Document Type
Book Chapter
Publication Date
2026
Abstract
This chapter develops a trusteeship justification of pro bono, arguing that lawyers, as trustees of a public legal system created through democratic self-authorship, have a moral obligation to help address the persistent justice gap affecting persons of limited means. It evaluates multiple forms of pro bono — including voluntary, mandatory, low bono, and state-compelled service — evaluating how well each aligns with the trusteeship model. The chapter contrasts the trusteeship theory with, and criticizes, two alternative justifications for pro bono: presumed lawyer consent rooted in professional tradition and a quid pro quo based on state-authorized privileges. It concludes by distinguishing legitimate pro bono from coercive political uses, focusing on the “pro bono” offered to U.S. President Trump in the face of threatened sanctions. The latter undermines the rule of law and constitutes a perversion, not a version, of legitimate pro bono.
Publication Citation
Forthcoming in Helena Whalen-Bridge, ed. Beyond Mandatory Pro Bono.
Scholarly Commons Citation
Luban, David, "A Trusteeship Theory of Pro Bono: Versions and Perversions" (2026). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. 2706.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2706
Included in
Law and Society Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, Legal Profession Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons