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. Lawyers who are unwilling or unable to provide direct legal services should be strongly encouraged to provide financial support to qualified legal service organizations based on a formula keyed to their effective hourly rates. While some critics oppose any buy-out of the individual professional duty as ethically repugnant, I suggest this option reinforces the duty by neutralizing the objections of those lawyers who decline to provide direct service. All lawyers, regardless of their expertise or profitability, are expected to participate in whatever ways they are willing and able.