Minnesota Lawyer Blog

Congratulations are due to St. Paul attorney Hugh Markley, who was honored last weekend by the Ramsey County Bar Association for more than three decades of pro bono work on behalf of Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services.

Markley received the Ramsey County Bar Association's 2008 Pro Bono Award at the recent Bench & Bar Benefit in Roseville. Taking time out from his general practice, Markley has devoted thousands of hours to taking on family law and child custody cases for low-income clients throughout Ramsey County.

Markley spent time as a foster child, something that has given him a keen appreication of the needs of at-risk kids and families. The current and coming tough economic times mean more and more lawyers like Markley will be needed -- here's hoping he's an inspiration to young and old lawyers alike to give a little bit back.

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently amended a new CLE rule allowing credits for pro bono work. The changes were made in response to criticism that original version of the rule was not inclusive enough.

The CLE rule -- which took effect on July 1 -- allows attorneys to accrue one CLE credit for every six hours of legal representation provided to a pro bono client. Attorneys can accrue a maximum of six such credits per three-year reporting-period under the rule.

As originally worded, the rule sparked some controversy because of its narrow definition of what constituted a Legal Services provider. Only work done for a Legal Services provider was eligible for credit. The rule defined a Legal Services provider as “a legal services organization funded by the Legal Services Corporation.” Several local nonprofits that provide pro bono services -- including the Volunteer Lawyers Network -- were excluded by this language.

The new version (issued the day before the pro bono CLE rule was to take effect) is much broader in its definition of pro bono work eligible for credit. In addition to work for groups funded by the LSC, it includes pro bono efforts overseen by nonprofits that have a primary purpose of providing legal services to the poor, law firms that offer similar programs with a designated supervisor and the Minnesota Judicial Branch for designated projects, such as the Guardian ad Litem Program.

Volunteers to assist in the bridge pro bono lawsuits are increasing, reports Minneapolis attorney Chris Messerly. About 20 law firms across the state have signed up, some without clients as yet. Importantly, court reporters, document management companies, expert witnesses and mental health professionals have also come forward to assist. The "consortium" is meeting this week to start planning, Messerly said, adding that he is very pleased with the response.

Robins, Kaplan Miller & Ciresi attorney Phillip Sieff just advised me that the trial lawyers working pro bono on bridge cases have received offers of free assistance from some court reporters and one forensic expert. That's outstanding.

The following is excerpted from my editor's column in this week's Minnesota Lawyer. The full column is available to Minnesota Lawyer subscribers by clicking here (password required).

It was 2001 and my future client — a Vietnam War veteran — was threatening to kill himself with a knife. When the police came to take him in for psychological care, he was reporting hearing voices and insisting that the year was 1901. When he later applied for veterans’ benefits for his treatment, his claim was denied. He spent the next few years locked in the labyrinth of the Veteran’s Administration bureaucracy.

How did I wind up representing this man?

A couple of years ago, I responded to then-Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz’s pro bono challenge by signing up to participate in the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program. ...

Why this program? I liked the idea of providing assistance to someone who served our country. It was also not a prolonged commitment since participants were only required to handle one appeal. ...

Since the 2001 incident, my client had received treatment for depression, bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia. He was again functional and working as a day laborer. Although he received a small monthly stipend from the government for his service-related breathing difficulties, his claims for benefits for the psychological disorders had been repeatedly denied over the years [as not service-related]. ...

After getting a final agency denial, he appealed to the Court of U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. ...

After I prepared and filed the brief, my client and I were finally able to reach an agreement with the government. The adverse finding on my client’s psychological conditions was vacated and the case remanded back to the VA. The government admitted that there was insufficient medical testimony on the record for an adverse benefit determination to be made.

I couldn’t help but smile. One veteran had taken on the government of the United States of America and gotten it to say that it was wrong. It truly is a great country we live in.


Of course, my client’s case was not over. This just gave him a chance to be examined by a doctor and to make his case on an even playing field. But it is a good feeling to be a part in helping to make sure that someone has access to justice. I can see how Legal Aid lawyers and public defenders might get addicted to it. ...


The Minnesota Supreme Court is currently considering whether or not to make continuing legal education credits available for pro bono work. I am in support of the concept. I learned a lot more working with that one veteran than I could in a host of CLE classes — although I must admit that I do like the free chocolate chip cookies you get with the CLE programs.

The Minnesota Supreme Court announced last week that it will hold a hearing to consider a petition by the Minnesota State Bar Association to amend the Rules of the Minnesota State Board of Continuing Legal Education. The proposed amendments would allow attorneys to receive CLE credit for doing pro bono work -- up to a total of six CLE credits within a three-year reporting period.

Many within the legal community support the proposal, primarily because it will likely encourage attorneys to take on pro bono matters, therefore addressing a crisis of unmet legal needs. But some aren't convinced, and argue that the rule won't provide an incentive to lawyers who would not otherwise do pro bono work, but will only mean that lawyers who would have done pro bono work anyway will wind up with less time in the classroom. Many also lament that receiving CLE credits defeats the purpose of pro bono work, which should be a selfless act and a demonstration of professionalism.

The hearing on the proposed amendments will be held in Courtroom 300 of the Minnesota Judicial Center, on Sept. 18, 2007, at 2:00 p.m.