Abstract
Abstract The conventional argument for pro bono legal service—heard from the organized bar and scholars alike—is that lawyers have a moral obligation to perform such service. Pointing to the large unmet need for legal services, scholars argue that members of the bar must be enlisted as part of a moral commitment to serve people who otherwise cannot afford legal assistance (Rhode 2005). Others build a parallel argument that lawyers are obligated to provide pro bono legal services because of the monopoly they are granted over the provision of legal services (Christensen 1981; Sossin 2008). In other words, in order to sustain the legitimacy of the bar’s monopoly, lawyers must demonstrate a commitment to access to justice for disadvantaged individuals. From this vantage point, the goal is to encourage more lawyers to provide more pro bono services.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
