The Latin America Pro Bono Interim Status Report Fall 2009 Survey Results December 2009

Transcription

1 Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Ecuador The Latin America Pro Bono Interim Status Report Fall 2009 Survey Results December 2009 Mexico Peru USA Uruguay Venezuela Trinidad & Tobago 2009 ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK - CYRUS R. VANCE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

2 Acknowledgements This Report would not have been prepared without the time and dedication of many generous people. The Vance Center wishes to extend its gratitude to Kristen Hutchens, former Summer Associate and Incoming Associate at Shearman and Sterling LLP (New York), for her valuable work as the primary drafter, and as an editor and translator of this report. The Vance Center also wants to express its sincere thanks to the following six attorneys, all of whom provided valuable translation assistance: Jorge Allende, International Lawyer, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP (New York) Glenda Bleiberg, Special Legal Consultant, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP (Washington, D.C.) Rafael Boisset, International Lawyer, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP (New York) Ivan Burin, International Lawyer, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP (New York) Fernando Garrido, International Lawyer, Shearman and Sterling LLP (New York) Andrés Nieto, International Lawyer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP (New York) The information contained herein does not constitute legal advice or assistance of any kind. The Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice of the New York City Bar Association and the City Bar Justice Center assume no responsibility for actions or omissions incurred in any manner on the basis of the information contained herein. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in whole or in part, stored or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, copying, recording or otherwise, without written consent of the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice. 2

3 Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice The Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice ( supports a growing movement to engage lawyers to promote democratic values, expand access to justice and address public needs. It works with an international network of organizations, lawyers and justice advocates to build bridges between private and public interest lawyers, enhance access to justice, Human Rights and economic development; foster collaboration and the sharing of experience across borders; and promote legal social responsibility. New York City Bar Association The New York City Bar Association (the "NYCBAR") ( since its foundation in 1870 has been dedicated to maintaining high ethical standards among attorneys, promoting legal reform and providing services to the legal profession and the general public. The NYCBAR promotes political, legal, social and innovative programs aimed at disadvantaged groups. The protection of the public welfare is another priority of the NYCBAR. City Bar Justice Center The City Bar Justice Center ( is an entity affiliated with the NYCBAR. The City Bar Justice Center has forged a relationship with government institutions, schools, businesses, law firms of all sizes and local, national and international bar associations, putting itself in an excellent position to promote cooperation among different sectors of the legal profession to address the legal needs of the disadvantaged. The City Bar Justice Center yearly provides legal representation and information to nearly 25,000 residents of New York City who are living in a vulnerable situation or poverty. The Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice New York City Bar Association 42 West 44th Street New York, NY T: + 1 (212) F: + 1 (212) vance@nycbar.org 3

4 I. INTRODUCTION... 6 A. The Implementation Phase: January 1, 2008 December 31, B. The PBDA Survey Project... 6 C. The Latin America Pro Bono Interim Status Report: Fall 2009 Survey Results... 7 D. Invitation for Dialogue about Survey Results or Next Steps... 7 II. REGIONAL REPORT... 8 A. The Respondents and Submission Rates... 8 B. Employment Data and Major Practice Areas... 8 C. Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs...10 D. Types of and Sources for Pro Bono Work...12 E. Selection and Oversight of Pro Bono Work...15 F. Tracking and Reporting Pro Bono Work...17 G. Pro Bono Programs as they Relate to Associate Experiences...18 H. Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work...18 I. Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use...19 III. COUNTRY REPORTS...21 A. ARGENTINA Submission Rate Employment Data and Major Practice Areas Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs Types of and Sources for Pro Bono Work Selection and Oversight of Pro Bono Work Tracking and Reporting of Pro Bono Work Pro Bono Programs as They Relate to Associate Experiences Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use...30 B. CHILE Submission Rate Employment Data and Major Practice Areas Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs Types of and Sources for Pro Bono Work Selection and Oversight of Pro Bono Work Tracking and Reporting of Pro Bono Work Pro Bono Programs as They Relate to Associate Experiences Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use...41 C. COLOMBIA Submission Rate Employment Data and Major Practice Areas Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs Types of and Sources for Pro Bono Work Selection and Oversight of Pro Bono Work Tracking and Reporting of Pro Bono Work Pro Bono Programs as They Relate to Associate Experiences Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use...52 D. MEXICO

5 1. Submission Rate Employment Data and Major Practice Areas Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs Selection and Oversight of Pro Bono Work Tracking and Reporting of Pro Bono Work Pro Bono Programs as They Relate to Associate Experiences Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use...63 E. PERU Submission Rate Employment Data and Major Practice Areas Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs Types of and Sources for Pro Bono Work Selection and Oversight of Pro Bono Work Tracking and Reporting of Pro Bono Work Pro Bono Programs as They Relate to Associate Experiences Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use...74 IV. ANNEXES...76 A. Origins and Development of the Pro Bono Declaration for the Americas...76 B. PBDA Text and Signing Sheet

6 I. INTRODUCTION A. The Implementation Phase: January 1, 2008 December 31, 2010 Since January 1, 2008, the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice ( Vance Center ) has sought to serve as a resource to all signatories of the Pro Bono Declaration of the Americas ( PBDA ) in their implementation efforts. 1 In that role, the Vance Center has been responsive and proactive, and always interested in addressing the areas of interest to its signatories. In the case of law firms, the Vance Center has pursued specific projects designed to assist many law firms wishing to institute or strengthen pro bono programs within their firms. Such projects include the publication of the PBDA Implementation Handbook: A Guide to Establishing a Pro Bono Program at your Law Firm; the organization and execution of conferences, roundtables or visits in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela; the organization and execution of videoconferences for Pro bono coordinators and other actors throughout the region; the launch of Vancenet ( an online platform with a directory, blog, newswire, and discussion forums for persons interested in access to justice; and the publication and circulation of Spotlights, an electronic newsletter which features successful pro bono projects by law firms throughout the Americas. 2 B. The PBDA Survey Project Multiple actors (e.g., lawyers, NGOs, academics, etc.), prior to and since January 2008, expressed to the Vance Center a desire for more information about the state of the pro bono programs at law firms throughout the region. The basic tenet was that such information would empower multiple actors with richer understandings of how pro bono cultures, networks, and programs have developed to date in each firm and country, and region-wide. Enhanced knowledge would allow many actors to take more informed and strategic steps toward the fulfillment of their respective goals. The Vance Center responded. Acting upon this call for information and seeking to fulfill this request by others, the Vance Center initiated the PBDA Survey Project. In short, the Survey Project is a focused effort to systematically collect and analyze the information, data, and other feedback voluntarily supplied by signatory firms. The Project will be completed in three installments. In fall 2009, the first survey was distributed. 3 The second and third surveys will be released in spring 2010 and winter For more information about the PBDA, Annex A includes an explanation of the origins and development of the Pro Bono Declaration for the Americas, plus a list of the members of the PBDA Drafting Committee. 2 More information about these projects are available at the Vance Center s website at 3 To view the survey itself, please go to this link: 6

7 Each installment will entail the development and distribution of a survey; the collection and analysis of completed surveys; and the production of an associated report to be distributed to the survey participants only. The recipients of these reports are strongly encouraged to share them with the public at large, but especially with fellow actors (e.g., bar associations, fellow lawyers and law firms, social service organizations, non-profit organizations, academics; etc.) which share the goal of increasing access to justice. The Vance Center recognizes the administrative and financial differences between large and small law firms, along with the various cultural and institutional environments in which all of the signatories operate. The Vance Center will continue to aim for the incorporation of such nuances into all aspects of the Survey Project. C. The Latin America Pro Bono Interim Status Report: Fall 2009 Survey Results This report presents objective summaries of the survey results. A regional report consolidates the information supplied by 59 law firm signatories with main offices in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru. Additionally, country reports are included for Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru. Although the Vance Center was grateful for the participation of one Costa Rican and four Brazilian signatories, the Vance Center concluded that, due to insufficient data, country reports would not be prepared for those countries. Law firms from Ecuador, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Trinidad & Tobago were invited to take the survey but none responded. No law firms with main offices in the United States were invited to participate. D. Invitation for Dialogue about Survey Results or Next Steps As stated, the information provided in this report is meant to empower respondents and other actors with richer understandings of how pro bono cultures, networks, and programs have developed to date in each firm and country, and region-wide. With enhanced knowledge of the present conditions, actors will be able to take more informed and strategic steps toward the fulfillment of their respective goals. Comments, questions, and ideas about the Pro Bono Declaration for the Americas and its implementation are welcomed by the Vance Center. Additionally, we want to extend a special invitation to all readers of this document. Should you wish to share any reactions or insights to its contents, or propose any ideas for next steps by the Vance Center or other non-state actors in regard to the region, a specific country or within your local legal community, we thank you in advance for ing them to Joan Vermeulen, Executive Director of the Vance Center, jvermeulen@nycbar.org, and Elise Colomer, Associate Director of the Vance Center, ecolomer@nycbar.org. 7

8 II. REGIONAL REPORT A. The Respondents and Submission Rates Fifty-nine law firm signatories ( the respondents ) with main offices in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru participated in the fall 2009 installment of the Vance Center s Survey Project. Collectively, Peruvian firms submitted the most surveys (15). With ten of the 16 solicited firms submitting responses, Argentina had the highest submission rate (62.5%). The overall submission rate was 33.1%, based on the fact that 178 law firms were solicited via to take the survey and 59 of those solicited firms returned surveys. ARGENTINA BRAZIL CHILE COLOMBIA Number of Law Firm PBDA Signatories Number of Signatories Sent Survey Number of Surveys Returned Submission Rate % % % % COSTA RICA % ECUADOR % MEXICO % PERU % URUGUAY % VENEZUELA % TRINIDAD & TOBAGO % TOTALS N/A B. Employment Data and Major Practice Areas The survey sought a profile of the law firms. The survey asked respondents to indicate the total numbers of attorneys, partners, associates, and special attorneys (e.g., counsels, of counsels, part-time attorneys) at the firm as of December 31, All 59 respondents supplied 8

9 this information. The employment data reveals that the respondents collectively represent 3,656 attorneys, who together would complete 73,120 hours of pro bono service should each attorney complete 20 hours of pro bono work between January 1, 2010 and December 31, On average, the respondents have 62.0 total attorneys, 12.8 partners, 47.7 associates, and 12.0 special attorneys. The survey also invited respondents to identify their major departments or practice areas from a prepared list of 23 practices areas or to select Other and type a response. All 59 firms responded. The table below highlights the seven practice areas that received the most checks by the respondents. These seven areas include the following (in order of most to least checks): Corporate Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Finance, Real Estate, Labor Law, Intellectual Property, and Securities. Notably, roughly 90% of the respondents have Corporate Law practices. The chart below contains the seven practice areas that received the least checks by the respondents. These seven areas include the following (in order of least to most checks): Domestic Violence, Indigenous Rights, Child Custody, Elder Law, Human Rights, Individual Representation of Poor People, and Disability Rights. Domestic Violence received the least number of checks of any area with only one. 9

10 The prepared list also included the following specialties: Anti-corruption (12), Education (11), Environmental Law (policymaking) (26), Environmental Law (litigation) (31), Family Law (18), Healthcare (17), Immigration (18), Microfinance/Microenterprise (22), Law Reform (15), and Transactional / Institutional Assistance to Non-Governmental Organizations (28). The number by each category represents the number of checks received by each. Thirty-eight firms selected Other and noted such areas as Criminal Law, Administrative Law, Tax Law, Regulatory Law, and Mining and Energy Law. C. Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs The law firms were asked to supply information about how, if at all, they have organized their pro bono programs. In particular, the survey sought information about who is responsible for the overall management (i.e., strategy, direction, budget determinations, resource allocation, etc.) of the firm s pro bono program. Firms were invited to check one or more of the following categories: All partners; Committee of partners; Pro bono committee; Pro bono partner/chairperson; Pro bono coordinator; Non-lawyer administrative personnel; 10

11 Other Firms also could indicate that they lacked a pro bono manager. All 59 respondents supplied this information. The chart below reveals the number of respondents that checked each category. Firms that selected Other wrote, for instance, Managing Partner or President of Pro Bono Foundation. Roughly 8.5% of the respondents reported a lack of a pro bono manager at this time. About 28.8% of respondents have elected to use a Pro bono committee as one focal point in charge of the overall management of the pro bono program. Number of Regional Respondents with these Actors in Charge of Pro Bono Program 5 No pro bono manager at this time 15 Pro bono partner/chairperson 11 All partners 9 Pro bono coordinator 8 Committee of partners 5 Other (please specify) 17 Pro bono committee The survey also sought a better understanding of who is responsible for the distribution of pro bono projects within the firms. Specifically, firms were invited to select one or more actor(s) from the categories listed above. Firms also could indicate that they lack a pro bono manager at this time. Again, all 59 firms responded. The table below indicates the number of respondents that checked each category. Pro bono coordinators are the distributors, exclusive or otherwise, at sixteen firms. Six firms selected Other and nearly all of them wrote Managing Partner. Three respondents, or approximately 5%, reported the lack of at least one focal point that is tasked with the distribution of pro bono work. 11

12 Finally, the survey probed whether the firms have a pro bono policy manual, which can be utilized as an internal guide to describe all procedural aspects of the law firm s pro bono program. Fifty-five of the 59 respondents answered this query. Nine firms have produced such a manual, while 46 have not. Several firms noted that an internal manual is under development. D. Types of and Sources for Pro Bono Work The survey gathered information about the specific areas of the law in which the law firms have performed pro bono work and the sources from which the respondents have received new pro bono opportunities. For the former, the survey presented a list of 23 practice areas and asked the firms to mark all of the practice areas in which the firm has done pro bono. The firms also could select Other and then supply any additional practice areas. All the respondents submitted this data. The bar chart below illustrates the top seven practice areas in which respondents have pro bono experience. These seven areas include the following (in order of most to least checks): Transactional/Institutional Support of NGOs, Corporate Law, Labor Law, Education, Individual Representation of Poor People, Microfinance / Microenterprise, and Family Law. 12

13 The chart below contains all 23 practice areas, plus presents the number of law firms that indicated pro bono experience within each area. Notably, 39 respondents (about 66%) reported pro bono experience in the area of Transactional/Institutional Support of Non-Governmental Organizations. Domestic Violence received the least number of checks with four. Eleven firms selected Other and listed such practice areas as Political Transparency, Tax Law, Estate Planning, and Criminal Law. Number of Regional Respondents Indicating Pro Bono Experience in these Legal Areas Anti-corruption Environmental Intellectual Property 6 11 Law (policymaking) Child Custody 22 Family Law 31 Labor Law 35 Corporate Law 12 Finance 16 Law Reform 19 Disability Rights 19 Healthcare 5 Mergers & Acquisitions 4 Domestic Violence 8 Human Rights 23 Microfinance/Microenterprise 28 Education 5 Immigration 18 Real Estate 5 Elder Law 5 Indigenous Rights 7 Securities 6 Environmental Law (litigation) 24 Individual Representation of Poor People 39 Transactional/Institutional Support of NGOs 11 Other 13

14 This next table contains the 23 practice areas before the firms as they checked their main practice areas and areas in which they have pro bono experience. It facilitates a side-by-side comparison of the number of regional respondents that checked the area as one of main practice as opposed to one of pro bono experience. The following ten legal areas received more checks as areas of pro bono experience than as fields of main practice: Child Custody, Disability Rights, Domestic Violence, Education, Family Law, Healthcare, Individual Representation of Poor People, Law Reform, Microfinance / Microenterprise, and Transactional/Institutional Support of NGOs. Legal Areas Number of Regional Respondents with Main Practices in these Legal Areas Number of Regional Respondents Indicating Pro Bono Experience in these Legal Areas Anti-corruption 12 6 Child Custody 6 15 Corporate Law Disability Rights 6 19 Domestic Violence 1 4 Education Elder Law 11 5 Environmental Law (litigation) 31 6 Environmental Law (policymaking) Family Law Finance Healthcare Human Rights 9 8 Immigration 18 5 Indigenous Rights 3 5 Individual Representation of Poor People 9 24 Intellectual Property Labor Law Law Reform Mergers & Acquisitions 50 5 Microfinance/Microenterprise Real Estate Securities 35 7 Transactional/Institutional Support of NGOs

15 The survey also sought information about the sources from which firms have identified new opportunities for pro bono work. The survey presented a list of 17 potential sources and asked the firms to mark all of the sources from which they have received pro bono work. The firms also could select Other and then type a response. All respondents provided this information. The chart below contains the 17 potential sources, plus presents the number of law firms that indicated usage of each source. Of note, 52 of 59 respondents reported non-profit organizations as a past source. Law firm s partners and associates received the second and third highest number of checks with 44 and 42, respectively. Seven firms selected Other and wrote, for instance, Clients and Pro Bono Foundation. Not one firm checked Online databases. Number of Regional Respondents that Have Found New Pro Bono Opportunities from these Sources 11 Professors or other Religious Attorneys from the public 19 4 academics organizations sector 30 Social services organizations 19 The Bar Association 4 2 Radio 52 Non-profit Your law firm's Television 44 3 organizations partners 9 Government Your law firm's 42 agencies associates 6 Newspaper 0 Judges 30 Your law firm's staff 0 Online databases 0 Court personnel 9 Attorneys from the private sector 7 Other E. Selection and Oversight of Pro Bono Work The questionnaire sought more information about the ways in which the law firms select pro bono cases and oversee pro bono projects. In particular, the survey queried whether the firms have a formal process for selecting specific pro bono opportunities or projects. Twenty-nine regional respondents indicated their firms have formal processes for selecting pro bono work. Thirty firms said they lack formal processes for selecting pro bono cases. The survey also collected information about the factors that the law firm presently considers when selecting pro bono opportunities or projects. The survey presented the following potential factors: 4 The Bar Association is meant to be a general reference to this type of organization. 15

16 Nature of the case (e.g., discrimination, environmental issues); Form of pro bono assistance to be provided (e.g., legal advice, legal representation, policy work); Legal expertise required; Availability of other resources which are better suited to assist this specific client; Level of public interest (i.e., matter will affect large numbers of people; case raises matters of broad public concern); Potential conflicts of interest; Actual conflicts of interest; Availability of firm resources; Projected fixed costs of providing assistance; Whether matter involves particular client group (e.g., women, persons with disabilities, homeless persons). 5 Respondents were asked to mark all the factors that the firm presently considers. All respondents provided this information. The chart below illustrates that 56 respondents reported the consideration of the Nature of the case when selecting new pro bono work. Forty-nine respondents indicated the consideration of Legal expertise required and Form of pro bono assistance to be provided. Projected fixed costs of providing assistance received the least checks (17). 5 The order of this list corresponds with the categories on the vertical side (y-axis) of the associated chart. 16

17 F. Tracking and Reporting Pro Bono Work The survey collected responses about how the firms track the number of pro bono hours performed and how the firms report the achievements of their pro bono programs. The firms were asked to note the person(s) who are responsible for periodically tallying the number of pro bono hours performed by all employees at the firm. They were presented with the following list and asked to check all that apply: Committee of partners; Pro bono committee; Pro bono partner/chairperson; Pro bono coordinator; Non-lawyer administrative personnel Firms also could select Currently, our firm does not keep such a tally or mark Other and type a response. All respondents answered this question. The graph below illustrates that Pro bono coordinators are most commonly responsible for this task. Firms that selected Other indicated such titles as Managing Partners or discussed the use of computer programs that automatically calculate the data. Many firms employ one or more strategies for promoting the firm s pro bono 17

18 opportunities, efforts, and successes. Twelve regional respondents noted that they publish an electronic report on their pro bono work. Four firms indicated that they publish a written report. Forty-four firms noted that such a report, electronic or otherwise, does not exist at their firms. Thirty-two firms circulate firm-wide s. Seven respondents publish newsletters. Seven firms give pro bono awards. One firm holds breakfasts at which the firm celebrates its pro bono successes. Several firms include oral reports or updates at firm meetings. G. Pro Bono Programs as they Relate to Associate Experiences The survey pursued more information about how, if at all, associates are being affected by the presence of a pro bono program within their firms. The firms were asked to indicate whether pro bono participation is considered in determining salary, bonuses, and career advancement of the associates at the firm. Twenty-one respondents indicated that pro bono participation is considered, while thirty-six respondents reported that such participation is not taken into account. Two firms provided no response. The firms also were questioned about whether pro bono hours are included in evaluations of associate performance. Thirty-one regional firms reported such hours are included, while twenty-six firms indicated they are not. Two firms did not answer the question. The survey probed whether associates participating in pro bono projects have access to all the support resources of the firm. Fifty-seven respondents with associates reported that all associates undertaking pro bono work have full access to the firm s resources. H. Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work The questionnaire probed the challenges faced by law firms throughout the region as they seek to increase pro bono work. The survey included the following potential challenges: Language barriers; Not consistent with firm / employer culture; Not within relevant specialization and expertise; Time constraints; Taxation; Bad for career prospects; Excessive regulation and control; Lack of financial resources and support; Lack of malpractice insurance and coverage; Lack of suitable opportunities Firms were asked to check all serious challenges experienced to date. Firms also could select 18

19 Other and type in a response. 6 Fifty-five respondents answered this question. The chart below illustrates that 41 (of 55) respondents report Time constraints as a serious challenge to pro bono participation. Twenty-one firms considered Not within relevant specialization and expertise to be a serious impediment. Eight firms that selected Other highlighted such challenges as a lack of conscientiousness, the difficulty of finding and screening new cases, and the local bar s regulatory environment. I. Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use The Vance Center solicited feedback about how its staff can effectively support the firms as the latter undertake pro bono work. The survey presented the firms with a list of potential support methods. The firms were asked to check all methods which, from their perspectives, would be effective support strategies and also were invited to type their own suggestions. The list included the following: Information sharing on best practices via blogs and website; Working with bar associations to improve regulatory/enabling environment; Annual conferences/roundtables; Video conferences for associates; Regional working groups; 6 The order of this list corresponds with the categories on the vertical side (y-axis) of the associated chart. 19

20 Other conferences on pro bono and legal aid; Helpline/mentoring support; Partnerships with USA/International law firms to discuss pro bono; Partnerships with USA/International NGOs to discuss pro bono; Technical assistance materials on institutionalizing pro bono; Exchange of information on projects being done regionally Fifty-seven firms answered this question. The graph below illustrates the seven support strategies that received the most checks from the regional respondents. Information sharing on best practices via blogs and website received the most checks (40). 20

21 III. COUNTRY REPORTS A. ARGENTINA 1. Submission Rate As of October 2009, 16 Argentine law firms had signed the PBDA, all of whom were sent the survey. Ten firms (the respondents ) completed the survey, resulting in a submission rate of 62.5%. 2. Employment Data and Major Practice Areas The survey sought profiles of the law firms. The survey asked respondents to indicate the total numbers of attorneys, partners, associates, and special attorneys (e.g., counsels, of counsels, part-time attorneys) at the firm as of December 31, All respondents provided this information. The employment data reveals that the respondents collectively represent 886 attorneys, who together would complete 17,720 hours of pro bono service should each attorney complete 20 hours of pro bono work between January 1, 2010 and December 31, On average, the respondents have 88.6 total attorneys, 15.5 partners, 70.9 associates, and 9.9 special attorneys. The survey also invited respondents to identify their major departments or practice areas from a prepared list of 23 practices areas or to select Other and type a response. All ten firms responded. The table below highlights the seven practice areas that received the most checks by the respondents. These seven areas include the following (in order of most to least checks): Corporate Law, Labor Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Finance, Real Estate, Intellectual Property, and Transactional / Institutional Assistance to Non-Governmental Organizations. Notably, nine of the ten firms have Corporate Law practices. 21

22 The prepared list also included the following specialties: Anti-corruption, Child Custody, Disability Rights, Domestic Violence, Education, Elder Law, Environmental Law (policymaking), Environmental Law (litigation), Family Law, Healthcare, Human Rights, Immigration, Indigenous Rights, Microfinance/Microenterprise, Law Reform, Individual Representation of Poor People, and Securities. No respondent reported the presence of Domestic Violence, Elder Law or Indigenous Rights practices within their firms. Child Custody, Education, Human Rights, and Immigration were selected by one respondent each. Six firms noted Other and noted such areas as Criminal Law, Administrative Law, Regulatory Law, and Mining and Energy Law. 3. Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs The law firms were asked to supply information about how, if at all, they have organized their pro bono programs. In particular, the survey sought information about who is responsible for the overall management (i.e., strategy, direction, budget determinations, resource allocation, etc.) of the firm s pro bono program. Firms were invited to check one or more of the following categories: All partners; Committee of partners; Pro bono committee; 22

23 Pro bono partner/chairperson; Pro bono coordinator; Non-lawyer administrative personnel; Other Firms also could indicate that they lacked a pro bono manager. All ten respondents supplied this information. The chart below reveals the number of respondents that checked each category. Firms that selected Other wrote Managing Partner. The designation of a Pro bono partner / chairperson and/or a Pro bono committee as the actor(s) responsible for managing the pro bono program is a prevailing tendency amongst the respondents. No respondent reported the absence of anyone who is tasked with the overall management of the pro bono program. Number of Argentine Respondents with these Actors in Charge of Pro Bono Program 0 No pro bono manager at this time 4 Pro bono partner/chairperson 0 All partners 2 Pro bono coordinator 1 Committee of partners 2 Other (please specify) 4 Pro bono committee The survey also sought a better understanding of who is responsible for the distribution of pro bono projects within the firms. Specifically, firms were invited to select one or more actor(s) from the categories listed above. Firms also could indicate that they lack a pro bono manager at this time. Again, all ten firms responded. The table below indicates the number of respondents that checked each category. Pro bono coordinators are the distributors, exclusive or otherwise, at four firms. Firms selecting Other wrote Managing Partner. No one reported the lack of someone tasked with the distribution of pro bono work. 23

24 Finally, the survey probed whether the firms have a pro bono policy manual, which can be utilized as an internal guide to describe all procedural aspects of the law firm s pro bono program. All ten firms responded to this query. One firm has produced such a manual. Another firm reports that such a manual is under development. 4. Types of and Sources for Pro Bono Work The survey gathered information about the specific areas of the law in which the law firms have performed pro bono work and the sources from which the respondents have received new pro bono opportunities. For the former, the survey presented a list of 23 practice areas and asked the firms to mark all of the practice areas in which the firm has done pro bono. The firms also could select Other and then supply any additional practice areas. All the respondents submitted this data. The chart below contains the 23 practice areas, plus presents the number of law firms that indicated pro bono experience within each area. Notably, eight Argentine respondents reported participation in pro bono work in the area of Transactional/Institutional Support of Non- Governmental Organizations. No respondents indicated work in the areas of Domestic Violence, Finance, Immigration, Indigenous Rights, Mergers & Acquisitions or Real Estate. One firm selected Other and noted its work in the area of Political Transparency. 24

25 Number of Argentine Respondents Indicating Pro Bono Experience in these Legal Areas Anti-corruption Environmental Intellectual Property 2 1 Law (policymaking) 3 3 Child Custody 6 Family Law 4 Labor Law 4 Corporate Law 0 Finance 1 Law Reform 6 Disability Rights 5 Healthcare 0 Mergers & Acquisitions 0 Domestic Violence 1 Human Rights 3 Microfinance/Microenterprise 5 Education 0 Immigration 0 Real Estate 0 Elder Law 0 Indigenous Rights 1 Securities 1 Environmental Law (litigation) 6 Individual Representation of Poor People 8 Transactional/Institutional Support of NGOs 1 Other This report previously noted that five or more respondents have main practices in the areas of Corporate Law, Labor Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Finance, and Real Estate. Each one of these legal areas received less than five checks that indicate the areas of their pro bono experience. While just one respondent reported the presence of an Education practice, five firms indicated experience in Education pro bono work. Finally, respondents indicated neither the existence of Elder Law, Domestic Violence or Indigenous Rights practices nor pro bono experience therein. 7 The survey also sought information about the sources from which firms have identified new opportunities for pro bono work. The survey presented a list of 17 potential sources and asked the firms to mark all of the sources from which they have received pro bono work. The firms also could select Other and then type a response. All respondents answered this request. The chart below contains the 17 potential sources, plus presents the number of law firms that indicated usage of each source. Of note, all ten respondents reported non-profit organizations as a past source. Nine firms marked the Bar Association as a previous means of obtaining new pro bono work. 8 Seven out of ten firms have received work from religious organizations and the firms associates. One firm selected Other and wrote Clients. 7 It would be helpful to have a better understanding of what factors motivated or caused each of the Argentine respondents to do pro bono work in certain areas of the law as opposed to others. 8 The Bar Association is meant to be a general reference to this type of organization. 25

26 Number of Argentine Respondents that Have Found New Pro Bono Opportunities from these Sources 0 Professors or other Religious Attorneys from the public 7 1 academics organizations sector 6 Social services organizations 9 The Bar Association 0 Radio 10 Non-profit Your law firm's Television 6 0 organizations partners 0 Government Your law firm's 7 agencies associates 3 Newspaper 0 Judges 4 Your law firm's staff 0 Online databases 0 Court personnel 2 Attorneys from the private sector 1 Other 5. Selection and Oversight of Pro Bono Work The questionnaire sought more information about the ways in which the law firms select pro bono cases and oversee pro bono projects. In particular, the survey queried whether the law firms have a formal process for selecting specific pro bono opportunities or projects. Six Argentine respondents said that their firms lack formal processes. The other four indicated that there are formal processes at their firms. The survey also collected information about the factors that the law firm presently considers when selecting pro bono opportunities or projects. The survey presented the following potential factors: Nature of the case (e.g., discrimination, environmental issues); Form of pro bono assistance to be provided (e.g., legal advice, legal representation, policy work); Legal expertise required; Availability of other resources which are better suited to assist this specific client; Level of public interest (i.e., matter will affect large numbers of people; case raises matters of broad public concern); Potential conflicts of interest; Actual conflicts of interest; Availability of firm resources; Projected fixed costs of providing assistance; Whether matter involves particular client group (e.g., women, persons with 26

27 disabilities, homeless persons). 9 Respondents were asked to mark all the factors that the firm presently considers. All respondents provided this information. The chart below illustrates that nine of the ten respondents reported the consideration of Nature of the case and Necessary legal expertise when selecting new pro bono work. Six or more respondents also indicated the consideration of the following additional factors: Form of pro bono assistance to be provided; Level of public interest; Potential conflicts of interest; Availability of other resources which are better suited to assist this specific client; Availability of firm resources; and Whether matter involves particular client group. 6. Tracking and Reporting of Pro Bono Work The survey collected responses about how the firms track the number of pro bono hours performed and how the firms report the achievements of their pro bono programs. The firms were asked to note the person(s) who are responsible for periodically tallying the number of pro bono hours performed by all employees at the firm. They were presented with the following list and asked to check all that apply: Committee of partners; 9 The order of this list corresponds with the categories on the vertical side (y-axis) of the associated chart. 27

28 Pro bono committee; Pro bono partner/chairperson; Pro bono coordinator; Non-lawyer administrative personnel Firms also could select Currently, our firm does not keep such a tally or mark Other and type a response. All respondents answered this question. The graph below illustrates that Pro bono coordinators are most commonly responsible for this task amongst the respondents. Firms that selected Other indicated that a Managing Partner is in charge or that a computer program automatically calculates the data. All of the firms employ one or more strategies for promoting the firm s pro bono opportunities, efforts, and successes. Two of the Argentine respondents noted that they publish a report on their pro bono work. The other eight respondents indicated that such a report does not exist at their firms. Six of the ten circulate firm-wide s. One firm holds breakfasts at which the firm celebrates its pro bono successes. Another firm includes an oral report about the firm s pro bono work during its year-end meeting. 7. Pro Bono Programs as They Relate to Associate Experiences The survey pursued more information about how, if at all, associates are being affected by the presence of a pro bono program within their firms. 28

29 The firms were asked to indicate whether pro bono participation is considered in determining salary, bonuses, and career advancement of the associates at the firm. Two Argentine respondents indicated that pro bono participation is considered, while eight respondents reported that such participation is not taken into account. The firms also were questioned about whether pro bono hours are included in evaluations of associate performance. Four Argentine firms reported such hours are included, while six firms indicated they are not. The survey probed whether associates participating in pro bono projects have access to all the support resources of the firm. All respondents with associates reported that all associates undertaking pro bono work have full access to the firm s support resources. 8. Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work The questionnaire probed the challenges faced by law firms in Argentina as they participate in pro bono work. The survey included the following potential challenges: Language barriers; Not consistent with firm / employer culture; Not within relevant specialization and expertise; Time constraints; Taxation; Bad for career prospects; Excessive regulation and control; Lack of financial resources and support; Lack of malpractice insurance and coverage; Lack of suitable opportunities Firms were asked to check all serious challenges experienced to date. Firms also could select Other and type in a response. 10 All ten respondents answered this question. The chart below illustrates that seven respondents report Time constraints as a serious challenge to pro bono participation. Four firms considered Not within relevant specialization and expertise to be a serious impediment. The two firms that selected Other highlighted a lack of conscientiousness and the difficulty of finding and screening new cases. 10 The order of this list corresponds with the categories on the vertical side (y-axis) of the associated chart. 29

30 9. Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use The Vance Center solicited feedback about how its staff can effectively support the firms as the latter undertake pro bono work. The survey presented the firms with a list of potential support methods. The firms were asked to check all methods which, from their perspectives, would be effective support strategies and also were invited to type their own suggestions. The list included the following: Information sharing on best practices via blogs and website; Working with bar associations to improve regulatory/enabling environment; Annual conferences/roundtables; Video conferences for associates; Regional working groups; Other conferences on pro bono and legal aid; Helpline/mentoring support; Partnerships with USA/International law firms to discuss pro bono; Partnerships with USA/International NGOs to discuss pro bono; Technical assistance materials on institutionalizing pro bono; Exchange of information on projects being done regionally All ten firms answered this question. 30

31 The graph below illustrates the seven support strategies that received the most checks from the Argentine respondents. Working with bar associations to improve regulatory/enabling environment received the most checks (eight). 31

32 III. COUNTRY REPORTS B. CHILE 1. Submission Rate As of October 2009, 20 Chilean law firms had signed the PBDA, all of whom were sent the survey. Eight firms (the respondents ) completed the survey, resulting in a submission rate of 40%. 2. Employment Data and Major Practice Areas The survey sought a profile of the law firms. The survey asked respondents to indicate the total numbers of attorneys, partners, associates, and special attorneys (e.g., counsels, of counsels, part-time attorneys) at the firm as of December 31, All respondents provided this information. The employment data reveals that the respondents collectively represent 383 attorneys, who together would complete 7,660 hours of pro bono service should each attorney complete 20 hours of pro bono work between January 1, 2010 and December 31, On average, the respondents have 47.9 total attorneys, 10.3 partners, 36.1 associates, and 2.8 special attorneys. The survey also invited respondents to identify their major departments or practice areas from a prepared list of 23 practices areas or to select Other and type a response. All eight firms responded. The table below highlights the seven practice areas that received the most checks by the respondents. These seven areas include the following (in order of most to least checks): Labor Law, Corporate Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Finance, Real Estate, Securities, and Environmental Law (policymaking). Notably, seven of the eight respondents have Labor Law, Corporate Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Finance, and Real Estate practices. 32

33 The prepared list also included the following specialties: Anti-corruption, Child Custody, Disability Rights, Domestic Violence, Education, Elder Law, Environmental Law (litigation), Family Law, Healthcare, Human Rights, Immigration, Indigenous Rights, Intellectual Property, Microfinance/Microenterprise, Law Reform, Individual Representation of Poor People, and Transactional / Institutional Support of Non-Governmental Organizations. No respondent indicated the presence of Child Custody, Domestic Violence, Elder Law, Healthcare, Human Rights or Indigenous Rights practices within their firms. Disability Rights, Education, Family Law, Healthcare, Immigration, and Law Reform were selected by one respondent each. Five firms checked Other and noted such areas as Free Competition, Administrative Law, Natural Resources, Arbitration, and Entertainment and Sports Law. 3. Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs The law firms were asked to supply information about how, if at all, they have organized their pro bono programs. In particular, the survey sought information about who is responsible for the overall management (i.e., strategy, direction, budget determinations, resource allocation, etc.) of the firm s pro bono program. Firms were invited to check one or more of the following categories: All partners; Committee of partners; Pro bono committee; 33

34 Pro bono partner/chairperson; Pro bono coordinator; Non-lawyer administrative personnel; Other Firms also could indicate that they lacked a pro bono manager. All eight respondents supplied this information. The chart below reveals the number of respondents that checked each category. Making the Pro bono committee at least one of the actors responsible for managing the pro bono program is a prevailing tendency amongst the respondents. No respondent reported the lack of at least one actor which is tasked with the program s overall management. 0 Number of Chilean Respondents with these Actors in Charge of Pro Bono Program No pro bono manager at this time 1 Pro bono partner/chairperson 0 All partners 3 Pro bono coordinator 2 Committee of partners 0 Other (please specify) 6 Pro bono committee The survey also sought a better understanding of who is responsible for the distribution of pro bono projects within the firms. Specifically, firms were invited to select one or more actor(s) from the categories listed above. Firms also could indicate that they lack a pro bono manager at this time. Again, all eight firms responded. The table below indicates the number of respondents that checked each category. Pro bono coordinators are a distributor, exclusive or otherwise, at six firms. No respondent selected Other or reported the lack of at least one actor which is tasked with the distribution of pro bono work. 34

35 Finally, the survey probed whether the firms have a pro bono policy manual, which can be utilized as an internal guide to describe all procedural aspects of the law firm s pro bono program. One firm has produced such a manual. Six firms reported that they have no such manual. Two of those six indicated that such a manual is under development. 4. Types of and Sources for Pro Bono Work The survey gathered information about the specific areas of the law in which the law firms have performed pro bono work and the sources from which the respondents have received new pro bono opportunities. For the former, the survey presented a list of 23 practice areas and asked the firms to mark all of the practice areas in which the firm has done pro bono. The firms also could select Other and then supply any additional practice areas. All the respondents submitted this data. The chart below contains the 23 practice areas, plus presents the number of law firms that indicated pro bono experience within each area. Notably, all areas of the law received at least one check. All eight Chilean respondents reported participation in pro bono work in the area of Corporate Law. One firm selected Other and noted its work in the area of Tax Law. 35

36 Number of Chilean Respondents with Pro Bono Experience in these Legal Areas Environmental Anti-corruption 0 3 Law 1 Intellectual Property (policymaking) 3 Child Custody 4 Family Law 7 Labor Law 8 Corporate Law 2 Finance 3 Law Reform 3 Disability Rights 3 Healthcare 1 Mergers & Acquisitions 2 Domestic Violence 0 Human Rights 6 Microfinance/Microenterprise 5 Education 0 Immigration 2 Real Estate 0 Elder Law 1 Indigenous Rights 1 Securities 0 Environmental Law (litigation) 5 Individual Representation of Poor People 6 Transactional/Institutional Support of NGOs 1 Other This report previously highlighted that seven of the eight respondents have Labor Law, Corporate Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Finance, and Real Estate practices. Aside from Corporate and Labor Law, these legal areas received two or fewer checks that indicate the areas of their pro bono experience. While only one respondent reported the presence of an Education practice, five firms indicated pro bono experience in that field. 11 The survey also sought information about the sources from which firms have identified new opportunities for pro bono work. The survey presented a list of 17 potential sources and asked the firms to mark all of the sources from which they have received pro bono work. The firms also could select Other and then type a response. All the respondents supplied this information. The chart below contains the 17 potential sources, plus presents the number of law firms that indicated usage of each source. Of note, seven respondents reported non-profit organizations and the firm s partners as a past source. Six firms indicated its associates and social services organizations as previous means of obtaining new pro bono work. 12 One firm selected Other and noted the use of the Fundación Pro Bono and AmCham (American Chilean Chamber of Commerce). 11 It would be helpful to have a better understanding of what factors motivated or caused each of the Chilean respondents to do pro bono work in certain areas of the law as opposed to others. 12 The Bar Association is meant to be a general reference to this type of organization. 36

37 Number of Chilean Respondents that Have Found New Pro Bono Opportunities from these Sources 1 Professors or other Religious Attorneys from the public 2 0 academics organizations sector 6 Social services organizations 1 The Bar Association 0 Radio 7 Non-profit Your law firm's Television 7 0 organizations partners 4 Government Your law firm's 6 agencies associates 0 Newspaper 0 Judges 2 Your law firm's staff 0 Online databases 0 Court personnel 0 Attorneys from the private sector 1 Other 5. Selection and Oversight of Pro Bono Work The questionnaire sought more information about the ways in which the law firms select pro bono cases and oversee pro bono projects. In particular, the survey queried whether the law firms have a formal process for selecting specific pro bono opportunities or projects. Six Chilean respondents said that their firms have formal processes. The other two indicated that there are no formal processes. The survey also collected information about the factors that the law firm presently considers when selecting pro bono opportunities or projects. The survey presented the following potential factors: Nature of the case (e.g., discrimination, environmental issues); Form of pro bono assistance to be provided (e.g., legal advice, legal representation, policy work); Legal expertise required; Availability of other resources which are better suited to assist this specific client; Level of public interest (i.e., matter will affect large numbers of people; case raises matters of broad public concern); Potential conflicts of interest; Actual conflicts of interest; Availability of firm resources; Projected fixed costs of providing assistance; Whether matter involves particular client group (e.g., women, persons with disabilities, homeless persons) The order of this list corresponds with the categories on the vertical side (y-axis) of the associated chart. 37

38 Respondents were asked to mark all the factors that the firm presently considers. All respondents provided this information. The chart below illustrates that all respondents consider Nature of the case, Form of pro bono assistance to be provided, Necessary legal expertise, and Potential conflicts of interest when selecting new pro bono work. Five or more respondents also indicated the consideration of the following additional factors: Level of public interest; Actual conflicts of interest; and Whether matter involves particular client group. 6. Tracking and Reporting of Pro Bono Work The survey collected responses about how the firms track the number of pro bono hours performed and how the firms report the achievements of their pro bono programs. The firms were asked to note the person(s) who are responsible for periodically tallying the number of pro bono hours performed by all employees at the firm. They were presented with the following list and asked to check all that apply: Committee of partners; Pro bono committee; Pro bono partner/chairperson; 38

39 Pro bono coordinator; Non-lawyer administrative personnel Firms also could select Currently, our firm does not keep such a tally or mark Other and type a response. All respondents answered this question. The graph below illustrates that Pro bono coordinators are most commonly responsible, exclusive or otherwise, responsible for this task amongst the respondents. All of the firms employ one or more strategies for promoting the firm s pro bono opportunities, efforts and successes. Two Chilean respondents noted that they publish a report on their pro bono work. Seven respondents circulate firm-wide s. Three firms give pro bono awards or prizes. One firm creates an annual pro bono newsletter. 7. Pro Bono Programs as They Relate to Associate Experiences The survey pursued more information about how, if at all, associates are being affected by the presence of a pro bono program within their firms. The firms were asked to indicate whether pro bono participation is considered in determining salary, bonuses, and career advancement of the associates at the firm. Four Chilean respondents indicated that pro bono participation is considered, while four respondents reported 39

40 that such participation is not taken into account. The firms also were questioned about whether pro bono hours are included in evaluations of associate performance. Four Chilean firms reported such hours are included, while four firms indicated they are not. The survey probed whether associates participating in pro bono projects have access to all the support resources of the firm. All respondents with associates reported that all associates undertaking pro bono work have full access to the firm s support resources. 8. Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work The questionnaire probed the challenges faced by law firms in Chile as they participate in pro bono work. The survey included the following potential challenges: Language barriers; Not consistent with firm / employer culture; Not within relevant specialization and expertise; Time constraints; Taxation; Bad for career prospects; Excessive regulation and control; Lack of financial resources and support; Lack of malpractice insurance and coverage; Lack of suitable opportunities Firms were asked to check all serious challenges experienced to date. Firms also could select Other and type in a response. 14 All eight respondents answered this question. The chart below illustrates that seven respondents report Time constraints as a serious challenge to pro bono participation. Three firms considered Not within relevant specialization and expertise to be a serious impediment. Two respondents selected Not consistent with firm / employer culture. The two firms that selected Other wrote about the need to look for pro bono cases that correspond to the firm s practice area, the general commitment to pro bono, and the lack of time for the pro bono coordinator to do this work. 14 The order of this list corresponds with the categories on the vertical side (y-axis) of the associated chart. 40

41 9. Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use The Vance Center solicited feedback about how its staff can effectively support the firms as the latter undertake pro bono work. The survey presented the firms with a list of potential support methods. The firms were asked to check all methods which, from their perspectives, would be effective support strategies and also were invited to type their own suggestions. The list included the following: Information sharing on best practices via blogs and website; Working with bar associations to improve regulatory/enabling environment; Annual conferences/roundtables; Video conferences for associates; Regional working groups; Other conferences on pro bono and legal aid; Helpline/mentoring support; Partnerships with USA/International law firms to discuss pro bono; Partnerships with USA/International NGOs to discuss pro bono; Technical assistance materials on institutionalizing pro bono; Exchange of information on projects being done regionally Eight firms answered this question. 41

42 The graph below illustrates the seven support strategies that received the most checks from the Chilean respondents. Information sharing on best practices via blogs and website received the most checks (seven). 42

43 III. COUNTRY REPORTS C. COLOMBIA 1. Submission Rate As of October 2009, 42 Colombian law firms had signed the PBDA, 41 of which were sent the survey. Ten firms (the respondents ) completed the survey, resulting in a submission rate of 24.4%. 2. Employment Data and Major Practice Areas The survey sought a profile of the law firms. The survey asked respondents to indicate the total numbers of attorneys, partners, associates, and special attorneys (e.g., counsels, of counsels, part-time attorneys) at the firm as of December 31, All respondents provided this information. The employment data reveals that the respondents collectively represent 300 attorneys, who together would complete 6,000 hours of pro bono service should each attorney complete 20 hours of pro bono work between January 1, 2010 and December 31, On average, the respondents have 30.0 total attorneys, 7.0 partners, 22.3 associates, and 8.9 special attorneys. The survey also invited respondents to identify their major departments or practice areas from a prepared list of 23 practices areas or to select Other and type a response. All ten firms responded. The table below highlights the seven practice areas that received the most checks by the respondents. These seven areas include the following (in order of most to least checks): Corporate Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Finance, Environmental Law (litigation), Intellectual Property, Labor Law, and Securities. Notably, nine firms have Corporate Law and Mergers & Acquisitions practices. 43

44 The prepared list also included the following specialties: Anti-corruption, Child Custody, Disability Rights, Domestic Violence, Education, Elder Law, Environmental Law (policymaking), Family Law, Healthcare, Human Rights, Immigration, Indigenous Rights, Law Reform, Individual Representation of Poor People, Microfinance/Microenterprise, and Transactional / Institutional Assistance to Non-Governmental Organizations. Child Custody, Domestic Violence, and Individual Representation of Poor People had the least number of checks: none. Elder Law, Human Rights, and Indigenous Rights each had one check. Seven firms indicated Other, indicating such areas as Energy Law, Estate Planning, and Tax Law. 3. Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs The law firms were asked to supply information about how, if at all, they have organized their pro bono programs. In particular, the survey sought information about who is responsible for the overall management (i.e., strategy, direction, budget determinations, resource allocation, etc.) of the firm s pro bono program. Firms were invited to check one or more of the following categories: All partners; Committee of partners; Pro bono committee; Pro bono partner/chairperson; Pro bono coordinator; 44

45 Non-lawyer administrative personnel; Other Firms also could indicate that they lacked a pro bono manager. All ten respondents supplied this information. The chart below reveals the number of respondents that checked each category. Making all partners responsible for managing the pro bono program is a prevailing tendency amongst the respondents. No respondent reported the lack of at least one actor who is tasked with the program s overall management. 0 Number of Colombian Respondents with these Actors in Charge of Pro Bono Program No pro bono manager at this time 2 Pro bono partner/chairperson 5 All partners 1 Pro bono coordinator 1 Committee of partners 0 Other (please specify) 1 Pro bono committee The survey also sought a better understanding of who is responsible for the distribution of pro bono projects within the firms. Specifically, firms were invited to select one or more actor(s) from the categories listed above. Firms also could indicate that they lack a pro bono manager at this time. Again, all ten firms responded. The table below indicates the number of respondents that checked each category. No respondent checked more than one category. Pro bono coordinators are the distributors at four firms, while all partners are the distributors at three. One firm chose Other and wrote Pro Bono Partner Coordinator. No respondent reported the lack of at least one actor who is tasked with the distribution of pro bono work. 45

46 Finally, the survey probed whether the firms have a pro bono policy manual, which can be utilized as an internal guide to describe all procedural aspects of the law firm s pro bono program. Ten firms responded to this query. One firm has produced such a manual, while nine checked that they have not. One firm added that such a manual is under development. Another said that a manual exists but it has not been formally adopted. 4. Types of and Sources for Pro Bono Work The survey gathered information about the specific areas of the law in which the law firms have performed pro bono work and the sources from which the respondents have received new pro bono opportunities. For the former, the survey presented a list of 23 practice areas and asked the firms to mark all of the practice areas in which the firm has done pro bono. The firms also could select Other and then supply any additional practice areas. All the respondents submitted this data. The chart below contains the 23 practice areas, plus presents the number of law firms that indicated pro bono experience within each area. Notably, all areas of the law received at least one check. Three firms selected Other and noted areas such as Estate Planning and Tax Law. 46

