I think if they had to do some kind of serve for the poor it would be great. I know that public service is common for many doctors,but if they are required to service at least a little bit, it would be a great help to the common good of man.
Attorneys shouldn't be required to provide a portion of their legal services to the poor. There are organizations that already do such things, although more and more poor people could probably use a good lawyer if they get in trouble. Single mothers probably need lawyers most of all since they may have trouble with deadbeat dads who don't want to own up to their child support obligations.
No, attorneys should not be required to provide a portion of their legal services to the poor, any more than anyone else should be required to give their services to the poor. Should a custodian be forced to clean the houses of the poor who cannot afford cleaning supplies? Should an electrician have to do 200 hours of electrical work in poor houses? We are not slaves to each other or the government. The attorney should decide for him or herself.
Overall to an attorney their time is very valuable so requiring them to spend a porition of their time and services to the poor is something that would have a negative effect on them, we already have a large number of attorneys dedicated solely to helping the poor with free or low cost legal help.
Legal practice in today's society is increasingly complicated. Furthermore, the current glut of legal graduates is gradually driving down wages and forcing many firms to reconsider their practice. Requiring legal firms to then dedicate a portion of their practice to non-revenue streams could implicate further troubles for a legal market that is already struggling. Also, it could be argued that the resources of the private sector are better distributed by the free market. Providing legal services to the poor is ultimately a public sector issue, as the possible costs outweigh the benefits.