Lawyers struggle to meet Supreme Court’s 60-hour free legal aid rule

Solo lawyers and small firms face high costs, lost income, and heavy fines to stay compliant to the initiative.

Providing 60 hours of free legal assistance every three years may sound reasonable, but for many practicing lawyers, complying with the Supreme Court’s mandatory pro bono requirement can mean sacrificing billable hours, absorbing additional expenses, and taking on cases outside their areas of expertise.

Under the Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS) Rules, covered active members of the Philippine Bar must provide at least 60 hours of free legal assistance to indigent and underprivileged Filipinos within a three-year compliance cycle.

The first compliance period runs from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2027.

While the initiative seeks to make justice more accessible to Filipinos who cannot afford legal representation, its implementation presents practical challenges, particularly for solo practitioners and lawyers working in smaller firms.

The problem with 60 hours

For lawyers handling multiple paying clients, court hearings, deadlines, and legal documentation, finding an additional 60 hours for unpaid work can be difficult.

Unlike lawyers employed by large firms with dedicated support staff, independent practitioners often manage everything themselves, from client consultations to court appearances and administrative requirements.

Every hour spent on pro bono work can also mean an hour of potentially lost income.

The burden becomes heavier when free legal assistance involves litigation, which may require multiple court appearances, extensive preparation, and travel.

Free legal service is not necessarily free for lawyers

Although clients are not charged professional fees, providing legal assistance can still generate expenses.

Transportation, photocopying, communication, documentation, and other incidental costs can accumulate, particularly when cases require repeated appearances in court.

The Supreme Court has established a ULAS Fund to support the program, but accessing financial assistance and complying with administrative requirements may create additional work for participating lawyers.

There is also the issue of specialization. Lawyers who primarily handle corporate transactions, taxation, intellectual property, or commercial contracts may have limited experience in criminal defense, family disputes, and labor cases commonly encountered by indigent litigants.

Although the rules recognize services such as legal counseling and document preparation, matching lawyers with appropriate beneficiaries remains an operational challenge.

Can lawyers pay instead?

The ULAS framework provides alternative compliance mechanisms, including arrangements for law firms and corporate legal departments.

Individual lawyers may also substitute up to 30 hours of the required service through contributions to the ULAS Fund, subject to applicable rules.

However, the remaining hours must still be fulfilled through qualifying legal assistance.

Certain categories of lawyers, including qualified government practitioners, senior lawyers, and newly admitted members of the Bar, may be exempt or subject to special provisions.

Noncompliance can be costly

Lawyers who fail to satisfy their obligations may face financial penalties and professional consequences.

Under the ULAS Rules Manual, failure to comply after the prescribed grace period can result in fines ranging from ₱1,000 to ₱1,500 for every unserved hour.

A lawyer who fails to complete all 60 hours could therefore face penalties reaching ₱90,000, depending on the applicable rate. Paying the penalty does not necessarily extinguish the outstanding service obligation.

A good intention with real challenges

The mandatory legal aid program addresses a serious inequality in the Philippine justice system: people with financial resources can hire lawyers, while those living in poverty often struggle to obtain even basic legal advice.

But the success of ULAS will depend not only on requiring lawyers to volunteer their services, but also on making compliance practical and sustainable.

Without adequate institutional support, accessible legal aid opportunities, and mechanisms to minimize additional expenses, the burden may fall disproportionately on independent practitioners and small law offices.

The challenge for the Supreme Court is to ensure that expanding access to justice for the poor does not create an unreasonable burden for lawyers who are themselves struggling to sustain their practice.

READ: