Unlimited
pro
bono
hours
are
a
lot
like
unlimited
vacation
days.
Everyone
knows
that
they’ll
never
all
get
used,
but
it’s
the
principle
of
the
thing.
It’s
a
nice
signal
to
associates
that
the
firm
cares
about
public
service
work
or
work-life
balance
respectively.
Linklaters
used
to
have
no
limit
on
the
number
of
pro
bono
hours
that
could
count
toward
bonuses.
But
on
Tuesday
evening,
associates
received
an
update
from
firm
leadership
laying
out
the
requirements
for
next
year’s
bonus
and
pro
bono
hours
now
have
an
upper
bound.
Henceforth,
only
400
hours
of
pro
bono
work
will
count
toward
billable
requirements
(or
200
if
combined
with
business
development
or
other
non-billable
activities).
That
DEI
language
is
still
in
there,
huh?
I
guess
some
firms
aren’t
in
a
hurry
to
offer
superficial
allegiance
to
the
administration.
Again,
the
limit
on
pro
bono
hours
is
not
problem
per
se.
Even
with
unlimited
hours,
Biglaw’s
insatiable
billing
monster
always
ends
up
extracting
its
pound
of
flesh
—
sorry,
Linklaters
is
UK-based
—
its
stone
of
flesh.
And
a
cap
places
the
firm
in
line
with
industry
norms.
In
fact,
it
still
exceeds
the
cap
imposed
by
some
firms.
But
the
overlooked
problem
with
installing
a
pro
bono
cap
out
of
the
blue
is
the
signal
that
the
firm
is
hoping
to
reduce
the
number
of
complex,
potentially
time-intensive
pro
bono
fights
it
takes
on.
The
firm
policy
notes
that
exceptions
can
be
made
for
larger
pro
bono
cases,
but
the
burden
now
falls
on
attorneys
to
advocate
for
those
exceptions
—
an
effort
many
might
just
forego
in
favor
of
something
quick
and
easy.
The
timing
couldn’t
be
worse
given
the
legal
and
political
climate,
where
access
to
pro
bono
representation
is
more
critical
than
ever.
The
new
policy
also
tightens
office
attendance
requirements:
Strongly
encourage?
At
least?
What
kind
of
“policy”
is
this?
We’ve
seen
a
lot
of
different
approaches
to
back-to-the-office
initiatives
and
say
what
you
will
about
them,
most
firms
can
at
least
pick
a
definitive
number
when
they
formulate
a
policy.
To
quote
from
the
cinematic
masterpiece
Office
Space:
Joanna:
You
know
what,
Stan,
if
you
want
me
to
wear
37
pieces
of
flair,
like
your
pretty
boy
over
there,
Brian,
why
don’t
you
just
make
the
minimum
37
pieces
of
flair?
Like
the
leadership
of
Chotchkie’s,
this
“management
by
guesswork”
does
not
inspire
confidence.
When
threatening
year-end
bonus
reductions,
the
standards
should
be
—
to
quote
the
very
memo
announcing
these
changes
—
“simple
and
predictable.”
Based
on
this
passage,
it’s
not
clear
that
the
firm
is
saying
three
days
per
week
fulfills
the
office
attendance
requirement
or
if
they
need
to
be
in
37
days
per
month
like
double-billing
pretty
boy
Brian
over
there.
What
happens
when
associates
have
matters
requiring
extended
periods
of
offsite
work?
Who
knows?
If
lawyers
could
understand
how
the
firm
kept
account
of
attendance
(keycards,
logins,
etc.)
then
they
might
be
able
to
figure
out
when
a
meeting
or
deposition
is
going
to
require
reaching
out
for
special
dispensation.
But
the
memo
remained
silent
on
the
particulars.
There’s
plenty
of
opportunity
for
the
firm
to
provide
necessary
transparency,
but
as
of
now,
Linklaters
might
just
end
up
with
a
lot
of
associates
quitting
while
offering
exactly
the
same
hand
gesture
Joanna
gave
Chotchkie’s.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.