47 Number of Colombian Respondents with Pro Bono Experience in these Legal Areas Environmental Anti-corruption 1 1 Law 5 Intellectual Property (policymaking) 0 Child Custody 0 Family Law 6 Labor Law 9 Corporate Law 2 Finance 4 Law Reform 3 Disability Rights 3 Healthcare 2 Mergers & Acquisitions 0 Domestic Violence 1 Human Rights 4 Microfinance/Microenterprise 6 Education 0 Immigration 3 Real Estate 1 Elder Law 1 Indigenous Rights 1 Securities 1 Environmental Law (litigation) 3 Individual Representation of Poor People 7 Transactional/Institutional Support of NGOs 3 Other This report previously highlighted that nine respondents have main practices in the areas of Corporate Law, and Mergers & Acquisitions. Six firms, when invited to reveal the nature of their pro bono experience, checked Corporate Law. While five respondents reported the presence of Intellectual Property, Labor Law, and Environmental Law (litigation) as main practices, just one firm indicated pro bono experience in the area of Environmental Law (litigation). 15 The number of checks for Intellectual Property remained the same (five) while Labor Law received one additional mark, for a total of six. The survey also sought information about the sources from which firms have identified new opportunities for pro bono work. The survey presented a list of 17 potential sources and asked the firms to mark all of the sources from which they have received pro bono work. The firms also could select Other and then type a response. All the respondents supplied this information. The chart below contains the 17 potential sources, plus presents the number of law firms that indicated usage of each source. Of note, all ten respondents reported non-profit organizations as a past source. Law firm s partners and associates received checks from eight firms. 16 Two firms selected Other, writing Our website and Pro Bono Foundation as other sources. 15 It would be helpful to have a better understanding of what factors motivated or caused each of the Colombian respondents to do pro bono work in certain areas of the law as opposed to others. 16 The Bar Association is meant to be a general reference to this type of organization. 47

48 Number of Colombian Respondents that Have Found New Pro Bono Opportunities from these Sources 2 Professors or other Religious Attorneys from the public 1 0 academics organizations sector 4 Social services organizations 1 The Bar Association 1 Radio 10 Non-profit Your law firm's Television 8 1 organizations partners 3 Government Your law firm's 8 agencies associates 1 Newspaper 0 Judges 5 Your law firm's staff 0 Online databases 0 Court personnel 2 Attorneys from the private sector 2 Other 5. Selection and Oversight of Pro Bono Work The questionnaire sought more information about the ways in which the law firms select pro bono cases and oversee pro bono projects. In particular, the survey queried whether the law firms have a formal process for selecting specific pro bono opportunities or projects. Eight Colombian respondents said that their firms lack formal processes. The other two indicated that there are formal processes. The survey also collected information about the factors that the law firm presently considers when selecting pro bono opportunities or projects. The survey presented the following potential factors: Nature of the case (e.g., discrimination, environmental issues); Form of pro bono assistance to be provided (e.g., legal advice, legal representation, policy work); Legal expertise required; Availability of other resources which are better suited to assist this specific client; Level of public interest (i.e., matter will affect large numbers of people; case raises matters of broad public concern); Potential conflicts of interest; Actual conflicts of interest; Availability of firm resources; Projected fixed costs of providing assistance; Whether matter involves particular client group (e.g., women, persons with disabilities, homeless persons) The order of this list corresponds with the categories on the vertical side (y-axis) of the associated chart. 48

49 Respondents were asked to mark all the factors that the firm presently considers. All respondents provided this information. The chart below illustrates that all respondents consider Nature of the case; Legal expertise required; and Availability of firm resources when selecting new pro bono work. Eight or more respondents indicated the consideration of the following additional factors: Actual conflicts of interest; Form of pro bono assistance to be provided; and Potential conflicts of interest. 6. Tracking and Reporting of Pro Bono Work The survey collected responses about how the firms track the number of pro bono hours performed and how the firms report the achievements of their pro bono programs. The firms were asked to note the person(s) who are responsible for periodically tallying the number of pro bono hours performed by all employees at the firm. They were presented with the following list and asked to check all that apply: Committee of partners; Pro bono committee; Pro bono partner/chairperson; Pro bono coordinator; Non-lawyer administrative personnel 49

50 Firms also could select Currently, our firm does not keep such a tally or mark Other and type a response. All respondents answered this question. The graph below illustrates that Administrative personnel (non-lawyers) are the most common actor responsible for this task amongst the respondents, followed by Pro bono coordinators. With regard to promotion efforts, several respondents employ one or more strategies to promote the firm s pro bono opportunities, efforts, and successes. One respondent noted that it publishes an electronic report on its pro bono work. Seven firms indicated they publish neither an electronic nor written report. Of the seven respondents who answered the relevant question, four firms shared that they circulate firm-wide s. One firm gives pro bono awards. 7. Pro Bono Programs as They Relate to Associate Experiences The survey pursued more information about how, if at all, associates are being affected by the presence of a pro bono program within their firms. The firms were asked to indicate whether pro bono participation is considered in determining salary, bonuses, and career advancement of the associates at the firm. Three respondents indicated that pro bono participation is considered, while six respondents reported that such participation is not taken into account. The firms also were questioned about whether pro bono hours are included in evaluations 50

51 of associate performance. Three Colombian firms reported such hours are included, while six firms indicated they are not. The survey probed whether associates participating in pro bono projects have access to all the support resources of the firm. Nine respondents answered the question. All firms reported that associates with pro bono work have full access to the firm s support resources. 8. Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work The questionnaire probed the challenges faced by law firms in Colombia as they participate in pro bono work. The survey included the following potential challenges: Language barriers; Not consistent with firm / employer culture; Not within relevant specialization and expertise; Time constraints; Taxation; Bad for career prospects; Excessive regulation and control; Lack of financial resources and support; Lack of malpractice insurance and coverage; Lack of suitable opportunities Firms were asked to check all serious challenges experienced to date. Firms also could select Other and type in a response. 18 Nine respondents answered this question. The chart below illustrates that eight respondents report Time constraints as a serious challenge to pro bono participation. Two firms selected Other and commented on the difficulties of making pro bono part of the firm s culture in such a short period of time and about the structural barriers within the firm that impact the successful application of general policies. 18 The order of this list corresponds with the categories on the vertical side (y-axis) of the associated chart. 51

52 9. Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use The Vance Center solicited feedback about how its staff can effectively support the firms as the latter undertake pro bono work. The survey presented the firms with a list of potential support methods. The firms were asked to check all methods which, from their perspectives, would be effective support strategies and also were invited to type their own suggestions. The list included the following: Information sharing on best practices via blogs and website; Working with bar associations to improve regulatory/enabling environment; Annual conferences/roundtables; Video conferences for associates; Regional working groups; Other conferences on pro bono and legal aid; Helpline/mentoring support; Partnerships with USA/International law firms to discuss pro bono; Partnerships with USA/International NGOs to discuss pro bono; Technical assistance materials on institutionalizing pro bono; Exchange of information on projects being done regionally Nine firms answered this question. The graph below illustrates the seven support strategies that received the most checks from the respondents. Annual conferences/roundtables received the most checks (nine). 52

53 53

54 III. COUNTRY REPORTS D. MEXICO 1. Submission Rate As of October 2009, 26 Mexican law firms had signed the PBDA, 21 of which were sent the survey. Eleven firms (the respondents ) completed the survey, resulting in a submission rate of 52.4%. 2. Employment Data and Major Practice Areas The survey sought a profile of the law firms. The survey asked respondents to indicate the total numbers of attorneys, partners, associates, and special attorneys (e.g., counsels, of counsels, part-time attorneys) at the firm as of December 31, All respondents provided this information. The employment data reveals that the respondents collectively represent 397 attorneys, who together would complete 7,940 hours of pro bono service should each attorney complete 20 hours of pro bono work between January 1, 2010 and December 31, On average, the respondents have 36.1 total attorneys, 10.9 partners, 20.5 associates, and 17.9 special attorneys. The survey also invited respondents to identify their major departments or practice areas from a prepared list of 23 practices areas or to select Other and type a response. All 11 firms responded. The table below highlights the seven practice areas that received the most checks by the respondents. These seven areas include the following (in order of most to least checks): Corporate Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Finance, Real Estate, Intellectual Property, Microfinance / Microenterprise, and Environmental Law (policymaking). Ten of the 11 firms have Corporate Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Finance, and Real Estate practices. 54

55 The prepared list also included the following specialties: Anti-corruption, Child Custody, Disability Rights, Domestic Violence, Education, Elder Law, Environmental Law (litigation), Family Law, Healthcare, Human Rights, Immigration, Indigenous Rights, Labor Law, Law Reform, Individual Representation of Poor People, Transactional / Institutional Assistance to Non-Governmental Organizations, and Securities. Every practice area from the prepared list received at least one check. Domestic Violence and Indigenous Rights had the least number of checks with one each. Four firms checked Other and noted such areas as Criminal Law and International Arbitration. 3. Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs The law firms were asked to supply information about how, if at all, they have organized their pro bono programs. In particular, the survey sought information about who is responsible for the overall management (i.e., strategy, direction, budget determinations, resource allocation, etc.) of the firm s pro bono program. Firms were invited to check one or more of the following categories: All partners; Committee of partners; Pro bono committee; Pro bono partner/chairperson; Pro bono coordinator; 55

56 Non-lawyer administrative personnel; Other Firms also could indicate that they lacked a pro bono manager. All 11 respondents supplied this information. The chart below reveals the number of respondents that checked each category. Firms that selected Other wrote in such titles as Managing Director of the firm. Making all partners at least one of the actors responsible for managing the pro bono program is a prevailing tendency amongst the respondents. No respondent reported the absence of at least one actor which is tasked with the program s overall management. 0 Number of Mexican Respondents with these Actors in Charge of Pro Bono Program No pro bono manager at this time 2 Pro bono partner/chairperson 4 All partners 2 Pro bono coordinator 1 Committee of partners 2 Other (please specify) 2 Pro bono committee The survey also sought a better understanding of who is responsible for the distribution of pro bono projects within the firms. Specifically, firms were invited to select one or more actor(s) from the categories listed above. Firms also could indicate that they lack a pro bono manager at this time. Again, all 11 firms responded. The table below indicates the number of respondents that checked each category. All partners and/or Pro bono coordinators are the distributors, exclusive or otherwise, at three firms. Firms selecting Other wrote President of Foundation. No one reported the lack of someone tasked with the distribution of pro bono work. 56

