The lawsuit that touched off one of Boston's most controversial political battles in the last 20 years originated as a pro bono case accepted by a corporate law firm.

Attorneys at Foley, Hoag and Eliot, a large Boston firm, took on the landmark school desegregation case that has dominated the Boston political agenda since 1974. And they took it free of charge, says one of the firm's lawyers, because they were concerned about the "impact on the community where that discrimination took place."

Now, attorneys for that firm and others wonder why new law school graduates don't show that kind of commitment.

The interest in legal service at the nation's law school still seems as strong as it was 15 years ago. At Harvard, for instance, 90 percent of second and third-year students spend time in school working in clinical and legal services programs.

These days, however, many lawyers and educators say that kind of public interest spirit does not translate into more legal service work after graduation, as it did a decade ago.

They disagree on the explanation. Some cite the complacent "yuppie" mentality of the '80s. Others blame corporations and big law firms for a lack of real philanthropy.

But they reach the same conclusion. Experts say 80 percent of the nation's current legal needs go unfulfilled, and they say the corporate lawyers fresh out of law school are not doing enough to meet that demand.

Ironically, prospective lawyers across the country are still showing interest in public service, at least while they are at law school, most observers agree. The diversity of clinical projects grow every year, with participation generally remaining high.

At Harvard Law School, for instance, the students feel as strongly committed as ever to public service within their educational confines, at least if recent events are any indicator.

After Dean Robert C. Clark decided to close the school's office for public interest career counseling this summer, about two-thirds of the student body signed a petition protesting the decision and reaffirming their support for public service law.

In recent years, Harvard has pioneered many programs which offer affordable legal aid to indigent clients and give students practical experience in the courtroom. The school's Low Income Protection Plan, which guarantees financial support to graduates entering low-paying jobs, has been mimicked at many other leading institutions.

Only about 6 percent of Law School graduates actually pursue full-time public interest careers. But Harvard's staffers say the success of clinical programs should also be measured by how they influence the 69 percent of graduates who enter private firms, where they can do substantial pro bono work.

Pro bono--literally "for good" in Latin--means everything from obtaining restraining orders for battered women to helping the elderly file Medicare appeals, to cases of housing and employment discrimination.

And that is the kind of work law students often perform in clinical projects.

"The experiences derived from clinical work have an strong impact on lawyers--and consequently on the firms they join--whether or not they enter public service jobs or do pro bono work on the side," says Daniel L. Greenberg, director of Harvard's clinical programs. "They can have an important effect on a firm's pro bono commitment."

Yet educators, students and even private practictioners worry that for too many nascent lawyers, such commitment ends after graduation.

"At one time, clinical programs were influencing people, and had a substantial impact," says Robert L. Hill, Aetna Life and Casualty's assistant vice president for law and public affairs. "But now people are on the `fast track' and say, `too much work to do, have to get ahead, have to pay back student loans.' So they're not doing as much pro bono as they used to."

Some, including Steven B. Deutch, pro bono coordinator at Foley, Hoag and Eliot, attribute the plunge in public service to recent societal complacency and "yuppie" attitudes.

"Law students frequently get involved, but it's not as popular as it was 10 or 15 years ago," says Deutch, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1974. "When we graduated, we were very interested in pro bono work. But that seems to be less true now, because there's been a societal change. Then, the Vietnam was was closer at hand. Now, more people are satisfied with their economic condition."

With recruitment visits from high-paying firms always the topic of fall campus conversation, few schools can overpower the lures of lucrative corporate work, experts say. Harvard's clinical instructors note that most of the 6 percent who actually pursue full-time public service probably had that career in mind before they came to law school.

"I think what encourages people is nothing they gain from being here, but attitudes they come in with," says Cassandra Q. Butts, a second-year student at Harvard. "And people often come in with an interest in public interest, but with the emphasis here on corporate law, they don't always leave with that attitude. There's heavy recruiting by large, high-paying firms, and students see an insurmountable number of loans they need to pay off."

For many, those kind of practical disincentives work against the commitment to public service. High loan payments and a lack of experience in common pro bono fields discourage young attorneys from taking the extra effort to provide the poor with legal aid.

"There are a couple of practical considerations you have to take into account," says Martha N. Murdock, pro bono director for the Massachusetts Bar Association. "Poverty law is not straightforward or uncomplicated, so someone straight out of law school may not have the experience to handle complicated poverty law cases."

And when it comes to encouraging associates to do public service litigation, students and lawyers say many large firms just will not sacrifice the time.

"An associate usually goes into a corporate law firm that probably has no less than 150 lawyers, but generally doesn't have that much control over what they do as far as pro bono work," Butts says.

Law firms often have official policies governing the proportion of time their attorneys can spend on pro bono work. According to Butts, although those figures occasionally reach 10 or 11 percent, they usually lie between 1 and 3 percent.

In fact, some flatly refuse to pay their lawyers for pro bono work.

"If the caseload is very, very high and the firm is not receptive to taking pro bono cases, it's hard for lawyers to do pro bono," Murdock says. "It's not just a question of the lawyer's attitude."

"Most firms don't include pro bono work when they figure their billable hours," Butts adds. "So the associates who do it are taking on a bigger chore than their colleagues. That's a huge disadvantage."

Although most agree that the firms encouraging volunteer legal work do so for philanthropic reasons, skeptics say that most of those firms simply want to supply themselves with well-trained litigators at little risk.

"The primary reason is often not that they care so much about legal services," says Lee D. Goldstein, a supervising attorney at the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, which is one of the student-run clinical programs. "It's a way to train young lawyers in litigation."

"The cynical view is that for firms, pro bono work is an opportunity for associates to have hands-on work on cases without botching up work for big clients," Butts says. "But some firms have partners with a real interest in putting the firms' resources behind assisting people who don't have the ability to hire a lawyer. There aren't a lot of firms like that."

Together, those factors mean the need for legal services is continuing to outdistance the supply.

But many legal experts say that trend has sparked a positive reaction in recent years. They say calls for more private pro bono work are growing increasingly loud, even if the voices are predominantly from an older generation of lawyers.

Renewed attention to the perceived decline of interest in public service has prompted bar associations nationwide to adopt policies calling on their members to do pro bono work.

The Massachusetts Bar Association, for instance, has launched "Countdown to 500," a campaign to recruit from among its membership 500 new lawyers who will do pro bono work, says a spokesperson.

In addition, the group recently presented its members with guidelines for "professionalism" that included a recommendation that attorneys accept at least one volunteer case per year. Two weeks ago, a New England Board of Higher Education report, entitled "Law and the Information Society," echoed that call.

Already, a smattering of volunteer-active corporations, such as Walt Disney, Gilette and Aetna Life and Casualty, operate pro bono progams with large enrollments.

Some lawyers cite Aetna as a model company. It permits its attorneys to spend up to 10 percent of their paid company time on volunteer work. It also encourages its summer law interns to participate in at least one volunteer case.

Aetna's programs have been popular among employees. Of the four pro bono programs run by the Hartford-based corporation, one employs 30 attorneys. Another boasts 90 attorneys and staff members, according to Hill.

On an individual level, some law firms are working to provide their associates with similar concrete incentives to take on volunteer cases.

Foley, Hoag and Eliot, which was cited several months ago by The Boston Phoenix as one of the area's top 10 public-spirited companies, has a large pro bono program, with more than half its 140 members handling volunteer cases at any time.

Deutch says the firm believes it has an "obligation" to provide public service.

"Since we're licensed by the state to work in our profession, and members provide valuable services and are well compensated, it's the least we can do to return that to the society that makes it possible," Deutch says.

Foley, Hoag and Eliot works with a variety of clients. It helps Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups challenge state abortion consent laws. It also handles civil rights cases, in which the clients need not be indigent.

"It's not strictly for people who can't afford it," Deutch says.

"In the civil rights field, we may bring a case for its effect on society," he adds, recalling the firm's work on the Boston desegregation case.

Currently, Deutch says, the firm is representing a Harvard "instructor" who was denied housing in Boston because of his race.

All of which is encouraging news for clinical instructors. They say their programs, born out of the social consciousness two decades ago, can still have an impact on public service in the years to come.

"Clinical programs give people a running start," says Goldstein. "And even for people who do not do pro bono work, it is still quite important that they did clinical work, because it dramatically affects their value and role are partners in terms of resources."

"The clinical progam does make a difference. It makes people aware of what's out there available to them," Butts says. "They may choose to go into corporate work, but they will be more sensitive to the need for pro bono lawyers."