CBA Record September-October 2025

PRO BONO WEEK 2025 – JUSTICE CAN’T WAIT

circumstances. Few details were provided about how and when these pro bono legal services would be delivered or even how the administration would monitor com pliance with the settling firm’s commit ments. However, subsequent comments from the administration indicating that representing coal companies or providing representation to the government in trade deals were among the contemplated “pro bono” requests would turn pro bono as we know it on its head. The idea that law firms should be tar geted by the country’s leader for their pro bono services, rather than lauded for them, is disturbing. The vindication of important constitutional rights on behalf of persons of limited means is a storied part of our pro bono history. Without access to free legal services, individuals whose rights have been violated by the government are not likely to prevail on their claims. More importantly, lawyers should not be forced under the guise of presidential authority to engage in pro bono services, and certainly not for particular causes that the administration favors over others. We can think of many existing pro bono pro grams that serve veterans and other public servants who qualify for free legal services,

ensure fairness in the judicial system, or focus on victims of discrimination. But providing free legal services to people who have the means to pay for a lawyer themselves—such as former government officials—or a political organization that focuses on things other than delivering legal services to persons of limited means or improving access to the justice system, do not qualify as pro bono work. Nor does the provision of nonlegal services such as lobbying for conservative causes or attacking judges for decisions that undermine those causes qualify as pro bono work. Decades of experience have taught us that true pro bono work thrives when it is undertaken voluntarily, when law firms and legal departments can decide on their own which causes to support with their free legal services, and when lawyers are not threatened on account of the pro bono work they have done because others at the law firm, corporation, or in the govern ment do not like the causes they choose to support. The current administration’s approach to pro bono service undermines these fundamental principles. As mem bers of the legal community, we should resist this approach by doubling down on providing free legal services “for the

public good” and financial support for legal aid organizations. We cannot let any politician define what constitutes pro bono or what causes are worthy of pro bono legal work. Let’s take the fact that pro bono is on the radar of the President of the United States and the media to promote it and to educate the public about what qualifies for pro bono work and what does not. Let’s also champion those who pro vide free legal services and protect them from threats made on account of their pro bono work. As legal professionals, we must defend true pro bono publico and call out those who would misuse and wea ponize the term.

James Morsch is a partner and pro bono committee member of Saul Ewing LLP. Bob Glaves is the Executive Director of The Chicago Bar Foundation. The views stated herein are their individual views and should not be attributed to Mr. Morsch’s law firm or its clients.

Actuarial Pension Valuations • All Illinois Public Retirement Plans • Private Plans • Military and Federal (CSRS/FERS) • Non-Qualified Plans • Survivor Benefits • QILDRO Income Stream Estimates

John C. Madden (925) 258-7100

www.msmqdros.com info@msmqdros.com

22 September/October 2025