Call us: Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm, Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm

The great pro bono debate: is it a good or a bad thing?

Recent Posts

Related Posts

Family Court Fees to Rise

March 28, 2024

I remember years ago seeing a list of the top 100 occupations, ordered by how highly they were regarded by the public. At the top, of course, were doctors and nurses, followed by such highly esteemed people as firemen/women, teachers, and so on. Lawyers came near the bottom of the list, as I recall one up from estate agents.

But there is surely one aspect of the legal profession that sets them above most other occupations: that they are prepared to offer their services for free. Perhaps not doing ourselves any favours we refer to such free work by the Latin term ‘pro bono’, which probably doesn’t mean a lot to many non-lawyers, but is a shortening of ‘pro bono publico’, or in English ‘for the public good’. How many other professions or occupations are prepared to regularly offer their services for the good of the public, with no financial reward for themselves?

Pro bono work has always been a feature of the professional lives of many family lawyers, but its importance has of course increased substantially over recent years, particularly since the abolition of legal aid for most private law family matters in 2013. Indeed, the Government has, with unabashed audacity, suggested that lawyers do more pro bono work to fill the gap left by the removal of legal aid.

But lawyers did not need the Government to tell them about the problem of litigants needing legal assistance. Lawyers, especially those who put themselves in the public eye, are already being bombarded with requests for help from desperate people caught up in the strange and frightening world of the family justice system. In a small way I can vouch for this myself, as I still receive requests for help, despite the fact that I stopped practising eight years ago. I have to explain that I am no longer able to help, but I try to direct the requests to someone who can. My problem, however, is as nothing to other family lawyers.

Over the weekend there was a cri de cœur from a certain well-known family lawyer on Twitter, declaring how tired she was of having to tell desperate people begging for her to help them that she couldn’t deal with their case for free. And before anyone even thinks it, she does do a considerable amount of pro bono work, and also provides advice for litigants in other ways, but there is of course a limit to the amount of time that any lawyer can spend without earning a living. Her tweet ended with the words: “Hate this broken system.”

The tweet was followed by a conversation on Twitter, during the course of which another lawyer suggested that the only way to get change is to refuse to do such work for free, and to let the system descend into chaos, if it hasn’t already. The family lawyer responded that she had thought long and hard about that option, but she couldn’t do it. In any event, she said, the system was in chaos anyway.

The idea of withdrawing all pro bono services in the hope that it will force the Government into reinstating legal aid, or at least providing some proper legal help to litigants who cannot afford a lawyer, is of course nothing new. It is I’m sure a sad fact that every lawyer doing pro bono work worries that their generosity is being taken advantage of, that they are guilty of playing the Government’s game, helping the Government ‘get away’ with the disastrous policy of denying proper legal help to the less well off in society, and thereby creating a two-tier system, in which only the better off have proper access to justice.

Withholding pro bono is a tempting idea. Surely, if no litigants were provided with legal help then there would be such an uproar that the Government would be shamed into doing something about the problem?

Unfortunately, there are a number of issues with this argument. First and foremost, the Government has no shame. It does not care about what is, in the scheme of things, a small number of people with a problem. It does not care about access to justice, or the fact that we have a two-tier justice system. It only cares about money, even if the amount saved is a drop in the ocean of the Government’s finances.

And in any event, pro bono work can’t fill the huge gap left by the abolition of legal aid. It can only scratch the surface of the problem. Stopping all pro bono work won’t make an awful lot of difference to the problem.

Then there are the other providers of free or cheap legal assistance, such as Citizen’s Advice, McKenzie friends and others. They will still carry on. Pro bono isn’t the only source of help to litigants in need.

But above all, as that family lawyer on Twitter said, the system is already in chaos. It is broken. It can’t get much worse. If the Government aren’t going to respond now, they are never going to respond. Stopping all pro bono work will make no difference to the limited thought-patterns of Government ministers. They are fully aware of the problem, but they have washed their hands of it, and a few more unrepresented litigants is going to do nothing to change that.

The blog team at Stowe is a group of writers based across our family law offices who share their advice on the wellbeing and emotional aspects of divorce or separation from personal experience. As well as pieces from our family law solicitors, guest contributors also regularly contribute to share their knowledge.

Contact us

As the UK's largest family law firm we understand that every case is personal.


  1. Paul says:

    Maybe probono helps soliciters sleep at night.
    The police have stopped my natural relationship with children.
    With no evidence of any wrong doing and sent me off to the family law soliciters.
    To try and re establish contact.

    I spent over £800 sending letters to my ex. Which just gave her soliciter the heads up so she could start the alienation proccess.
    Just been quoted £2400 – £3400
    To take my case to the final hearing.
    She also says my chance are not good.

    Its a racket. Without question.
    The law should be about impartial judgement and justice based on facts.
    The money involved makes it more like a day out in a casino.
    An we condemn Russia for being corrupt.

    My faith in law and soliciters. Zero.
    Not surprised traffic wardens are higher in the table.

    • Stitchedup says:

      Paul, the Police have no right to stop your relationship with your children, only the courts can do that. If there are no court orders in place that restrict your contact with your children there’s nothing they can do. The Police can issue a DVPN/DVPO but this is a temporary measure and needs to be put to the magistrates courts within 48 hours I believe. If there are no current notices or court orders you are perfectly entitled to tell the Police to keep their noses out of your private family affairs. They will of course play the positive action card but they are still bound by PACE code G and any arrest must pass the necessity test. In fairness to the Police, they are under massive political pressure to take positive action in domestic disputes and as a result often arrest when they shouldn’t. They leave themselves open to claims against them for wrongful arrest and indeed human rights breaches. It’s worth mentioning however, that if over time they observe a pattern of vexatious allegations from your ex things will start to backfire on her. That’s what happened in my case but unfortunately a little too late.

  2. Paul says:

    Family law work should be a civil service job with pay inline with civil service. Stopping the breaking up of familys is financially in everyones best interests. Definatly in societys best interest.
    Family law should not be advaserial.
    Avoiding conflict between parents is best for the children not increasing the stakes.
    Soliciting in family law is just destructive.

  3. Brian says:

    Doctors and Nurses work extra hours without discriminating, who they work for they’ll patch up anyone. Lawyers pick and choose and probably only take a case up to up their own professional profile or cause. So their charity is disingenuous.

  4. Brian says:

    Having read the whole article, the dilemma of a whole profession – do I stop pro-bono, don’t I stop….people need it dilemma. It sums up the entire system, judges are decision averse, and lawyers are too, can’t even make one for themselves. Yeah it will see people off quitting pro-bono to those who need it, there are those who need pro-bono anyway who aren’t getting it – why discriminate – let everyone go without, something will get done sooner then than later. The only time you see lawyers making protests outside parliament is over their meal ticket (legal aid) – never see then outside fighting legal causes. Up the profile of bad law and be a bit more militant and left wing – probably nothing any of you have done since being at university anyway with the majority of legal graduates lurching to the right with the proportion of salary.

Leave a comment

Help & advice categories


Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for advice on divorce and relationships from our lawyers, divorce coaches and relationship experts.

What type of information are you looking for?

Privacy Policy