The article, “Courts Offer Olive Branch on Pro Bono Rule” (NYLJ, May 29) appropriately reports strong reservations by the bar on the issues of attorneys’ personal privacy, and on the “camel’s nose under the tent” concerns that the pro bono reporting rule may be “a possible prelude to mandatory pro bono beyond the courts’ voluntary, aspirational goal of 50 hours per attorney each year.”

Of no lesser concern to a significant number of lawyers is the question of how “pro bono” is to be defined.