INTRODUCTION
In ancient India, the notion akin to pro bono was founded in dharma, which mandated a moral obligation to uphold justice and social order. Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti underscore the principle of fair justice and mandate that rulers safeguard the impoverished and disadvantaged, guaranteeing that access to justice is not obstructed by financial constraints.[1] Pro bono service has been assessed using activity-based metrics like the number of hours contributed, participation in legal aid camps, or issuance of participation certificates. Although these metrics show effort, they are unable to determine if any real justice was served. On the other hand, outcome-based justice places more emphasis on what was accomplished rather than what was done. It focuses on the influence made on a beneficiary’s legal services based on observable outcomes rather than time spent. In the outcome-based activity, we are focused on measuring the impact created. It is important to balance the quantitative and the qualitative work done. This will be further discussed in the blog.[2]
WHAT IS AN OUTCOME-BASED MODEL
Pro bono practice has increasingly questioned the suitability of measuring legal aid by the number of hours volunteered or activities accomplished. Since such metrics frequently fail to show any meaningful connection between effort and real-world impact. By differentiating between inputs, activities, outputs and long-term impact, the modern impact-focused approaches promote a move towards outcome-based evaluation and emphasise that outcomes, that is, the observable changes brought by the legal assistance, are the most significant measure of success.[3] In contrast to formal activity or institutional procedure, the OECD study promotes a people-centred model of justice based on the results they produce in people’s lives. The report argues that access to justice is only significant when legal procedures lead to tangible improvements, such as dispute resolution, prevention of harm, damage reduction, and cost reduction for users.[4]
The law review paper critiques the dominant Pro Bono evaluation frameworks that rely heavily on hours contributed and participation rates, noting that such quantitative measures obscure the quality and social impact of legal assistance. It observes that ranking and reporting systems incentivise visible activity rather than meaningful outcomes, thereby diverting attention from effectiveness, stakeholders’ satisfaction, and real benefits to clients. The focus is on evaluating quality and social effects, implicitly supports an outcomes-oriented approach that assesses pro bono by the justice it provides rather than the effort reported, even if it does not explicitly propose a formal outcome-based model[5].
INDIA AND PRO BONO
Article 39A of the Constitution[6], which requires the state to guarantee that access to justice is not refused based on economic or other impairment, is the fundamental basis of pro bono and legal assistance in India. the state’s obligation is primarily met through institutional or regulatory mechanisms to facilitate access to legal counsel or other types of assistance. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) was created by the Legal Services Authority Act of 1987 to facilitate the distribution of free legal services under an institutional umbrella that provides access to these services through Lok Adalat, Legal Literacy Campaigns, and Legal Aid Clinics. The main objectives is to provide access to legal assistance, not to evaluate individual volunteer or student effectiveness. The Bar Council of India also mandates legal aid clinics under the rules of legal education.[7] Participation in clinical activities, including legal awareness camps and help to legal services authorities, is mandatory for law students. Nevertheless, there are no follow-up requirements, outcome-based criteria, or minimum hours specified under the legal framework. Consequently, in India, pro bono services are usually based on a model focused on the level of student engagement. Although pro bono programs track attendance and some activities, there is no standardised means of tracking public impact. There are no mechanisms to report on outcomes or collect feedback from beneficiaries. Because no such metrics exist, there is a disconnection between the goals of the Constitution and what actually happens with regard to the provision of justice.
JAPAN AND PRO BONO
In contrast to other countries, pro bono in Japan is based primarily on the state-funded legal aid system rather than the volunteer-based system. The state provides access to justice through programs like the Japanese Legal Support Centre (Hō-Terasu)[8], and statutes that permit an individual or the state to appoint an attorney to represent them, as well as local bar associations that provide legal counselling. In addition, Japanese attorneys are not required to meet any minimum pro bono hours. The Attorney Act 1949 regulates the legal profession but does not impose a mandatory pro bono obligation, while the Basic Rules on the duties of Practising Attorneys issued by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations encourage public-interest activities without uniform enforcement. Articles 25 and 32 support institutional access to Justice as part of the state’s social welfare obligation.[9] The overall lack of mandatory hour requirements, continuing legal education and ranking of the lawyers takes the focus off of measurable contribution and onto the effectiveness and availability of Legal Aid services. As such, Japan is an alternative model whereby the main focus of providing Legal Aid services is on the resolution of legal issues rather than the number of attorneys participating in Legal Aid[10].
