Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Ecuador

The Latin America Regional Pro Bono Report

2010 PBDA Survey Results

Release Date: April 1, 2011

Mexico Peru USA Uruguay Venezuela Trinidad

& Tobago

© 2011 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 dedicated people. The Vance Center particularly wishes to extend its gratitude to Kristen Hutchens, Associate at Shearman and Sterling LLP (New York), for her valuable work as the primary drafter of this publication series. The Vance Center also wants to express its sincere thanks to Benjamin Bass, a Public Interest Fellow and Incoming Associate at White & Case, LLP (New York), who served as the editor of this report.

______________________________________________________________________________ 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.

3

Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice

The Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice, www.vancecenter.org, mobilizes the global legal profession to engage in activities that expand access to justice for the poor and marginalized, especially in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. Providing individuals and communities in need with access to justice not only gives them a chance to enforce their basic rights but also makes governments more accountable for their actions, strengthens democratic institutions, and leads to laws and policies that are responsive to social needs. We perform our work in partnership with private- and public-sector lawyers, members of the judiciary, law schools, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Founded in 2003, the Vance Center is part of the New York City Bar Association, and members of the City Bar are involved in planning and carrying out all of its activities. The Vance Center's name honors the memory of Cyrus R. Vance, past president of the City Bar and former United States Secretary of State.

New York City Bar Association

Since its foundation in 1870, the New York City Bar Association (the "City Bar") (www.nycbar.org) 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 City Bar promotes innovative political, legal, and social programs aimed at disadvantaged groups. The protection of the public welfare is another priority of the City Bar.

City Bar Justice Center The City Bar Justice Center (www.nycbar.org/citybarfund), an affiliate of the City Bar, provides legal representation and information to nearly 25,000 residents of New York City who are living in a vulnerable situation or poverty. It has forged relationships 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 Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice New York City Bar Association

42 West 44th Street New York, NY 10036-6689

T: + 1 (212) 382-6795 · F: + 1 (212) 221-5318 vance@nycbar.org · www.vancecenter.org

4

The Cyrus R. Vance Center expresses its thanks for the collaboration of the 2010 PBDA Survey respondents:

Argentina Brons & Salas Estudio Barilá

Estudio Beccar Varela Estudio Bullo Tassi Estebenet Lipera Torassa Abogados

Cibils, Labougle, Ibañez del Carril, Colombres, Vayo & Zavalia Lagos

Marval, O´Farrell & Mairal Pastoriza, Eviner, Cangueiro, Ruiz, Buljevich Abogados

Pérez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen & Martínez de Hoz (h) Richards, Cardinal, Tützer, Zabala & Zaefferer*

Brazil

Homero Costa Advogados Machado, Meyer, Sendacz e Opice Advogados

Mattos Filho Advogados

Chile Abagli Zaliasnik Abogados Alcaíno, Rodríguez y Sahli*

Alessandri & Compañía Baraona Marré Abogados*

Barros & Errázuriz Abogados Bofill Mir & Alvarez Hinzpeter Jana

Carey & Allende* Carey y Cia.

Fermandois, Evans y Cía.* Ferrada Nehme Ltda.

Fiscalía BBVA Chile* Grasty Quintana Majlis & Cia.

Guerrero, Olivos, Novoa y Errázuriz* Horvitz y Horvitz Abogados*

Morales & Besa Abogados Núñez, Muñoz y Cía. Abogados* Peralta Gutiérrez y Asociados*

Prieto y Cía.

Colombia Baker & Mckenzie Colombia S.A.

Brigard & Urrutia Abogados Cárdenas & Cárdenas Abogados

* Signed the PBDA after the data collection phase of the 2010 PBDA survey

5

Cavelier Abogados Gómez-Pinzón, Zuleta Abogados

Jose Lloredo Camacho & Co. Lewin & Wills Abogados

Muñoz Tamayo & Asociados Posse Herrera & Ruiz Abogados

Ecuador

Andrade Veloz & Asociados

Mexico Barrera, Siqueiros y Torres Landa, S.C.

Chadbourne & Parke, S.C. Creel, García-Cuéllar, Aiza y Enriquez, S.C.

Forastieri Abogados, SC Von Wobeser y Sierra, S.C.

Peru

Benites, Forno, Ugaz & Ludowieg, Andrade Abogados Delmar Ugarte Abogados S.C.R.Ltda.

Estudio Olaechea Estudio Rubio, Leguía, Normand Abogados

Payet Rey Cauvi Abogados Rodrigo, Elías & Medrano, Abogados

Villegas, Elías & Maldonado Abogados

Venezuela D'Empaire Reyna Abogados

6

Signatories to the Pro Bono Declaration of the Americas*

Argentina Allende & Brea Barilá Abogados

Beccar Varela Bullo, Tassi, Estebenet, Lipera & Torassa

Casal, Romero Victorica & Vigliero Cárdenas, Di Ció, Romero, Tarsitano & Lucero

Cibils, Labougle, Ibanez Del Carril, Colombresm Vayo & Zavalía Lagos

Estudio Brons & Salas Estudio O´Farrell

Fortunati & Asociados Klein & Franco M & M Bomchil

Marval, O´Farrell & Mairal Pastoriza Eviner Cangueiro Ruiz Buljevich

Abogados Perez Alati, Grondona, Benites, Arntsen &

Martínez de Hoz Zapiola Guerrico & Asociados

Brasil

Advocacia Celso Botelho de Moraes Advocacia May de Oliveira

Advocacia Piauhylino Monteiro Araújo e Policastro Advogados

Aristoteles Atheniense Advogados Azevedo Rios, Seragini e Camargo Avogados

Associados Barbosa, Müssnich & Aragão Advogados

Brito Mercadante e Rocha Advogados Busato e Mariano Advocacia Associada

Cesar & Pascual - Advogados Associados Corrêa da Costa Advogados

Daltro, Marcílio e Zardi Advogados Demarest & Almeida Advogados

Diamantino Advogados Associados Duarte Garcia, Caselli Guimarães e Terra

Advogados Faraco, Azevedo e Muratt Advocacia

Empresarial Felsberg e Associados

Fernando Pinheiro Advogados Ferreira Rodrigues Sociedade de Advogados

Florence, Boltz Advogados Furkim Neto & Advogados Associados

Gepp Advogados Associados Gisela Freire Advogados

Haddad, Malheiros, Casoni e Rezende Advogados

Hapner Kroetz Homero Costa Advogados

José Anchieta da Silva Advogados Josefina Maria de Santana Dias Advocacia

Empresarial Leite, Tosto e Barros Advogados Associados

Lemos Associados Advocacia Machado de Campos, Pizzo e Barreto

Advogados Machado, Meyer, Sendacz e Opice Advogados

Martins e Salvia Advogados Mattos Filho Veiga Filho Marrey Jr. e Quiroga

Advogados Molleta Advogados Associados

Mortari Advogados Nehring e Associados Advocacia

Newton Silveira, Wilson Silveira e Associados - Advogados

Novaes e Plantulli Advogados Ochman Real Amadeo Advogados Associados Paulo Lins e Silva Advogados e Consultores de

Familia Paulo Roberto Murray

Regis Tortorella Advogados Associados Rolim Advogados

Rubens Naves Santos Júnior Advogados Ruiz Alonso Advogados Associados

Silveira, Athias, Soriano de Mello, Guimarães, Pinheiro & Scaff – Advogados

Siqueira Castro Advogados Souza Cescon Advogados

Telles Pereira, Azzi, Ferrari e Almeida Salles Advogados

Tess Advogados Thiollier e Advogados

Tozzini Freire Teixeira e Silva Ulisses Souza Advogados Associados

Veirano Advogados Vella Buosi Advogados

Xavier, Bernardes, Bragança, Sociedade de Advogados

* As of March 1, 2011

7

Caribbean Lex Caribbean

Canada

Hunter Litigation Chambers

Chile Albagli Zaliasnik Alessandri & Cia.

Álvarez Hinzpeter Jana Abogados Aninat Schwencke & Compañía

Barros & Errázuriz Bofill Mir Abogados

Carey y Cía. Cariola Diez & Pérez-Cotapos

Claro y Cia. Chadwick & Aldunate

Colombara Olmedo Ferrada Nehme

Figueroa y Coddou Gutiérrez Waugh Jimeno & Asenjo

Grasty Quintana Majlis & Cía. Morales & Besa

Pfeffer & Asociados Philippi Yrarrázaval Pulido & Brunner

Prieto y Cia.

Colombia Alma Clara García & Abogados

Araújo Ibarra Baker & McKenzie Brigard & Urrutia

Cárdenas & Cárdenas Cavelier Abogados

Chahín Vargas & Asociados Conexto Legal, S.A.

