Second?

Yep. The lawyers shouldn't expect fees and teachers should work for free.

This shouldn't give lawyers a bad name...

DWT is clearly a firm run by dark-hearted monsters who torture kittens in their spare time.

The company that built my new kitchen makes a lot more money than I do. Why didn't they do the work pro bono? I was in need of a new kitchen.

I agree with the evil partner--we are paying you big dollars to work for us. If you want to help the homeless, get the hell out.

Besides, why does pro bono always help the people that make our life crappy. Stop helping the homeless bums that piss on our sidewalks. Help us lock them up.

The new kitchen anology is stupid.

We can do pro bono work at my firm, but we get no credit at the end of the year. So in other words, your bonus gets smaller and smaller for each hour you devote to pro bono.

why is it stupid? we both have specialized skills, so why am I expected to work for free?

I'm working on a pro bono divorce case right now. There was a provision in the engagement letter that states that if the court makes the opposing party pay attorney's fees, then our firm is entitled to that amount. Generally, attorney's fees would only be granted as sanctions anyway, we won't go after the fees.

Also, $1.8 million over 7 years? I don't think so. That has to be just material costs, it certainly isn't attorney's fees. I agree with the PP, if the bad guys didn't violate the law in the first place, then there would be no attorney fees for them to pay. I don't care if it's a school district or a toxic polluting company.

As for the nasty partner - he needs to retire and save us all from his bile and filth.

I like 5:01.

[nerd] It reminds me of that Simpsons bit:

Mr. Burns: "Family. Religion. Friendship. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business. When opportunity knocks, you don't want to be driving to a maternity hospital or sitting in some phoney-baloney church... or synagogue." [/nerd]

5:08

According to the article, the the firm states that it billed 6000 hours to the case. Taking that at face value, the blended rate works out to $300/hour. Sounds like fees to me, especially assuming a lower average billing rate out west.

Not that I don't think it's ok to hit the district with the fees.

The company that built your kitchen isn't doing it for the good of the community and isn't presenting itself as doing so. They are doing it to make money and expect to get paid.

Law firms usually present themselves as doing pro bono for the good of the community, not to collect fees. If there is a clear understanding that the law firms will collect fees for their services, then it is a fair analogy. However, I do not believe that there is usually a clear understanding that law firms will be collecting fees from someone when they decide to do a case pro bono.

If you are personally into pro-bono (making the world a better place, etc), go to a BigLaw that gives credit for pro-bono hours.

If you don't give a damn, then go to a place that doesn't and make sure that it is not heavily encouraged.

We are all victims...the associates and the PB clients.

What good is pro bono?

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_2_what_good_is_pro_bono.html

I'm not working for the good of the community. I've tried that. Stores have a real problem with me paying in "good of the community." I expect to get paid. So does every lawyer in every firm. So how is that different than a carpenter? It's not. At some point lawyers felt guilty about thier wealth and decided to give something back. That's great, but don't expect me too s well. I don't have any guilt.

What firms credit associates client billable hours for pro bono work? The firms that do not make up a List of Pro Bono Shame.

There is simply no way this is pro bono if the firm takes the money, even if it donates the money to charity. Even if the litigation itself was in the public interest, diverting almost $2 million of public funds to a private law firm is surely not.

And it's even worse if the firm seeks the money with the intent to donate it to a charity. I suppose one can argue that keeping the money would encourage other firms to take these kinds of cases (which is not persuasive to me either). But seeking fees with the intent to donate the money just substitues the spending decisions of a private law firm for that of the taxpayers and their elected officials. Pretty arrogant, if you ask me.

It also ruins the spirit of the representation, which is intended to be lawyers assisting clients in worthwhile public causes, who otherwise could not pay. These fee requests turn what is supposed to be pro bono into contingent fee plaintiffs' work, pure and simple.

McCarter English raised to 135 in all offices - NY to 190!!!!!!

I'd take on more pro bono if we could represent landlords or police officers accused of brutality. Our pro bono person never takes me up on that offer. I'd love to rep the cop that tasered that hippie piece of crap.

the kitchen company is providing a service in the expectation of payment. the PB lawyer is willing to offer his services for free.

there's a difference between doing work with the expectation of getting paid, and doing it for free but ending up with a fee award at the end.

if i work on a PB case, the firm doesn't expect that it will be paid for my time. but if i win and the firm is awarded fees, so much the better. the award is irrelevant to the motivation behind the representation.

The company that built your kitchen isn't doing it for the good of the community and isn't presenting itself as doing so. They are doing it to make money and expect to get paid.

=======================

How is that any different from Cravath, S&C, etc. None exist "for the good of the community." They are in business to do pretty much whatever their clients will pay them to do. That they engage in a little pro bono on the side doesn't change that central fact.

In general business terms it isn't any different. It is pretty clear that both businesses exists for the purposes of making money, but we're talking about pro bono. Comparing a law firm's pro bono activities to another company's everyday business making activities makes no sense in this context.

It's 100% accurate. Single skill set given away for free. I'm talking about pro bono in general, not doing it then expecting payment. Why don't people have an expectation of free services in every other industry. Accountants, carpentars, dentists doctors, etc.?

This was contingency, not pro bono.

I'm hungry.

I don't think this counts as pro bono. I agree this was contingency.

Also, I think people may be too enmeshed in their worlds to realize that many industries engage in pro bono. But since they are not tied to the dead Latin language like us they call it volunteering. When I was an accountant, my co-workers and I always made time to do volunteer tax preparation for low income folks. I know many home builders provide construction services, too. Doctors and dentists regularly provide free services to the poor. I don't think anyone does this out of a sense of "guilt." Rather, I think people do it for the simple reason that it feels good. Really. Organizations encourage this for the PR, too.

You two debate team dropouts are arguing at cross-purposes. The kitchen guy is arguing against the whole idea that lawyers should work for free, and the other guy is only arguing that lawyers who decide to work for free should not request fees after the representation is over.

"It's 100% accurate. Single skill set given away for free. I'm talking about pro bono in general, not doing it then expecting payment. Why don't people have an expectation of free services in every other industry. Accountants, carpentars, dentists doctors, etc.?"

no, it's not accurate. it would be accurate if a accountant, doctor, kitchen builder, etc., CHOOSES to give away the service for free, despite the fact that he would normally be paid for the service.

that is entirely different from the scenario you keep ramming down our collective throat of a consumer of that service EXPECTING to receive it for free. you are basically arguing that because some professionals occasionally choose to donate their skills for free, you are entitled to free services as well. it's not about the consumer's entitlement, it's about the provider's choice to forego payment.

hopefully your logic skills will improve during your second year of law school. until then, keep hitting that civ pro book.

If you wanted to work for the public good, then go work at a non-profit or for the government. Seriously. The whining.

These people that want six-figure salaries but also want to work on issues that mend the bleeding heart want the best of both worlds, and they use the guilt trip on for-profit enterprises like law firms to force their employer to give them both of what they want.

When you join a firm, you work for someone else. If they say no pro bono, then that is what you do. If you don't like, work for $60k and take on pro-bono on your own time.

Grow up.

Thanks for proving my thesis, other guy.

agreed w/ Geez. two entirely different questions.

receiving a fee award in a PB representation is not contingency. contingency involves the lawyer receiving a portion of any client recovery, from the client. a PB fee award is paid by the opponent, and doesn't affect the fact that the client was represented free of charge. the issue is not whether lawyers get paid for their work, but whether the client has to fork over money for the representation. the expectation of payment upon recovery is a big difference between contingency and PB work.

5:01 is the reason I occasionally wake up hating myself and my "profession." Burn in hell, you greedy asstard.

Equally appropriate Simpsons reference:

"When will you humans learn that your 'feelings,' as you call them, stand in the way of BIG CASH PAYOFFS???" ::creepy dancing on the mahogany desktop::

During one of my OCI interviews, an old partner from an LA based firm who will remain nameless basically scoffed at me when I asked if his firm encouraged pro bono. He said that summer associates might be able to do a little bit, but that it was highly discouraged as an associate. I thought that was completely unethical.

