by Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
Spurring Public Service
At times our country has debated the merits of mandatory
public service. While some claim anything “mandatory” infringes upon
liberties, others claim that citizenship does not only involve “exercising”
rights—i.e., that freedom is not free.

Public service is an integral part of the legal tradition. Our ethical rules suggest, “Every lawyer, regardless of professional prominence or professional workload, should find time to participate in or otherwise support the provision of legal services to the disadvantaged” (Comment 3, Ethical Rule 6.1). These rules impose the responsibility upon lawyers to render at least 50 hours of public service work per calendar year (Ethical Rule 6.1(a)).

But public service is also
part of the recipe for a fulfilling
life. When responding to the
question “What can you tell a
young man looking for moti-
vation in life itself,” one of my
heroes, Neil deGrasse Tyson,
Ph.D., said the following:
The problem, often not dis-
covered until late in life, is
that when you look for
things like love, meaning,
motivation, it implies they
are sitting behind a tree or
under a rock. The most suc-
cessful people recognize that in life they create their own love, they
manufacture their own meaning, they generate their own motivation.

For me, I am driven by two main philosophies: Know more
today about the world than I knew yesterday. And along the
way, lessen the suffering of others. You’d be surprised how far
that gets you.
This is a powerful observation, and it is, indeed, deeply
gratifying to ease the suffering of others. But should lessening
the suffering of others be mandatory? Is it part of the privilege
of practicing law?

In recent years, some state bars—such as New York and Cal-
ifornia—have imposed or are actively considering mandatory
pro bono requirements for new applicants. Other states have
enacted mandatory “reporting” of pro bono hours, and some
states have considered imposing mandatory public service
requirements upon all lawyers. These proposals are fueled by
the laudable desire to provide desperately
needed access to justice for the poor and
voiceless.
My view is that, while we cannot effec-
tively compel public service, there are things
your Bar can to do incentivize public service.
That is, while it is a
solemn duty of every
able person—includ-
ing and especially
lawyers—to help ease
the suffering of oth-
ers, imposing a man-
datory requirement is
not a solution. And
though this duty is
not necessarily lim-
ited to providing legal
services for free or at
a substantially reduced
cost, there is certainly
an acute need for
such services.
Incentivizing
public service, on
the other hand, is a
win–win for lawyers
and the public. These
incentives can come
in a variety of forms,
such as CLE credit
or discounts for CLE
or other Bar publica-
tions, adopting a Court-approved “badge”
for email or website marketing to those who
meet the annual requirement, pairing law
students with lawyers to assist in pro bono
matters, or in exchange for inclusion in a
Bar-sponsored lawyer referral network.

Although some will not need any additional incentive to engage in public service, enjoying the inherent human benefits it provides, others may need a push beyond our aspirational ethical rules. As an integrated Bar we have the ability and resources to put these kinds of plans into action, and we also value your input.