Duarte García & Asociados Fernández de Soto & Asociados

Godoy & Hoyos Abogados Gómez-Pinzón & Zuleta Abogados Holguín Neira & Pombo Abogados

Lewin & Wills Abogados Lloreda Camacho Abogados

Lozano Vila & Asociados Macías Gómez & Asociados

Manrique & Asociados Muñoz Abogados - Juris Mark

Nieto & Chalela Abogados

Olarte Raisbek & Asociados Pinzón Pinzón Asociados Abogados

Rodríguez & Cavelier Posse Herrera & Ruiz Abogados

Prieto & Carrioza Abogados Rodríguez-Azuero Abogados

Sampedro & Torres Asesores Legales

Costa Rica Aguilar Castillo Love

Arias & Muñoz Batalla Asociados

BLP Abogados Bufete Laboral Pacheco Odio y Alfaro

Castro & Pal Abogados CIS Love Group

Consortium Laclé y Gutiérrez Corporación Jurídica Sánchez González

Esquivel & Asociados Facio & Cañas

Fragomen Global Legal Group Pacheco Coto

Jurisis Lexincorp André Tinoco

Magnalex Abogados Nwar Abogados Oller Abogados

Quirós & Asociados Reyes Consultores

Sáenz Arteaga y Asociados Tompson, Barrientos, Obando y Asociados

Víquez Jara y Asociados Zurcher Odio & Raven

Quiros Abogados

Ecuador Andrade Veloz & Asociados

Bustamante y Bustamante Corral y Rosales

Perez Bustamante & Ponce Abogados

El Salvador Consortium Centro América Abogados

Honduras

Medina, Rosenthal & Fernández | CENTRAL LAW

8

México Basham Ringe y Correa S.C.

Barrera, Siqueiros y Torres Landa, S.C. Cervantes, Aguilar-Álvarez Y Sainz, S.C.

Chadbourne & Parke SC Comad, S.C.

Creel, García-Cuéllar, Aiza y Enríquez, S.C. Müggenburg, Gorches, Peñalosa y Sepúlveda,

S.C. Forastieri Abogados

Galicia Abogados, S.C. Jáuregui, Navarrete, Nader y Rojas Jones Day (formerly De Ovando)

Legal Advisors on Internacional Matters S.C. Madrigal Pereyra y Gómez, S.C.

NDA Nájera Danieli & Asociados Ogarrio Daguerre, S.C.

Oscós Abogados Plancarte Martínez y Galvan

Ritch Mueller, S.C. Rodriguez Rivero Abogados

Roman y Gordillo, S.C. Rubio Villegas y Asociados S.C.

Solorzano, Carvajal y Pérez Correa S.C. Suinaga y Suinaga Abogados S.C.

Von Wobeser y Sierra, S.C. White & Case S.C.

Panamá

Morgan & Morgan Asociados

Paraguay Vougas & Olmedo Asociados

Perú

Alayza Consultores Legales Aramburu Camino Boero Barreda Moller Abogados

Benítez, Forno & Ugaz Abogados Bullard, Falla & Ezcurra Abogados

Caro & Asociados Delmar & Ugarte Abogados

Deustua & Halperin Abogados Duany & Kresalja Estudio de Abogados

Estudio Avendaño Forsyth y Arbe Abogados Estudio Berninzon, Loret de Mola, Benavides &

Fernández Abogados Estudio Carlos Blancas Bustamante Abogados

Estudio De La Flor, Garcia Montufar, Arata & Asociados

Estudio Echecopar Estudio Fernández, Heraud & Sánchez

Estudio Ferrero Abogados Estudio Francisco Espinosa Bellido Abogados

Estudio Koechlin Asociados Estudio Olaechea Estudio Osterling

Estudio Rodrigo, Elías & Medrano Estudio Rodríguez Larraín Abogados

Estudio Rubio, Leguia y Normand Asociados Estudio Santistevan de Noriega y Asociados

Estudio Valencia Abogados Estudio Vega & Sologuren

García Sayan Abogados Hernández & Cía

Laos, Aguilar, Limas & Asociados Loli, Garcia Cavero & Castillo Miranda y Amado Abogados

Muñiz, Ramírez, Pérez – Taiman & Luna – Victoria Abogados

OMC Abogados & Consultores Payet, Rey & Cauvi Abogados

Peña, Lozano, Faura & Asociados Abogados Pizzarro, Botto & Escobar Abogados

Roselló Abogados Rey y De los Ríos Abogados

Villegas, Elías & Maldonado, Abogados Zuzunaga & Assereto Abogados

United States of America

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Covington & Burling LLP

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP DLA Piper

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Hogan & Hartson LLP

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Linklaters LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP Mayer Brown LLP

Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP

9

Perkins Coie LLP Proskauer Rose LLP

Schwartz Law Firm LLC Shearman & Sterling LLP

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP Strasburger & Price LLP

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Thompson & Knight LLP

Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP White & Case LLP

Uruguay Ferrere

Venezuela

Araque Reyna Sosa Viso & Pittier Badell & Grau

Beson, Peres Matos, Antakly & Watts Consultores Juridicos Ayala, Dillon, Fernandez

& Linares Despacho de Abgoados Miembros de Macleod

Dixon S.C. - Esther Cecilia Blondet Serfaty D’Empaire Reyna Abogados

Hoet Pelaez Castillo & Duque Hogan & Hartson

Palacios Ortega y Asociados

10

I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 11 A. The Implementation Phase: January 1, 2008 – December 31, 2010.........................................................11 B. The PBDA Survey Project ...........................................................................................................................11 C. The Latin America Pro Bono Interim Status Report: 2010 Survey Results............................................12 D. Invitation for Dialogue about Survey Results or Next Steps ....................................................................12

II. REGIONAL REPORT ......................................................................................................... 13

A. The Respondents and Submission Rates ....................................................................................................13 B. Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs ...........................................................................................14 C. Types of Pro Bono Work..............................................................................................................................14 D. Sources of Pro Bono Work ..........................................................................................................................14 E. Selection of Pro Bono Work ........................................................................................................................16 F. Tracking and Oversight of Pro Bono Work...............................................................................................17 G. Commitment to and Use of the PBDA ........................................................................................................17 H. Pro Bono Programs as they Relate to Associate Experiences...................................................................18 I. Cooperation with Outside Organizations ...................................................................................................19 J. Challenges to Participation in Pro Bono Work..........................................................................................19 K. Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use ..........................................................................20 L. Trends from the Fall 2009 to the 2010 Survey ...........................................................................................21

III. ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................ 21

A. Origins and Development of the Pro Bono Declaration for the Americas ................................................22

B. PBDA Text and Signing Sheet .....................................................................................................................23 C. 2010 PBDA Survey Results..........................................................................................................................28

D. 2009 PBDA Survey Results.........................................................................................................................36

11

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 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, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela; the organization and execution of videoconferences for pro bono coordinators and other actors throughout the region; 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 (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 a richer understanding of how pro bono cultures, networks, and programs have developed to date in each firm and country, and region-wide. Enhanced knowledge would allow actors to take more informed strategic steps toward the fulfillment of their respective goals.

The Vance Center responded. Acting upon this call for information and seeking to

provide an ample database for future inquiries, the Vance Center initiated the PBDA Survey Project. 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 has been completed in two installments. The first survey was released in Fall

of 2009. The second survey, on which this report is based, was released in the fall of 2010.3

1 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 www.vancecenter.org 3 The full survey results, including all questions and tallied responses, can be found in Annex C to this document.

12

Each installment entailed 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 and to key actors in the field of access to justice. The recipients of these reports were strongly encouraged to share them with the public at large, but especially with fellow actors (bar associations, fellow lawyers and law firms, social service organizations, non-profit organizations, academics, etc.) that 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 different cultural and institutional environments in which all of the signatories operate. The Vance Center has aimed for the incorporation of such nuances into all aspects of the Survey Project.

C. The Latin America Regional Pro Bono Report: 2010 Survey Results This report presents objective summaries of the survey results. A regional report consolidates the information supplied by 53 law firm signatories with main offices in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela. Law firms from Costa Rica, Uruguay, and Trinidad and Tobago were invited to take the survey but none provided information. Law firm offices in the United States, Canada, and Paraguay were not 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 a richer understanding 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 emailing them to Elise Colomer, Senior Program Director at the Vance Center, ecolomer@nycbar.org.

13

II. REGIONAL REPORT A. The Respondents and Submission Rates

Fifty-three law firm signatories (“the respondents”) with main offices in Argentina,

Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela participated in the spring 2010 installment of the Vance Center’s Survey Project.

Collectively, Chilean firms submitted the most surveys (19). With nineteen of the 20

solicited firms submitting responses, Chile also had the highest submission rate (62.5%). The overall submission rate was 29.8%, based on the fact that 178 law firms were

solicited via email to take the survey and 53 of solicited firms returned surveys. Number of

Law Firm PBDA Signatories

Number of Signatories Sent Survey

Number of Surveys Returned

Submission Rate

ARGENTINA 17 16 10 62.5% BRAZIL 58 38 3 7.9% CHILE 20 20 19 95% COLOMBIA 43 41 9 22% COSTA RICA 1 1 0 0% ECUADOR 4 4 1 25% MEXICO 26 21 4 19% PERU 39 31 7 22.6% TRINIDAD & TOBAGO 1 1 0 0% URUGUAY 1 1 0 0% VENEZUELA 11 4 1 25% TOTALS 221 178 53 29.8% The overall response rate was slightly down from the fall 2009 issuance of the survey. In fall of 2009, 59 of 207 signatories returned responses, while in the spring 2010 issuance 53 of 207 signatories responded. Respondents to the spring 2010 survey were also more likely to skip questions or to leave the survey incomplete, with only 41 respondents completing the survey in its entirety.

14

B. Internal Organization of Pro Bono Programs The survey sought a better understanding of who is responsible for the distribution of pro bono projects within firms. Specifically, firms were invited to select one or more actor(s) from the categories listed below. Firms also could indicate that they lack a specific entity charged with distributing pro bono at this time. All 53 firms responded to this question.

The table below indicates the number of respondents that checked each category. Pro

bono coordinators are the distributors of pro bono work, exclusive or otherwise, at 24 firms. Three respondents, or approximately 5.7%, reported that they lack a focal point that is tasked with the distribution of pro bono work.

Number of Respondents with the Following Actors in Charge of the Distribution of

Pro Bono Projects No Director 3 5.7% Pro Bono Committee 13 24.5%All Partners 5 9.4% Pro Bono Coordinator 24 45.3%Partner Committee 6 11.3% Administrative Staff 0 0% Pro Bono Partner or President 5 9.4% Other 0 0%

Additionally, the survey probed whether the firms have a pro bono policy manual that

can be utilized as an internal guide to all procedural aspects of the law firm’s pro bono program. Forty-five of the 53 respondents answered this query. Thirteen firms, or 28.9% of respondents, have produced such a manual, while 32 have not. This represents an increase over the fall 2009 survey, in which only 9 of 57, or 15.8%, of respondents reported having a pro bono policy manual. C. Types of Pro Bono Work The survey gathered information about the specific areas of the law in which the law firms have performed pro bono work.

For the former, the survey presented a list of 24 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 additional practice areas. Fifty-two respondents submitted this information.

The seven areas in which the 2010 respondents had the most pro bono experience were (in order of most to fewest checks): Corporate Law, Transactional or Institutional Support of NGOs, Labor Law, Education, Individual Representation of Poor People, Family Law, and Disability Rights.

The chart below indicates all 24 practice areas, and presents the number of law firms that

indicated pro bono experience within each area. Notably, 35 respondents (67.3%) reported that

15

they had pro bono experience in Corporate Law, while 34 respondents (65.4%) reported pro bono experience in the area of Transactional/Institutional Support of Non-Governmental Organizations. Domestic Violence and Indigenous Rights/Rights of Ethnic Groups received the fewest number of checks with four apiece. Nine firms selected “Other” and listed such practice areas as Transparency, Contract Law, Criminal Law and Civil Litigation.

Number of Regional Respondents Indicating Pro Bono Experience in Legal Areas Listed

5 Anti-corruption 16 Environmental Law (Policymaking)

17 Intellectual Property

10 Child Custody 21 Family Law 28 Labor Law 35 Corporate Law 11 Finance 13 Law Reform 21 Disability Rights 15 Healthcare 5 Mergers & Acquisitions 4 Domestic Violence 8 Human Rights 19 Microfinance/Microenterprise26 Education 6 Immigration 16 Real Estate

6 Rights of the Elderly 4

Indigenous Rights/Rights of Ethnic Groups

5 Securities

7 Environmental Law (Litigation) 21

Individual Representation of Poor People

34 Transactional/Institutional Support of NGOs

9 Other

D. Sources of Pro Bono Work 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 had received pro bono work. The firms could also select “Other” and then type a response. Fifty-one respondents provided this information.

The chart below contains the 17 potential sources, and presents the number of law firms

that indicated usage of each source. Of note, 44 of 51 respondents reported non-profit organizations as a source. Law firm partners and associates received the second and third highest number of checks with 37 and 36, respectively. Twelve firms selected other means, and notably, seven of those twelve mentioned pro bono clearinghouses such as Chile’s Fundación Pro Bono, Fundación Pro Bono Colombia, and Peru’s Ciudadanos al Día.

16

Number of Regional Respondents that Have Found New Pro Bono Opportunities fromThese Sources

5 Professors or other academics 15 Religious

organizations 2 Attorneys from the public sector

26 Social services organizations 15 Bar associations 1 Radio

44 Non-profit organizations 37 Your law firm's

partners 2 Television

10 Government agencies 36 Your law firm's

associates 2 Newspapers

1 Judges 21 Your law firm's staff 4 Online databases

0 Court personnel 6 Attorneys from the private sector 12 Other

One notable change from the 2009 survey is the growth of the role of online databases and pro bono clearinghouses. In 2009, no respondents reported using online databases, while two selected other and specified that they had used a pro bono clearinghouse. In 2010, four firms reported using online databases, while seven volunteered that they had utilized a pro bono clearinghouse.

The survey also asked firms whether they allow firm associates to present pro bono projects to the firm for approval. Firms overwhelmingly allowed such input, with 45 out of 50 (90%) of respondents stating that they allowed associates to bring pro bono work to the firm. E. Selection 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 procedure for selecting specific pro bono opportunities or projects. Twenty-nine out of fifty regional respondents (58%) indicated their firms have formal processes for selecting pro bono work. Twenty-one firms (42%) said they lack formal processes for selecting pro bono cases.

These numbers represent an increase in the prevalence of formal pro bono procedures as

compared to the fall 2009 survey, in which 29 of 59 (49.2%) of respondents reported having formal pro bono selection procedures, while 30 of 59 (50.8%) reported having no such procedures. 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:

17

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 that 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). Respondents were asked to mark all the factors that the firm presently considers. Fifty respondents provided this information.

Forty-five of 50 respondents (90%) reported considering the nature of the case when selecting new pro bono work. Forty-three respondents (86%) indicated the consideration of form of pro bono assistance to be provided while 42 (84%) reported considering necessary legal expertise. The survey also asked firms the extent to which they consider estimated fixed costs of a pro bono project before undertaking that project. Twenty-two of 50 firms (44.9%) indicated that estimated fixed costs have some impact on the decision to undertake a project, with 17 firms (34.7%) reporting that costs are not calculated before project approval. Only 2 respondents (4.1%) said that costs had a major impact on the decision to undertake a pro bono project, while 8 (16.3%) indicated that costs had no effect at all.

The vast majority of respondents (45 of 49, 91.8%) indicated that they do not have a fixed annual pro bono budget. F. Tracking and Oversight of Pro Bono Work Thirty out of 43 respondents (69.8%) indicated that they have a formal system for tracking pro bono hours, while 13 (30.2%) said that they had no such system. However, many firms lacked detailed records regarding pro bono hours and participation, or were unwilling to disclose such data due to confidentiality concerns. Firms have not been as active in publicizing their pro bono work externally as they have been in tracking it internally. Only 8 of 42 respondents (19.1%) indicated that they publish a report on their pro bono work, as compared to 34 of 42 (80.9%) who publish no such report. All respondents who indicated that they publish a pro bono report indicated that the report was electronic. No firm reported publishing a pro bono report in print this year.

18

These numbers represent a small decrease from the fall 2009 survey. In that survey,

27.6% of respondents indicated that they published a pro bono report; 75% of those reports were electronic, 25% were in print.

Generally, respondents indicated that pro bono projects receive supervision from senior

lawyers. Twenty-nine of 42 respondents (69.1%) indicated that every pro bono project that they undertake is supervised by at least one partner. Among those respondents indicating that not every pro bono project was supervised by a partner, however, many noted that senior associates provided supervision where a partner was not present on the project.

G. Commitment to and Use of the PBDA

Since the respondent pool consisted of PBDA signatories, the survey asked several questions to gauge the respondents’ commitment to the Declaration and their adherence to its principles. Firms’ levels of commitment varied. Forty-eight out of 52 of respondents (92.3%) reported that they adhere to the definition of pro bono work as set out in the PBDA. A smaller majority, 30 out of 42 (71.4%), indicated that their pro bono coordinator, or other person in charge of pro bono work, had read the PBDA Guide on the Implementation of Pro Bono Projects. Thirty out of 43 firms (69.8%) reported that they adhere to the PBDA standard of 20 annual hours of pro bono work per lawyer. Firms have not been as eager to make their commitment to the PBDA known. Only 25 of 51 respondents (49.1%) reported that their firm publicizes its commitment to and support for the Declaration. Similarly, while for the most part the signatories have been willing to commit and adhere to the PBDA, fewer firms have stated that commitment internally. Only 44.4% of firms (20 of 45) have generated a written declaration of their commitment to pro bono.

H. Pro Bono Programs as They Relate to Associate Experiences The survey requested 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. Out of a total of 42 respondents, 17 (40.5%) indicated that pro bono participation is considered, while 25 (59.5%) 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. Twenty-eight of 42 regional firms (66.7%) reported such hours are included, while 14 firms (33.3%) indicated they are not.

19

Based on these responses, pro bono appears to play a somewhat bigger role in the

associate experience than was the case during the fall 2009 survey. In 2009, only 36.8% of firms reported that pro bono participation was considered in determining associate salary, bonuses, and career advancement, while 54.4% of respondents indicated that pro bono hours were included in their firm’s associate evaluations.