57 Finally, the survey probed whether the firms have a pro bono policy manual, which can be utilized as an internal guide to describe all procedural aspects of the law firm s pro bono program. Ten of the 11 firms responded to this query. Five firms have produced such a manual, while five have not. 4. Types of and Sources for Pro Bono Work The survey gathered information about the specific areas of the law in which the law firms have performed pro bono work and the sources from which the respondents have received new pro bono opportunities. For the former, the survey presented a list of 23 practice areas and asked the firms to mark all of the practice areas in which the firm has done pro bono. The firms also could select Other and then supply any additional practice areas. All the respondents submitted this data. The chart below contains the 23 practice areas, plus presents the number of law firms that indicated pro bono experience within each area. All areas of the law received at least one check. Nine Mexican respondents reported participation in pro bono work in the area of Corporate Law. One firm selected Other and noted its Insurance work. 57

58 Number of Mexican Respondents with Pro Bono Experience in these Legal Areas Environmental Anti-corruption 1 3 Law 3 Intellectual Property (policymaking) 6 Child Custody 5 Family Law 5 Labor Law 9 Corporate Law 5 Finance 3 Law Reform 4 Disability Rights 3 Healthcare 1 Mergers & Acquisitions 1 Domestic Violence 3 Human Rights 7 Microfinance/Microenterprise 6 Education 3 Immigration 5 Real Estate 3 Elder Law 2 Indigenous Rights 1 Securities 4 Environmental Law (litigation) 4 Individual Representation of Poor People 8 Transactional/Institutional Support of NGOs 1 Other This report previously noted that ten of the 11 respondents have main practices in the areas of Corporate Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Finance, and Real Estate. Aside from Mergers & Acquisitions, each one of these legal areas received five or more checks that indicate the areas of their pro bono experience. While six respondents reported the presence of Healthcare and Immigration practices, three firms indicated pro bono experience in those areas. 19 The survey also sought information about the sources from which firms have identified new opportunities for pro bono work. The survey presented a list of 17 potential sources and asked the firms to mark all of the sources from which they have received pro bono work. The firms also could select Other and then type a response. Every respondent answered. The chart below contains the 17 potential sources, plus presents the number of law firms that indicated usage of each source. Of note, all 11 respondents reported non-profit organizations as a past source. Nine firms indicated its partners as a previous means of obtaining new pro bono work. 20 Eight firms have received work from the firms associates. 19 It would be helpful to have a better understanding of what factors motivated or caused each of the Mexican respondents to do pro bono work in certain areas of the law as opposed to others. 20 The Bar Association is meant to be a general reference to this type of organization. 58

59 Number of Mexican Respondents that Have Found New Pro Bono Opportunities from these Sources 5 Professors or other Religious Attorneys from the public 5 2 academics organizations sector 7 Social services organizations 6 The Bar Association 0 Radio 11 Non-profit Your law firm's Television 9 0 organizations partners 1 Government Your law firm's 8 agencies associates 0 Newspaper 0 Judges 6 Your law firm's staff 0 Online databases 0 Court personnel 4 Attorneys from the private sector 0 Other 5. Selection and Oversight of Pro Bono Work The questionnaire sought more information about the ways in which the law firms select pro bono cases and oversee pro bono projects. In particular, the survey queried whether the law firms have a formal process for selecting specific pro bono opportunities or projects. Four Mexican respondents said that their firms lack formal processes. The other seven indicated that there are formal processes at their firms. The survey also collected information about the factors that the law firm presently considers when selecting pro bono opportunities or projects. The survey presented the following potential factors: Nature of the case (e.g., discrimination, environmental issues); Form of pro bono assistance to be provided (e.g., legal advice, legal representation, policy work); Legal expertise required; Availability of other resources which are better suited to assist this specific client; Level of public interest (i.e., matter will affect large numbers of people; case raises matters of broad public concern); Potential conflicts of interest; Actual conflicts of interest; Availability of firm resources; Projected fixed costs of providing assistance; Whether matter involves particular client group (e.g., women, persons with 59

60 disabilities, homeless persons). 21 Respondents were asked to mark all the factors that the firm presently considers. All respondents provided this information. The chart below illustrates that all respondents consider Nature of the case when selecting new pro bono work. Six or more respondents also indicated the consideration of the following additional factors: Availability of other resources which are better suited to assist this specific client; Availability of firm resources; Actual conflicts of interest; Form of pro bono assistance to be provided; Legal expertise required; and Potential conflicts of interest. 6. Tracking and Reporting of Pro Bono Work The survey collected responses about how the firms track the number of pro bono hours performed and how the firms report the achievements of their pro bono programs. The firms were asked to note the person(s) who are responsible for periodically tallying the number of pro bono hours performed by all employees at the firm. They were presented with the following list and asked to check all that apply: 21 The order of this list corresponds with the categories on the vertical side (y-axis) of the associated chart. 60

61 Committee of partners; Pro bono committee; Pro bono partner/chairperson; Pro bono coordinator; Non-lawyer administrative personnel Firms also could select Currently, our firm does not keep such a tally or mark Other and type a response. All respondents answered this question. The graph below illustrates that Administrative personnel (non-lawyers) are the most common actor responsible for this task amongst the respondents. Firms that selected Other indicated that the firm has a specific department that counts all of the attorneys hours, pro bono or otherwise. Many of them firms employ one or more strategies for promoting the firm s pro bono opportunities, efforts, and successes. Five of the Mexican respondents noted that they publish an electronic report on their pro bono work. Three firms publish a written one. Five firms checked that such a report does not exist at their firms. Moreover, seven respondents circulate firm-wide s. Five firms publish newsletters. One firm indicates the use of its internet page. 7. Pro Bono Programs as They Relate to Associate Experiences The survey pursued more information about how, if at all, associates are being affected 61

62 by the presence of a pro bono program within their firms. The firms were asked to indicate whether pro bono participation is considered in determining salary, bonuses, and career advancement of the associates at the firm. Six respondents indicated that pro bono participation is considered, while four respondents reported that such participation is not taken into account. The firms also were questioned about whether pro bono hours are included in evaluations of associate performance. Nine Mexican firms reported such hours are included, while one firm indicated they are not. The survey probed whether associates participating in pro bono projects have access to all the support resources of the firm. Ten respondents reported that all associates undertaking pro bono work have full access to the firm s support resources. 8. Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work The questionnaire probed the challenges faced by law firms in Mexico as they participate in pro bono work. The survey included the following potential challenges: Language barriers; Not consistent with firm / employer culture; Not within relevant specialization and expertise; Time constraints; Taxation; Bad for career prospects; Excessive regulation and control; Lack of financial resources and support; Lack of malpractice insurance and coverage; Lack of suitable opportunities Firms were asked to check all serious challenges experienced to date. Firms also could select Other and type in a response. 22 All 11 respondents answered this question. The chart below illustrates that seven respondents report Time constraints as a serious challenge to pro bono participation. Five firms considered Lack of financial resources and support to be a serious impediment. One firm selected Other and commented on the difficulty of finding new cases in the firm s specialty areas. 22 The order of this list corresponds with the categories on the vertical side (y-axis) of the associated chart. 62

63 9. Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use The Vance Center solicited feedback about how its staff can effectively support the firms as the latter undertake pro bono work. The survey presented the firms with a list of potential support methods. The firms were asked to check all methods which, from their perspectives, would be effective support strategies and also were invited to type their own suggestions. The list included the following: Information sharing on best practices via blogs and website; Working with bar associations to improve regulatory/enabling environment; Annual conferences/roundtables; Video conferences for associates; Regional working groups; Other conferences on pro bono and legal aid; Helpline/mentoring support; Partnerships with USA/International law firms to discuss pro bono; Partnerships with USA/International NGOs to discuss pro bono; Technical assistance materials on institutionalizing pro bono; Exchange of information on projects being done regionally Ten firms answered this question. 63

64 The graph below illustrates the seven support strategies that received the most checks from the Mexican respondents. Partnerships with USA/International NGOs to discuss pro bono received the most checks (eight). 64

65 III. COUNTRY REPORTS E. PERU 1. Submission Rate As of October 2009, 35 Peruvian law firms had signed the PBDA, 31 of which were sent the survey. Fifteen firms (the respondents ) completed the survey, resulting in a submission rate of 48.4%. 2. Employment Data and Major Practice Areas The survey sought a profile of the law firms. The survey asked respondents to indicate the total numbers of attorneys, partners, associates, and special attorneys (e.g., counsels, of counsels, part-time attorneys) at the firm as of December 31, All respondents provided this information. The employment data reveals that the respondents collectively represent 638 attorneys, who together would complete 12,760 hours of pro bono service should each attorney complete 20 hours of pro bono work between January 1, 2010 and December 31, On average, the respondents have 42.5 total attorneys, 11.3 partners, 29.5 associates, and 7.7 special attorneys. The survey also invited respondents to identify their major departments or practice areas from a prepared list of 23 practices areas or to select Other and type a response. All 15 firms responded. The table below highlights the seven practice areas that received the most checks by the respondents. These seven areas include the following (in order of most to least checks): Intellectual Property, Corporate Law, Labor Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Finance, Real Estate, and Securities. Notably, 13 of the 15 firms have Intellectual Property and Corporate Law practices. 65