CHINA AND PRO BONO
The primary operation in China is through a state-mandated legal aid system rather than a voluntary model. Legal assistance is delivered through government legal aid centres at the country level with compulsory allocation to licensed lawyers under the national lawyers law [11]and the regulation on legal aid[12]. China’s legal aid system is not based on an outcome-based model where individuals volunteer their time to help clients with legal problems. Instead, the effectiveness of legal aid is evaluated based on whether lawyers were successful in resolving legal issues through providing representation, advice, or defence services and not based on the number of hours they volunteered. This emphasis on compulsory case allocation favours case completion over sustained quality and impact assessment[13].
SOUTH KOREA AND PRO BONO
Pro bono and public interest lawyering in South Korea operate through a mix of mandatory public service requirements and an institutionalised Public interest organisation. Amendments to the Attorney-at-Law Act and the Korean Bar Association Regulation require lawyers to complete a set number of public service hours annually, though compliance alone does not ensure substance impact. In practice, meaningful pro bono work is carried out by public interest law groups and law firms backed by a foundation that focuses on impact litigation, legal reforms, and sustained assistance for vulnerable groups. Although not formally outcome-based, South Korea’s pro bono framework is functionally outcome-oriented.[14]
SUGGESTION
Replace hour-based reporting with impact portfolios that assess work by results rather than time spent.
Clinic and organisation to publish reports and parodic impacts to promote transparency in justice delivery.
Academic credits and recognition should be linked to demonstrate outcomes and sustained engagement rather than hours logged.
Legal aid camps should give way to long-term clinic partnerships or adopt a community model to ensure sustained legal assistance.
COCLUSION
Effective access to justice depends on outcome-oriented institutional design rather than participation alone, according to a comparative analysis of the Asian pro bono framework. India’s system is still mostly based on attendance and has few tools to evaluate its effects. By emphasising consistency and case resolution through a state-integrated legal aid system, Japan stands out as the functional example of outcome-based justice. China prioritises access and case completion above quality evaluation, whereas South Korea integrates outcomes orientation at the institutional level through impact litigation and legislative change. Together, these approaches show that institutional responsibility, stability and accountability, rather than strict hourly requirements, are the ideal ways to accomplish outcomes-based pro bono.
[1] Dr. Subhra Bakul Karmakar, Dr Kavita Lama, “LEGAL AID SERVICE AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PRO BONO CULTURE MODEL: A NEW DIMENSION OF LEGAL EDUCATION IN INDIA”, volume 7 GAP interdisciplinarities 12 (June)
[2] Dr Karavi Barman, “ACCESS TO JUSTICE THROUGH PRO-BONO LEGAL SERVICES: PAVING THE GATEWAY FOR MARGINALIZED INDIANS”, Ruaaian Law Journal, Volume 12, Page no. 10, 2024
[3] Thomson Reuters Foundation- Trust law, “MEASURING PRO BONO IMPACT”, 15 (April,2024).
[4] OECD, “Making Justice Systems More Effective and People Centred”, pg 92, (November 2025)
[5] Supra note 3
[6] The Constitution of India.
[7] Rules of legal education, 2008
[8] The Comprehensive Legal Support Act, 2004
[9] The Constitution of Japan, 1947, art 25 and 32
[10] Lathan and Watkins, “Pro Bono Practice and Opportunities in Japan”, Pro Bono Institute, 2019
[11] Law of the People’s Republic of China on Lawyers, 2008
[12] Legal aid law, 2021
[13] Latham & Watkins LLP, “Pro Bono Practices and Opportunities in China”, Pro Bono Institute, Page no 8, 2010
[14]Patricia Goedde, “PUBLIC INTEREST LAWYERING IN SOUTH KOREA: TRENDS IN INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE SUSTAINABILITY”, Penn Cavey Legal, Page no 34, 2019
Thank you for sharing your feedback.
Our team will get back to you at the earliest