The survey also sought to determine whether firms introduce associates to their pro bono practices and policies early in their employment. Many firms (20 of 42, 47.6%) indicated that they do not have orientation sessions for new associates. Of those that do have associate orientations, 68.4% (13 of 19) introduce their firm’s pro bono practice at orientation. I. Cooperation with Outside Organizations

The survey sought to examine many aspects of firm’s cooperation with civil society and

social organizations. As noted in Section D above, social organizations are important as a source of pro bono work for firms. Non-profit Organizations were the single most reported source of pro bono work, eliciting responses from 44 of 51 respondents (86.3%). Other important outside institutions that served as sources of pro bono work were Social Services Organizations (26 of 51, 51%), Religious Organizations (15 of 51, 29.4%), Bar Associations (15 of 54, 29.4%), and Government Agencies (10 of 54, 19.6%).

In many cases, social and non-profit organizations are a predominant source of pro bono

work. Among those firms that kept records of such data, 15 of 22 (61.8%) reported that such organizations were the source of 70% or more of their pro bono caseload.

The survey also queried other linkages between law firms and social organizations. For

example, 23 of 46 (50%) of firms reported that their partners or associates serve as directors of social organizations or NGOs that serve the less privileged.

Some linkages between law firms and civil society remain weak. Only 26.1% (12 of 46)

respondents reported that their firm provides financial support to organizations that promote access to justice. A mere 13% (6 of 46) of respondents indicated that their firms work with public interest law school clinics.

J. 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 asked about the following potential challenges:

Language barriers; Not consistent with firm / employer culture; Not within relevant specialization and expertise of the firm; Time constraints;

20

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. Forty-three respondents answered this question.

The chart below illustrates that 33 of 41 (80.5%) of respondents report time constraints as

a serious challenge to pro bono participation. Thirteen firms (31.7%) considered the fact that pro bono was not within the relevant specialization and expertise of the firm to be a serious impediment. Six firms that selected “Other” highlighted such challenges as the lack of a commitment to pro bono in the national legal culture, a failure to introduce young lawyers to pro bono, and the lack of a national pro bono clearinghouse.

K. Effective Support Methods for the Vance Center to Use

The Vance Center solicited feedback about how its staff can effectively support the firms as they 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 US/international law firms to discuss pro bono; Partnerships with US/international NGOs to discuss pro bono; Technical assistance materials on institutionalizing pro bono; Exchange of information on projects being done regionally.

Forty-one 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 (30, or 73.2%).

21

L. Trends from the Fall 2009 to the Spring 2010 Survey

While many response rates remained steady from the 2009 survey to the 2010 survey, several indicators did experience shifts. The chart below highlights some of the notable changes in survey responses from 2009 to 2010, expressed as percentages of total responses.

Broadly speaking, these shifts were in the direction of greater formalization and internal

promotion of pro bono work. Pro bono coordinators, pro bono manuals, and formal pro bono selection procedures were all more prevalent among the 2010 respondents than among respondents to the 2009 survey. The role of online databases and pro bono clearinghouses rapidly expanded. Firms seem to be giving pro bono work greater consideration in the assessment of associates. Several of the key structural and cultural barriers to pro bono work within firms appear to have eroded somewhat since 2009. Nonetheless, the 2010 respondents fell short of the 2009 firms in one area, the publication of reports on pro bono work.

Response Rates from the 2009 and 2010 PBDA Survey

Survey Response 2009 2010 A pro bono coordinator is responsible for the distribution of pro bono work

in our firm 27.1% 45.3%

Our firm has a written manual of its pro bono policies 15.8% 28.9%

Our firm has used an online pro bono database or a pro bono clearinghouse to procure pro bono work 3.4% 21.6%

Our firm has formal procedures for the selection of pro bono work 49.2% 58%

In our firm, pro bono work affects determinations on associate salary, bonus, and promotion decisions 36.8% 40.5%

Pro bono work is considered in our firm’s associate evaluations 54.4% 66.7%

Our firm publishes a report on its pro bono work 27.6% 19.1%

The following are among the most significant barriers to pro bono work:

Pro bono work is not consistent with culture of the firm 18.2% 12.2%

Pro bono work is not within the specialization or expertise of the firm 38.2% 31.7%

A lack of financial resources or support 14.5% 7.3%

A lack of adequate pro bono opportunities 27.3% 12.2%

22

III. ANNEXES

A. Origins and Development of the Pro Bono Declaration for the Americas

The Pro Bono Declaration for the Americas (“PBDA”) is designed to compliment and

advance the efforts by private lawyers throughout the hemisphere who wish to strengthen the accessibility of effective legal representation for the poor and disadvantaged.1 Its origins stem from a 2005 meeting, “Strategy Summit for the Americas: A Profession in Support of Democracy” (“the Summit”), which was hosted by the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice (the “Vance Center”) and attended by attorneys from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Spain, the United States, Mexico, Peru, and South Africa. The participants engaged in regional, national, and local analyses about the extent to which various legal communities did or did not promote social responsibility within the legal profession and about the degree to which meaningful access to justice did or did not exist. This dialogue produced the following consensus: first, states fall short in meeting legal needs; and second, the pro bono initiative could be developed as one means for addressing unmet legal needs.

Furthermore, the Summit’s dialogue was the catalyst for drafting a uniform definition of

pro bono and developing an action plan for turning the pro bono initiative into a practical tool for regional law firms. A Drafting Committee was formed, comprised of Juan E. Cambiaso, of Argentina; Horacio Bernardes Neto and Antonio Correa Meyer, of Brazil; Guillermo Morales, of Chile; Paula Samper Salazar, of Colombia; Claus Werner von Wobeser Hoepfner, of Mexico; Javier de Belaunde, of Peru; Dan Grunfeld, of the United States; and Todd Crider, of the United States.

Over the course of sixteen months, the Drafting Committee shared points of view and

debated various approaches and specific language, producing an initial PBDA text. Subsequently, the draft declaration was presented to the legal communities throughout the Americas. Comments and ideas expressed during those discussions were incorporated into the final draft of the PBDA, which to date has been published in English, Portuguese, and Spanish.2

On January 1, 2008, the final text of the PBDA took effect. Official launching

ceremonies took place in January 2008 in New York and in February 2008 in Mexico City. Over 400 institutions and individuals have signed the PBDA as of the date of publication of this report, with the majority of these signatories being law firms.3 The signing period is open-ended; new signatories are always welcome.

1 See Annex B, Pro Bono Declaration for the Americas (“PBDA”). 2 Copies of the PBDA in these languages are available at www.vancecenter.org 3 For the current list of PBDA signatories, please visit www.vancecenter.org

23

B. PBDA Text and Signing Sheet

PRO BONO DECLARATION FOR THE AMERICAS

SIGNED DECLARATIONS CAN BE SUBMITTED TO THE CYRUS R. VANCE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE INITIATIVES

OF THE NEW YORK CITY BAR*

*THE VANCE CENTER IS THE REPOSITORY FOR ALL ENDORSEMENTS: 42 WEST 44TH

STREET NEW YORK, NY, 10036

USA

VANCE@NYCBAR.ORG

+1 (212) 768-8630 (FAX)

24

PRO BONO DECLARATION FOR THE AMERICAS

WHEREAS, access to justice and legal representation are essential to democratic societies; WHEREAS, the resources of government and of legal services organizations are insufficient to satisfy the critical legal needs of poor and underprivileged persons and communities, often leaving these needs unmet; WHEREAS, consequently, not all members of society have meaningful access to justice or effective legal representation, and this is especially the case for poor and underprivileged persons and communities; WHEREAS, the absence of access to justice and legal representation undermines public confidence in governmental and judicial institutions and democracy; WHEREAS, the legal profession has a privileged role and is uniquely positioned in matters of justice and therefore has the duty, means and opportunity to promote a fair and equitable legal system and respect for human and constitutional rights in collaboration with the State, the judiciary and legal services organizations; WHEREAS, traditions exist across the Americas and new efforts are underway in several countries, including collaborations among bar associations, private and public interest law firms, law schools, foundations, governmental actors and non-governmental organizations, to address these pressing and unmet legal needs; WHEREAS, a concerted movement across the Americas to promote access to justice through pro bono work would strengthen commitments to democracy and public service in the legal profession;

WE, the undersigned, solemnly declare our commitment to pro bono by stating as follows:

Members of the legal profession have a responsibility to provide pro bono legal services. This responsibility stems from the profession’s role and purpose in society, and from its implicit commitment to a fair and equitable legal system. Pro bono is derived from the Latin phrase pro bono publico, which refers to actions carried out “for the public good.” For purposes of this Declaration, pro bono legal services are those provided without a fee, or expectation of a fee, principally to benefit poor or underprivileged persons or communities or the organizations that assist them. They may include representation of persons, communities or organizations in matters of public interest who otherwise could not obtain effective representation. In addition, pro bono legal services can also benefit civic, cultural and Educational institutions serving the public interest who otherwise could not obtain effective representation.

25

Pro bono legal services should be provided with the same quality of representation as services provided to paying clients, and in a manner upholding the applicable ethical norms and standards. Effective delivery of pro bono legal services requires cooperation among the different actors in the legal profession – including bar associations, private and public interest law firms, law schools, foundations, governmental actors and non-governmental organizations.

