Here’s the thing, kid. Corporate
lawyers aren’t into charity work. Or at least, they aren’t as part of their
day-to-day. Some of them are excellent people who do marvellous charitable
things, but it can’t be allowed to get in the way of the job.
I’ve been to a couple of graduate
recruitment events, and students ask about the extent of pro bono work at my
firm. Truthfully, if you want to be helping people with landlord disputes,
benefits and immigration issues, don’t come to the City.
City firms often have a pro bono
commitment. You can do a set number of hours on business time of pro bono work,
take days off to do charitable things, give ad hoc advice at drop-in legal
clinics. The theory behind this is a bit odd, I think. It is supposed to show
clients that the firm is committed to doing good deeds, and this is supposed to
make clients want to use the firm. Frankly, everyone knows that both the firm
and the client exist to make money, and therefore, to my mind, the idea of
impressing clients with these efforts is backward. If a firm spends firm time
on charity, it basically needs to charge more to cover those costs (or, certainly,
it will make sure any pro bono work achieves a net positive financial result).
The client is then (in theory) paying more so that the firm can spend it (given
time = money) on someone else. Cut out the middleman, chaps. Let the clients
give direct.
