2026 PILnet Global Awards shortlist
PILnet’s Global Awards celebrate and honor the extraordinary efforts made by you and your peers to strengthen civil society, advance social change, and protect the public interest. This year, PILnet welcomed an impressive array of nominations from across the world for the PILnet Global Partnership and Local Impact Awards.
We are excited to announce this year’s shortlisted projects These ten inspiring projects below show how pro bono can be used to address today’s most pressing issues and help those who are most in need.
The winner of each category will be decided by an external committee of judges and will be announced at the 2026 Global Awards Dinner in Cape Town on November 12th.
PILnet will once again be giving an additional award to one of the shortlisted projects: the Popular Choice Pro Bono Award. The winner of this award will be chosen by Forum participants, who will have the opportunity to vote on the shortlisted projects through the Whova App prior to and during the Forum.
Congratulations to those shortlisted and thank you to all those who submitted nominations!
2026 Global Pro Bono Guide, Latham & Watkins, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Pro Bono Institute
The 2026 Global Pro Bono Guide brought together global law firm Latham & Watkins, the Pro Bono Institute, and the Thomson Reuters Foundation, alongside local counsel firms and contributors across all 103 jurisdictions. More than 100 Latham lawyers and professional staff from multiple offices worked in partnership with over 80 local law firms worldwide to research, verify, and compile jurisdiction-specific guidance on pro bono frameworks, opportunities, and unmet legal needs.
Since its release earlier this year, the 2026 Global Pro Bono Guide has already had a notable positive impact across the legal profession in a number of key areas such as expanding access to justice, increasing pro bono participation, facilitating cross-border collaboration and supporting strategic decision making and reducing barriers to pro bono. The Guide also allows organisations to identify emerging trends, assess opportunities for growth, and make informed decisions on programmes and resources. In addition to this, it has also been used to advocate for change. A local pro bono organisation in Germany used the Guide to demonstrate to authorities that the German legal framework for pro bono is comparatively restrictive when viewed against the European landscape.
For the first time, this edition of the Guide includes descriptions of how technology and AI are being used to support pro bono delivery and expand access to justice. By showcasing innovative tools and approaches, successful models can be replicated, and the development of scalable solutions that help underserved communities access legal support can be accelerated. By including research focused on the impact of technology, the Guide may also provide a foundation for future thought leadership, collaboration, and innovation within the access to justice sector. Recording case studies now sets a baseline, and means we will be able to track the advance of AI tools over time.
Caster Semenya: Human Rights in Global Sport, Deneys
For more than fifteen years, Deneys led an international pro bono partnership representing Olympic and world champion Caster Semenya in one of the most significant human rights and sports governance disputes of the modern era. The project arose from challenges to Ms Semenya’s eligibility to compete in women’s athletics and evolved into a global test case addressing equality, dignity, bodily autonomy, procedural fairness and access to justice within international sport.
Over fifteen years, the partnership represented Ms Semenya before international sporting authorities, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court and ultimately the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.These efforts contributed to her return to international competition in 2010 and marked the beginning of what would ultimately become a fifteen-year international human rights campaign. The partnership brought together an international coalition of lawyers, advocates, human rights organisations, experts and funding partners from South Africa, the United States, Canada, India, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
The project achieved significant impact by ensuring that an individual athlete had meaningful access to justice when challenging decisions made by powerful international sporting institutions. Over more than fifteen years, the partnership provided sustained pro bono legal representation, enabling Ms Semenya to pursue complex proceedings across multiple jurisdictions that would otherwise have been inaccessible because of the cost and complexity involved. The project ensured that questions concerning equality, bodily autonomy, dignity and procedural fairness were considered at the highest levels of international adjudication. The most significant impact was the Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Semenya v Switzerland in July 2025. The Court held that Switzerland had violated Ms Semenya’s right to a fair hearing and confirmed the need for more rigorous judicial scrutiny where compulsory sports arbitration affects fundamental rights.
Institutionalising Pro Bono Practice in Africa, Center for Reproductive Rights
The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) identified a critical gap in East Africa’s legal ecosystem: although many lawyers and law firms were committed to pro bono work, practice remained fragmented, informal and inconsistently institutionalised. This was particularly problematic for complex public-interest and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) matters, which require specialised expertise, sustained representation and, increasingly, cross-border collaboration. CRR therefore moved beyond its traditional role as a recipient and coordinator of pro bono legal services, becoming a convener, facilitator and catalyst for systemic change. Working with the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), East Africa Law Society (EALS), national bar associations, law firms, legal aid organisations and pro bono organisations, CRR led a two-year participatory process to develop the East Africa Regional Model Guidelines on Pro Bono Practice.
The project brought together stakeholders from Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda to develop a practical, regionally relevant framework to strengthen the culture, quality, coordination and accountability of pro bono practice. Institutional and technical partners included TrustLaw, Thomson Reuters Foundation, FIDA Kenya, Anjarwalla & Khanna, Soni & Associates LLP, PILnet and ProBono.Org, alongside regional bar associations and other legal practitioners.
The project’s impact is both systemic and demonstrably catalytic. Rather than focusing solely on individual cases, it addressed structural barriers that have historically constrained the availability, quality and sustainability of pro bono legal services across East Africa. What makes this project particularly compelling is that it has already begun to change institutional behaviour beyond the project itself. The strongest evidence is the response from national bar associations following the regional launch: both the Rwanda Bar Association and the South Sudan Bar Association have begun developing national pro bono guidelines, drawing on the regional model. This demonstrates that the project i
Mapping Financial Inclusion for Refugees, UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency; DLA Piper International
Financial inclusion is essential for refugees and asylum-seekers to rebuild safe, independent lives. Yet access to bank accounts and digital financial services is often blocked by identification, residency, tax, Know Your Client and other documentary requirements, as well as by gaps between law and implementation.
UNHCR and DLA Piper developed the project as a global pro-bono partnership combining UNHCR’s refugee-protection, financial-inclusion and operational expertise with DLA Piper’s international legal research capabilities. UNHCR helped shape the research around the regulatory and practical barriers encountered by refugees and asylum-seekers, while DLA Piper translated those questions into a common legal research methodology and coordinated the multijurisdictional research across its international network and participating corporate legal teams.
This project transforms extensive legal research into a practical global resource. It enables UNHCR, governments, regulators, financial institutions and civil society to compare regulatory environments, identify gaps between formal legal permission and real access, inform operational decisions, and target reforms or implementation changes that can make financial services more inclusive for people forced to flee. The final publication package, released in June 2026, covers 79 countries. It includes a global comparative analysis, five regional analyses, detailed country-level findings, information relevant to humanitarian cash assistance, and an interactive Financial Inclusion Regulatory Dashboard.
The project has achieved significant positive impact by creating a comprehensive, comparable global evidence base on the legal and practical conditions affecting refugees’ and asylum-seekers’ access to mainstream financial and digital services. Its operational impact lies in helping UNHCR assess the regulatory environment in which humanitarian cash assistance is delivered and consider appropriate financial service providers and delivery channels. Country-level findings can show where access is legally possible, what documents are required, and where implementation barriers may prevent refugees from using services in practice.
Statelessness Encyclopedia Asia Pacific Nationality For All
Nationality For All is a small regional civil society organisation working across an exceptionally large and legally diverse region, to produce reliable, comparable legal research on nationality, statelessness and identity systems across 45 Asia Pacific countries. This is done in collaboration with national and international law firms whose lawyers contributed jurisdiction-specific research, legal analysis and review across multiple countries.
The Statelessness Encyclopedia Asia Pacific (SEAP) began in August 2023 and ended in July 2026 with the completion of two different editions of the reports. Since pro bono legal work was not an ancillary contribution to SEAP but was one of the foundations that made the project possible, for the Second Edition, pro bono lawyers helped examine nationality laws, methods of acquiring and losing citizenship, safeguards against childhood statelessness, discriminatory provisions, treaty obligations and administrative barriers. Their contributions supported the development of 45 country factsheets, five subregional analyses and a regional overview, transforming fragmented and often inaccessible legal information into a comprehensive open-access resource.This model was sustained and expanded for the Third Edition, which examines digital identity systems and their impact on stateless people and communities with insecure citizenship status. Pro bono firms researched rapidly changing and technically complex areas, including digital ID legislation, eligibility requirements, biometric data collection, privacy and data protection frameworks, grievance mechanisms and access to essential services. This enabled SEAP to identify where digitalisation may reproduce existing citizenship-based exclusion rather than resolve it.
The project’s impact lies not only in the volume of research produced, but in how the legal work was converted into an accessible public resource for civil society organisations, affected communities, researchers, policymakers and development actors. It strengthens the evidence available for advocacy, highlights gaps in national laws and safeguards, and brings visibility to people who are frequently absent from official data and policy discussions.
Advancing Refugee Rights in Greece, DLA Piper
For years, three refugee families were kept apart despite having a right to family reunification, because they were required to provide documents that, in practice, they could not obtain. Their cases form part of the Strategic Litigation Partnership between DLA Piper and the Greek Council for Refugees (GCR), a long-term pro bono collaboration using individual cases to challenge systemic barriers affecting refugees and asylum seekers in Greece. Since 2019, the partnership has combined GCR’s frontline expertise with DLA Piper’s wider international pro bono practice. A team of 80 pro bono lawyers from across Europe and the UK is equipped to support GCR with requests and they provide assistance on cross-border and regional litigation, complaints before the UN treaty, human rights, asylum and refugee law, advocacy and enforcement mechanisms.
