawyer in the firm, and to report annually to the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Program on their progress. These standards were created by and are used with permission from the Pro Bono Institute and modeled on the Institute's Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge®.
The reporting year 2009 marked not only the eighth year of the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Initiative, but also the first year of reporting for many firms new to the Initiative. This survey reflects the results of the 2007-08 campaign to expand the Initiative to more of the District’s largest law offices. In response to a call from the four federal and local chief judges, the D.C. Bar, and the Access to Justice Commission, an additional 23 firms joined the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Initiative, bringing the number of participating firms up to 64. The new firms were first required to report their pro bono results for 2009.
Responses
Last year, 34 of the 42 eligible firms responded to the 2008 survey.[1] This year, all 64 of the 64 eligible firms responded to the survey. As was the case last year, not all firms responded to all questions. All statistics below note participation accordingly.
Of the 64 firms, 62 reported on their total number of pro bono hours. Combined, the 62 firms contributed approximately 984,000 pro bono hours. This is an average of 97 hours per attorney, compared to 95 per attorney for the group reporting in 2008.
Fifty-three of the 64 firms provided enough information to verify whether they met their respective commitments. Of these 53 firms, 83% (44) reached their goals. Of the 9 firms reporting that they did not meet the 3% goal, only 3 were new to the survey this year. Furthermore, as in the past, the size of the firm did not affect it reaching its commitment goal.
On average, the 53 firms reporting the details of their results had pledged to have pro bono hours account for 3.2% of billable hours. However, these firms actually contributed 5.5% of their billable hours to pro bono work. Six of these firms contributed over 10 % of their billable hours to pro bono work. The median level of pro bono participation (5% of billable hours) was about the same as the mean.
Based on the responses of 63 firms, 4,318 attorneys each contributed more than 50 hours of pro bono work in 2009. Ninety-five percent (5,624) of all non-partner attorneys in these firms and 70% (3,314) of partners participated in pro bono work.
The 29 firms that responded both in 2008 and 2009 had 6,802 full-time attorneys in 2008 and 6,457 full-time attorneys in 2009.
The 29 firms that responded in both 2008 and 2009 reported 690, 071 pro bono hours in 2008 and 707,653 in 2009. Despite the fact that these firms had 345 (.05%) fewer attorneys, they contributed 17,582 (2%) more pro bono hours.
The Pro Bono Institute reports that in 2009 over 58% of reporting firms participating in the Institute’s national Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge® met or exceeded their commitment goals, compared with 83% of D.C. Bar initiative reporting firms reaching their goals in 2009.
Management Practices
In addition to tracking pro bono performance statistics, the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Initiative Survey asks for information about the techniques that law firms use in managing their pro bono programs. Although practices vary widely, several broad trends have emerged among firms with good pro bono performance.
Firms that report good pro bono numbers are generally able to do so because a large percentage of the attorneys at these firms perform significant amounts (at least 50 hours per year) of pro bono work. When attorneys are willing to make a significant pro bono commitment, it is almost always because their firms have a positive overall pro bono “culture” that provides concrete support and positive reinforcement for attorneys who do pro bono work. This culture is generally demonstrated through management practices that encourage pro bono work. Some examples of these practices include:
- Pro bono hours counted toward billable/bonus targets: This practice has a number of variations from firm to firm, but overall, in firms with good pro bono programs, attorneys are able to receive at least some amount of credit toward their minimum billable requirements or other billable-hour targets. Of the 63 firms that reported on their respective pro bono / billable hour policies, approximately 95% (60) reported crediting non-partner attorneys’ pro bono hours toward billable requirements and bonuses. Among these same firms, approximately 40% (24) provide partner attorneys with credit.
The following statistics are based on the responses of 60 firms.
- Pro bono coordinator on staff: 92% (55) of the firms have attorney coordinators on staff, with 34 of these firms having full-time attorney pro bono coordinators on staff. Seventeen percent (10) of the firms had non-attorney pro bono coordinators on staff, though 12% (7) of firms have both an attorney coordinator and a non-attorney coordinator.