6:13 and 6:21, care to mount a cogent defense for the proposition that lawyers should donate some percentage of their time to pro bono work? Please compare and contrast with the proposition that plumbers should donate some percentage of their time to free toilet un-clogging work.

Maybe you think it's unbecoming for a firm to discourage pro bono. Fine. But "completely unethical?" That's ridiculous, and that allegation has no apparent basis in logic, so I won't try to invent one to argue against here.

I don't care that people do pro bono. Some people do it for the self-righteousness, others do it for a cause they believe in. Either way, I'm not going to judge another's subjective tastes. I do have a problem with firms pimping their pro bono contributions, as they're merely bragging about the subjective tastes of their associates. That's morally indifferent. I especially hate it when they brag about a pro bono case supporting a cause I disagree with, because it's a reflection on me.

6:33, I guess it just depends on what kind of a person you are (i.e., moral, socially conscientious, and with a duly humble sense of one's own lack of importance, or not). On the whole, plumbers as a group probably don't have a whole lot of extra money sitting around that they can afford to do work for free (though many philanthropists pay to have work like plumbing done for those who cannot afford it, which I think is a defensible proxy). On the other hand, professionals like lawyers and doctors do, and because some combination of hard work and luck has blessed us with lucrative livelihoods in which we are compensated and respected head and shoulders above most everyone else, traditionally members of both professions have "given back," simply because it is the right thing to do. Period. The rise of big business and I-banking, however, has simultaneously raised associate salaries to ridiculous heights (not that I'm complaining, mind you; but I'm not too deluded to acknowledge that no one my age needs to make almost 200K a year. No one. Period.) and brought the practice of LAW to its knees. Many lawyers nowadays are simply glorified money managers, so it's no surprise that they are apparently taking their cues from the soulless, morally-bereft cesspool of the banking and business side of the country.

And I repeat: this is why I sometimes hate myself and my so-called "profession." Being a lawyer used to be respectable. It used to mean something. Lawyers used to be "gentlemen" (in quotes as I lack the requisite Y-chromosome for literal analogy, but nonetheless the sentiment holds true regardless of sex). Today it's all about money, money, money, and partners are apparently becoming less and less ashamed of acknowledging it, when they ought to be wringing their hands over this sad and embarrassing state of affairs. How gauche.

7:07 - my plumber drives a nicer car than I do! c.f. "The Money Pit" starring Tom Hanks and Shelley Long

6:49:

Model Rules of Professional Conduct
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 . . . .

I realize the MRPC are not in effect in California, but still . . .

I am neither 6.13 nor 6.21, but I will take a stab at it:

Because when you were admitted to the bar, you swore an oath to follow the rules of professional conduct, which (depending on your state) probably tell you to do pro bono work.

Compared to lawyers, I do not believe plumbers swear an oath to donate some of their time to free toilet un-clogging. In this regard, lawyers and plumbers are different.

However, as members of their own communities, I feel that plumbers should donate some of their time to giving back to the community, albeit free toilet unclogging or otherwise.

Please note that since you placed no limitations on to whom the free toilet un-clogging would be given, you have created a false analogy between free toilet un-clogging and pro bono work. Pro bono work, as defined by most states' rules, require that the work be rendered for the poor. But 6.02, 6.03, and 6.08 have already covered this.

Plumbers make big bucks and don't have 100k plus law school debt to pay off.

Some pro bono is worthwhile but most of it is a scam by non-profits to get free services while the people that work there get paid and don't work so hard.

Here in Seattle, many in the legal community feel this is incredibly tacky of Davis, one of the top firms in the city. It's particularly puzzling why Seattle lawyers, i.e. taxpayers and parents of children in Seattle schools, would want the city to cough up this much money, possibly in excess of the city's ability to pay.

Playing devil's advocate, one of my fellow law students, who doesn't have a problem with DWT's move, points out that recouping fees helps a firm to keep doing pro bono work in the future. Still, it does kind of undermine the meaning of "pro bono." And it's not clear to me that a big, healthy firm like Davis would be hurt by not getting the money, whereas it seems clear that the city would be hurt by paying it.

Overall, this is going to tarnish Davis's reputation in the Pac NW, so they'll be paying for this move even if they do get awarded - and keep - the fees.

6:13 is a commie.

Let's assume the Model Rules are the gospel, which I think is generous on my part.

What, exactly, in the Model Rules requires or even encourages an employer to subsidize an attorney's obligation to provide pro bono?

That's awfully high talk for a profession which, at its core, is nothing more than guild borne by a high barrier to entry that ensures prices are too high for the poor to have access. Indeed, one might find it a bit insincere of the ABA to encourage pro bono while simultaneously protecting its anti-competitive situation. Maybe I should rethink my concession that the Model Rules are the gospel.

Nothing. I never said a firm should be required to subsidize an attorney's obligation to provide pro bono.

As a reminder, here was the question you asked:

"care to mount a cogent defense for the proposition that lawyers should donate some percentage of their time to pro bono work?"

This question you asked doesn't say anything about whether a firm should be required to subsidize an attorney's pro bono obligation. Keep working on that Jump to Conclusions Mat, Tom Smykowski.

I think you guys miss the point of "pro bono." Pro bono translates to for the good of the public. The idea is not that these particular white kids in Seattle benefit. The idea is that the public as a whole benefits from keeping our government and other institutions honest, legal fees cheap, economy humming along, etc.

When a law firm takes $1.8 million out of the School Board's budget, the public suffers as a whole, because taxes must be raised to make up the difference. The public surely doesn't benefit when Joe Schmoe's (who makes 27K) property tax is raised so that some law firm partner can recoup the pro bono hit to his $1.0 million PPP.

Duh.

7:07, "argument" is not the plural of "platitude." You have not yet put forth an argument for why lawyers "should" do pro bono work, you have only stated that it's nice when they do it, it's the "right thing to do," and lawyers don't "need" all the money they make.

Although the first two are ridiculous for their own reasons, the last of these is a particularly annoying refrain from some of the vocal unwashed. You'd hate life if you were only allowed to have what you "need" (also note that this is Hillary's tax plan basically).

But isnt pro bono offered to the person you represent, here the parents group. Why should the party on the 'other side' have any expectation that they also will gain the benefit of the service you are offering to your client. Is the argument that, where you know your opponent is being represented on a pro bono basis, you should never be required to pay fees even when you are shown to be wrong (to such an extent that you are ordered to pay costs)?

Although I can see an argument that a firm should charge its cost recovery, rather than profit, rates.

Would there be a difference if DWT was hitting up Exxon (or some other similarly profitable company) for legal fees?

I don't have a problem per se with law firms seeking legal fees from the *opposing* client so long as that law firm then reduces the number of pro bono hours it reports in its recruiting brochures, etc. However, I do think it worth considering who you are seeking fees from -- in this case, a city and its public schools.

*I* didn't say that. *I* merely stated that the statement the firm made was not "completely unethical."

I fear my mat will never equal yours.

Reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon from a couple of years ago: two lawyers walking out of a courthouse, and one saying to the other, "We can only afford to do all this pro bono because of how well anti bono pays."

09:54 PM is right. Why should the other side benefit because the pro bono attorneys are representing the winning side? If the losers were Microsoft or Philip Morris you pinkos wouldn't have a problem. Evil doers should pay.

For the pro bono attorney, it is a disservice to their clients to never try for these fees. Isn't the prospect of a $1.8MM legal bill a nice inducement to settle?

They took it on as a pro bono case so shouldn't get fees (or at least not be able to keep fees).

Some firms are far better for pro bono than others. WilmerHale did about 6% billables on pro bono last year - and I know a bunch of other top firms put similar time into it.

8:48, assuming I am a commie, so what? Or does the first amendment only apply to right-wingers?

9:50, I did present arguments, you just don't happen to like them. That doesn't make them "not arguments," but it might suggest you're uncomfortable facing the fact that if you have no desire to do pro bono work, you might not be a good person.