WE, the undersigned, each in a manner consistent with our respective roles in the legal profession, commit to:

Act to improve effective legal representation for poor or underprivileged persons and communities; Enhance widespread and effective access to justice and to legal services for persons and communities who lack such access; Provide, on a pro bono basis, more than 20 hours or three days of legal services per individual lawyer per annum, or in the case of law firms, institutions or other groups of lawyers, an average of more than 20 hours per lawyer per annum. This commitment should be met within three years of endorsing this Declaration; Strengthen the profession’s commitment to the provision and expansion of pro bono legal services by emphasizing its importance and practice in legal Education; Support the establishment, development and operations of non-governmental organizations dedicated to the delivery of legal services in the public interest; and Advocate and promote within the profession for the recognition and promotion of pro bono legal services as part of lawyers´ ethical standards and obligations.

This Declaration is not intended to alter or supersede any existing legislation, resolution or ethical code in any jurisdiction, firm or institution that is more conducive to the provision of pro bono legal services. This Declaration will be effective from January 1, 2008. ____________________________________________ _________________________ Signatory Date

26

SIGNATORY DATA SHEET COUNTRY:

1. Category:

□ Institution or □ Individual 2. Signatory* (Name of Institution or Individual): ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Legal Representative (Institution only): ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Position: _____________________________________________________________ 5. Address: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Phone(s): _____________________________________________________________ 7. Email(s): _____________________________________________________________

□ *Please check the box if the signatory is not primarily engaged in the private practice of

law and thus subscribes this Declaration to manifest its support of the Declaration and commitment to encourage the adoption and observance by the legal profession of the Declaration’s principles and commitments.

27

C. 2010 PBDA Survey Results

Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Mexico Peru Venezuela Total Responses % Responses 10 3 18 9 1 4 7 1 53

Who is responsible for the distribution of pro bono projects in your firm? No director 2 1 3 53 5.66% All partners 1 1 1 2 5 53 9.43%

Partner committee 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 53 11.32% Pro bono partner/president 2 1 1 1 5 53 9.43%

Pro bono committee 3 5 1 2 2 13 53 24.53% Pro bono coordinator 3 1 13 5 1 1 24 53 45.28%

Administrative staff 53 0.00% Other 53 0.00%

Does your firm adhere to the PBDA definition of pro bono? Yes 10 1 17 9 1 2 7 1 48 52 92.31% No 2 2 4 52 7.69%

In what areas has your firm participated in pro bono work? Anticorruption 2 1 1 1 5 52 9.62% Child custody 4 2 3 1 10 52 19.23%

Disability rights 5 1 6 3 4 2 21 52 40.38% Domestic violence 2 1 1 4 52 7.69%

Education 5 1 7 6 5 2 26 52 50.00% Rights of the elderly 4 1 1 6 52 11.54%

Environmental (Policy) 1 1 4 5 1 3 1 16 52 30.77% Environmental (Litigation) 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 52 13.46%

Family law 5 1 7 2 1 3 2 21 52 40.38% Transactional or institutional

support for NGOs 8 3 10 3 5 4 1 34 52 65.38%

Health 4 1 2 2 4 2 15 52 28.85% Human rights 4 1 2 1 8 52 15.38%

Immigration 3 3 6 52 11.54% Indigenous or ethnic rights 3 1 4 52 7.69%

Intellectual property 3 1 3 5 4 1 17 52 32.69%

28

Microfinance/small business 2 9 4 1 2 1 19 52 36.54%

Employment law 5 1 9 6 1 4 2 28 52 53.85% Legal reform 3 4 2 2 2 13 52 25.00%

Individual representation of indigent clients

4 1 7 1 4 4 21 52 40.38%

Corporate law 4 2 13 7 5 4 35 52 67.31% Mergers & acquistions 2 2 1 5 52 9.62%

Financing 2 1 3 3 2 11 52 21.15% Securities 1 1 2 1 5 52 9.62%

Real estate law 2 7 2 4 1 16 52 30.77% Other 1 1 4 1 2 9 52 17.31%

Does the office publicize its commitment to/support for the PBDA? Yes 5 9 5 4 2 25 51 49.02% No 5 3 7 4 1 1 4 1 26 51 50.98%

Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Mexico Peru Venezuela Total Responses % What have been your sources of pro bono work?

Professors & academia 1 1 2 1 5 51 9.80% Social service orgs 4 2 4 7 3 6 26 51 50.98%

Non-profit orgs 8 3 12 9 1 3 7 1 44 51 86.27% Government agencies 4 3 1 2 10 51 19.61%

Judges 1 1 51 1.96% Court staff 51 0.00%

Religious orgs 4 3 2 1 4 1 15 51 29.41% Lawyer's associations 8 2 1 2 2 15 51 29.41%

Partners 7 3 10 8 2 6 1 37 51 72.55% Associates 6 3 10 8 1 7 1 36 51 70.59%

Staff 4 1 4 3 1 3 5 21 51 41.18% Private sector attorneys 2 1 1 1 1 6 51 11.76% Public sector attorneys 1 1 2 51 3.92%

Radio 1 1 51 1.96% Television 1 1 2 51 3.92%

Newspaper 1 1 2 51 3.92%

29

Online databases 1 1 1 1 4 51 7.84% Other 2 5 2 3 12 51 23.53%

Can associates bring pro bono projects to the firm for approval? Yes 9 3 12 9 1 4 6 1 45 50 90.00% No 1 2 1 1 5 50 10.00%

Does the firm have a formal procedure for approving pro bono projects? Yes 5 1 9 5 4 4 1 29 50 58.00% No 5 2 5 5 1 3 21 50 42.00%

What factors does your firm consider when approving pro bono projects? Nature of the case 8 3 13 8 1 4 7 1 45 50 90.00%

Form of assistance requested 8 3 13 6 1 4 7 1 43 50 86.00% Necessary legal knowledge 10 1 9 9 1 4 7 1 42 50 84.00%

Availability of more adequate resources to help the particular client

4 5 4 2 4 19 50 38.00%

Level of public interest 4 1 7 4 2 3 1 22 50 44.00% Possible conflicts of interest 6 2 10 10 1 3 6 1 39 50 78.00%

Actual conflict of interest 5 2 8 8 2 6 1 32 50 64.00% Availability of firm resources 9 1 9 8 1 5 1 34 50 68.00%

Projected fixed costs 2 4 3 2 2 1 14 50 28.00% If the issue deals with a particular

group of clients 2 2 4 1 3 2 14 50 28.00%

Other 1 1 1 3 50 6.00% What is the impact of estimated fixed costs on pro bono project approval?

Major impact 1 1 2 49 4.08% Some impact 4 7 5 2 3 1 22 49 44.90%

No impact 2 4 1 1 8 49 16.33% Costs are not calculated before

approval 6 1 1 3 1 1 4 17 49 34.69%

Does your firm have an annual budget for pro bono projects? Yes 1 1 1 1 4 49 8.16% No 10 2 13 10 1 3 5 1 45 49 91.84%

30

Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Mexico Peru Venezuela Total Responses % How many pro bono projects did your firm complete in 2009?

1 to 5 1 2 2 1 2 8 46 17.39% 6 to 10 2 1 3 46 6.52%

11 to 20 1 1 2 46 4.35% 20 to 30 1 2 1 4 46 8.70%

More than 30 1 1 1 3 46 6.52% This data was not recorded 6 1 7 5 2 4 1 26 46 56.52%

What percentage of pro bono projects originated with social or non-profit organizations? Less than 50% 1 1 1 3 46 6.52%

50 to 60% 1 1 1 1 4 46 8.70% 70 to 90% 3 1 1 1 1 7 46 15.22%

90 to 100% 1 1 3 1 2 8 46 17.39% This data was not recorded 4 1 8 6 1 3 1 24 46 52.17%

Do partners or associates of your firm serves as directors of social organizations/NGOs that serve the less privileged? Yes 6 2 7 3 3 1 1 23 46 50.00% No 3 1 7 5 1 1 5 23 46 50.00%

Does your firm financially support organizations that promote access to justice? Yes 3 2 4 2 1 12 46 26.09% No 6 1 10 8 1 2 5 1 34 46 73.91%

Does your firm work with any public interest law school clinics? Yes 3 1 2 6 46 13.04% No 6 3 14 7 1 2 6 1 40 46 86.96%

Does your firm have a written declaration of its pro bono commitment? Yes 2 6 3 1 3 5 20 45 44.44% No 7 3 8 5 1 1 25 45 55.56%

Does your firm have a manual of its internal pro bono policies? Yes 2 1 3 3 3 1 13 45 28.89% No 7 2 11 5 1 5 1 32 45 71.11%

Has your coordinator/person in charge of pro bono read the PBDA Guide on the Implementation of Pro Bono Projects? Yes 7 8 5 1 3 6 30 42 71.43% No 2 2 6 1 1 12 42 28.57%

31

Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Mexico Peru Venezuela Total Responses %What percentage of your partners participated in pro bono work in 2009?

Less than 20% 1 1 3 1 1 7 44 15.91%20-40% 4 3 1 1 2 11 44 25.00%41-60% 2 5 2 1 1 1 12 44 27.27%61-80% 1 3 1 5 44 11.36%

80-100% 1 1 1 1 4 44 9.09%Information not

available 1 1 2 1 5 44 11.36%

What percentage of your associates participated in pro bono work in 2009? Less than 20% 1 1 1 3 42 7.14%

20-40% 3 3 2 1 1 2 12 42 28.57%41-60% 2 1 3 1 2 9 42 21.43%61-80% 2 3 1 6 42 14.29%

81-100% 1 2 1 1 1 6 42 14.29%Information not

available 1 1 1 2 1 6 42 14.29%

Does your office adhere to the PBDA standard of at least 20 annual hours of pro bono per lawyer? Yes 8 1 10 3 1 3 4 30 43 69.77%No 1 2 4 4 2 13 43 30.23%

Does your office have a formal system for tracking pro bono hours? Yes 7 2 10 5 3 3 30 43 69.77%No 2 1 4 2 1 3 13 43 30.23%

What is the average number of pro bono hours completed per partner in 2009? Less than 5 1 1 43 2.33%

5 to 9 1 1 1 3 43 6.98%10 to 19 3 4 1 1 2 11 43 25.58%20 to 29 1 1 1 3 43 6.98%

30 or more 2 1 1 4 43 9.30%N/A, no record, or

confidential 2 2 7 5 5 21 43 48.84%

What was the average number of pro bono hours completed per associate in 2009? Less than 5 43 0.00%

5 to 9 1 1 2 43 4.65%10 to 19 2 1 1 1 5 43 11.63%

32

20 to 29 4 3 2 2 11 43 25.58%30 or more 1 1 2 4 43 9.30%

N/A, no record, or confidential

3 2 6 5 5 21 43 48.84%

What is the total number of hours of pro bono hours completed by your firm in 2009? Less than 100 1 1 1 3 43 6.98%

100 to 499 2 3 1 1 7 43 16.28%500 to 999 4 1 5 43 11.63%

1000 to 1999 1 1 2 4 43 9.30%2000 or more 3 2 1 6 43 13.95%

N/A, no record, or confidential

2 1 5 5 5 18 43 41.86%

Does your firm have a maximum number of pro bono hours an associate may work? Yes 1 1 2 42 4.76%No 8 3 13 6 1 3 6 40 42 95.24%

Is every pro bono project supervised by at least one partner? Yes 7 2 7 4 1 3 5 29 42 69.05%No 1 1 7 3 1 13 42 30.95%

Does pro bono work affect determinations on associate salary, bonuses, and advancement? Yes 2 1 5 3 1 3 2 17 42 40.48%No 6 2 9 4 4 25 42 59.52%

Is pro bono work considered in evaluations of associates? Yes 4 2 8 5 1 3 5 28 42 66.67%No 4 1 6 2 1 14 42 33.33%

33

Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Mexico Peru Venezuela Total Responses % Does your firm have an orientation for new associates?

Yes 4 1 5 5 1 3 3 22 42 52.38% No 5 2 9 1 3 20 42 47.62%

If so, is pro bono included in the oreintation? Yes 4 2 3 1 3 13 19 68.42% No 1 1 1 3 6 19 31.58%

Does your firm publish a report on pro bono work? Yes, electronically 4 2 2 8 42 19.05%

Yes, in print 42 0.00% No 5 3 12 6 1 1 6 34 42 80.95%

Has your pro bono coordinator or committee communicated or collaborated with the Vance Center? Yes 5 2 7 2 2 3 21 39 53.85% No 4 7 2 1 1 3 18 39 46.15%

How can the Vance Center effectively support your firm in its pro bono efforts? Share information regarding best

practices through blogs and websites

4 3 10 4 1 2 6 30 41 73.17%

Work with lawyer's associations to improve laws and regulations in

the field

5 2 8 2 2 3 22 41 53.66%

Annual conferences and roundtables

5 3 9 2 3 4 26 41 63.41%

Videoconferences for associates 5 4 3 1 3 16 41 39.02% Regional workgroups 3 10 2 2 3 20 41 48.78%

Other conferences on pro bono and legal aid

2 2 4 2 2 3 15 41 36.59%

Assistance by telephone/mentor support

2 2 1 1 1 7 41 17.07%

Cooperation with US or international firms to discuss pro

bono

5 3 5 2 1 2 5 23 41 56.10%

Cooperation with US or international NGOs to discuss pro

bono

4 3 7 2 1 2 4 23 41 56.10%

34

Technical materials on the institutionalization of pro bono

4 3 9 3 1 3 5 28 41 68.29%

Sharing information on regional projects in development

4 3 7 2 2 5 23 41 56.10%

Other 2 1 2 1 6 41 14.63% What are the biggest impediments to pro bono participation?

Language barriers 1 1 41 2.44% Not consistent with the firm or the

culture of the employer 1 1 2 1 5 41 12.20%

Not within the specialization or experience of the firm

5 5 2 1 13 41 31.71%

Time constraints 7 1 13 4 3 5 33 41 80.49% Taxes 1 1 4 6 41 14.63%

Detrimental from a career perspective

1 1 41 2.44%

Excessive regulation or control 2 2 41 4.88% Lack of financial resources and

support 1 2 3 41 7.32%

Lack of malpractice insurance or protection

41 0.00%

Lack of adequate opportunities 1 1 1 1 1 5 41 12.20% Other 1 1 1 1 1 5 41 12.20%

35

D. 2009 PBDA Survey Results Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Mexico Peru Total Responses %

Responses 10 4 8 10 1 11 15 59 What are the principal areas of practice of your office?

Anticorruption 1 2 2 1 4 2 12 59 20.3% Child custody 1 4 1 6 59 10.2%

Disability rights 3 1 2 1 3 1 11 59 18.6% Domestic violence 1 1 59 1.7%

Education 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 11 59 18.6% Rights of the elderly 1 1 3 1 6 59 10.2%

Environmental (Policy) 2 4 5 3 1 7 4 26 59 44.1% Environmental (Litigation) 3 4 5 5 1 7 6 31 59 52.5%

Family law 2 3 1 1 6 5 18 59 30.5% Transactional or institutional

support for NGOs 4 3 4 3 7 7 28 59 47.5%

Health 2 2 4 1 6 2 17 59 28.8% Human rights 1 1 1 3 3 9 59 15.3%

Immigration 1 2 1 4 6 5 19 59 32.2% Indigenous or ethnic rights 1 1 1 3 59 5.1%

Intellectual property 4 3 4 5 1 9 13 39 59 66.1%

Microfinance/small business 1 1 2 4 1 8 5 22 59 37.3%

Employment law 7 4 7 5 1 7 12 43 59 72.9% Legal reform 1 1 1 2 1 4 5 15 59 25.4%

Individual representation of indigent clients

2 1 1 3 2 9 59 15.3%

Corporate law 9 4 7 9 1 10 13 53 59 89.8% Mergers & acquistions 7 4 7 9 1 10 12 50 59 84.7%

Financing 6 4 7 7 1 10 12 47 59 79.7% Securities 2 4 6 5 1 7 11 36 59 61.0%

Real estate law 5 4 7 5 1 10 12 44 59 74.6% Other 6 3 5 7 4 13 38 59 64.4%

What is the total number of lawyers in your firm? 1 to 10 1 1 2 1 3 8 59 13.6%

11 to 30 2 2 4 4 3 15 59 25.4%

36

31 to 60 2 2 3 1 3 7 18 59 30.5% 61 to 100 2 2 1 2 1 8 59 13.6%

101 to 150 1 1 1 3 59 5.1% 151 to 200 1 1 1 3 59 5.1%

More than 200 1 2 3 59 5.1% What is the total number of partners in your firm?

1 to 5 3 1 3 3 4 14 59 23.7% 6 to 10 1 1 4 6 1 3 4 20 59 33.9%

11 to 15 3 1 2 1 2 5 14 59 23.7% 16 to 20 1 2 3 59 5.1% 21 to 30 1 1 1 1 4 59 6.8%

More than 30 1 3 1 5 59 8.5% What is the total number of associates in your firm?

None 1 1 1 1 4 59 6.8% 0 to 10 1 1 1 3 2 5 13 59 22.0%

11 to 30 3 4 3 1 6 4 21 59 35.6% 31 to 60 2 2 2 4 10 59 16.9%

61 to 100 3 1 4 59 6.8% 101 to 150 1 1 2 59 3.4% 151 to 200 1 1 2 59 3.4%

More than 200 1 2 3 59 5.1% What is the total number of special attorneys (Of Counsel, Part-time, etc) in your firm?

None 5 1 2 2 3 8 21 59 35.6% 0 to 10 4 2 6 7 1 4 4 28 59 47.5%

11 to 30 3 1 4 59 6.8% 31 to 60 2 2 59 3.4%

61 to 100 1 1 2 59 3.4% More than 100 1 1 2 59 3.4%

Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Mexico Peru Total Responses %In what areas has your firm participated in pro bono work?

