Most of it is for "non-profits" like the local orchestra or art gallery anyway.

Nobody wants to deal with real poor people.

Fulbright (at least in Houston) is committed to pro bono. We are allowed to bill 150 hours towards our billable requirement to pro bono. We can pretty much do whatever we want, we just have to get the ok from our department head, which has never been a problem.

From what I understand it is encouraged throughout the firm and people are into it.

The White and Case person is similar to Simpson's policy. I know of several people who billed 500 or more hours.

2:20, so can you just fake it? Tell the firm you're working a pro bono case but just stay home and fat it? Seems like 150 hrs of extra vacation time.

If it counted 1:1 at my firm I would try to do pro bono. But since we get zero credit towards our hours, and a lot of the pro bono cases involve representing dangerous people (who know your name and where you work and can easily find out where you live and can get there on the subway in a heartbeat), it's just so not worth it.

Willkie (D.C.) has no limit on pro bono work, except what happens naturally in the course of day-to-day time management. I just got done working on a pro bono case that's taken a couple hundred combined man hours, and a couple of the other attorneys have more cases like this on their plates.

I'm an associate at Arnold & Porter, and the firm's pro bono commitment is one of the things that sets it apart. I would have to check the manual, but I believe we can count 50 or 100 hours toward our billables, and possibly more in special circumstances. As usual with pro bono, as an associate you get to take much more responsibility when working on these sorts of cases... and usually they're pretty "good" cases too.

All firms give lip service to pro bono for recruiting purposes, but ArnPo truly walks the walk.

www.arnoldporter.com/probono_awards.cfm

Debevoise's pro bono program is one of its best selling points. While I was there, I worked on three different pro bono class actions and many cases for individual indigent clients. I was gently told to seek a better balance only when the time spent on pro bono was more than half, but it never dipped below 25% and it was never a problem. Some of my best experiences -- brief writing, depositions -- were in my pro bono cases. I imagine that I was on one end of the spectrum for time devoted to pro bono, but everyone I knew while I was there did lots and was encouraged by the firm to do so.

I, also, have billed 200-300 pro bono hours each year and have been compensated for them accordingly. THAT SAID, my client chargeable hours are above the minimum, and I question whether the firm would "award" me for my hours if I was 200-300 hours below my minimum and used pro bono to meet the goal.

Be warned -- your firm might appear to be all happy-clappy about you doing oodles of pro bono, but they'll get back at you somehow -- e.g., your bonus might not be as high at the end of the year, you might be pulled aside and told to bill on "real clients", etc.

Remember, you can't make partner on pro bono alone. You can, however, develop those skill sets that BigLaw rarely teaches you.

2:24-- are there any openings in HR?

L2L

OMM counts pro-bono 1:1, has a pro-bono coordinator who sends out almost daily notifications of new projects, you can go out and find your own. The range is huge, including working with local city attorney's office to help prosecute cases, lots of immigration work, lots of fair housing work, Katrina relief. There's no max--one associate billed around 500 hours and no one batted an eyelash. New attorneys--whether laterals or incoming from the summer class--are required to do 50 hours their first year.

I don't think "walks the walk" is really applicable unless the firm counts a limitless number of hours as 1:1, like many NY firms do.

As I said, I'm an associate. I know it's hard for everybody to imagine, but people here actually do pro bono whether it counts toward our billables or not. Firm culture and whatnot.

DLA Piper has significant pro bono allowances.

1. Many of the larger offices (including NY) have "Signature" pro bono projects, which basically are major initiatives the firm has taken on. All time spent on those matters count as billable time.

2. The firm has a number of current large international pro bono projects (under the "New Perimeter" name) that attorneys are working on. All time spent on those projects are billable. Some attorneys have spent weeks or even months abroad on these projects.

3. If you take on a pro bono matter and it turns into a big deal (going to trial, etc.), you can then request billable hour credit for the project. My understanding is that the request is usually granted, at least up to a certain hours limit.

4. If you bill 1900 billable, up to 100 hours of pro bono count as "billable" to get you to 2000 total hours (which gets you a bonus). If you bill 2000 billable, ALL of your pro bono counts as "billable." So 2000 billable + 450 pro bono = 2450 hours.

