Philippines mandates pro bono service for lawyers under new rules

Effective February 3 2025, the Supreme Court of the Philippines (SC) issued The Rules on Unified Legal Aid Service (the ULAS Rules), which require covered lawyers to render at least 60 hours of pro bono legal aid in favour of indigent Filipinos.

This initiative had been introduced in 2009, then in 2017, but the rules were either deferred or suspended. However, in 2022, the SC convened a National Legal Aid Summit participated in by all sectors of the legal profession, and consultation with beneficiaries was also undertaken, and the resulting rules came into fruition in November 2024 under A.M. No. 22-11-01-SC. Some of the salient points of these rules are highlighted below.

The ULAS Rules aim to promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that are designed to provide adequate social services, promote full employment, foster a rising standard of living, and deliver an improved quality of life for all. Furthermore, they are aimed at ensuring that adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

The covered lawyers are those whose membership status with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has not been terminated, who are not retired per IBP by-laws, and who are not excluded under the ULAS Rules. For registered organisations – such as corporations, partnerships, associations, and law firms – the coverage extends to lawyers employed under an employer-employee relationship or those serving as directors, trustees, partners, officers, or others professionally connected to the organisation. The following are excluded:

• Government employees in general;

• Lawyers with at least 35 years of practice or those aged 60 or above; and

• Those with physical or mental disabilities that make compliance unreasonably difficult or impossible.

The following services constitute pro bono legal aid:

• Representation in courts, quasi-judicial bodies, mediation, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution, including drafting and filing pleadings and submissions;

• Legal counselling, assistance in contract negotiations, and drafting legal documents such as memoranda, affidavits, and contracts;

• Developmental legal assistance, including rights awareness, capacity building, and training in basic human rights;

• Documentation and affidavit preparation;

• Participation in accredited legal outreach programmes and legal missions, including supervising students under Rule 138-A; and

• Other legal services as defined by the SC.

Compliance may be achieved through the following methods:

• Rendering the required pro bono legal aid services for at least 60 hours every three years;

• Opting to substitute up to 50% of the required hours with financial contributions to the ULAS Fund, according to rates set by the ULAS board; and

• Registered organisations may aggregate their lawyers’ required hours, provided each lawyer personally completes at least 25% of their required hours.

The implementing rules for the ULAS will soon be issued to cover the 2025–27 compliance period. It appears that the ULAS Rules are geared not only to social justice but also have a developmental purpose, by giving assistance to those who are economically challenged. Because of this, the possibility of providing intellectual property (IP) services may be included. Not only that, but IP lawyers may not be familiar with other fields of law – e.g., criminal law, including murder or drug cases – and may not be able to provide adequate legal services for, say, indigents languishing in prison cells.

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines is pilot testing WIPO’s Inventor Assistance Program. This programme matches under-resourced inventors with qualified IP counsel, since in developing countries, financial barriers appear to be the primary impediment to innovation and IP protection for some inventors. Eligible inventors and small businesses seeking patent protection in the Philippines may receive free legal advice from IP lawyers. This may be an IP area where the ULAS Rules could work for IP practitioners.

Latham & Watkins was commissioned to explore the global legal aid landscape by the Pro Bono Institute (PBI), a non-profit organisation established in 1996 with a mandate to explore and identify new approaches to, and resources for, the provision of legal services to the poor, disadvantaged, and other individuals or groups unable to secure legal assistance to address critical problems. The resulting work, entitled A Survey of Pro Bono Practices and Opportunities in 84 Jurisdictions, was published in December 2019.

The survey’s summary included the following question: “Is there a minimum pro bono hours requirement for lawyers (or aspiring lawyers)?” It was shown that only three countries had mandatory hours required for pro bono work, either by law or as required by their law firm to enhance and promote a pro bono culture into law practice.

In 2024, the PBI published a Report on the Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge Initiative, participated in by 120 major law firms in the US that have committed to provide pro bono legal services to low-income individuals and non-profit groups that serve them. Below is a snapshot of the 2024 report presented by the PBI.

There is a continuing effort and focus on racial justice, but the participants could not come up with a common definition. When presented with a list of what it possibly covers, the highest, at 15%, went to criminal justice, housing at 14%, 13% for economic empowerment, and the rest at 10% each.

The report shows that most of the participating large law firms have a mandatory pro bono policy for their lawyers. A PBI article published in April 2024 reported that mandatory pro bono work continues to face challenges. There is no legislation making pro bono service mandatory, but 12 states require mandatory reporting of pro bono work done by lawyers. Even this is facing challenges, and most states would prefer voluntary reporting.

Whether the ULAS Rules will work remains to be seen, but what is clear is that the beneficiaries should be entitled to adequate legal service provided by competent lawyers in the subject field of law.