Has John Edwards ever worked a pro bono case?

This would let me know how much he really cared about the poor when he was actually practicing. Obama, for example, worked in community outreach programs in South Chicago, making much less money that he probably could have.

When they are in active practice. It is a bar association requirement.

Edit: Here's Georgia's as an example:



(R. 6.1).

I'm not sure how many of the ABA rules are followed.

John Ashcroft? John Roberts? Clarence Thomas?

Harriet Meiers?

there are many more to wonder about.

However, this is really insignificant. If you read his book "4 Trials", you'll learn that he took cases others wouldn't, and got some measure of justice for his clients. without him, they would've had nothing.

Whether Edwards took pro bono cases is not really the issue. All attorneys are supposed to take them, and all the ones I know take them from time to time -- even if it's just helping a mother in law with her Social Security application.

John Edwards should never be condemned for making money practicing plaintiff personal injury law. That practice requires great risk, a big capital investment and a strong stomach for jerk-ass insurance adjusters ridiculing you and your client.

Every one of John Edwards's clients who won at trial got a BIG chunk of money. That's how the contingency system works. And from what I hear, Edwards was one HELL of a trial lawyer.

Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone.

For a candidate who bases so much of his platform on 'helping the poor,' I want to know if the man ever worked pro bono cases for indigent clients (the poor people he's talking about). It is a reasonable question.

generally IS helping the poor. And your criticism, even though you may not characterize it as "stones," comes through loud and clear.

Some of the clients may not have a lot of money. But you do understand that Edwards charged extremely high contingency fees for his services right? While his efforts to garner recoveries for his clients is admirable, the high fees he charged for such services isn't the equivalent of working pro bono, where the lawyer gains little financial reward.

in the state a lawyer practices in. he can`t charge "extremely high contingency fees", nice try, but you should`t base an attack on edwards by bringing up this falsehood.

Now, NORTH CAROLINA might have its own rules to set the contingency fees, but the ABA does not require that they be set by the court.

I honestly don't know where you guys get these things.

Fees are charged by the market.

Perhaps in SOME states, fees are set by the court in CRIMINAL proceedings, but not in civil matters.

get in New Jersey. I believe that is pretty much the standard contingency percentage.

I used to think that a third was huge cut, too. Then I started working as a plaintiff's lawyer. Trust me, no matter how frugal a practice you run, taking less than a third of a recovery is the only way to keep from going broke in the long run. There are tremedous costs associated with a serious trial practice - costs that you have to eat if you don't get a decent recovery for your clients.

In plaintiff's cases the lawyer or firm absorbs the up front costs of the legal work and some out of pocket expenses. They only get paid, i.e. wages for work, if they win.

They have to take quite a few cases before they win back money. Not every cases settles for money nor does every cases get a big jury award.

In defense cases there is no monetary award for the attorney to get a fee, so defendants hire attorneys with a retainer and then pay in some fashion as the case proceeds.

Edwards is a plaintiff's attorney, every case he takes is pro bono until he wins his client some money. When and if he does win, the client would not get any monetary award but for the lawyer, why the hell shouldn't he get paid?

Now, whether he accepted some pro bono defense cases, despite the fact that he was a plaintiff's attorney is another question.

Look it up -it must be out there.

In my own experience, most injured clients who appear at a lawyer's door asking for help are unable to pay their medical bills, or have no health insurance, or are otherwise impoverished.

That's based on about 10 years of insurance defense practice, and about five years of plaintiff's PI practice. So yes, I understand John Edwards collected big contingency fees, customarily 33% to 40% plus costs. Costs of litigating a big case are advanced by the attorney, and substantial. For example, paying an orthopedic surgeon (which must be done up front, before they take the witness stand) comes at something north of $3,000 per half-day of testimony. Paying a specialist runs about $5,000 per half-day of testimony. If the judge makes you call your specialist at 4:00 p.m., after waiting around all afternoon in the hallway, the continuing testimony in the morning costs ANOTHER $5,000.

Personal injury is a capital-intenstive practice. And you haven't told us why you begrudge probably the best trial lawyer in the state his fees.

I'm also disputing the assertion that working a personal injury case is the moral equivalent of working pro bono. I begrudge THAT assertion, Jack. Have a nice day.

Name's not Jack, and you should learn some manners. Maybe that law school aggressive streak has got your shorts in a bunch. I offered you my sympathies about the grind of law school. I think you will learn that just about all PI law practice is about mixed and nuanced ethical issues. No good guys, no bad guys. Just hurt people, doctors and insurance companies.

I simply don't like being accused of "begrudging" John Edwards when that isn't what I've done. Thanks for your post below.

I still reject your premise that your speculation that John Edwards practiced for profit, and not for a small salary (as Obama did in South Chicago) is ethically inferior. Obama's practice probably gave him some great issues to litigate, and many young attorneys take jobs like that to get experience in certain areas of law. Obama is a GREAT candidate, by the way, and a truly brilliant guy. But professional ethics are never as simple as you're making them.

Edwards' campaign (based on erradicating poverty) has begged the question: after having worked for many years and making millions of dollars did he, as the self-described 'poverty candidate,' ever work a pro bono case? I understand that it may be overly simplistic to look at it that way, as many of Edwards' clients were on the lower economic scale. But, however, after having made his fortune, why not take a pro bono case here and there?

It's overly simplistic.

But Edwards did other things that helped young people. He coached soccer, worked with urban planning, and when his son died, he and his wife established the Wade Edwards Learning Lab. It was inspired by the idea that Wade noticed some of his classmates were getting extra credit for turning in typed papers, and they didn't have word processing in their homes. Today, WELL helps many school kids in helping them by supplying computers, printers, paper, etc, and has a website of available tools to use for homework. They also employ high school students on a part-time basis so they can earn while they learn.

Edwards also raised money for the past two years in a pilot program that he would like to see expanded if he becomes President called "College for Everyone." Any senior high school student who was economically disadvantaged (and many are because this took place in the poorest county, Greene County, NC)who had good grades and was willing to work 10 hours a week (and still keep their grades up) got tuition and books paid for their freshman year at a state university or college of where they were accepted and wanted to go to school.

If he didn't do pro-bono cases, which the NYT says he didn't, I don't hold it against him because of his other philanthropic activities. His poverty work at UNC is just example where he did get paid a small salary from alumni donations, but he raised over $2M to keep the program going after he resigned his position in late December. There is much to be done to keep poverty awareness in the forefront.

they said:

"Edwards's Lawyerly Style Drew Fierce Foes and Fans",: . . .

"Mr. Edwards handled no notable pro bono cases, the typical vehicle for lawyers who want to have a larger impact."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/campaign/14career.html?ex=1247544000&en=870846aae154e1d1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland


The difference is potentially significant, since an attorney might devote considerable effort to pro bono work without handling any court cases that his colleagues might recognize as notable (say, because they sought to shape the course of the law). http://www.overlawyered.com/2004/07/pro_bono_being_fair_to_edwards.html

Appreciate that bit of difference.

bills doesn't mean one is poor.

Medical costs in this country are outrageous and an upper middle-class family who can afford a $200,000 house and two high-end cars can STILL be wiped out by medical bills.

The pool girl's family wasn't destitute and I'm certainly not arguing they didn't have a case - they did - but, that doesn't mean that the girl's family was "poor" by any stretch of imagination (and, if the pool was there own pool, we know they weren't. Very few poor people have their own back yard pool. I'm not sure if they owned the pool or were visiting one, I'm just trying to make a point about how medical costs can wipe out even the middle class).

In my wrongful death practice we usually shell out at least $10k before we even file the complaint. Once the case is in suit, we usually take around 10-15 depositions before we even get to dispositive motions and you know how much that can cost. Glad to see I'm not the only "greedy trial lawyer" </sarcasm> here tonight.

if the contractor who worked on his multi million dollar home was a union contractor and if not did he write into his contact that the workers be paid prevailing wages?

One helluva convincing argument.....NOT! :eyes:

I am sure he took the case for free, unless he won...he did win, by hard work, he was offered a I think 100 thousand dollar settlement, however he had done the work and found the swimming pool company had already had problems with their pumps, in fact the same one that sucked out the little Lackey girls insides. John Edwards knowing how to work hard and seeking out the truth, made it possible for the Lackey family to keep their daughter at home and still today has to be fed by tube every night, I think every so many hours around the clock, with out John Edwards hard work this child's parents wouldn't have been able to keep her home,she would probably be in some home...

Contingency arrangements are how most trial atty's gain compensation. If the ABA thought working a contingent, personal injury case was helping the poor, I doubt a separate provision re: pro bono would exist.

Contingency fees are a vehicle for lawyers to provide their services to regular people and still have a financially viable practice. For reasons I tried to explain in another post somewhere around here, it's difficult for plaintiff's attorneys to work the kinds of cases they know how to work for "free." I can work the hell out of a wrongful death case, but I would be pretty useless (probably riding the ragged edge of malpractice) defending some poor kid facing a criminal charge. Frankly, the best thing I can do is cut a check to my local legal aid office (if I have any $ left over) rather than try to work "pro bono" in a practice area I'm not proficient in, or take one of my usual case for free and possibly put my firm out of business.

See Frenchie's post below for an explanation of the difference.

until there is a settlement?

I don't see what's wrong with a lawyer taking a commission from a settlement, and often nothing if there is no settlement...

I don't know if his practice worked like that though.

n/t

in 2004 and repeated many times. The fact is, he took no notable ( high profile) pro bono cases.
Not NO cases.

It's a stupid argument in my opinion.

I was honestly just wondering. I go to law school.

Law school SUCKS, but practicing law is something different every day, and you have the opportunity to help many people. Some of whom are bastards, and some of whom are good guys. Usually, it's something in between.

Keep your eyes on the prize, Ninja Jordan.

The only thing that sucks worse than law school is having to take the bar exam afterwards. But when the dust settles, it feels damn good to use your skills to make a difference in someone's life.

it with with my own ears. I'm not the right wing either.

At personal injury lawyers in general and Edwards in particular. That's how it reads here.

Interesting note: Yes, personal injury lawyers do have the occasional big payday. That said, they are often few and far between. They carry huge caseloads, work incredibly long hours and go for long periods without any income. Why? Because most of the time they are up against insurance company and other corporate law TEAMS, who practice law by attrition, using every tactic they can to stall proceedings, etics and morals be damned. They must carry the huge caseloads to play the percentages.

I have seen it with my own brother, who was crippled and maimed and permanently disabled in an on-the-job accident caused by employer-created unsafe working conditions on a theatrical stage. The attrition on the part of the insurance company caused him to end up homeless and living on the streets of Newark NJ. While the insurance company lawyers farted through their silk.

See my prior post. Costs for a big case can run $50,000. Lawyer has to advance those costs.

the field of Justice? After all, justice and profit rarely coincide so why should the justice one receives be qualified by the depths of someone's pockets?

I'd just love not having to pony up big bucks to house my family and myself every month.

Maybe we can remove the profit motive from everything in human life. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That's Marxism, Mate.

the areas of health care, education, and justice. These are essential to the existence of our society and should not be determined by class.

BTW, Marx's theory might well work, cooperation is superior to competition and maybe someday it will be tried, but that is another discussion all together.

If excellence is the goal, we should allow the free market to work by embracing the profit motive.

The best doctors, lawyers, and teachers, all go into those fields because it is what they feel they must do, we used to say it was a calling, not to get rich. Those that do these things for the money, those that do are the mediocre practitioners.

Like feeding the prison industrial complex or scoring political points by getting people executed.

Sometimes the justice system is so stacked against you that you have to pay to even things out.

those damn teachers ...incentives should be taken away from them too.

I think you are correct, in that it is hard to remove incentives, although I do not agree with your premise that putting someone away forever is an incentive.

For a prosecutor whose first priority is getting elected Governor or Attorney General, it definitely can be.

...as a matter of fact, we can pay lawyers in lollipops and cotton candy. That'll be plenty incentive to excel in their field.

:eyes:

change the offer to pretzels and beer and we might have a deal!

Mr. Edwards handled no notable pro bono cases, the typical vehicle for lawyers who want to have a larger impact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/campaign/14career.html?ei=5090&en=870846aae154e1d1&ex=1247544000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&adxnnlx=1171760033-8jWeBPt6tTpjkRQflgDqrg


Here is the ABA Model Rule on pro bono service.
http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/probono/rule61.html
RULE 6.1 VOLUNTARY PRO BONO PUBLICO SERVICE
Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay. A lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year.

As for North Carolina, it appears that while law school students are required to satisfy a pro bono activity, admitted attorneys are not (there's not even an official suggestion regarding pro bono in the North Carolina ethics code).

The difference between taking a case on contigency and Pro-Bono (see page 8 of link detailed below) http://www.probonoinst.org/pdfs/whatcounts.pdf

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=D3u&q=john+edwards+pro+bono&btnG=Search

I started to just post one article regarding this, but found so many on Google - from the right, from the left, from his own mouth, etc. - that I just thought I'd share the search itself.

I see nobody answered your question. BTW, I live in NC.

if your client doesn't have the money to pay you.

And if you win, your client is more than happy to pay you.

THis New York times Article on Edwards is pretty interesting on many levels....as it demonstrates his Calculations and how he made a name for himself.

It is actually quite a favorable article on Edwards career as an personal injury attorney.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/campaign/14career.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=870846aae154e1d1&ex=1247544000&adxnnl=0&partner=rssuserland&adxnnlx=1171760033-8jWeBPt6tTpjkRQflgDqrg

I suspect he did what Edwards did. It would be like doing what you do every day but not getting paid for it one day. Why?

did not care about the poor and powerless?

They could have made just as much money or more using their talents to help companies buy and sell each other. (And if they did that, you better believe we should be expecting them to do pro bono work.)

Whatever Kunsler or Darrow may or may not have done has no bearing whatsoever on what Edwards did or didn't do, or should have done.

But that said, I'd be very surprised if they hadn't.

It's expensive for a lawyer to prepare a successful case against a rich corporation or the government. It makes sense to me that the plaintiffs would agree that their lawyer should get paid in that sort of situation so that they have the best chance of winning. I'm having a hard time thinking of a talented trial lawyer representing underdogs against big corporations who have done that for free if they win (and a lot do it for free if they lose, including Edwards, except I gather he didn't lose very often).

Great for Darrow, but the trial was done for publicity. If Edwards had done a trial like that, you'd be criticizing him for being a publicity hound. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/13/scopes.monkey.trial/

And if he worked for Omar Abel Rahman, I can only imagine what you'd say.

How typical.

But in case you're wondering, I don't need a Scopes trial to accuse Edwards of being a publicity hound. Shit, what else has he done but seek publicity for the last four years? It's about the only thing he's good at.

The fact that a big payoff is possible means that the attorney is making a gamble. If she wins, she gets a very large payday. If not, she doesn't get paid. That's not the same as pro bono.

"Pro bono publico" = "for the public good" and means that the attorney is offering their services for free to someone, with no expectation of ever being paid, whether the client wins or loses. This is considerably different than a contingency case, even one in which the lawyer eventually does not get paid. The fact that the lawyer could be paid - i.e., her fee is contingent upon her winning the case - means, definition, that it is not pro bono.

FYI, lawyer are prohibited from taking criminal cases on a contigency basis. Many lawyers represent indigent clients in criminal cases in order to fulfill their ethical obligation to do pro bono work.

And I don't know many plaintiffs attorneys who sue corporations who do pro bono work because suing corporations does as much social good as doing something for free (and it has its risks of not making money -- ie, being for the social good and not resulting in a payment).

that would result in big payoffs.....



Like I said, the NYT piece is actually a pretty good article on Edwards career as a personal injury attorney. Edwards took great pains to tailor the message for the jury/audience for maximum effect even back then.

Read his book Four Trials. His cases had a huge impact on how regular people were treated by large corporations. So big in fact, that the last trial he writes about made the Republican state legislature protect trucking companies from having to run their businesses safely.

That just makes him a good lawyer. Unlike the defense (civil) lawyer, who gets paid his/her fees by the billable hour (at rates that might surprise you) regardless of the outcome. A plaintiff's lawyer who takes crappy cases on contingency will not stay in business very long.

Bake, Esq.

The lawyers who have to worry about their immortal souls are the ones defending large corporations for big paychecks.

To ask someone like Kuntsler or any other lawyer who spends 60 hours a week working for the little guy to work for free helping someone make a will or sue their neighbor for getting bitten by a dog would be a step backwards for society.

Which of Edwards' cases do you think he should have dropped so that he had time for pro bono work? The one that resulted in the state of NC changing rules to protect nurses from being reprimanded for accurately pointing out doctor's mistakes? The one that finally made the pool drain manufacture to make a 5 cent change in the design of their drain which meant that another 50 children wouldn't suffer terrible pain? Or maybe the case that made a trucking company financially responsible when their policy that encouraged drivers not to sleep when they were tired turned a little boy into an orphan?

I'm simply trying to explain the difference between pro bono and contingency work. To a layperson, this may seem like the same thing and, yes, suing corporations can sometimes benefit the public. But contingency work - or any work in which a lawyer stands to be paid - is not pro bono work within the definition of any bar association in the country. Contingency work, regardless how much you want to believe it or how much you like John Edwards (and I like him too - but this isn't about him), is not the same as pro bono work - they are completely different things.

were they notable, probably not, are you helping RW talking points, probably yes.

Geesh.

You need to read his book Four Trials.

Then get back to me, especially if his legal career did not "move" you.

My candidate, candide X, did this. Did your candidate, candidate Y, do it too?

Is this the maturity of the 2008 Democratic primaries? If this is the best attack you can launch, go back to the drawing board. Both Edwards and Obama are great leaders, no need to chase one another with kitchen knives.

that all they have to do is read DU to find them.
:eyes:
It baffles me why so many people on this board insist on working diligently to damage the reputations of Democratic primary candidates that very well might become our next Presidential candidate.

In other words, do we just skip the primaries....let the media decide...and we shut the fuck up?

Then when our candidate loses, we act surprised that the right brings up stuff that we knew all along but were not allowed to discuss?

Edwards ran before....There's ton of material on him. DU is the last place the Right Wing needs to stop and pick up some oppo info!

All the Right Wing has to do is google it!
http://www.google.com/search?q=john+edwards%2C+pro+bono&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

of all the candidates or else our support has no value. I won't participate in bashing, but getting the facts out, hell yes.

If a candidate runs as a champion of the poor, or as an environmentalist, or anti-war, or whatever, then he/she had better have the goods to back it up.

Nothing wrong with the OP IMHO.

Obviously his years of public service mean nothing, nothing I say!
:sarcasm:

Can you say "Right Wing talking points" children?

Hekate

That bastard!

Glad you see it the way I do. :rofl:

Hekate

A N.C. lawyer I know told me that Edwards was very helpful in providing much time and expertise advising on several cases where Edwards had no financial interest (before Edwards got into politics) and no official capacity, hence took no credit. This lawyer, like many in N.C., has a very high opinion of Edwards' integrity and willingness to help others in need.

I think access to a lawyer of his caliber diminishes as the lawyer becomes more successful. As Edwards began winning big cases I heard he no longer took smaller ones. So, no matter the need of the client, the strength of the case, or the injustice done, if it couldn't result in a very lucrative settlement, he wouldn't touch it. That is unfortunate.

However, I can not judge Edward's heart. My gut says he truly cares about the poor. I also have no problem with successful people that live lavishly but give back in some great manner such as Gates has done. As a president he could help the poor much more than million dollar checks to charity. Bush and his cronies could never write enough checks to offset the damage they have done to the lower and middle classes.

Must be RW visitors.

Laureloak (and Zorra above, and zillions of other DU'ers),

I am frankly sick and tired of this typical chain of events here at DU that proceeds (1) someone questions actions of candidate "A", (2) dedicated "A"-'ers fail to answer the question, but they (3) go on ad nauseum about RW talking points, circular firing squads, trolls, moles, and hobgoblins making DU not as cool as it was back in the day. Lather, rinse, & repeat.

What a bunch of nonsense! Have you turned on a TV lately?!? There is a massive, well-capitalized, highly-placed right wing spin machine that WILL impugn the eventual Democratic candidate for pres. with EVERY unsavory characteristic they can make stick, whether true or not (witness the Al Gore claims to invent the internet meme). Given this (sad, unfortunate, entirely regrettable) reality, I think it VITAL that we put our own potential candidates THROUGH THE WRINGER, now, VERY early in the primary process, so we can weed-out those whose personalities/background/little hypocrisies or even LACK of PRO-BONO cases despite a professed concern for the poor make for a loser of a candidate. I WISH that at least Gen-Disc.-Politics aired every nasty rumor about every candidate, so that we DU'ers can vet the rumors and retire the false ones early. Because if Edwards' record can't stand up to DU-scrutiny, then he hasn't got a chance in the general election. Better that we find that out now rather than later.

In this particular thread, I would be very happy if ONE Edwards fan could point to ONE pro-bono case that Edwards successfully conducted. Then the discussion would move forward, and one nasty rumor would be blown to smithereens. Even if it was just "Edwards helped Mrs. Begley straighten out her SS payments after she was widowed in 1987," that would move the conversation forward. "Must be RW visitors," fails to accomplish much, my friend.

-app

ATLA calls the contingency fee "the key to the courthouse door." Most poor people, hell, even most middle-class people, would have no access to civil justice without the contingency fee, because they could not possiby afford to put out, up-front, the cost of preparing a case and taking it to trial and beyond. And let's face it, a whole lot more poor-to-middle-class folks get sh*t on by the powerful than do the wealthy, who COULD afford the up-front costs.

The contingency fee is what keeps justice available to the average person -- it gives that person the key to the courthouse door. Without it, the courts would be the playground of the wealthy and corporate interests.

Remember that the next time you think a one-third contingency fee is unreasonably high. And remember that the lawyer has had to put up a lot of cost (someone said $50,000; I'd say that's low) and wait for a minimum of two to three years before going to trial.

People have the mistaken notion that all a lawyer has to do is file a lawsuit and people start throwing money at him/her. It ain't the truth. The lawyer, generall, has to chase the defendant down, beat him into submission, and pry the money out of his hands.

Having said that, I'd say John E. has done his part.

Bake, Esq.

trial lawyers are the ones who file class action law suits against corporations and hospitals and big money entities.

Lawyers who do defense work are usually paid by the hour. If they work for insurance companies, they get paid by the hour, win or lose. Defense lawyers would be in a more likely position to take on pro bono defense cases, where someone accused of a crime needs defense but can't pay.

In a sense, every case that a plaintiff's lawyer takes is pro bono. They spend hours, days and years developing a case. They take depositions, review records and go to trial with out seeing a penny if it is on the contingency that hey win something for the client.

When Edwards says he fights for the little guy he means that he has taken on cases for individuals going up against corporations and their big retainer law firms.

Sure, sometime plaintiff's attorney's win big and then the firm gets a 1/3, but by that time they have put in many billable hours and taken the risk of not winning and have by-passed other more certain cases for the long shot.

I am not an attorney, but having seen how the system works I can say that society actually needs both types of attorney's but asking about pro-bono work for a plaintiff's firm is a bit of apples and oranges.

I am not buying into the right wing pro-corporate plaintiff's attorney bashing.

I work very complex wrongful-death cases. My firm has to invest tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of attorney and staff hours for each of our cases. If we can't get a recovery of the families we represent, we don't make a dime. Even when it goes well, we might not see dollar one on a case for up to two years. This is the only economically-feasible manner in which we can represent ordinary people against huge corporations and insurance companies. In this kind of economic situation, it is difficult for me to do the kind of litigation I specialize in for "free." I can tell you that my firm and I provide top-notch legal representation to people regardless of their economic situation, and that I don't ask them to pay me out-of-pocket, but if we were to waive our contingency fees we would probably be bankrupt in a hurry. I imagine that Edwards, as a Plaintiff's attorney, was largely in the same boat.

and once you've won your first giant case, and you've got a couple of millions of two in the bank, isn't the "hardship" that personal injury attorney "suffer" over?

I mean, sounds like the Edwards' have been eating nothing but stale bread for the 20 years in was in practice. :eyes:

Most plaintiff's attorneys are sole practitioners or work in very small offices (I'm attorney #3 in a 3 lawyer shop). Even though I'm not a partner, if the firm doesn't make money, I'm not going to get paid.

"once you've won your first giant case, and you've got a couple of millions of two in the bank"

Dear sweet Jeebus, I wish it was that simple! Read "A Civil Action" for a brutal, inside look at what happens to an undercapitalized plaintiff's firm. Trust me, millionaire plaintiff's attorneys are the exception, not the rule.

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_6_1.html


American Bar Association


Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Public Service
Rule 6.1 Voluntary Pro Bono Publico Service
Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay. A lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year. In fulfilling this responsibility, the lawyer should:

(a) provide a substantial majority of the (50) hours of legal services without fee or expectation of fee to:

(1) persons of limited means or

(2) charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and educational organizations in matters that are designed primarily to address the needs of persons of limited means; and

(b) provide any additional services through:

(1) delivery of legal services at no fee or substantially reduced fee to individuals, groups or organizations seeking to secure or protect civil rights, civil liberties or public rights, or charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and educational organizations in matters in furtherance of their organizational purposes, where the payment of standard legal fees would significantly deplete the organization's economic resources or would be otherwise inappropriate;

(2) delivery of legal services at a substantially reduced fee to persons of limited means; or

(3) participation in activities for improving the law, the legal system or the legal profession.

In addition, a lawyer should voluntarily contribute financial support to organizations that provide legal services to persons of limited means.

It is contingency work!

Pro bono is a concept for corporate firm billable hour attorneys.

the Senate?

Oh wait . . .