Under Rule 6.1, which option describes a permissible way to fulfill pro bono hours beyond the substantial majority being free for persons of limited means?

Under Rule 6.1, which option describes a permissible way to fulfill pro bono hours beyond the substantial majority being free for persons of limited means?

• A. Delivering services at standard legal fees.
• B. Delivering services at a substantially reduced fee to persons of limited means.
• C. Delivering services at double the standard rate to organizations of limited means.
• D. Providing only administrative tasks for free.

Answer: (B)

Rule 6.1 encourages lawyers to perform pro bono publico service, typically aiming for a substantial number of hours each year. Pro Bono work includes not only free legal services but also services provided at a substantially reduced fee to persons of limited means or to eligible not-for-profit organizations. The idea is that free work is ideal, but a significant discount to those who can’t afford payment still counts toward fulfilling the pro bono commitment. Therefore, offering legal services at a substantially reduced fee to persons of limited means is a permissible way to meet pro bono hours beyond those provided completely free. Charging standard fees would not count as pro bono, charging double the rate is not appropriate, and providing only administrative tasks does not constitute legal services.

Rule 6.1 encourages lawyers to perform pro bono publico service, typically aiming for a substantial number of hours each year. Pro Bono work includes not only free legal services but also services provided at a substantially reduced fee to persons of limited means or to eligible not-for-profit organizations. The idea is that free work is ideal, but a significant discount to those who can’t afford payment still counts toward fulfilling the pro bono commitment. Therefore, offering legal services at a substantially reduced fee to persons of limited means is a permissible way to meet pro bono hours beyond those provided completely free. Charging standard fees would not count as pro bono, charging double the rate is not appropriate, and providing only administrative tasks does not constitute legal services.