On 23 June 2026, the partnership achieved a major milestone when the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered three landmark judgments: Dotani v. Greece, Suji v. Greece and T.N. v. Greece. For the first time, the Court examined cases concerning the family reunification of recognised refugees in Greece and found violations of both Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 (right to an effective remedy).
The judgments arose from different situations but the same structural problem. Mr Dotani, an Afghan refugee, could not obtain authenticated documents because the Greek Consulate would not certify documents issued by Afghanistan’s de facto authorities. Mr Suji, a stateless Rohingya refugee, could not secure the required travel and civil-status documents for his stateless wife and children in Bangladesh. Mr T.N., a Burundian refugee, waited over five years while his wife and children, asylum seekers in South Africa, could not obtain the travel documents required by Greek law. The ECtHR held that family-reunification procedures must be flexible, effective and prompt, requiring authorities to consider refugees’ practical obstacles and alternative solutions rather than applying documentary requirements mechanically.
Advising Ukraine on Pressing Wartime Questions, White & Case; Public International Law & Policy Group; Ukraine
White & Case, in collaboration with the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG), has advised the Government of Ukraine on six areas related to the country’s wartime survival and the development of international law. International law, and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in particular, were designed for a different era, before the use of cyberattacks against civilian infrastructure, artificial intelligence for targeting decisions, deployment of autonomous weapons systems, and the widespread use of drones, especially in civilian areas. Therefore, for through the Platform for the Progressive Development of IHL, an expert forum established by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, the organizations examined the legal gaps in IHL that fail to cover emerging technologies of war and have proposed updated norms to fill the gaps created by modern methods of war.
They also examined the lack of explicit provisions addressing the destruction of national identity during war and occupation, which for Ukraine is of vital importance. Ukrainianians living in Russian occupied territories have faced systematic attacks on their identity, such as through limitations on language, education, national symbols, and cultural sites. For the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, they have reviewed the war crime of pillage and its interpretation in national, regional, and international jurisdictions. In particular, we examined the scope, constituent elements, and evidentiary thresholds applied by various bodies during the prosecution of this international crime.
This work aims to support Ukrainian investigators and prosecutors in building legally robust cases under international legal standards. They have also advised the Office of the President of Ukraine on three questions designed to support it during any peace negotiations with the Russian Federation and other parties by examining a range of legal scenarios related to Ukraine’s territorial integrity, which are key to its sovereignty and security. Relatedly, White & Case prepared a three-part investigation of international security guarantees that would be necessary to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity and undertook a detailed evaluation of the legal and practical advantages and disadvantages of 30+ buffer zones that have been deployed to separate warring parties over the last century.
Domestic Abuse Related Inquests, Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse (AAFDA)
AAFDA specialises in guiding families and friends through many types of statutory inquiry including Domestic Homicide Reviews and Independent Investigations (also known as Mental Health Reviews). They assist with and represent Inquests and Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) inquiries in England and Wales.
In the year to March 2025, the Domestic Homicide Project found that 150 people in England and Wales were suspected to have killed themselves after experiencing domestic abuse, and that 125 domestic homicides were recorded. This comes at the same time as the National Audit Office has declared an “epidemic” of violence against women and girls, which is a growing and worsening problem. Recognition of a problem is important but of limited value unless steps are also being taken to understand how it arises, whether the systems in place are working, and what can be done to protect those at risk from getting to the point where they feel the only option is to take their own life. It is against this backdrop that the firm developed a program to represent bereaved families of those who have committed suicide following an abusive relationship, and provide pro bono legal support at coroner’s inquests.
A key goal from the beginning of the project was to seek consistency on how coroner’s investigate domestic abuse. Through their work on domestic abuse they were concerned that some victims’ families were simply not being heard, including being told by coroners that it was not their job to investigate why someone took their own life. A core aim in this was also to ensure that Coroners across the country were trained on domestic abuse, and especially coercive and controlling behaviour, in order for them to take it seriously and not reject evidence for being outside of their scope. As a result of the work, and the sustained media coverage of cases that they have worked on, Coroners will now receive this training, which is a huge step forward.
Equal Parental Leave for South African Families: Webber Wentzel representing Ika and Werner Van Wyk and Deneys representing the Commission for Gender Equality
In South Africa, the Basic Conditions of Employment Act granted birthing mothers four months of maternity leave, while fathers received only 10 days of parental leave. The framework placed a disproportionate care giving burden on birthing mothers, constrained fathers’ ability to participate meaningfully in early childcare, and prevented families from deciding who should serve as the primary caregiver. Webber Wentzel acted pro bono for Ika and Werner Van Wyk in a constitutional challenge to South Africa’s unequal statutory parental leave and benefits regime, while Deneys acted pro bono to represent the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE); their efforts led to the Constitutional Court decision declaring South Africa’s gender-discriminatory leave regime unconstitutional.
Webber Wentzel: Webber Wentzel represented the Van Wyks in this matter. The Van Wyks, who had just welcomed their first child, challenged the relevant provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act as unfairly discriminatory and inconsistent with the constitutional rights to equality and human dignity. The premise of the challenge was that the provisions of the Act, as they read at the time, did not afford couples to decide who the primary caregiver of a newly born child would be, but rather placed the primary care-giving duties on the birthing parent. It was argued that the unequal treatment between the birthing parent and the co-parent was unfairly discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. The corresponding provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act were challenged on the same basis. In October 2025, the Constitutional Court unanimously confirmed that the relevant provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and corresponding provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Fund Act were unconstitutional.
Deneys: The matter represented by Deneys arose from provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act that treated different categories of parents differently in respect of parental leave and related benefits. The litigation challenged distinctions between birth mothers, fathers, adoptive parents and commissioning parents in surrogacy arrangements, as well as limitations imposed on adoptive parents of children over two years old. The case raised fundamental constitutional questions concerning equality, dignity, gender discrimination and the allocation of care giving responsibilities within families. Deneys represented the Commission for Gender Equality and developed employment law and equality-based arguments demonstrating the discriminatory impact of the existing framework on different categories of employees and parents. On 3 October 2025, the Constitutional Court confirmed that key provisions of the legislation were unconstitutional and unfairly discriminatory.
Pending corrective legislation, the Court combined the existing entitlements into a total of four months and 10 days of parental leave that employed parents may share according to their circumstances. If no agreement is reached, the leave will be split equally. The interim framework also extends to adoptive and commissioning parents in a surrogacy arrangement, while a single parent or the only employed parent is entitled to four consecutive months of leave.
The judgement is widely regarded as one of the most significant labour and equality-related Constitutional Court decisions in recent years and has required employers, policymakers and government institutions to reconsider the structure of parental leave across South Africa especially since it sought to remove structural barriers that reinforced outdated gender roles, limited shared parenting responsibilities and failed to recognise the diversity of modern families.
The judgement advances substantive equality by recognising that care giving responsibilities should not be allocated according to stereotypes or the manner in which a family is formed. As a result, the case has created lasting benefits for employees, parents and children across South Africa and established an important foundation for future legislative reform.
Protecting Safe Infant Relinquishment, Deneys
Deneys acts entirely pro bono for Baby Savers South Africa NPO and Door of Hope Children’s Mission NPO in a landmark constitutional challenge concerning the legality of safe infant relinquishment in South Africa. Approximately 3,000 infants are abandoned unsafely in South Africa each year, with more than two-thirds not surviving. Baby Saver Boxes provide a secure and anonymous alternative for mothers in crisis, allowing infants to be placed in safe care rather than abandoned in dangerous circumstances. These initiatives have already saved approximately 580 lives.
The litigation has national significance because it seeks to clarify the legal position of safe infant relinquishment and the constitutional obligations of the State towards vulnerable children and women in crisis. The project commenced in 2023 following the Gauteng Department of Social Development’s directive declaring Baby Saver Box operations unlawful. Litigation has continued from 2023 to 2026 and includes an interim interdict, administrative law review proceedings and a constitutional challenge. The matter was heard before the Pretoria High Court in May 2026 and judgment is currently awaited.
The applicants challenge both the directive and the constitutional validity of legislation that effectively criminalises safe relinquishment. The matter raises fundamental constitutional issues concerning the rights to life, dignity and children’s rights, as well as the State’s obligation to protect vulnerable children. A favourable judgment would create South Africa’s first judicial framework for safe infant relinquishment and has the potential to influence legal reform throughout the region. The case sits at the intersection of children’s rights, women’s rights and access to care. It addresses the realities faced by vulnerable mothers who may be unable to care for a newborn due to poverty, abuse, abandonment, stigma or other crisis circumstances. By seeking legal recognition for safe infant relinquishment, the litigation aims to create a lawful alternative that prioritises the preservation of life while safeguarding the rights and dignity of both infants and mothers. The matter therefore extends beyond a legal dispute and seeks to establish a humane, constitutional and sustainable response to one of South Africa’s most pressing child-protection challenges.
This matter has attracted substantial national attention and has become a focal point in South Africa’s debate on child protection, maternal vulnerability and the constitutional right to life. Coverage has appeared across national broadcast, legal and mainstream media, including SABC News, Africa Legal, The Citizen, Weekend Argus, Cape Argus, The Star and other public-interest publications. The litigation has generated significant public engagement around the distinction between unsafe abandonment and safe infant relinquishment and the role of the law in protecting vulnerable children. The matter has also brought together an unusually broad coalition of organisations committed to advancing children’s rights and access to justice.