Thanks All!! Plenty of interesting perspectives here, and, of course, some of what was to be expected. At least Jesse deleted his! LOL!
LaurieMar, Senate Bill 686 proposes adding Section 6073 to Business and Professions Code as follows:
"It has been the tradition of those learned in the law and licensed to practice law in this state to provide voluntary pro bono legal services to those who cannot afford the help of a lawyer. Every lawyer authorized and privileged to practice law in California is expected to make a contribution. In some circumstances, it may not be feasible for a lawyer to directly provide pro bono services. In those circumstances, a lawyer may instead fulfill his or her individual pro bono ethical commitment, in part, by providing financial support to organizations providing free legal services to persons of limited means...."
The proposed legislation was drafted by Sacramento Assembly member Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, who was a former legal aid attorney.
Seachange, you are correct, "expected" is a rather loose term; my fear is that it begins a slide down a slippery slope which ends only when it bottoms out at the "requirement" level.
KC: I agree with your assessment - who else is expected to do this? Because attorneys are "privileged" to practice law, we are "expected" to make a contribution, and that contribution is an "ethical commitment." No other professionals (CPAs, physicians, dentists, contractors, engineers, pest inspectors, etc.), licensed and "privileged" to ply their trade in California, are "expected" to work for free.
Seems to me that a piece of legislation which would attempt to single out attorneys for this kind of disparate treatment is nothing more than another form of lawyer bashing. I really just don't get it.
BiIl, your comments are interesting as well. It appears that large firms would be permitted to buy their way out of pro bono service. So the rich, high-powered law firms get a tax writeoff and the struggling sole practioner has to work!
Bobber's comment, "What is it they say on TV? You have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to represent you (from a pool of lawyers who are pi**ed off that they have to do it free, knowing that you are probably guilty)." As someone whose practice consists almost entirely of criminal defense work, this is, to me, an example of the kind of basic misunderstanding of how the legal system works which contributes to the negative stereotype Dogmatic mentions. Pro Bono work does not include criminal defense. Criminal defendants are entitled, via the United States Constitution, to a number of rights, one of which is the right to legal representation. In almost every state this representation is provided at taxpayer expense through the office of the public defender. I can't say that I know of a single criminal defense attorney who is "pi**ed off" at "having" to represent a client "they know is probably guilty." Initially, criminal cases are rarely about factual guilt or innocence. Rather, it is defense counsel's duty to ensure that the prosecution and the police and the judge and the jury followed the rules and complied with all legal requirements. By way of example: by ensuring that prosecutors don't charge minority defendants with more or harsher crimes, or that cops don't enter a residence and search everything and everyone on a whim without first obtaining a search warrant, or that the judge follows the law and requires that jurors do the same, defense counsel help ensure that the criminal justice system works effectively for everyone - the innocent and the guilty. Those are rights which apply to every U.S. citizen and I consider it a privilege to work every day to protect them.
Elbert, I didn't see anything harsh in your comments. Can say I've seen Belize's justice system in action and have a couple of friends who practice law there. Based on observations and conversations, I wouldn't trade the U.S.'s system for Belize's any day of the week!
Reaper, I'll be paying on those student loans for a good long while. I know what my legal education cost and can guess at the cost of your wife's. Still, I also know what kind of money we make and how that compares to the income of most of the rest of the U.S., not to mention most of the rest of the world. So, I'm not looking for a tax break - as always, I just wish my taxes were better spent.
Finally, Jesse, with respect to your deleted comment that there are too many lawyers: like most things it's a matter of supply and demand. We wouldn't be in business if you people didn't keep hiring us! The rest of your comment doesn't warrant comment.
AmbergrisCaye.com 
