Bound by Duty, Lawyers Fight for Fair Pay in Free Legal Aid Battle

Apr 28 , 2025. By NAHOM AYELE ( FORTUNE STAFF WRITER )

Key Takeaways:

The Ministry of Justice has taken a decisive step toward enforcing a four-year-old mandate that requires private lawyers to provide free help to the destitute. A draft directive, now posted for public comment, outlines how advocates and law firms should handle pro bono work and how they will be monitored. Justice officials say the goal is a system that is "fair, transparent and consistent," but the plan has already stirred sharp debate within the legal community.

A 2021 amendment to the Federal Advocacy Service Licensing & Administration law obliges licensed practitioners, as well as lawyers on a firm’s payroll, to represent up to three indigent clients a year. The Attorney General’s Office assigns the cases, and lawyers should keep detailed records to prove they met the obligation. The new directive attempts to codify those rules and turn them into day-to-day practice.

The draft also addresses the thorny question of money. Although free legal aid is supposed to be free, the directive allows lawyers to collect a fee if a lawsuit ends in a cash or property award. Under the proposal, an advocate may claim one percent of any recovery that exceeds five million Birr. The law prohibits any other payment.

However, many lawyers say the cap is far too low to recognise their work.

“A disrepute to the advocates’ work,” said Temesgn Desalegn, an attorney who often represents low-income clients. “If a lawyer wins one million Birr for a client, they should be entitled to 10pc, not nothing. A person who wins a million Birr is no longer poor. The lawyer should not be forced to work almost for free.”

Temesgn argues that the directive should copy private contingency agreements, which typically grant a lawyer 10pc of damages. He is not alone.

Tegene Zewdu, a lawyer and legal advisor with two years’ experience, says the rule needs teeth.

“Litigation costs, including lawyer fees, are reimbursed to the winning party,” Tegene said. “At the very least, lawyers should recover their expenses.”

He wants every pro bono client to sign a contract promising payment if the case succeeds.

Another flashpoint is the draft rule that allows a free-aid client to fire a lawyer at any time. Tegene warns that the clause could be misused by clients who see their case heading toward victory and want to dodge the fee. He urged that any termination request also carry the lawyer’s view, for a neutral body can judge whether the break is fair.

Beyond fees, some critics focus on who should control the assignments. The Attorney General’s Office picks which lawyer handles cases, even though the Office also supervises prosecutions.

Daniel Fikadu, who practices in courts, called this a conflict of interest.

“Prosecutors and defence lawyers are adversaries by nature,” he said. “The executive branch should not control lawyer assignments.”

Daniel believes oversight should pass to the Federal Bar Association, an independent body set up to advocate for the profession. He also says too many assignments go to the same handful of attorneys, leaving others unable to fulfil their three-case quota.

The Ministry's officials declined to comment while the text is still a draft.

“A forum will be called to gather expert feedback,” said Reta Nigat, an expert in the Directorate of Legal Services and Free Legal Aid Services.

The draft is posted on the Ministry’s website, and the public can send comments online.

Critics argue the draft leans heavily on obligations but lightly on rewards.

Legal counsel Abdurazak Nesro wants formal recognition for lawyers who meet or exceed the requirements. He also questioned how applicants would prove they have a low income. The current wording tells a would-be client to file declarations from three witnesses at an administrative body or social court, or to present documents from “women’s and social welfare institutions.”

Abdurazak fears those papers “could be easily obtained by those with the right connections.” He urged lawmakers to spell out which agencies count as social institutions and to impose stricter checks for the aid to reach the genuinely needy.

Habtamu Birhanu, who teaches law at Dilla University, backs that call. According to him, the entire purpose of the directive — widening access to justice — will fail if the wrong people slip through. Beneficiaries, he added, should meet clear, testable criteria, with proven inability to pay, justifiable legal claim, and honest intent. The directive does warn applicants not to abuse the courts or file cases that contradict the law, but Habtamu thinks the rules need more detail.

Ethiopia is not alone in wrestling with pro bono policy. Kenya’s National Legal Aid Service, run by the Law Society of Kenya, focuses on civil disputes, such as family law, land rights, and job cases, and serves clients who pass a means test. Lawyers there often work through clinics and outreach programs in poor communities and receive modest stipends funded by a mix of government money and donor grants.

Ethiopian lawyers point to this model as proof that incentives matter.

Advocates also face a duty that can be hard to meet. Many firms say the paperwork alone is burdensome. Small practices lack staff to track filings, deadlines and compliance. Some lawyers fear the draft could push them to decline paying clients to free up time for mandatory aid.

“The motive is noble,” said a lawyer who asked to remain anonymous. “Nobody objects to helping the poor. But, if the state wants quality representation for indigent people, it must value the lawyers’ time and skill.”

Leaders of the Federal Bar Association say it has yet to receive the text.

“Once the draft is officially submitted, our experts will review it and give a formal opinion,” said Zerihun Petros, the group’s secretary general.

PUBLISHED ON Apr 28,2025 [ VOL 26 , NO 1305]

Share this...

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin