Pro Bono Week 2026: 25 years of Pro Bono Week

25 years of Pro Bono Week

The legal community came together on the 3rd November 2026 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week, with an engaging panel discussion exploring the importance of this work, the challenges facing access to justice and how the profession can encourage greater participation (and where responsibility lies, in firms and in generations).

Hosted by Julia Reynolds, soon to be President of Cardiff and District Law Society, the event brought together a panel of practitioners and representatives from across the legal sector: Clive Thomas of Watkins & Gunn, Rhian Jones of Harding Evans, George Pollitt of Iscoed Chambers, Nathan Vidini of AltraLaw and Abi Ryan of Advocate. Opening the discussion and presenting the evening, HHJ Robert Harrison highlighted the danger of an increasingly imbalanced justice system and the important role pro bono work plays in helping to address some of the gaps. He also made an important point about motivation: pro bono should not be viewed solely as an act of altruism but it’s also not as harmful as it sounds. It offers practitioners opportunities to take on cases they might not otherwise encounter and develop interests in new areas of law. For those with longer careers behind them, it can also provide a valuable opportunity to reconnect with the reasons they entered the profession in the first place. The value of self-interest, he suggests, should not be understated.

Clive Thomas reflected on how access to legal advice has changed throughout his career. In the days of the green form legal aid scheme, individuals could access assistance through Citizens Advice Bureau with solicitors offering support at the door. As Legal Aid was withdrawn from successive areas of law, however, the demand for pro bono assistance grew considerably since. When Clive became President of CDLS in 2019, homelessness was one of the most pressing social issues facing the community. He recalled recommending free legal advice to a homeless individual, only for them to laugh at the suggestion. It was a striking illustration of just how disconnected some people had become from the prospect of accessing legal support, or perhaps didn’t know where this would lead.

This then inspired collaborative work with the University of South Wales and The Wallich. Cardiff Lawyers Care developed over time, with the move online during Covid bringing an unexpected benefit: clinics became easier to coordinate and delegate. Clive remains keen to attract more volunteers. He also explained how the Pro Bono Committee for Wales emerged from a growing need for coordination as more clinics and initiatives began appearing across the country. Its purpose is to provide direction, connect existing organisations and help signpost people towards support. The discussion also touched on the CDLS Champions scheme, which encourages firms to appoint individuals to promote pro bono activity internally and connect with champions elsewhere. Clive emphasised that social responsibility is something firms should actively own. The profession is a community, and there is value in empowering individuals to resolve issues themselves wherever possible and to give them the tools to do so.

He returned to Robert's earlier point about self-interest, observing that employers value individuals who demonstrate that they have taken ownership of their social responsibility.

Importantly, Clive acknowledged a legitimate criticism of pro bono work: it can risk filling gaps that should properly be addressed through public funding. Pro bono cannot and must not replace a properly funded justice system or Legal Aid. Its role is to complement them.

Rhian Jones provided an insight into the work taking place at Harding Evans, which operates monthly pro bono clinics alongside its work with Tŷ Hafan and LGBTQ+ communities. The firm's clinics take place on the first Thursday of each month and operate through a rota involving the wider Family team. This helps ensure that the responsibility is shared rather than falling disproportionately on individual practitioners. Along with scheduled appointments, the team also deal with urgent enquiries. One particularly telling observation was the geographical distance some clients travel or enquire over, to obtain assistance. Rhian described clients reaching out from London to speak to a small Welsh firm. It was a reminder that the problem is not simply a lack of willingness among lawyers to help, but a wider shortage of accessible legal advice.

George Pollitt spoke about how pro bono has followed him throughout his legal career. Rather than completing a longer dissertation, he chose to volunteer with Citizens Advice, before later volunteering with Shelter. Having qualified as both a barrister and solicitor, he subsequently became involved in the Employment Litigants in Person (ELIP) scheme. The scheme involves assisting individuals representing themselves in employment proceedings. Often, clients arrive with lengthy forms and little understanding of the procedural rules or the legal basis of their claim. The volunteer's role is to help identify the correct cause of action, understand the client's case and explain matters to the Judge so that proceedings can get onto the right track. George explained that this assistance is valuable not only to the individual but also to the Court. Judges can otherwise spend considerable time trying to establish what a claim actually concerns and how it should be allocated. From his judicial perspective, he is grateful to see pro bono organisations and charities helping litigants in person before they reach the Court.

Nathan Vidini, speaking from his experience at not-for-profit firm AltraLaw, highlighted the freedom that can come with working in that environment. It allows practitioners to engage with legal advice clinics, including Yesslaw in London, and support initiatives helping employment disputes settle before reaching the tribunal. His previous experience in traditional firms had exposed him to the reality of unequal access to representation. He also raised concerns about the difficulties practitioners can face when trying to undertake pro bono work alongside conventional fee-earning. Targets remain a reality, and firms do not make sufficient allowances for volunteering during working hours. Nathan recalled his involvement in the pilot ELIP scheme alongside George, including work on the first modern slavery case in Wales. Experiences like these demonstrate the professional development opportunities pro bono can provide, while also raising questions about whether Wales receives sufficient recognition for the quality of its legal advocates.

Abi Ryan, a caseworker at Advocate, shared that some applications are extremely difficult to deal with, and the circumstances behind them can be heartbreaking. For some individuals, it is their first interaction with the legal system and for others, it represents a breaking point after years of trying to manage without representation. Capacity remains the predominant challenge, with Family and Employment law among the busiest areas (echoed by Clive). Abi was realistic about the limitations of what Advocate can achieve. Pro bono organisations cannot solve the underlying funding crisis, but without their intervention the situation would be considerably worse.

As a regional caseworker, her role involves building relationships with law firms, clinics and frontline organisations so that people understand what assistance is available.

The audience then took over to raise questions, who immediately queried the impact of artificial intelligence on pro bono work. George offered a candid assessment that at present, AI is a pain, but it clearly has its uses. Its value depends on the task. Using it to help structure information can be useful, but relying on it for legal knowledge is another matter. Asking it to redraft something it has misunderstood at the outset can simply make the problem longer, and page count. Clive agreed that AI could assist in identifying an individual's legal needs, but stressed that specialist human oversight remains essential. While he envisaged a future in which AI could be used within appropriate boundaries, he considered its current limitations potentially dangerous. Rhian raised an interesting point about demographics and how people access information. Social media has already changed the way people seek advice, with word of mouth and Facebook discussions becoming substitutes for professional guidance. AI presents another development that the profession must respond to. Her message was clear that lawyers need to demonstrate their value and engage directly with their communities. The phrase 'pro bono' may mean very little to someone outside the profession, whereas 'free legal advice' communicates the offer much more effectively.

Abi explained that Advocate currently uses AI primarily for administrative purposes, such as logging cases. However, there is scope to explore how technology might improve engagement with potential applicants. For example, could chatbots ask preliminary questions to help people identify the right organisation or determine whether they are approaching the appropriate service?

The overall sentiment was that technology may eventually help extend access to justice, but it cannot remove the need for experienced practitioners and proper legal oversight.

The discussion then turned to perhaps the most difficult or timeless question: how do we persuade more lawyers to get involved? George was asked whether pro bono should become mandatory. His response was that compelling people to work for free is inherently problematic. Instead, he argued, the profession needs a cultural shift that allows practitioners to recognise the benefits.

The cases can be genuinely interesting, applications can develop new skills and barristers in particular can broaden their experience by taking on unfamiliar areas of law. Pro bono can be rewarding professionally as well as personally.He drew an interesting comparison in that while requiring practitioners to undertake pro bono work may be wrong, encouraging people to give something back is self-evidently right.

Rhian suggested that the change needs to begin with senior practitioners. Junior lawyers already face significant pressures, including lower salaries, heavier workloads and increasingly demanding targets. It is unreasonable to expect them to carry the responsibility for pro bono activity without sufficient support from those above them.

Senior lawyers and partners need to lead by example and demonstrate that pro bono is genuinely valued within their organisations.

The audience discussion reinforced the structural difficulties. Billable-hour expectations, financial targets and conventional fee-earning models were repeatedly identified as barriers. Some firms may advertise their commitment to pro bono but fail to provide the internal support necessary to make it sustainable. Others risk allowing the same willing individuals to become overloaded. There was a concern that senior practitioners can become the visual pioneers or the ‘award accepters’ whilst actually discouraging those who are eager from balancing this when targets remain a live priority. In post event discussions, it seemed unanimously agreed that large firms can fall into the symbolic trap of social media / awards campaigns, shouting about pro bono, whilst the dialogue internally is nothing short of profit driven.

Suggestions included tax incentives, allowances against billable-hour targets and dedicated volunteering weeks. There was also discussion about how larger firms, which arguably have the greatest resources, are the hardest to convince head on.

The anniversary discussion demonstrated both the scale of the challenge and the considerable work already taking place across Wales. There is no suggestion that pro bono practitioners can fill the gaps left by the government. But the panel made clear that without the contribution of volunteers, charities, law firms and chambers, access to justice would be even more unequal. The relationships between firms, chambers, charities, clinics and individual practitioners provide a strong foundation on which to build.

Wales has an opportunity to become a pioneer in developing a more coordinated and sustainable approach to pro bono engagement. That will require the right incentives, meaningful support from senior practitioners and a willingness among firms to trial new approaches like the billable hour allowance.

The message from the evening was that pro bono should not be treated as an additional burden placed on already busy lawyers. It should be recognised as an important part of professional life - an opportunity to develop, to contribute and to become ingratiated in an area of work you love. For junior lawyers in particular, it was a timely reminder that giving something back need not come at the expense of career development. Sometimes, the two can go hand in hand if you know where to look.