This article was originally published on The Guardian website for National Pro Bono Week 2015. 

This week is National Pro Bono Week, when we celebrate the legal profession’s provision of free legal services to those who otherwise cannot afford them.

But this year’s event is perhaps more significant than in previous years. That’s because it comes at a time when – having cut financial aid for civil cases, with entire areas of civil law, such as family law (except in cases of domestic abuse), employment and housing, taken out of legal aid provision altogether, not to mention substantial cuts to criminal legal aid – the government risks failing in its duty to protect the principle, longstanding and deeply held in our democracy, of access to justice.

Senior judges and magistrates have raised concerns that they’re seeing a rise in the number of defendants without legal representation in court. They have also reported a rise in courtroom violence, as well as increased court costs. And that’s before we even consider the potential impact of further cuts to the Ministry of Justice’s budget, which could be anywhere between 25% to 40% over the next five years. It is particularly striking that many of the cases where lawyers are offering their services for free have actually arisen as a result of poor state decision-making. To take just one example, a student pro bono project working out of the Avon and Bristol Law Centre recently reported a staggering 95% success rate in overturning decisions where people had wrongly been declared “fit for work”.

And then there are the cuts: In Cardiff, law firms in partnership with LawWorks Cymru have set up a new pro bono clinic to deal with the “overwhelming demand” for advice in private family law cases, where legal aid is no longer available. There are many other examples.

This summer the Lord Chancellor suggested that increased pro bono work could fill in the gap left by the withdrawal of state support, calling on solicitors and barristers “to look into their consciences and see what they can do to ensure there is more equitable access to justice”.

But, while any increase in pro bono work is welcome, it cannot and should not act as a stopgap. Moving towards mandatory pro bono provision, of the kind required in New York and being pushed elsewhere in the US, will not solve the government’s problems. It is a key component of pro bono work that it remains voluntary, flexible and ultimately a personal choice for each and every lawyer. Encouraged? Yes. But mandatory? No.

And, while there is no doubting the quality of pro bono work, there is sometimes no substitute for an expert with years of experience in their chosen area of law, provided by legal aid in those areas still eligible. Not to mention the fact that lawyers and the largest law firms are more heavily concentrated in London and the South East – which leaves pro bono provision in the rest of the country much more patchy. We celebrate the good and vital work lawyers do in their own time and of their own goodwill but no matter how positive pro bono work is, it cannot fully step in where state provision no longer exists, and the Government should not expect it to.

There is a huge and growing gap between provision and need. The Government needs to face up to its own responsibilities, not simply pass the buck to the legal profession – not least because so many of the pro bono cases undertaken are a direct result of the state failing some of its most vulnerable citizens in the first place.