11 July 2013 / Matthew Fraser

Issue: 7568 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Legal services , Profession

printer

mail-detail

Forced labour?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

istock_000021807596medium

Should we introduce compulsory pro bono work for trainee lawyers, asks Matthew Fraser

From January 2015 all applicants to the New York Bar will be required to carry out 50 hours of legal pro bono work. Should this requirement be introduced for trainee lawyers in our jurisdiction in order for them to qualify?

Belgium

In the case of Van Der Mussele v Belgium (App No 8919/80), a newly qualified Belgian avocat asked the European Court of Human Rights to consider whether the compulsory pro bono work required of Belgian pupil avocats constituted “forced labour” contrary to Art 4 of the Convention. Many pro bono supporters may be shocked to discover that the question of “forced labour” was deemed worthy of consideration by the European Court.

But the court’s conclusions in relation to both the individual and social benefits of a pro bono requirement were sensible. The court found no violation of Art 4, on four grounds. First, the pro bono work was within the scope of the ordinary activities of an avocat.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Forced labour?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

istock_000021807596medium

Should we introduce compulsory pro bono work for trainee lawyers, asks Matthew Fraser

From January 2015 all applicants to the New York Bar will be required to carry out 50 hours of legal pro bono work. Should this requirement be introduced for trainee lawyers in our jurisdiction in order for them to qualify?

Belgium

In the case of Van Der Mussele v Belgium (App No 8919/80), a newly qualified Belgian avocat asked the European Court of Human Rights to consider whether the compulsory pro bono work required of Belgian pupil avocats constituted “forced labour” contrary to Art 4 of the Convention. Many pro bono supporters may be shocked to discover that the question of “forced labour” was deemed worthy of consideration by the European Court.

But the court’s conclusions in relation to both the individual and social benefits of a pro bono requirement were sensible. The court found no violation of Art 4, on four grounds. First, the pro bono work was within the scope of the ordinary activities of an avocat.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS

NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders

Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners

NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do

A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent

Your magistrates’ court needs you!

Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process

NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed

Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’

NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits

A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’

back-to-top-scroll