In June 2026, I defended the thesis, “Motivations, Resources, and Barriers: Law firms’ pro bono litigation for asylum seekers in Norway,” concluding a two-year master’s degree in the Theory and Practice of Human Rights at the University of Oslo. Having previously completed a master’s degree in sociology from the University of Amsterdam, I knew from the beginning that I wanted to write a socio-legal thesis on issues related to asylum. However, the topic of my master’s thesis only became clear to me when I joined the PROBONO project in April 2025, midway through my degree.
My main responsibility for the project is to gather and organize the top 100 global law firms’ reporting into datasets allowing for analysis on scope and issue areas. While engaging with this data, I noticed how frequently firms would partner with governments, local NGOs, or international organizations like the UNHCR to provide legal services benefiting asylum seekers, even going as far as bringing cases to the European Court of Human Rights completely free of charge. This is notable in its own right, because these are corporate, profit-oriented firms committing their time and resources to offer support that is typically provided by the state or civil society. I wanted to learn more about these kinds of pro bono partnerships, the motivations behind them, and how they might influence asylum seekers’ access to justice – with the latter being an increasingly urgent issue in Fortress Europe and elsewhere.
An unexpected pro bono context
I was surprised to find such a pro bono partnership right here in Oslo; the Court Project (domstolsprosjektet) involves strategic litigation to strengthen the legal protection of asylum seekers. This is Norway’s longest-running pro bono initiative, started by the Norwegian Bar Association in 2007 and now organized by the non-profit NOAS (Norwegian Organization for Asylum Seekers) in partnership with some of Norway’s largest corporate law firms, including Wiersholm, Wikborg Rein, and Schjødt.
Three aspects about the Norwegian context made this pro bono project stand out: first, Norway was, until recently, considered an unfavorable legal-political culture for strategic litigation. Second, a Norwegian pro bono tradition has only begun to emerge in the last few years – likely because, third, Norway is one of the highest spenders on legal aid in Europe, which constitutes a staggering 37% of its judicial system budget compared to the median 5% of Council of Europe states. These factors made the existence – and success – of this project even more intriguing.
This led me to the research question: “What are law firms’ motivations, resources, and barriers for engaging in pro bono litigation for asylum seekers in Norway?”
For the public (and private) good
My findings are based on interviews conducted with partnering law firms in the Court Project and with representatives from NOAS, Florentina Grama and Jon Ole Martinsen, who kindly offered me their time and insights to support my research.
Unsurprisingly, the motivations behind law firms’ participation in the Court Project are mixed. As expected, pro bono litigation was offered for the public good: to target the unmet legal need of a vulnerable group largely excluded from state-sponsored legal aid. Firm representatives also described their involvement in the project as a critical element of the checks and balances on state decisions, thereby maintaining rule of law by ensuring the judicial review of arbitrary decisions made by the immigration authorities. Additionally, there is a “business case” for corporate law firms’ pro bono engagement; associate lawyers in these firms are sent to litigate asylum seekers’ civil cases, allowing them to acquire the court room experience required under Norwegian law to obtain their full attorney’s license. This finding also demonstrates a possible pitfall with corporate law firms handling asylum issues, as potential unfamiliarity with relevant legal provisions or lacking intercultural competence may weaken the credibility of asylum seekers’ claims.
Whatever the motivations, just over half of the cases in the Court Project that have received a final verdict were ruled in favor of the asylum seeker, creating legal changes that spread beyond the individual cases. Corporate law firms have handled 80% of cases since NOAS took over as organizer in 2015, suggesting that such firms constitute an overlooked actor in the Norwegian asylum and legal aid systems.
A model pro bono partnership
Though my thesis focused mainly on the role of law firms, NOAS undoubtedly plays a crucial role in this pro bono partnership. As the main provider of legal aid to asylum seekers and refugees in Norway, through their usual work, NOAS can strategically select cases where judicial review could improve the legal protection for these groups. As they work directly with rightsholders and possess extensive legal expertise in asylum matters, they can bridge the gap between the individuals with legal needs and the firms offering pro bono services. And in serving as this matchmaker, NOAS shoulders the time and cost of finding relevant cases, making the Court Project a “finished package” for law firms looking to invest in a pro bono project. Considering the European Commission’s Strategy for Civil Society identifying pro bono lawyers as sources of funding and legal services for civil society, the Court Project may serve as a model example of an access-to-justice pro bono partnership in practice. However, this assessment should also base itself on the experiences of individuals who received pro bono support. If I were to expand my study, I would also include the perspectives of the asylum seekers whose cases were litigated.
Thank you
I am grateful to everyone who offered me their guidance through my thesis research, including my supervisor Kjersti Lohne and PROBONO project leader Nina Reiners. I would also like to thank the members of the research group Global Challenges to Human Rights, especially Karin Vaagland, for their thoughtful comments on an early draft of my thesis.
The full thesis can be found in the Norwegian Research Information Repository here.