Dear Associates,
If the firm is paying you to do it, then you aren't really doing it "pro bono" - you are just being paid by the firm instead of a client. If you want to call your work "pro bono" then it needs to be done without pay. No credit towards bonus or minimum billing requirement allowed. Personally, I think it is somewhat disingenuous to represent that you are doing "pro bono" work when you are actually being paid much much more than the fair market value of the actual work. How do I reach that conclusion? Let’s say that you are doing criminal stuff and your firm "gives you credit" for pro bono towards your bonus or minimum billings. Well, the newly minted assistant DA is making 40K/year ($20/hour) while you are making 160K/year ($80/hour) and are credited with hours spent – you are making 4 times as much for the same work and yet you have the nerve to call it “pro bono.” Give me a break. Don't expect me or your hardworking collegues to pay you money so that you can pretend to be a martyr.

Turning this around - if the firm is really being honest about its committment to "pro bono," then it means that the firm is actually requiring its lawyers to work without pay for at least part of the year. If the firm reports that 5% went to "pro bono" and is actually honest about it, then it means that on average every person in the firm worked without pay for about 100 hours/year or 2hours/week or 2.5 weeks/year. Just let me know how many hours a week you want to work without pay - in addition to your regular billings - and I'll tell you your personal "committment to pro bono." When interviewees ask me about "the firm's committment to pro bono" while at the same time bemoaning the long hours, then I know that they just don't get it.

I applaud lawyers who actually do real "pro bono" work by receiving absolutely no compensation for it. It is a true sacrifice. Others that claim to be doing "pro bono" while actually being compensated one way or another seem pretty dishonest.

In a big firm, pro bono is one of the best ways for associates to get "on their feet" experience in court, etc. I expect my firm to pay me to do it, because I expect my firm to help ensure that I can gain the tools to become a real lawyer. I seek out the experiences that help me do that - and it comes from a mixture of pro bono and paid work.

And pro bono does lead to billing work for my firm (why do you think everyone is falling all over themselves to do pro bono supreme court appeals, representing government officials pro bono, etc.?) in often unexpected ways. Pro bono leads to flattering PR, referrals from other lawyers, etc.

With regard to attorneys fees, the only way to get many government agencies (or others) to change unlawful policies is to hit them where it hurts, in the pocket.

"They took it on as a pro bono case so shouldn't get fees (or at least not be able to keep fees)."

They agreed not to charge their clients. They did not (nor should not) agree to partially insulate the government from paying up when it was in the wrong.

If this was a slumlord caught violating building codes or a big company dumping pollution into a river, I don't think the whiners would be giving them a pass if a statute or a judge allowed attorneys fees. (Further, it's my understanding that some public interest legal clinics do budget being able to collect cash in some instances to help fund their operations. Why should they be held to a different standard than a law firm?)

To recap;
1. Why should we show generosity to the wrongdoers?
2. The prospect of having to pay legal fees if they lose may induce these wrongdoers to settle (which, i think, we can agree is preferable to years of litigation) and that's a good thing.
3. Most of you guys are idiots.

7:44 has it all right, especially #3, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Have most of you doofuses ever actually worked in a law firm? Ever heard of a 1983 action? It's not like going after a losing party for fees and costs is that uncommon, whether or not the representation is pro bono.

This is simple: the attorney's get an award of attorney's fees. Period.

I'm pretty sure that my firm would end up using that money to support whatever organization referred us along, but still, I do not see the ethical issue here.

The client isn't being charged.

Unless attorney's fees are seen merely as another part of the damages rather than restitution for having to ordinarily shell out big bucks to right a wrong, then a firm requesting and accepting a judgment of attorney's fees is not a big deal.

Moreover, the concept of pro bono (per the model rules) does not require no payment, ever, merely no expectation of payment.

People who make a lot of money are taxed accordingly. I can't see any reason to donate additional time or money on top of the tens of thousands of dollars the government forces me to pay already.

For some of you pinkos, it's never enough. Tax the rich, then invent additional "obligations" that certain highly compensated professions have to the poor. Most of those involve expanding the welfare rolls through ever-more litigation, which only gives Hillary and Co. more grist for the raise taxes mill.

Now, I understand that many of you feel guilty about earning a good living. So go ahead and give your money away, or do pro bono to your heart's content. I don't care. Just don't try to project your guilt onto the rest of us.

The city shouldn't have had racist policies in place. Sorry, city.