Who cares about pro bono? If it subtracts from the profits I have no interest in it.

The Arnold & Porter post made me laugh. "The firm's commitment to pro bono sets it apart." Yet A&P limits you to 50 or 100 hours of pro bono work. Give me a break.

Skadden has absolutely no limit on pro bono work. I know one person who billed over 1000 hours in a year to pro bono and less than 1000 to client billables in that year because he was working on a death penalty case. Rather than reprimand the person, they praised him. Those that perform more than 50 hours of pro bono are treated to a dinner to celebrate their commitment where a prominent speaker gives a talk. Those that perform more than 200 hours of pro bono are given $1000 to donate to a charity of their choice.

A&P is a joke. Skadden walks the walk. Big difference. We don't limit the number of hours that count towards pro bono and we even reward those that do more pro bono.

I won't even go into detail on the Skadden Fellowships: paying people big law salaries to work for non-profits.

Skadden is second to none when it comes to their commitment to pro bono and the community.

Sorry, Skadden, a free meal and a "prominent speaker" aren't enough to motivate me to work for a poor person. It's bad enough to get staffed on a deal for a non-Fortune 100.

Agree with above - that A&P post was preposterous. It's someone from Cadwalader trying to convince us CWT is a nice place.
MANY firms allow unlimited pro bono. In my experience, it's about managing expectations before you launch into a project. Don't get all busy with a pro bono case your partner doesn't know about and them tell him you can't take on his project.

Pro Bono equals less money...it should be banned

Will someone please answer my question:

At your firm, can you "fake" pro bono time, pretending you're working on a pro bono case while actually just using the time for yourself?

If so, please state the name of the firm, firm's billable requirement, and how many pro bono hours you can count toward that requirement?

Patton Boggs requires all associates AND partners to do at least 100 hours of pro bono per year. Every hour above the 100 minimum counts towards your billables, so long as you have reached the 1900 billable minimum. I don't know if there's a max on pro bono hours, but I know a lot of people in our office do a good deal of pro bono work. I've gotten to do some interesting things in my pro bono work that I wouldn't normally get to do, so I think it's a plus.

Maybe we're not Skadden-worthy, but I think that PB is very pro-bono friendly.

Gibson Dunn has the same policy as White & Case - pro bono hours count 1:1 for bonus purposes, there is no limit on the # of hours you can spend on pro bono, and it seems to be genuinely encouraged.

Over the summer the NY office had a pro bono award ceremony and gave out prizes to the top ppl. based on number of pro bono hours (Ipods and other good swag). They gave out different prizes for different "tiers" of hours, and there were a TON of associates clocking in at 200 or more hours, and a good number had far more than that.

Alright, the A&P *and* the Skadden posts are ridiculous. Amazing that every firm's pro bono policy "sets it apart" or "is the real deal" or shows that the firm "walks the walk" or is "committed to pro bono." Cut the marketing fluff and just tell us what the policy is, as well as the real scoop on whether the firm actually encourages it (as opposed to giving it lip service to get its rankings up and impress law students).

And I'll say what I've said in other posts too: if your only experience is being a summer associate at the firm, then you really have no idea.

2:22

Yes, you can claim 150 hrs of vacation . . . I mean pro bono. I am impressed you figured that out so quickly.

Pro bono??? Lulz...pwn3d.

One of the many reasons it's better to be a banker than a lawyer. Nobody's making me tell the poors which stocks to buy.

amlaw 200 firm. Pro bono strongly encouraged, especially on litigation side. Hours count 1:1, though you are strongly suggested to get 1800 client-chargeables.

We have a major program handling circuit court criminal appeals. I argued a habeas appeal on a first degree murder conviction as a 7th year.

I can't speak for Skadden's pro bono activities. I'm sure they're great, although the snarky Skaddenite post confirms my conviction that I would never want to work there. Anyway, we averaged 100 hrs per lawyer on pro bono matters last year, and that's not just one in every 20 lawyers spending all their time on pro bono. As far as "perks" go, I guess our counts-toward-billables policy is pretty weak... but if you actually care about pro bono work for reasons other than padding your billables (greedy slacker!), then I think the firm really has something to offer you.

Great topic.

Sidley has a policy that your first 50 or 100 (I forget) pro bono hours count 1:1 for bonus consideration. You then have to get approval for additional hours to count. I have never heard of anyone not getting that approval. One year I had 200-250 pro bono hours and didn't bother to get any pre-approval and they counted it 1:1 anyway (which resulted in a non-trivial bonus increase).

Hey 2:47-

Are you getting a pink slip like everyone else on wall street? Hahahahahahahahaha.

It is a pain in the ass! My Firm actually does represent poor people.

The issue for me is making it a mandatory requirement. This is not what I went to law school for. In fact, my personal view is that if someone can't afford to hire us because of our costly hourly rates, then too bad on them. It's not my problem. There's nothing wrong with believing in capitalism, and it ticks me off when other people frown upon this view because they feel differently about it, and, of course, their view is the "right" view.

If it were optional, then I would have no problem with it. But making it mandatory is the wrong approach.

Sidley counts pro bono 1:1. The DC office has pro bono counsel. I don't know about other offices. Sidley has firmwide pro bono initiatives (one is Alabama death penalty cases and the other is asylum cases) and people are actively encouraged to participate. Sidley has won awards for pro bono work and the DC office brags about the amount of pro bono hours people put in.

Skadden Fellows don't get biglaw salaries. They make $46,000. While it's a great program, the salary is very low for those working in major cities.

The only people cooler than bankers are people who pretend to be bankers and post on legal gossip blogs.

Pro Bono hours, like a firm's 'committment to diversity,' is simply part of the cost of doing business in BigLaw. It has to be politely tolerated and acknowledged or the firm's reputation and business contacts will suffer...

You're selling A&P a little short there. What "counts" in general is all of your pro bono, but more importantly, hours determine your bonus. Pro bono can count for 15% of your bonus qualifying hours. So, 2400 hour bonus (about $45-60k) = 360 pro bono hours can count. 2200 bonus (about $20-$30k) = 330 hours. 1950 bonus (about $10-15k) = 292 hours.

Who the hell would want to work for a firm that *requires* pro bono???

NYC to less than what I made last year!!!

I can't believe Patton requires 100 hrs pro bono. Will Eisenhower match?

If you want to help the poor, work for Greenpeace...don't force people to do unpaid work

Oops, so I am. Just cracked open the policy book and what do you know. 15% indeed.

Milbank has an excellent pro bono program. As a first year you come 10 week pro bono rotation. Almost half of the first years do it. You get your BigLaw salary and pro bono work. Milbank has unlimited pro bono hours. Also, there is a full-time partner and associate committed to pro bono. I even got an ipod shuffle for doing my 50 hours.

Don't believe all this hype. Lat's first commenter has the point right -- firms love pro bono IF YOU BILL THE MINIMUM HOURS ON THE CASES THAT PAY. There are exceptions -- like working on a high profile case that the firm management or your boss loves. But don't think you're going to bill 1,500 hours for money and then fill the rest of your time with projects you want to do.

Very cold, 2:50. Very cold.

The problem with pro bono at my firm is that ALL the projects are left-wing pet causes. Like Death Penalty appeals for scum of the earth rapists, or eviction matters for someone whose only job is cheating landlords and gov't programs out of as much money as possible. And we're not allowed to propose our own projects, you can only do what the firm approves. If pro bono were mandatory in such situations I assure I would quit this firm. We can't even do tax clinic work for small business owners or immigrants, which would be up my alley...

A&P allows 300+ PBH towards billables, encourages rather than discourages pro bono and is widely recognized for various pro bono projects. I don't think anyone agrees that Skadden is second to none.

At least this type of rivalry benefits others.

If you want to work for free, there are plenty of places to do it other than BigLaw.

That said, as this thread proves, pretty much no one actually wants to work for free. You all want to be compensated for it. Which means it's not really pro bono at all -- in the sense of free legal services, at least.

