Session I Bridging the Gap

EQUAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE

APBCO MEETING NOTES

DATE: May 7, 2008

SESSION I

BRIDGING THE GAP

Issues:

·  Growth in pro bono has been phenomenal but our efforts in creating great projects can lead us to lose sight of the forest.

·  The need is huge. Millions below and just above FPG. FPG are utterly inept. - Food breadbasket is really only 1/7 of real cost of living, not 1/3.

·  DHHS tracks stats on poverty by city.

·  Tripp: Notes that in North Carolina there is one LS attorney for every 28,000 people

·  Group believes biggest areas of need are family law, LLT, abuse/neglect, foreclosure, SSI.

What should/can we do?

·  We need to not only be better managers but also ‘Pro Bono Venture Capitalists’; we don’t want to become too specialized in minutia.

·  We need to be better at assessing needs and seeing who is doing pro bono already.

·  There needs to be a healthy tension between being a manager and being open minded and exploratory.

Survey - Why the survey? We want to know how we in APBCo view ourselves in relation to our job.

1. WHAT IS THE AREA OF GREATEST LEGAL NEED IN YOUR JURISDICTION? NAME ONLY ONE AREA OF LAW: ______

2. WHY IS THAT THE GREATEST LEGAL NEED? (TWO SENTENCES OR LESS)

______

______.

3. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF LEGAL NEED SHOULD THE PRIVATE BAR FILL? ____%

4. IN THE AREA OF LAW IN YOUR ANSWER TO NUMBER 1, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT LEGAL NEED SHOULD THE PRIVATE BAR MEET? ____%

5. WHAT PERCENTAGE – IDEALLY – SHOULD YOUR FIRM MEET? ____%

6. IS IT RIGHT TO THINK OF YOU (TAKER OF THIS SURVEY) AS A PUBLIC INTEREST LAWYER? (CIRCLE ONE) YES / NO

7. IS IT YOUR JOB TO BRIDGE THE SOCIAL JUSTICE GAP IN A MEANINGFUL WAY? (CIRCLE ONE) YES / NO

8. IS IT THE JOB OF YOUR FIRM’S LAWYERS TO BRIDGE THAT SAME GAP? (CIRCLE ONE) YES / NO

9. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BRIDGING THE GAP AND THE PRO BONO WORK YOUR LAWYERS ARE DOING NOW? (CIRCLE ONE) YES / NO

Quick Survey Results:

­  6 people think housing/foreclosure is biggest issue; 16 think family issues are biggest, one thinks criminal issues; and one thinks bankruptcy is biggest problem

­  % private bar should fill: range was from 1-100%, with an average of 40-50%

­  % your firm meet: range was from .01 -100%, with an average of 25%

­  Is it my job: 2 no; 29 yes

­  Is it the firm’s job: 25 yes; 5 no

­  Difference between gap and work: 23 yes; 8 no

Discussion / How will APBCo work to bridge the Gap?

·  We are such a small segment of private bar, but we have some power and bear witness to issues. The problem is the system is broken. We should be looking at issues in a more strategic way – thinking big picture rather than having our attorneys handling individual matters. We should come together to solve issues - get a working group together and go to Capital Hill and work on policy changes.

·  Example: Discussion of LLT Eviction Defense project model in San Francisco. The bar worked to change the Model Rule to do limited scope representation which then helped attorneys be able to do afternoons in LLT court. Statistics show that settlements get same results as huge full scale cases. So, they created a model and now get more cases addressed - 100% representation!

·  Given our firms’ huge profits, our efforts are dismal. We should find problem, come together and everyone take on a role to address problem on a holistic basis. Usually the pub interest organizations come to us, but pro bono counsel should be looking at this role and addressing big issues. We need to be experts on the issues and part of the social justice community.

·  We can’t all be experts in everything, but that’s where collaborative efforts come in.

·  Discussion of the example of the prisoner reentry program in Philadelphia – The program was created by the district attorney’s office and government. They recognized the need and realized that with all of the issues that arise when leaving prison, the prisoners wouldn’t make it. Thus, they created a support system. They identified that prisoners need lawyers to address standard issues that are there upon leaving prison. The district attorney went to the Bar Association which, in turn, got public interest organizations to do intake by taking referrals from probation officers/court. The public interest organizations then call the firms to place the cases. It is a great example of collaboration and demonstrates how essential it is. The program is very similar to the collaborative efforts in San Francisco.

·  We needed to be a real part of creation of programs. We also need to be careful to not reinvent existing programs.

·  We need to be aware of the tension to create 20-hour projects and projects for corporate lawyers. How do we as pro bono counsel allocate resources for projects for various reasons, not just the reason of convenience or fitting within a firm formula; i.e., how can we move the issue of social justice up the ladder?

·  We need to be mindful of the issue of risk management. How do we address issue of taking on areas of law we are not familiar with?

·  Example of the LLT project in Philadelphia. It differs from the San Francisco project, in that Philadelphia does not have an "attorney of the day" program. Rather, the court identified that education about rights is key. Now mediators focus on educating both parties about their rights.

·  Is anyone actually looking at these issues nationally to determine and address needs? We have energetic people who want to do something, but aren’t addressing the issues in the most thoughtful collaborative way.

·  Example of a summit that will be taking place in California. Previously there was too much overlap by different groups in different forums. With the summit, they are bringing key groups together to identified key issues in the state.

·  Miami is trying to do same regarding: juvenile justice.

·  Colorado lawyers committee has a task force model. They study issues identified by providers or firms as something that needs work.

·  Minneapolis: they have started a pro bono consortium. The group has addressed 4 projects with mixed results, e.g., impact of collateral consequences of criminal convictions.

TO BE ADDRESSED GOING FORWARD:

·  How do we move social justice up the ladder? These big issues bleed into evaluation issues.

·  How do we become better meshed with access to justice groups? Is that a good use of our time?

·  How do we address those organizations which are measuring us, primarily AmLaw ? Maybe they could reframe the standards. If it continues to be all about 20- hour bits, we will never get firms to address the real issues.

·  Is there a list of these great programs designed to look at social justice needs? Can that be distributed to us?

·  We need to think of the fundamental way we view ourselves v. how our firms view us.

·  If we asked our firms, they would not think it’s their job to address social justice issues.

·  Model of collaboration: we should have the outside world tell us what the needs are. We are ambassadors.

·  Our passion should move our firm.

·  Maybe we can collaboratively address an issue as a group?

SESSION II

EXAMINING MEANINGFUL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL

Basic issue: We need to understand our responsibilities and then set goals.

·  Responsibilities: How do we use formal written responsibilities and goals to evaluate?

·  Wrote his own job description. Firm management doesn’t really know what he does. He gets evaluated the same as partner/counsel. He views his evaluation with the idea of pushing goals and responsibilities up the food chain to get appreciation.

·  Uses same mechanism as when she started. She gets self evaluation form and completes with some changes. She is allowed to select partners to review her and the Committee Chair also writes an evaluation from the Committee. She uses it as a tool to tell management what she is doing, so she makes it very detailed. She has a six-person staff and comes up with goals for the year to present to the Committee. These are the goals she reports on annually. If goals have not been reached, sometimes the Committee defers goals until the next year.

·  Does an "I love me memo." Uses same general format as other partners, but certain things don’t apply.

·  How many have actually tailored firm forms for their review?

·  All staff asked to develop own competencies. She is reviewed as administrative. She took her job description and drafted competencies, and her evaluation form reflects those competencies. She drew upon other positions in the firm, such as administrative directors and practice group management, as well as the attorney evaluation. The competencies are based on, e.g. (i)management and development; (ii)working across departments on goals specific to recruiting and pro bono; and (iii)developing business specific to certain departments that speaks to certain issues. The categories are the same every year. The firm has new approach: practice group managers work with department heads to address marketing and other issues.

·  Question for Group: How are APBCo members reviewed? 5 administrative, the rest reviewed as attorneys. About half feel they get a serious evaluation at the firm.

Discussion: The Review Process

·  Discussion by two pro bono counsel in same firm/different offices. One does not use the form but other does; shows very ad hoc evaluation, office-to-office. One originally did long summary of achievement and accomplishments, but now just does bullet points. One has separate meeting with management committee to discuss goals for program but does not think that plays into evaluation

·  Raised issue of planning for the program and evaluation of the pro bono counsel. There should be a business plan for the program for which pro bono counsel should not be fully responsible. APBCo needs to think about pro bono practice being an actual practice. We need to think about doing it well. The private bar needs a place to look when evaluating or hiring pro bono counsel to find criteria for what makes a good pro bono counsel.

·  Pro Bono Counsel Position/Best Practices: APBCo’s goal should be to get the best people (non-AmLaw numbers people) into pro bono counsel positions. We should create a task force to determine how we define these jobs. If we don’t create criteria/best practices, the likelihood is that firms will choose to hire just number crunchers.

·  Issue of the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article was raised. We are all concerned about how the author essentially talked about what an easy job it is – that it is a lifestyle job. We decided to not comment on it at the moment, rather than causing more focus on it.

·  Discussion: How are Hours Treated? "Results’ are metrics: i.e. number of hours per lawyer.

·  One has goals that repeat very year. Had goals for 2006 based on poor results of mid-year 2005. However, she does not focus on numbers in her annual report/ evaluation. Does not put in evaluation the participation numbers or hours. Hours are not in pro bono counsel’s control.

·  One does consider hours. Firm is at the 30-hour mark, and at one time a business journal did a survey in which the firm scored low. Thus, hours are a factor, but he doesn’t know if that affects his evaluation. He personally analyzes all numbers.

·  At the firm, where the hours are excellent, she comes from a different perspective. It has never been communicated to her that numbers are reflective of her doing a good job. Her numbers are more about breadth of participation in practice groups. She does a work plan, but no one sees it. She does keep an eye on numbers - looks at the range, and if a problem arises then she will have to address it.

·  Question for Group: If a firm’s goal is to do X hours, how do hours not come into play?

·  If our job is to get people to do pro bono work, and we are in an industry that measures work in hours, it seems you must have some evaluation of hours. It does us a disservice to fully discount hours.

·  All those participating in the PBI Challenge have issue of assessing ratio of low income and non-low income hours.

·  There is a critical difference between numbers assessment v. commercial folks being judged on business brought in. How can we be judged on metrics not normally used in firms?

·  Law firms are in different phases at different times, and hours play a role differently. You can’t get into phase iii before phase i.

·  Question for Group: How can we evaluate our practices in a way that fits in with how practice groups are evaluated? Has anyone dealt with qualitative aspects?

·  One was given the opportunity to suggest folks in community and internally - marketing, etc. - that the evaluators could contact. This is new, so she doesn’t know how it’s played out yet.

·  Another firm has also suggested that for evaluation purposes people reach out to the community. And one questions whether APBCo should maybe be doing that.

TO BE ADDRESSED GOING FORWARD:

·  Create an APBCo task force to think about criteria for what the pro bono counsel position means. Comments to be solicited regarding specific evaluations/best practices