May a Maryland judge ask law firms to fund or provide a lawyer for a domestic-violence legal-aid project?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2010. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A federal agency developing a domestic-violence legal-access project asked a judge to approach law firms about underwriting or providing a full-time lawyer. The lawyer would serve a protective-order representation program in Baltimore City District Court.
The Committee cited the then-current judicial Rule 3.7(b), allowing judges to encourage but not coerce lawyers to provide pro bono legal services. It concluded that making multiple firms aware of this need and opportunity did not coerce them or abuse judicial prestige.
The opinion specifically noted that approaching more than one firm limited the appearance of coercion. Its answer concerned the described request to firms, not a general license to compel contributions.
In practice
The opinion permits communicating the described opportunity to multiple firms. It rests on encouragement without coercion or misuse of judicial office.
Common questions
Q: Could the judge ask firms to underwrite the lawyer’s pay?
A: Yes. The Committee approved making the opportunity known to firms under the stated facts.
Q: Why did the opinion mention more than one firm?
A: The Committee said approaching multiple firms reduced any appearance of coercion.
Q: Was coercion permitted under the cited judicial rule?
A: No. Rule 3.7(b), as quoted in the opinion, allowed encouragement but not coercion.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies the then-cited Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, Maryland Rule 16-813, Rule 3.7(b), and cites Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 6.1 on pro bono public service.
Citations and references
Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct:
- Maryland Rule 16-813, Rule 3.7(b).
Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rule 6.1.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
- Original PDF: Opinion 2010-14
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee
Opinion Request Number: 2010-14
Date of Issue: October 8, 2010
■ Published Opinion Unpublished Opinion Unpublished Letter of Advice
Judge may approach law firms and propose that the firms underwrite the compensation of an attorney to provide advocacy to victims of domestic violence.
Issue: May a judge propose to law firms that they provide or underwrite the compensation of an attorney to provide full-time pro bono legal service in a program to represent victims of domestic violence?
Answer: Yes.
Facts: A federal agency is in the process of creating a program to provide “meaningful legal access for victims of domestic violence.” The plan envisions providing a lawyer to serve in the Protective Order Advocacy Representation Project operated by the House of Ruth in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. The lawyer could be a recent law school graduate who has been offered a deferred position by a law firm. The requesting judge has been asked by the agency to propose to law firms that they underwrite the position or provide a lawyer to fill it.
Discussion: All members of the legal profession have an obligation to assist the public in having equal, fair and effective access to the courts. The needs of the public for legal services have increased dramatically, especially in these times when government and charitable resources to fund those services have diminished. Victims of domestic violence are among the least able to afford legal services and those most in need of legal services.
Lawyers are encouraged to provide pro bono public service. Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 6.1.
Judges can contribute to the solution by facilitating and encouraging the provision of pro bono legal services. Recognizing this role, the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct (Md. Rule 16-813) provides:
“A judge may encourage but not coerce lawyers to provide pro bono public legal services.”
Rule 3.7(b).
Comment 5 to the Rule suggests various means of encouragement such as “providing lists of available programs” and “recognizing lawyers who have done pro bono public work,” adding that a judge should not “abuse the prestige of judicial office.” Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion Request Number: 2010-14 Date of Issue: October 8, 2010 ■ Published Opinion Unpublished Opinion Unpublished Letter of Advice Page 2 of 2
A judge who makes known to law firms a need and an opportunity, directly or indirectly, to provide pro bono legal services is neither coercing nor abusing the prestige of judicial office. (Approaching more than one law firm limits any appearance of coercion.)That is particularly true in this instance where laws firm large enough to fulfill the request are sufficiently sophisticated to evaluate the request on its merits and their own economic interests.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2010. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace