by Tracy Morrison

Created on: December 15, 2009

It has been suggested that Attorneys should be required to provide legal services free, or Pro Bono as it is often called. While several writers have suggested that Pro Bono does not necessarily mean free of charge, let's examine the terms utilized. The term Pro Bono is actually short for Pro Bono Publico. As it's name should suggest to anyone with a history with any Latin-based language, it means For the Good of the Public, or for the Public Good. Assuming that attorneys are not practicing law to the detriment of all of society, there is some public good involved in all practice of law. Therefore, all attorneys already practice Pro Bono Publico to some extent. Thus, what is being suggested here is that Attorneys be mandated to practice law for free, under the guise of Pro Bono Publico.

Should an attorney be mandated to practice for free? No. The last time it was checked, the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution abolished slavery. Forcing a person to practice their profession for free amounts to nothing less than slavery.

While it has been argued here as part of this debate that Criminals do not deserve and/or should not be entitled to free legal assistance, this is incorrect as well. It is settled law that Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963) established a criminal defendant shall have the right to legal assistance pursuant to the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, even if there is no ability to pay. With all due respect to one writer here, the case of Miranda v. Arizona 384 U. S. 436 (1966) did not establish the right to an attorney, it only established the right of a criminal defendant (in the case of Miranda, to an accused robber and rapist) to be notified of his already established constitutional rights at the point that he or she is in a police custodial situation, and to ensure that he/she understands those constitutional rights and voluntarily waived them.

With regard to the concept that in civil cases, a party should be entitled to counsel, the US Supreme Court has again spoken. In Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of North Carolina 452 US 18 (1981), the Supreme Court held that even when the government is removing or terminating a mother's parental rights, due process does not entitle her to counsel. In addition, the Court also created a test for appointing civil counsel that is virtually impossible to meet.

It is fascinating that there are those who believe that because people have embarked on a career to practice law, that these said

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>