Anticorruption 2 1 1 1 1 6 59 10.2%Child custody 3 3 6 3 15 59 25.4%

Disability rights 6 1 3 3 1 4 1 19 59 32.2%Domestic violence 2 1 1 4 59 6.8%

Education 4 2 5 6 1 6 4 28 59 47.5%

37

Rights of the elderly 1 1 3 1 6 59 10.2%Environmental (Policy) 1 1 3 1 1 4 11 59 18.6%

Environmental (Litigation) 1 1 3 5 59 8.5%Family law 6 2 4 5 6 23 59 39.0%

Transactional or institutional support for

NGOs

8 2 6 7 1 8 7 39 59 66.1%

Health 5 1 3 3 1 3 3 19 59 32.2%Human rights 1 1 1 3 1 7 59 11.9%

Immigration 1 3 1 5 59 8.5%Indigenous or ethnic rights 1 1 1 2 5 59 8.5%

Intellectual property 3 1 1 5 1 3 1 15 59 25.4%Microfinance/small

business 3 6 4 1 7 2 23 59 39.0%

Employment law 4 1 7 6 1 5 7 31 59 52.5%Legal reform 1 3 4 1 3 4 16 59 27.1%

Individual representation of indigent clients

6 1 5 3 1 4 4 24 59 40.7%

Corporate law 4 2 8 6 1 9 5 35 59 59.3%Mergers & acquistions 1 2 1 1 5 59 8.5%

Financing 2 2 5 3 12 59 20.3%Securities 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 59 11.9%

Real estate law 3 2 3 1 5 4 18 59 30.5%Other 1 1 1 3 1 4 11 59 18.6%

Who is responsible for the distribution of pro bono projects in your firm? No one is currently

responsible 3 3 59 5.1%

All partners 1 1 3 3 2 10 59 16.9%Partner committee 1 1 2 4 59 6.8%

Pro bono partner/president 2 2 1 2 3 10 59 16.9%Pro bono committee 2 6 1 1 2 3 15 59 25.4%

Pro bono coordinator 4 1 1 4 3 3 16 59 27.1%Administrative staff 1 1 59 1.7%

Other 3 1 1 1 6 59 10.2%Who is responsible for maintaining a record of the pro bono hours worked by each lawyer on a particular project in your firm?

No current director 1 1 1 1 1 5 10 59 16.9%

38

Partner committee 1 0 59 0.0%Pro bono partner/chair 2 1 1 1 2 7 59 11.9%

Pro bono committee 2 1 1 4 59 6.8%Pro bono coordinator 5 1 6 3 2 1 18 59 30.5%

Administrative staff 4 2 4 5 5 20 59 33.9%Other 1 1 1 3 4 10 59 16.9%

How often is are these hours calculated? We do not keep these

records 1 1 1 1 1 7 12 59 20.3%

Annually 2 3 2 4 2 13 59 22.0%Biannually 3 1 4 59 6.8%

Monthly 4 3 3 3 3 16 59 27.1%Weekly 1 1 2 59 3.4%

Daily 2 1 3 59 5.1%Other 1 1 3 1 2 2 10 59 16.9%

Who is responsible for maintaining a record of the overall pro bono hours worked on all pro bono projects in your firm? No current director 2 1 1 1 7 12 59 20.3%Partner committee 1 0 59 0.0%

Pro bono partner/chair 2 2 1 1 1 7 59 11.9%Pro bono committee 1 1 2 2 6 59 10.2%

Pro bono coordinator 5 2 7 3 2 1 20 59 33.9%Administrative staff 3 2 4 6 3 18 59 30.5%

Other 2 1 2 2 7 59 11.9%How often is are these hours calculated?

We do not keep these records 2 1 1 1 7 12 59 20.3%

Annually 1 4 1 2 4 2 14 59 23.7%Biannually 3 1 4 59 6.8%

Monthly 4 3 3 3 3 16 59 27.1%Weekly 1 1 1 3 59 5.1%

Daily 1 1 2 59 3.4%Other 1 1 3 1 2 2 10 59 16.9%

Who is responsible for the overall management of the pro bono program (strategy, budgeting, assigning resources, etc.)? No current director 1 4 5 59 8.5%

All partners 5 4 2 11 59 18.6%Partner committee 1 1 2 1 1 2 8 59 13.6%

Pro bono partner/chair 4 2 1 1 2 4 14 59 23.7%

39

Pro bono committee 4 6 2 1 2 3 18 59 30.5%Pro bono coordinator 2 1 3 1 2 9 59 15.3%

Other 2 1 2 5 59 8.5%Does your firm adhere to the PBDA definition of pro bono?

Yes 10 4 7 10 1 8 15 55 59 93.2%No 1 3 4 59 6.8%

Yes 7 5 4 1 5 7 29 59 49.2%No 3 4 3 6 6 8 30 59 50.8%

Will the PBDA motivate your firm to take on more pro bono work? Yes 7 3 8 10 1 10 14 53 59 89.8%No 3 1 1 1 6 59 10.2%

Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Mexico Peru Total Responses %What have been your sources of pro bono work?

Professors & academia 1 2 5 3 11 59 18.6%Social service orgs 6 2 6 4 1 7 4 30 59 50.8%

Non-profit orgs 10 3 7 10 1 11 10 52 59 88.1%Government agencies 4 3 1 1 9 59 15.3%

Judges 0 59 0.0%Court staff 0 59 0.0%

Religious orgs 7 2 1 5 4 19 59 32.2%Lawyer's associations 9 1 1 6 2 19 59 32.2%

Partners 6 2 7 8 1 9 11 44 59 74.6%Associates 7 3 6 8 1 8 10 43 59 72.9%

Staff 4 2 2 5 1 6 9 29 59 49.2%Private sector attorneys 2 1 2 4 9 59 15.3%Public sector attorneys 1 2 1 4 59 6.8%

Radio 1 1 2 59 3.4%Television 1 2 3 59 5.1%

Newspaper 3 1 1 1 6 59 10.2%Online databases 0 59 0.0%

Other 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 59 11.9%Yes 9 2 8 10 1 11 13 54 59 91.5%No 1 2 2 5 59 8.5%

Does the firm have a formal procedure for approving pro bono projects? Yes 4 3 6 2 1 7 6 29 59 49.2%No 6 1 2 8 4 9 30 59 50.8%

40

What factors does your firm consider when approving pro bono projects? Nature of the case 9 3 8 10 1 11 14 56 59 94.9%

Form of assistance requested 8 3 8 9 1 8 12 49 59 83.1%

Necessary legal knowledge 9 2 8 10 1 9 10 49 59 83.1%Availability of more adequate

resources to help the particular client

6 1 3 6 1 6 6 29 59 49.2%

Level of public interest 7 2 7 4 1 4 6 31 59 52.5%Possible conflicts of interest 7 1 8 8 1 10 12 47 59 79.7%

Actual conflict of interest 5 1 6 8 8 8 36 59 61.0%Availability of firm resources 6 2 3 10 1 7 12 41 59 69.5%

Projected fixed costs 2 1 2 3 4 5 17 59 28.8%If the issue deals with a

particular group of clients 6 2 5 3 1 4 2 23 59 39.0%

Other 1 1 1 1 1 5 59 8.5%What is the impact of estimated fixed costs on pro bono project approval?

Major impact 1 1 59 1.7%Some impact 4 2 2 6 1 6 8 29 59 49.2%

No impact 2 3 2 1 8 59 13.6%Costs are not calculated

before approval 4 2 3 4 3 5 21 59 35.6%

Which of the following actors can approve a pro bono project? All partners 1 2 5 7 8 23 59 39.0%

Partner committee 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 12 59 20.3%Pro bono committee 4 6 2 1 4 4 21 59 35.6%

Pro bono partner/chair 5 3 2 6 3 3 22 59 37.3%Pro bono coordinator 2 1 1 2 3 9 59 15.3%

Approval is not required for new projects 1 1 2 59 3.4%

If your firm estimates pro bono project hours beforehand, does it approve only a set quantity of hours? Yes 1 1 5 2 1 10 46 21.7%No 6 2 4 4 1 8 11 36 46 78.3%

Does your firm have an annual budget for pro bono projects? Yes 1 1 3 5 59 8.5%No 10 3 8 9 1 8 15 54 59 91.5%

41

Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Mexico Peru Total Responses % How many pro bono projects did your firm complete in 2009?

1 to 5 3 1 2 1 7 53 13.2% 6 to 10 2 1 3 53 5.7%

11 to 20 2 2 4 53 7.5% 20 to 30 0 53 0.0%

More than 30 1 1 53 1.9% N/A/not recorded 5 3 4 10 1 3 12 38 53 71.7%

Does your firm work in conjunction with social organizations? Yes 10 2 5 9 1 8 3 38 53 71.7% No 1 2 1 1 11 16 53 30.2%

What percentage of pro bono projects originated with these social or non-profit organizations? Less than 50% 2 1 1 4 51 7.8%

50 to 70% 2 2 51 3.9% 71 to 90% 1 2 3 6 51 11.8%

90 to 100% 1 1 2 51 3.9% N/A/not recorded 5 2 4 10 1 3 12 37 51 72.5%

Do partners or associates of your firm serves as directors of social organizations/NGOs that serve the less privileged? Yes 5 2 5 4 1 4 2 23 53 43.4% No 5 1 2 5 5 12 30 53 56.6%

Does your firm financially support organizations that promote access to justice? Yes 2 3 6 3 14 54 25.9% No 8 3 4 4 1 6 14 40 54 74.1%

Does your firm work with any public interest law school clinics? Yes 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 11 57 19.3% No 8 2 7 8 7 14 46 57 80.7%

Does your firm have a written declaration of its pro bono commitment? Yes 4 1 2 4 1 6 3 21 54 38.9% No 6 3 5 6 3 10 33 54 61.1%

Does your firm have a manual of its internal pro bono policies? Yes 1 1 1 1 5 9 57 15.8% No 9 3 6 9 1 7 13 48 57 84.2%

42

Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Mexico Peru Total Response % What percentage of your partners participated in pro bono work in 2009?

