The legal profession is a public calling, a vocation of service for the public good. An attempt to mandate public service through the regulatory process is inconsistent with that fundamental concept of professionalism. Lawyers are more likely to provide high quality, competent legal services if the representations are voluntary, not compelled. A proposal to make service mandatory under Rule 6.1 is politically unfeasible and may backfire. Loud opposition from diverse segments of the bar can be predicted.
Many lawyers have deep and principled resistance to a mandatory pro bono requirement.
A key question is whether the debate will be productive, and advance the ultimate goal of improving access to legal services. Passage in the ABA House of Delegates is debatable. Most states are likely to reject any proposal to mandate pro bono services. The resulting backlash within the bar, and negative public relations may do far more harm than good. Alternatives to Service Rather than compelling service, it is preferable to provide viable alternatives for lawyers to satisfy their moral and professional responsibility to improve access to legal services.