The executive committee of the Connecticut Bar Association's Federal Practice Section took up discussion of pro se litigants and a need for pro bono service by the federal bar. According to the minutes of the last meeting, there was mention of a local rule under which federal judges could compel a lawyer to provide free services.

Pro bono work is in keeping with the highest traditions of the bar. But I'll choose when and to whom I will donate, thank you very much. I note some colleagues perform "pro bono" work in name only for the client -- it just happens to provide a vehicle for the lawyer's advancement of a pet political cause. To me, that's phony pro bono.

Judge Stefan Underhill once asked me to represent a pro se on his docket, an inmate with a hard-to-win civil rights claim. Ugh. I agreed, as I respect Judge Underhill and felt obliged and happy to help out. I know pro se litigants can be a pain for judges and their staff. I jumped in, I convinced the plaintiff to settle and the trial was avoided. I also unexpectedly accomplished something else.

Something about this kid struck me. He was bright, sensitive and polite, and I liked him despite his status as a drain on society. He liked me too, and I guess that made me feel free to take liberties.

At our last meeting in the court lockup, I leaned over, looked him in the eye and asked, "Why are you such a loser?" Wide-eyed reaction. "Loser?" "Yes," I answered, "you're articulate, intelligent and charming. You keep getting incarcerated. Your biggest life achievement is accruing a civil rights claim and getting me for free? You're a loser." Stunned silence. I left, aware that I probably stepped over the line by turning from lawyer to maternal scold.

Two months later, I got a letter from prison. With court proceedings over, it seems he had time on his hands to grapple with my gratuities. He thanked me for embarrassing him and making him think. He wanted me to know that he was determined, once released, to get a real life. I smiled all the way home -- what a good day that was. I treasure that letter more than some of the big checks I've gotten in my career.

Lawyers rationally associate the pro se with a higher risk of grievances. While some pro se's do have a case, many others use the federal courts to gain attention or to vent. Still others are stark-raving mad and vex all within range of them. Like life for Forrest Gump, pro se litigants are a box of chocolates -- you never know what you're gonna get.

Still, don't dread that phone call from a judge asking you to help. Yes, the client may turn out to be a lunatic, but he also might give you a great memory.

But do dread the judge who claims the authority to compel free labor. I have a big problem with that. The 13th Amendment comes to mind. If some judge orders me into involuntary servitude, there will be a constitutional challenge. At the least, I'll suggest the judge forgo his/her salary for the same time I spend in the Soviet-style forced labor camp. Besides, involuntary servitude takes the feel good out of doing good.

But the bench needs to do its part to free us up. We allow a vexatious grievance system that forces lawyers to respond to the most ridiculous complaints that should be dismissed on their face. It is the lawyer, not the judge, who has to pay the insurance premiums. Lawyers, not judges, bear the consequences of a carrier that thinks you're a grievance magnet. The system evolved to penalize lawyers for too many grievances, even if each one was patently frivolous.

The remedy for reluctance to volunteer is not resorting to a questionable exercise of judicial authority but a commitment to restore an environment in which such a local rule need not even exist.

Karen Lee Torre, a New Haven, Conn., trial lawyer, litigates civil rights issues in the federal courts. Her e-mail address is ktorre@choiceonemail.com.