Pro bono work has its undoubted strengths that need to be acknowledged, but it would be wrong to overstate the benefits of pro-bono clinics, (see [2003] Gazette, 29 August, 16).

Firms have given great support over the years to law centres.

For example, we recently were successful in trademarking the name 'Law Centre'.

This would not have been possible without the support of the firm Pinsents, which undertook the work on a pro bono basis.

This illustrates the important use of pro bono work to provide infrastructure support to not-for-profit organisations.

Pro bono also plays an important part in complimenting publicly funded case work.

For example, it is not possible for law centres to represent every client who needs representation before employment tribunals.

The Free Representation Unit provides an excellent service that attempts at least partially to plug this gap in the system (though in an ideal world I would argue that public funding should be extended to representation in the tribunal system).

Both the examples I have given support the view that pro bono services work well when they draw on pro bono lawyers' existing areas of expertise.

This is also the case with pro bono clinics.

I am unconvinced there is much value in investing resources training lawyers in areas of law in which they do not normally practise to give advice to the public at pro bono clinics.

This merely duplicates what Citizens Advice Bureaux and other advice services offer.

There may be a need to use this as a short-term solution to meet some of the lack of current resources.

In the medium to long term it would be far better to invest public money in these advice services to train their staff and allow pro bono services to play to the strengths I have outlined.

Gerry Martin, Solicitor, Vice Chairman, Law Centres Federation