State Bar Set to Oppose Disclosure of Pro Bono Data

, New York Law Journal


. A "spirited discussion" of the new disclosure rules by the bar group's executive committee during its spring meeting over the weekend led to a decision to remind the chief judge that the House of Delegates came out against self-reporting of pro-bono in 2004, said David Schraver, state bar president.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • wgalison

    Chief Judge Lippman was nominated and confirmed through fraudulent hearings, lead by federally indicted Senator John Sampson, who was recently removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee that he once chaired.

    The fraud and and corruption in Lippman's ascension to Chief Judge is documented in the website, "The Crimes of Jonathan Lippman".

    This facts and assertions regarding Lippman's legacy of corruption have never been challenged legally or otherwise by Lippman or anyone else.

    A formal criminal complaint against Lippman has been filed with US Attorney Preet Bharara, under penalty perjury, and published on the above mentioned website.


    "Lippman said the information is needed to help the state get an accurate picture of how many hours and how much money lawyers are contributing to programs"

    Why does the state need to know this in the first place? For centuries, the state got along just fine without this information. Maybe what should be disclosed on registration forms every two years, is how much money lawyers contributed to individual judges' campaigns. That might have a lot more to do with the administration of justice.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202608475272

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.