66 The prepared list also included the following specialties: Anti-corruption, Child Custody, Disability Rights, Domestic Violence, Education, Elder Law, Environmental Law (litigation), Environmental Law (policymaking), Family Law, Healthcare, Human Rights, Immigration, Indigenous Rights, Labor Law, Law Reform, Individual Representation of Poor People, Microfinance / Microenterprise, and Transactional / Institutional Assistance to Non- Governmental Organizations. Every practice area except Domestic Violence and Indigenous Rights from the prepared list received at least one check. Thirteen firms checked Other and noted such areas as Criminal Law, Mining and Energy Law, Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and International Arbitration. 3. Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs The law firms were asked to supply information about how, if at all, they have organized their pro bono programs. In particular, the survey sought information about who is responsible for the overall management (i.e., strategy, direction, budget determinations, resource allocation, etc.) of the firm s pro bono program. Firms were invited to check one or more of the following categories: All partners; Committee of partners; 66

67 Pro bono committee; Pro bono partner/chairperson; Pro bono coordinator; Non-lawyer administrative personnel; Other Firms also could indicate that they lacked a pro bono manager. All 15 respondents supplied this information. The chart below reveals the number of respondents that checked each category. Four respondents reported the lack of a pro bono manager at this time. Amongst the respondents that have identified pro bono management, four firms revealed the use of a Pro bono partner/chairperson as an actor responsible for the program s management. No firm checked Pro bono coordinator as the actor, exclusive or otherwise, that oversees everything. Number of Peruvian Respondents with these Actors in Charge of Pro Bono Program 4 No Pro bono Pro bono 4 manager at this time partner/chairperson 2 All partners 0 Pro bono coordinator 2 Committee of partners 0 Other (please specify) 3 Pro bono committee The survey also sought a better understanding of who is responsible for the distribution of pro bono projects within the firms. Specifically, firms were invited to select one or more actor(s) from the categories listed above. Firms also could indicate that they lack a pro bono manager at this time. Again, all 15 firms responded. The table below indicates the number of respondents that checked each category. At this time, there is no clear trend amongst the respondents as to who handles distribution of pro bono matters. One firm selected Other but simply clarified its other selection. Three respondents reported the lack of a pro bono manager at this time. 67

68 Finally, the survey probed whether the firms have a pro bono policy manual, which can be utilized as an internal guide to describe all procedural aspects of the law firm s pro bono program. Thirteen of the 15 firms responded to this query. No firms have produced such a manual. 4. Types of and Sources for Pro Bono Work The survey gathered information about the specific areas of the law in which the law firms have performed pro bono work and the sources from which the respondents have received new pro bono opportunities. For the former, the survey presented a list of 23 practice areas and asked the firms to mark all of the practice areas in which the firm has done pro bono. The firms also could select Other and then supply any additional practice areas. All the respondents submitted this data. The chart below contains the 23 practice areas, plus presents the number of law firms that indicated pro bono experience within each area. Notably, all areas of the law received at least one check. Seven Peruvian respondents reported participation in pro bono work in the areas of Labor Law and Transactional/Institutional Support of NGOs. Four firms selected Other and noted experience in such areas as Criminal Law and Defense of Cultural Institutions. 68

69 Number of Peruvian Respondents with Pro Bono Experience in these Legal Areas Environmental Anti-corruption 1 0 Law 1 Intellectual Property (policymaking) 3 Child Custody 6 Family Law 7 Labor Law 5 Corporate Law 3 Finance 4 Law Reform 1 Disability Rights 3 Healthcare 1 Mergers & Acquisitions 1 Domestic Violence 1 Human Rights 2 Microfinance/Microenterprise 4 Education 1 Immigration 4 Real Estate 1 Elder Law 0 Indigenous Rights 1 Securities 0 Environmental Law (litigation) 4 Individual Representation of Poor People 7 Transactional/Institutional Support of NGOs 4 Other This report previously highlighted that 13 of the 15 firms have Labor Law and Corporate Law practices. Seven and five firms checked those areas, respectively, when invited to reveal the nature of their pro bono experiences. While six respondents reported the presence of an Environmental Law (litigation) practice, no firm indicated pro bono experience therein. 23 The survey also sought information about the sources from which firms have identified new opportunities for pro bono work. The survey presented a list of 17 potential sources and asked the firms to mark all of the sources from which they have received pro bono work. The firms also could select Other and then type a response. All the respondents answered. The chart below contains the 17 potential sources, plus presents the number of law firms that indicated usage of each source. Of note, 11 respondents reported its firm partners as a past source. Ten firms indicated non-profit organizations and firm associates as previous means of obtaining new pro bono work. 24 Nine firms have received work from the firms staff. One firm indicated Other and typed Clients. 23 It would be helpful to have a better understanding of what factors motivated or caused each of the Peruvian respondents to do pro bono work in certain areas of the law as opposed to others. 24 The Bar Association is meant to be a general reference to this type of organization. 69

70 Number of Peruvian Respondents that Have Found New Pro Bono Opportunities from these Sources 3 Professors or other Religious Attorneys from the public 4 1 academics organizations sector 4 Social services organizations 2 The Bar Association 0 Radio 10 Non-profit Your law firm's Television 11 2 organizations partners 0 Government Your law firm's 10 agencies associates 1 Newspaper 0 Judges 9 Your law firm's staff 0 Online databases 0 Court personnel 0 Attorneys from the private sector 1 Other 5. Selection and Oversight of Pro Bono Work The questionnaire sought more information about the ways in which the law firms select pro bono cases and oversee pro bono projects. In particular, the survey queried whether the law firms have a formal process for selecting specific pro bono opportunities or projects. Nine Peruvian respondents said that their firms lack formal processes. The other six indicated that there are formal processes at their firms. The survey also collected information about the factors that the law firm presently considers when selecting pro bono opportunities or projects. The survey presented the following potential factors: Nature of the case (e.g., discrimination, environmental issues); Form of pro bono assistance to be provided (e.g., legal advice, legal representation, policy work); Legal expertise required; Availability of other resources which are better suited to assist this specific client; Level of public interest (i.e., matter will affect large numbers of people; case raises matters of broad public concern); Potential conflicts of interest; Actual conflicts of interest; Availability of firm resources; Projected fixed costs of providing assistance; Whether matter involves particular client group (e.g., women, persons with 70

71 disabilities, homeless persons). 25 Respondents were asked to mark all the factors that the firm presently considers. All respondents provided this information. The chart below illustrates that 14 respondents consider Nature of the case when selecting new pro bono work. Ten or more respondents also indicated the consideration of the following additional factors: Form of pro bono assistance to be provided; Legal expertise required; Potential conflicts of interest; and Availability of firm resources. 6. Tracking and Reporting of Pro Bono Work The survey collected responses about how the firms track the number of pro bono hours performed and how the firms report the achievements of their pro bono programs. The firms were asked to note the person(s) who are responsible for periodically tallying the number of pro bono hours performed by all employees at the firm. They were presented with the following list and asked to check all that apply: Committee of partners; Pro bono committee; Pro bono partner/chairperson; 25 The order of this list corresponds with the categories on the vertical side (y-axis) of the associated chart. 71

72 Pro bono coordinator; Non-lawyer administrative personnel Firms also could select Currently, our firm does not keep such a tally or mark Other and type a response. All respondents answered this question. The graph below illustrates that seven firms currently do not track this information. Amongst the other respondents, administrative personnel (non-lawyers) received the most checks (three). Firms that selected Other wrote Associate in Charge and Managing Partner. No Peruvian respondents checked that their firms publish an electronic or written report on their pro bono work. 26 However, some firms employ other strategies for promoting the firm s pro bono opportunities, efforts, and successes. Five of the nine respondents that supplied information on this topic reported that they circulate firm-wide s. Three firms selected Other and noted that they promote pro bono via meetings amongst the firm s lawyers, or with clients and friends. No firms reported the use of pro bono newsletters or pro bono awards.. 7. Pro Bono Programs as They Relate to Associate Experiences The survey pursued more information about how, if at all, associates are being affected 26 The question asked, Publica el bufete un reporte sobre el trabajo pro bono? The three possible responses were Sí, electrónico, Sí, copia impresa y No, no existe dicha publicación en nuestra firma. 72

73 by the presence of a pro bono program within their firms. The firms were asked to indicate whether pro bono participation is considered in determining salary, bonuses, and career advancement of the associates at the firm. Five respondents indicated that pro bono participation is considered, while ten respondents reported that such participation is not taken into account. The firms also were questioned about whether pro bono hours are included in evaluations of associate performance. Nine Peruvian firms reported such hours are included, while six firms indicated they are not. The survey probed whether associates participating in pro bono projects have access to all the support resources of the firm. Fifteen respondents reported that all associates undertaking pro bono work have full access to the firm s support resources. 8. Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work The questionnaire probed the challenges faced by law firms in Peru as they participate in pro bono work. The survey included the following potential challenges: Language barriers; Not consistent with firm / employer culture; Not within relevant specialization and expertise; Time constraints; Taxation; Bad for career prospects; Excessive regulation and control; Lack of financial resources and support; Lack of malpractice insurance and coverage; Lack of suitable opportunities Firms were asked to check all serious challenges experienced to date. Firms also could select Other and type in a response. 27 Fourteen respondents answered this question. The chart below illustrates that nine respondents report Time constraints as a serious challenge to pro bono participation. Five firms considered Not within relevant specialization to be a serious impediment. 27 The order of this list corresponds with the categories on the vertical side (y-axis) of the associated chart. 73

74 9. Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use The Vance Center solicited feedback about how its staff can effectively support the firms as the latter undertake pro bono work. The survey presented the firms with a list of potential support methods. The firms were asked to check all methods which, from their perspectives, would be effective support strategies and also were invited to type their own suggestions. The list included the following: Information sharing on best practices via blogs and website; Working with bar associations to improve regulatory/enabling environment; Annual conferences/roundtables; Video conferences for associates; Regional working groups; Other conferences on pro bono and legal aid; Helpline/mentoring support; Partnerships with USA/International law firms to discuss pro bono; Partnerships with USA/International NGOs to discuss pro bono; Technical assistance materials on institutionalizing pro bono; Exchange of information on projects being done regionally All 15 firms answered this question. The graph below illustrates the seven support strategies that received the most checks by 74

75 the Peruvian respondents. Information sharing on best practices via blogs and Exchange of information on projects being done regionally received the most checks (12). 75