Less than 20% 3 1 3 1 2 10 58 17.2% 20-40% 3 2 4 1 4 4 18 58 31.0% 41-60% 1 1 2 1 1 2 8 58 13.8% 61-80% 1 1 3 1 6 58 10.3%

81-100% 1 1 2 1 2 3 10 58 17.2% Information not available 1 1 4 6 58 10.3%

What percentage of your associates participated in pro bono work in 2009? Less than 20% 1 1 1 4 1 1 9 58 15.5%

20-40% 4 2 4 1 4 6 21 58 36.2% 41-60% 3 1 2 3 2 1 12 58 20.7% 61-80% 1 1 2 58 3.4%

81-100% 1 1 1 1 1 3 8 58 13.8% Information not available 1 1 4 6 58 10.3%

Does your office adhere to the PBDA standard of at least 20 annual hours of pro bono per lawyer? Yes 9 4 7 7 1 3 9 40 58 69.0% No 1 1 3 7 6 18 58 31.0%

Does your office have a formal system for tracking pro bono hours? Yes 8 2 6 6 1 9 6 38 58 65.5% No 2 2 2 4 1 9 20 58 34.5%

What is the average number of pro bono hours completed per partner in 2009? Less than 5 1 1 1 3 57 5.3%

5 to 9 4 3 7 57 12.3% 10 to 19 2 2 2 1 2 9 57 15.8% 20 to 29 1 2 2 1 6 57 10.5%

30 or more 2 1 2 5 57 8.8% N/A, no record, or confidential 2 2 4 5 3 11 27 57 47.4%

What was the average number of pro bono hours completed per associate in 2009? Less than 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 57 8.8%

5 to 9 1 1 2 4 57 7.0% 10 to 19 3 1 1 1 1 2 9 57 15.8% 20 to 29 1 1 2 1 5 57 8.8%

30 or more 2 1 1 1 2 7 57 12.3% N/A, no record, or confidential 2 2 4 5 3 11 27 57 47.4%

43

What is the total number of hours of pro bono hours completed by your firm in 2009? Less than 100 1 2 1 4 57 7.0%

100 to 499 2 2 1 2 1 8 57 14.0% 500 to 999 1 1 1 1 4 57 7.0%

1000 to 1999 3 3 1 1 1 9 57 15.8% 2000 or more 2 2 1 2 1 8 57 14.0%

N/A, no record, or confidential 1 2 2 5 3 11 24 57 42.1% Does your firm have a maximum number of pro bono hours an associate may work?

Yes 1 1 58 1.7% No 10 4 8 10 1 9 15 57 58 98.3%

Is every pro bono project supervised by at least one partner? Yes 8 4 6 6 1 9 15 49 57 86.0% No 2 2 3 1 8 57 14.0%

Does pro bono work affect determinations on associate salary, bonuses, and advancement? Yes 2 1 4 3 6 5 21 57 36.8% No 8 3 4 6 1 4 10 36 57 63.2%

Is pro bono work considered in evaluations of associates? Yes 4 2 4 3 9 9 31 57 54.4% No 6 2 4 6 1 1 6 26 57 45.6%

Do lawyers working on pro bono projects have access to all the resources of the firm? Yes 9 4 8 9 1 10 15 56 57 98.2% No 1 1 57 1.8%

Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Mexico Peru Total Response % Does your firm publish a report on pro bono work?

Yes, electronically 2 1 2 1 1 5 12 58 20.7% Yes, in print 1 3 4 58 6.9%

No 8 3 6 7 5 15 44 58 75.9% To whom is such a report distributed? Lawyers who have subscribed to

receive it 1 1 1 3 49 6.1%

All partners 2 1 1 1 3 8 49 16.3% All lawyers 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 10 49 20.4%

Clients 1 2 1 2 6 49 12.2% Potential clients 1 1 1 1 4 49 8.2%

Press 1 1 1 3 49 6.1% Other 6 1 1 3 4 15 49 30.6%

44

What are methods by which the firm promotes pro bono opportunities, efforts, and accomplishments? Emails circulated to the entire

firm 3 2 7 4 1 7 5 29 45 64.4%

Pro bono bulletins 1 1 5 7 45 15.6% Pro bono reports 2 1 1 1 3 8 45 17.8%

Pro bono prizes/ceremonies 3 1 1 2 7 45 15.6% Other 6 2 2 2 1 4 4 21 45 46.7%

If the firm publishes a pro bono bulletin, how often is it published? Annually 1 1 1 3 2 8 14 57.1%

Biannually 1 1 2 14 14.3% Three times a year 1 1 14 7.1%

Monthly 1 1 2 14 14.3% Weekly 0 14 0.0%

Continuously updated on the internet

1 1 14 7.1%

Does your firm have an orientation for new associates? Yes 3 2 3 4 1 5 6 24 55 43.6% No 7 2 5 4 5 8 31 55 56.4%

If so, is pro bono included in the oreintation? Yes 1 1 3 4 1 4 5 19 25 76.0% No 2 1 1 1 1 6 25 24.0%

Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Mexico Peru Total Response % How can the Vance Center effectively support your firm in its pro bono efforts?

Share information regarding best practices through blogs and websites

5 3 7 7 1 5 12 40 57 70.2%

Work with lawyer's associations to improve laws and regulations in the

field

8 3 6 3 1 4 7 32 57 56.1%

Annual conferences and roundtables 6 2 4 9 1 7 9 38 57 66.7% Videoconferences for associates 3 2 4 7 1 6 4 27 57 47.4%

Regional workgroups 5 3 4 4 1 4 8 29 57 50.9% Other conferences on pro bono and

legal aid4 1 4 4 1 5 4 23 57 40.4%

45

Assistance by telephone/mentor support

2 2 4 3 2 13 57 22.8%

Cooperation with US or international firms to discuss pro bono

6 3 4 5 1 7 5 31 57 54.4%

Cooperation with US or international NGOs to discuss pro bono

6 2 5 3 1 8 7 32 57 56.1%

Technical materials on the institutionalization of pro bono

5 1 5 7 1 6 8 33 57 57.9%

Sharing information on regional projects in development

6 3 4 5 1 7 12 38 57 66.7%

Other 2 1 3 57 5.3% How often do you use www.vancecenter.org?

Never 3 2 5 3 3 6 22 55 40.0% 1-2 times per year 2 1 1 3 2 4 13 55 23.6%

3-10 times per year 4 1 2 2 3 3 15 55 27.3% 10+ times per year 1 1 1 2 5 55 9.1%

How often do you use www.vancenet.org? Never 3 3 5 4 2 8 25 55 45.5%

1-2 times per year 1 1 3 3 3 11 55 20.0% 3-10 times per year 3 1 2 1 3 2 12 55 21.8% 10+ times per year 1 1 2 4 55 7.3%

How often do you use www.nycbar.org/citybarjusticecenter/vancecenter-trabajoprobono? Never 2 3 5 4 4 6 24 55 43.6%

1-2 times per year 2 1 3 3 5 14 55 25.5% 3-10 times per year 3 1 2 1 2 2 11 55 20.0% 10+ times per year 1 1 1 3 55 5.5%

What other pro bono tools and resources does your firm make use of, if they exist? Government programs 1 1 2 2 6 51 11.8% Firm/employer support 1 1 3 4 6 8 23 51 45.1%

Bar association/Law society 9 2 2 1 7 4 25 51 49.0% Association or social group of law

school alumni2 2 6 1 11 51 21.6%

NGOs/legal charities/community clinics7 2 4 6 1 9 9 38 51 74.5%

Other web sites 1 1 2 1 5 51 9.8%

46

In your opinion, does the firm participate in the quantity of pro bono projects which its resources allow? Yes 7 1 4 5 1 5 11 34 56 60.7% No 3 3 4 4 4 4 22 56 39.3%

What are the biggest impediments to pro bono participation? Language barriers 1 1 55 1.8%

Not consistent with the firm or the culture of the employer

2 1 2 1 2 2 10 55 18.2%

Not within the specialization or experience of the firm

4 2 3 2 1 4 5 21 55 38.2%

Time constraints 7 3 7 8 7 9 41 55 74.5% Taxes 1 1 55 1.8%

Detrimental from a career perspective 0 55 0.0% Excessive regulation or control 1 1 2 4 55 7.3%

Lack of financial resources and support 2 1 1 4 8 55 14.5% Lack of malpractice insurance or

protection 0 55 0.0%

Lack of adequate opportunities 3 2 1 1 5 3 15 55 27.3% Other 2 1 2 2 1 8 55 14.5%