PRO BONO SERVICE
Pro bono legal services help bridge the justice gap in California by using private attorneys who volunteer to provide free legal assistance to individuals and communities unable to afford legal representation. This section provides an overview of the State Bar’s current efforts to promote pro bono service among California attorneys and presents an analysis of over 3,000 California attorneys’ responses to a 2023 American Bar Association (ABA) survey that sought to quantify pro bono work nationwide.
Key findings from surveyed attorneys include:
- Three-quarters (75 percent) of California attorneys have provided pro bono services at some point in their careers.
- Less than half (45 percent) provided pro bono service in 2022; this is lower than what the ABA found nationally for 2022 (57 percent).[1] Similar to 2016, more than half of California attorneys did not provide pro bono services in 2022.
- In 2022, just 23 percent of attorneys met the State Bar’s Pro Bono Resolution’s goal of providing 50 hours or more of pro bono service, with an average of 116 hours contributed per attorney. This amount of service represents an improvement from 2016, when only 20 percent of attorneys met the 50-hour benchmark, with an average of 79 pro bono hours per attorney who provided at least 50 hours of pro bono service.
- Extrapolating from the approximately 3,000 survey responses to all California active attorneys, the share of attorneys offering pro bono and the average number of hours of service provided translates into nearly 88,000 active attorneys providing pro bono service in 2022. Collectively, they are estimated to have contributed nearly 10 million hours of service, equivalent to more than 4,700 full-time attorneys.
- Among attorneys who provided pro bono services in 2022, nearly half offered limited scope representation without litigation for individual clients. In 2022, these attorneys contributed an average of 47 hours each toward limited scope representation to individuals.
- The second largest category of pro bono service provided in 2022 was full case representation for individual clients. Among attorneys who have provided pro bono services, 41 percent reported providing this service. In 2022, these attorneys contributed an average of 125 hours each to full representation cases to individuals.
- Attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono services cited a lack of resources for pro bono work, concern about malpractice issues, and a general sentiment that pro bono work is unrealistic for newly admitted attorneys. These attorneys also reported that lack of time was a top discouraging factor.
- Attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono services report that the provision of malpractice insurance, mentorship by other attorneys, and more support from their firms would be very influential in motivating them to do pro bono work.
- According to attorneys surveyed, the most common ways employers encourage pro bono work is by allowing pro bono during regular business hours and using internal resources for pro bono activities. However, nearly half of attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono services report that their employers do not allow pro bono during regular business hours.
WHAT IS PRO BONO?
In 1989, the State Bar of California Board of Governors (now called the Board of Trustees) passed a Pro Bono Resolution encouraging attorneys, law students, and the organizations that employ and train them to provide or enable direct delivery of at least 50 hours per year of pro bono legal services.[2] The resolution defined pro bono as “the direct delivery of legal services, without expectation of compensation other than reimbursement of expenses, to indigent individuals, or not-for-profit organizations with a primary purpose of providing services to the poor or on behalf of the poor or disadvantaged, not-for-profit organizations with a purpose of improving the law and the legal system or increasing access to justice.” Legal work for clients referred from a legal aid program meets the definition of pro bono, as do legal services provided to indigent recipients so long as the lawyer intends the services to be free, but waiving fees for clients unable to pay if payment was initially expected does not meet the pro bono definition. Pro bono opportunities vary depending on the needs of the client community.
Pro Bono Services Include:
- Representation (full or limited scope)
- Negotiation and settlement
- Brief service by phone or in person
- Legal information or “Know Your Rights” workshops
- Document preparation and review
- Legal research and writing
- Consumer/public education
- Litigation support
- Legislative research and legal analysis
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, California Rules of Professional Conduct, and California statutes encourage lawyers to provide pro bono services. For example, ABA Model Rule 6.1 establishes a lawyer’s professional responsibility to provide pro bono services, including at least 50 hours of legal services per year to those unable to pay. The California Rules of Professional Conduct articulate a similar responsibility as the ABA, encouraging all lawyers to “aspire to render at least fifty hours of pro bono publico legal services per year” (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.0 Comment [5]).
STATE BAR EFFORTS TO PROMOTE PRO BONO
For decades, the State Bar of California has sought to expand and promote pro bono legal services to improve access to justice for low-income Californians. The State Bar has worked with stakeholders to develop initiatives to raise public awareness of pro bono opportunities and to support pro bono services for specific client populations, such as veterans and disaster survivors. The State Bar also administers a pro bono practice program and distributes grant funds to legal aid organizations specifically to support pro bono legal services.
Pro Bono Practice Program
The State Bar’s Pro Bono Practice Program (PBPP) waives license fees for attorneys who would otherwise be on inactive status so they may maintain active status for the sole purpose of providing pro bono services in partnership with approved legal services providers. In 2024, 104 California attorneys participated in the PBPP, providing pro bono services through 36 participating organizations. Over the last six years, an average of 111 attorneys participated in the PBPP annually. These numbers are scant, considering there are 76,000 inactive attorneys in California.
The State Bar’s 2022–2027 Strategic Plan includes, as a means to achieving the goal of enhancing access to and inclusion in the legal system, increasing pro bono hours provided to underserved groups. In an effort to meet this, the State Bar updated its rules in 2024 to simplify program eligibility and expand eligible organizations through which pro bono could be provided under the PBPP. Specific changes include eliminating the requirement that a licensee had been admitted to the practice of law for at least three years preceding the application and eliminating the requirement of having practiced law or served as a judge in California for at least three of the last five years. The new rules also require pro bono providers to report annual pro bono hours provided by PBPP attorneys, enabling the State Bar to track the program’s impact on access to justice in the state.
Grant Funding for Pro Bono Legal Services
The State Bar’s Legal Services Trust Fund Commission administers millions of dollars in grant funds to over 100 nonprofit organizations providing free civil legal services to indigent Californians (see section of report on Legal Aid in California). In 2019, more than 13,000 volunteer attorneys contributed 360,601 hours to 101 organizations funded by State Bar grants. By 2023, volunteer attorneys increased to nearly 14,000, serving 115 funded organizations and donating 333,993 hours—equivalent to more than 160 full-time attorneys providing free legal services.
An additional 10 percent of grant funds, called the pro bono allocation, is available to grantees who primarily rely on pro bono attorneys to provide free legal representation to indigent persons or qualified legal services projects (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6214(b)(3)(A) and § 6216(b)(1)(B)). Organizations receiving this allocation use the funds to support pro bono programs that connect and support volunteer attorneys with opportunities to provide essential legal services to indigent persons regarding housing, family/domestic violence, consumer/finance, guardianship, and conservatorship legal needs. To expand the availability of pro bono legal services to more low-income Californians, the State Bar amended its rules in July 2024 to add flexibility to the pro bono allocation eligibility process and increase the number of organizations that qualify. Typically, between 17 and 19 organizations receive the additional pro bono allocation yearly. In 2023, 17 organizations reported that 10,342 pro bono attorney volunteers provided over 243,000 hours of pro bono legal services to indigent persons across 13 California counties.
PRO BONO SERVICES OFFERED BY CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS
The ABA regularly explores factors that encourage or discourage attorneys’ provision of pro bono services. Thus far, surveys conducted by the ABA were the only source of data on the average number of pro bono hours California attorneys provided to low-income Californians, beyond those who volunteered in legal aid organizations that receive grant funds from the State Bar as reported. In September 2024, the California Legislature amended Business and Professions Code sections 6073.1 and 6073.2, requiring active licensees to report hours provided for pro bono and reduced fee legal services annually.[3] The State Bar will compile this information into anonymized reports to inform outreach efforts and enable programs to expand legal services for low- and moderate-income Californians. For 2023 and 2024, the State Bar permitted attorneys to report the number of pro bono hours provided.
The following sections present the State Bar’s analysis of the ABA’s 2023 Pro Bono Survey, focusing on responses from over 3,000 California attorneys. The results reflect pro bono services offered in 2022 and provide valuable insights into the professional experiences, challenges, and perspectives of California attorneys who have provided pro bono services and those who have not. Variation by years of practice and workplace sector is reported to analyze the proportion of attorneys that have never provided pro bono service. However, analyses exploring variation in demographic or other professional characteristics are beyond the scope of this report and will be addressed in future State Bar research.
Three-quarters of California attorneys have provided pro bono services at some point in their careers, while one in four have never provided any form of pro bono services.
Three-quarters (75 percent) of California attorneys responding to the survey have, at some point in their careers, provided pro bono services (see figure 33). Pro bono service varies by years licensed and by workplace sector; 58 percent of attorneys licensed for less than five years provided pro bono services compared with 80 percent of attorneys licensed for more than 25 years. Less than half (48 percent) of attorneys in the government sector have provided pro bono services compared with over 80 percent of attorneys in private practice.
Figure 33. California Attorneys’ Provision of Pro Bono Services
Note: Based on the survey question, “Do you engage with pro bono work?” Response options were: “Yes, I have provided pro bono service” and “No, I have not yet provided pro bono service.”
More California attorneys met the State Bar’s Pro Bono Resolution’s goal of providing 50 hours or more of pro bono services in 2022 compared to 2016.
Figure 34 sets out the hours of pro bono services California attorneys reported providing in 2022 compared with what California attorneys reported in response to a previous ABA pro bono survey for 2016 pro bono service.[4] Key findings include:
- Slightly more than half of California attorneys provided no pro bono services in 2022, the same as in 2016. However, the ABA found that nationally, only 43 percent of attorneys provided no pro bono services in 2022.
- Nearly one in four California attorneys (23 percent) provided 50 or more hours of pro bono service in 2022, up from 20 percent in 2016.
- On average, attorneys who provided pro bono services provided 116 hours in 2022. This service represents a 47 percent increase compared with the average of 79 service hours offered in 2016.[5]
- Another notable change is the share of attorneys who provided 80 hours or more of pro bono service: 15 percent of attorneys reported doing so in 2022 compared with 12 percent in 2016.
- Attorneys who provided at least 80 hours of pro bono service in 2022 reported an average of 282 hours of service. This translates to over 35 workdays, or about seven weeks, of pro bono service.
As noted in figure 2, 45 percent of California attorneys provided pro bono service, contributing an average of 116 hours. When extrapolating to the total population active of over 195,000 active attorneys, this translates into over 87,000 active attorneys collectively providing almost 10 million hours of pro bono service, which is equivalent to 4,761 full-time pro bono attorneys.[6]
Figure 34. Hours of Pro Bono Service California Attorneys Provided in 2016 and 2022
Attorneys can provide pro bono services to individual clients, to organizations that support individuals of limited means, or on behalf of groups of individuals with limited means through class action lawsuits. In 2022, most California attorneys who provided pro bono service did so for individuals (84 percent), 42 percent assisted organizations, and 11 percent contributed to class action lawsuits.[7] Attorneys were also asked about the demographics of the pro bono clients served. Over half (51 percent) reported an “ethnic minority” among their clients, 46 percent reported serving a non- or limited-English speaker, 41 percent reported serving a single parent, 40 percent reported serving an elderly client, and 27 percent reported serving a disabled client.[8]
The largest category of pro bono services attorneys provided in 2022 was limited scope representation without litigation for individual clients.
Figure 35 displays detailed information on the types of pro bono services offered by attorneys who provided pro bono services in 2022, further disaggregated by service recipients. Nearly half of all attorneys provided limited scope, non-litigation representation for individual clients, providing, on average, 47 hours of pro bono service.[9] The next largest category of pro bono service was full case representation for individual clients: 41 percent of attorneys reported providing this service, contributing an average of 125 hours. However, just 8 percent of attorneys provided full case representation to organizations; attorneys that did so contributed an average of 89 hours. Nearly one-third of attorneys provided limited scope litigation representation to individuals, while roughly one-fourth offered legal advice to organizations.
Figure 35. Types of Pro Bono Service and Average Hours California Attorneys Provided in 2022
Note: Respondents were asked to report the number of hours spent and matters handled for different services provided to individuals and organizations in 2022. See methodology for more details.
The most common legal task performed during pro bono service was providing advice, with family law being the most frequently addressed legal area.
Attorneys who provided pro bono services in 2022 were asked questions about their most recent experience, including the type of service, the legal tasks performed, and the practice area.[10]
Legal Tasks
- The most frequently reported legal tasks performed by attorneys performing pro bono service were providing advice, reviewing/drafting documents, and interviewing clients.
Practice Area
- Family law was the most common practice area, followed by contract law, immigration law, estate planning/probate/wills, and criminal law.[11]
- More than half (57 percent) of attorneys reported that their most recent pro bono service was only in one area of law, with 21 and 22 percent reporting that it was in two and three or more areas, respectively.
Most clients and attorneys connected indirectly instead of finding each other directly.
Nearly three-quarters of attorneys reported that their clients found them through some indirect method. The most common indirect methods were referrals from family members or friends, legal aid pro bono programs, and nonprofit organizations. More than one in four attorneys reported that their most recent client contacted them directly. Among these, 38 percent said they had no prior relationship with the client. See figure 36 for the top five ways attorneys connected with their pro bono clients.
Figure 36. How California Attorneys Were Connected to Pro Bono Clients
Note: Respondents who reported providing pro bono service in 2022 were asked, “How did this client come to you?” and those who responded, “The client came directly to me,” were asked, “How would you describe your relationship with the client before the legal engagement began?” Top 5 results for each modality are shown.
Although organizations that refer pro bono work to attorneys provided support, some attorneys reported needing more.
California attorneys reported the following types of support they received from referral organizations: support with sample forms/documents, regular check-ins, mentoring, troubleshooting issues between the attorney and client, and teaming up with another volunteer on the case. A small share of attorneys reported needing more support: 11 percent wanted more support with research assistance, and 10 percent wanted more support with sample forms/documents and expense reimbursement. See figure 37.
Note: Respondents who reported providing pro bono service in 2022 were asked, “Please indicate below what support you received from the referral organization for this legal matter and whether you needed more of this type of support.”
Figure 37. Support from Referral Organizations as Reported by California Attorneys
One-third of attorneys report that their most recent pro bono case was not within their regular area of expertise.
California attorneys tended to accept cases within their area of expertise. Specifically, 67 percent indicated that their most recent pro bono experience was within their area of expertise. However, one-third accepted a case outside their area of expertise.
The area of law for which attorneys most often accepted a case outside their area of expertise was immigration: one in five attorneys who took a case outside their area of expertise reported that the matter pertained to immigration. Other areas of law for which attorneys most often accepted a case outside their expertise were family law and contract law.
Most attorneys reported that their most recent experience was consistent with their expectations, while one in five reported that it took longer than expected.
Most attorneys (76 percent) reported that their most recent pro bono experience was consistent with their expectations. Approximately 22 percent indicated that the case took more time than expected and 6 percent said that the case was more complex than expected. The areas of laws for which attorneys reported their most recent pro bono experience required more time or were more complex than they expected were family law, contract law, real estate law, and immigration law.
BARRIERS TO PROVIDING PRO BONO SERVICES
Attorneys were presented with a set of factors that might motivate them to offer pro bono, or provide more pro bono services if they already provided them, and they were asked to rate the degree to which each would personally motivate them to provide pro bono. The top two factors rated as “very motivating” were helping people in need (54 percent) and reducing social inequalities (36 percent).[12]
Attorneys were also invited to share personal reflections on specific pro bono experiences that have either encouraged or discouraged them from pro bono work.[13]
Common positive sentiments included:
- Experiencing a sense of personal fulfillment and satisfaction, often stemming from using their legal skills to assist those in need;
- Motivation to give back to their community and make a tangible difference in people’s lives; and
- Achieving positive case outcomes was rewarding, reinforcing their commitment to using their legal expertise to effect change.
Despite these sentiments, one in four California attorneys have not yet provided pro bono during their careers, as reported in figure 33. This section explores the barriers attorneys face in offering pro bono with detailed analyses of attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono service. For figures that compare attorneys who have provided pro bono with those who have not, results with the largest gaps between groups are displayed.
Three-quarters of attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono services reported they do not have the resources to do so, while over two-thirds reported worrying about malpractice.
Attorneys were presented with a list of general statements about pro bono work. Attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono services agreed more with statements about lacking resources to provide pro bono services, concerns about malpractice issues, and that pro bono work is unrealistic for newly admitted attorneys (see figure 38).
Note: Respondents were presented with various statements and asked, “Please indicate how well you agree or disagree with the following statements” using a 6-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. “Agreement” is measured by combining the following response categories: “strongly agree,” “agree,” “somewhat agree.”
Figure 39. California Attorneys’ Ratings of Factors as “Very Discouraging” in Doing Pro Bono by Previous Pro Bono Experience
Note: Respondents were asked, “The following are a list of factors that might motivate an attorney to do pro bono (or more pro bono). How influential would each factor be to you personally, in discouraging you from doing pro bono, using a scale from 1 to 4 where 1 means “not at all discouraging/not relevant” and 5 means “very discouraging.”
Attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono services reported lack of time as the top discouraging factor when it comes to providing pro bono service.
Survey respondents were presented with a list of factors that might motivate attorneys to perform pro bono (at all) or do more pro bono and were asked to rate each factor’s influence in personally discouraging them. For all attorneys, the top three barriers identified as “very discouraging” to doing pro bono or more pro bono were lack of time, commitment to family or other personal obligations, and lack of malpractice insurance. In addition to scheduling conflicts, these three factors also had the largest gaps between those who have and have not yet provided pro bono services. Over three-quarters (77 percent) of attorneys who have not yet offered pro bono identified lack of time as a very discouraging factor. In comparison, nearly 60 percent cited commitments to family and other personal obligations and lack of malpractice insurance. See figure 39.
Attorneys cited discouraging experiences with pro bono work, including challenging clients and a misalignment between expectations for time commitment and case complexity.
In response to an open-ended survey question, attorneys described experiences providing pro bono services that have discouraged them from doing more pro bono work, including:
- Challenging clients who often have unrealistic expectations, are demanding, fail to disclose information, or do not follow through on legal advice; and
- The time commitment required for pro bono work often exceeded initial expectations, with cases proving more complex than anticipated.
POTENTIAL AVENUES FOR INCREASING PRO BONO SERVICES
This section explores the potential avenues for increasing pro bono services among California attorneys. Attorneys were asked several questions to understand what would encourage them to provide more or start providing pro bono services.
Attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono services reported that providing malpractice insurance, mentorship by other attorneys, and more support from their firms would be very influential in providing pro bono.
Figure 40 lists the top three factors that attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono rated as “very influential” in offering pro bono. For all three, their rating was higher than attorneys who have provided pro bono. One-third of attorneys who have not yet offered pro bono said that malpractice insurance provided by the referral organization would be very influential in encouraging them to provide pro bono. Over one in five attorneys who have not yet offered pro bono reported that mentorship/supervision by an attorney would be very influential. In contrast, 20 percent reported that more support from their firm would be very influential.
Note: Respondents were asked, “Using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means it would be “not at all influential” and 5 means that it would be “very influential,” how much influence would each of the following actions have in encouraging you to provide pro bono?”
Just one-third of attorneys reported that their employers encouraged pro bono activities.
All attorneys except solo practitioners were asked about their employers’ attitudes toward pro bono.[14] More than half reported that their employer neither encourages nor discourages pro bono activities. Nearly one-third reported that their employer encourages pro bono activities, while about one in 10 reported their employer discourages it.
Figure 41. Ways Employers Discouraged or Encouraged Pro Bono According to California Attorneys
The most common ways employers encouraged pro bono work was by allowing pro bono during regular business hours and using internal resources for pro bono activities.
All attorneys except solo practitioners were asked about their employers’ actions regarding pro bono. According to attorneys, the most common ways their employers supported pro bono service was by allowing pro bono during regular business hours and using internal resources for pro bono activities (see figure 41). Additionally, 26 percent of respondents reported that their employers encouraged pro bono activity by having a pro bono policy that supports employee pro bono, and 22 percent reported that there are internal procedures for identifying and referring pro bono cases. One in four attorneys, however, reported that their employers do not allow pro bono during regular business hours, and one in five reported that their employer disallows the use of internal resources for pro bono activities.
Note: Respondents were asked, “And, specifically, does your firm or employer do any of the following as it relates to pro bono?” This question was not presented to solo practitioners.
Nearly half of attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono reported that their employers do not allow pro bono during regular business hours.
The three employer actions with the largest differences between attorneys who have provided pro bono services and those who have not involve employer support for using business time and resources for pro bono work. Most attorneys who have provided pro bono reported that their employers allowed them to use internal resources and regular business hours for pro bono activities. In contrast, few attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono services reported having this type of employer support. See figure 42.
Note: Respondents were asked “And, specifically, does your firm or employer do any of the following as it relates to pro bono?”[15] This question was not presented to solo practitioners.
Figure 43. California Attorneys’ Likelihood of Engagement with Pro Bono Opportunities by Previous Pro Bono Experience
Over half of attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono reported being likely to engage with in-person or virtual advice and counsel sessions with clients.
Attorneys were asked about the likelihood of participating in various pro bono opportunities. Unsurprisingly, attorneys who have not yet provided pro bono services reported being less likely to engage with various types of pro bono than those who have provided pro bono services. However, over half of those who have not yet undertaken pro bono services reported being likely to engage in pro bono opportunities that involved in-person or virtual advice and counsel sessions with clients, while less than one-third reported being likely to represent a client. See figure 43. Additionally, when asked about what skills trainings they would prefer when representing a pro bono client, 37 percent of attorneys reported they would only accept a case well within their expertise.
Note: Respondents were asked, “Please indicate the likelihood you would engage in the following pro bono opportunities” and responded using a six-point scale from extremely likely to extremely unlikely. “Likelihood” is measured by combining the following response categories: “extremely likely,” “likely,” and “somewhat likely.”
Most attorneys who provided pro bono services during law school rated their experience as positive.
Attorneys were asked about their experience with pro bono work during law school. Only 9 percent reported that pro bono work was a graduation requirement. Among this small group, nearly half were required to complete 25 or fewer hours. Among attorneys who did not have a pro bono requirement, nearly half (49 percent) reported voluntarily providing pro bono services as law students. Regardless of whether pro bono participation was mandatory or voluntary, most attorneys rated their experience as either positive or very positive. See figure 44.
Figure 44. California Attorneys’ Experience of Providing Pro Bono Services during Law School
Note: Respondents who indicated they were required to complete pro bono work during law school were asked, “Thinking about the experience you had at your law school, how would you rate your experience with your required pro bono work at your law school?” Respondents who indicated they were not required to complete pro bono work during law school but did so voluntarily were asked, “Thinking about the experience you had at your law school, how would you rate your experience with your voluntary pro bono work in law school?”
More than half of attorneys who provided pro bono services during law school reported that their experience made them more likely or far more likely to provide pro bono services.
Among attorneys who provided pro bono services as law students (49 percent of respondents), 53 percent reported that doing so made them “more” or “far more” likely to provide pro bono services after graduating from law school, 44 percent indicated that it had no impact on their likelihood of providing pro bono services after law school, and only 3 percent reported that it made them less likely to provide pro bono services after law school.
CONCLUSION
While efforts to promote pro bono work among California attorneys have led to progress, with more attorneys reaching pro bono service goals, challenges remain as nearly one-quarter have never provided pro bono services, and over half of attorneys provided no pro bono service in 2022. Analyses of the ABA’s most recent pro bono survey highlight factors that encourage or hinder providing pro bono services, offering valuable insights with policy implications. Addressing these barriers strategically could expand pro bono participation and enhance access to justice, advancing the State Bar’s goal of meeting the legal needs of underserved Californians.