- Budgeting for pro bono: Of the reporting firms, 35% (21) currently budget for pro bono goals.
- Pro bono requirements: Seventeen percent (10) have a minimum pro bono requirement, and 58% (35) report that partners are expected to perform pro bono service. Forty-two percent (25) communicate a pro bono expectation during new attorney orientation.
Other Innovations
The survey requested that firms describe techniques and innovations used to promote the spirit of pro bono work within their respective offices. Though not every firm responded to this portion of the survey, the following represents a summary of the responses received.
- Pro Bono Awards Ceremony: Many firms hold annual pro bono awards ceremonies or dinners to recognize attorneys and legal assistants contributing significant amounts of time to pro bono work.
- Pro Bono Newsletter: Many firms publish or email newsletters announcing pro bono opportunities. These newsletters can be daily, monthly, or quarterly.
- Training: A few firms reported providing on-site training to prepare attorneys to take on pro bono cases outside of their usual scope of expertise.
- Service events: Some firms have “service week” or “service day” where all attorneys are expected to volunteer, though not all of these events are dedicated to providing legal services.
- Sponsorship of Projects: Firms choose to sponsor a particular project or clinic with which they encourage all attorneys to volunteer.
- Website: Some firms have pages on their respective intranets where all pro bono opportunities are listed.
- Evaluations: Many associates report on their pro bono activity as part of the annual review process.
D.C. Bar Pro Bono Initiative Signatory Firms
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC
Arnold & Porter
Baker Botts, L.L.P.
Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC
Covington & Burling
Crowell & Moring LLP
Dechert LLP
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky L.L.P.
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
Foley & Lardner
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.
Holland & Knight LLP
Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP
Hunton & Williams
Jones Day
King & Spalding LLP
Kirkland & Ellis
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP
Latham & Watkins
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw
McDermott, Will & Emery
Miller & Chevalier, Chartered
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Patton Boggs LLP
Piper Rudnick LLP
Reed Smith
Shaw Pittman
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP
Venable LLP
Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P.
Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering
Winston & Strawn
Reporting Firms in 2010 (2009 Reporting Year)
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Arent Fox LLP
Arnold & Porter LLP
Baker Botts LLP
Beveridge & Diamond*
Bingham McCutchen LLP
Blank Rome LLP*
Bryan Cave*
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton*
Covington & Burling LLP
Crowell & Moring LLP
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Dechert LLP
Dewey & LeBoeuf*
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
DLA Piper
Dow Lohnes PLLC
Drinker Biddle*
Epstein Becker & Green*
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Foley & Lardner LLP
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
Jacobson LLP
Fulbright & Jaworski*
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher*
Goodwin Procter LLP*
Hogan & Hartson LLP
Holland & Knight LLP
Howrey LLP
Hunton & Williams LLP
Jenner & Block LLP*
Jones Day
Kelley Drye Collier Shannon
King & Spalding
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
K&L Gates LLP
Latham & Watkins
Mayer Brown LLP
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP*
Miller & Chevalier, Chartered
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo*
Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP
Morrison & Foerster LLP*
Nixon Peabody LLP*
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe*
Patton Boggs LLP
Paul Hastings*
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Reed Smith LLP
Shearman & Sterling LLP
Sidley Austin LLP
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal*
Spriggs & Hollingsworth*
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
Troutman Sanders LLP*
Venable LLP
Vinson & Elkins LLP
Weil Gotshal & Manges*
Wiley Rein LLP
Williams & Connolly*
WilmerHale LLP
Winston & Strawn LLP
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP*
*Firms that started reporting in 2009
Note
[1] Of the 34 signatory firms that responded in 2008, only 29 reported enough information to be included in the full results.
Thank you to the Pro Bono Institute for permission to use and affiliate with the Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge®. The Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge® is the property of the Pro Bono Institute and may not be further used or cited, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from the Pro Bono Institute.