Pro bono in the real sense -- "in the public interest" -- has been all but dead for a long time anyway. Endless appeals for convicted murders, suing prisons because the inmates' pillows are too hard, and suing the SSA to expand the welfare rolls don't count.

I know many of the Chicago firms do Public Interest Law Initiative (PILI) fellowships where you work for a pro bono firm for 5 part time weeks pre-bar and 5 full time weeks post-bar, for a total of 300 hours. You are paid 12 weeks of your starting associate salary. The firm gets to count those hours in its pro bono calculations. I know lots of K&E, Sidley, and other big firms have asociates doing it.

It is a great way for them to put pro bono hours on the books without distracting current associates/partners.

Orrick has a full-time pro bono counsel and coordinator, counts hours 1:1, unlimited number toward hours.

why would a small business need FREE tax clinic help? that is retarded.

Or you can do plaintiff's work, where you actually believe in 100% of your work, and about 50% feels like or is pro bono.

Or you can do public interest, where you believe in 100% of your work and 100% of it is pro bono.

Or, hey, you can work yourself to death for 3-5 years pretending that 5% of your time "makes up" for the 95% pushing paper for robber barons, before you jump ship for better hours representing lesser barons.

Ironically the actual A&Per doesn't get it right.

Associates are encouraged to dedicate 15% of their practice to pro bono and 15% of their hours can be pro bono. For a 2100 hour bonus that is over 250 hours that can count towards bonus.

Arnold & Porter are undeniable kings of pro bono. The year before I left, the firm performed more than 71,000 hours of pro bono. That is an average of well over 150 hours per attorney.

A&P is not afraid to take on the big one. Prison reform, election law, month-long trials, murder trials, anything and everything. They even represented the Intelligent Design side in the Kansas hearings. (Republicans who have since left the firm.)

I once spent twenty days straight working 15 hours a day on a single pro bono matter. Management picked up unusual and high costs and offered nothing but support. Colleagues(partners and associates) picked up workload and I got what will almost surely be the most rewarding experience of my legal career.

Ultimately, A&P was not for me, but it pained me to leave that pro bono behind.

Paying the outrageous taxes in NYC is way too much pro bono as it is

I was actually told by the partner I worked for at my firm, in no uncertain words ... "If you have time to spend on matters that firm isn't collecting fees for, then you have time that I can be giving you more work that you should be collecting fees for."

And that was my official talk on our "pro bono policy" ...

Echoing what someone said earlier, OMM is great on pro bono. So far this year the DC Office has spent 8% of its chargable time on pro bono (that's a pace for 160 hours PER LAWYER, based on a 2000 hour year).

We're talking about poor immigrants who open a grocery store, and don't have a clue about taxes, tax breaks, loans and incentives for small business owners. These people want to do the right thing, pay their taxes, work hard and make it. But many firms are only interested rapists on death row. Pathetic. See 3:16's comment.

Much of the pro-bono work may help leftist lawyers feel good about themselves, but very little actually does much good. Considering how much lawyers at big firms typically bill per hour, it makes no sense to spend hundreds of billable hours on random landlord-tenant, divorce, asylum or similar cases for the benefit of poor people when the amount at stake in the case is far less than the value of the time spent. Might as well give money to your pro-bono client directly.

Some pro-bono cases may seem more useful to the extent that they concern cases where the hope is to set a new precedent. Even then, it seems hardly legitimate for firms to constantly represent the left-wing positions on these cases when we all know that conservatives would not be allowed to represent their side. And that is to say nothing of the openly anti-American pro-bono cases that some firms take, which even include the representation of Guantanamo detainees.

I do not believe that everything pro-bono is necessarily harmful or useless, but as a practical matter, most pro-bono work is.

Goodwin Procter's counts all pro bono hours towards the 1850 hour minimum, no limit. I billed about 200 pro bono hours last year, with nothing said. The firm has relationships with various organizations that generate pro bono work, but any associate is free to bring in a pro bono case or establish a relationship with a pro bono organization, pending approval from the pro bono committee (which seems to be easy to get).

My firm walks the pro bono walk but doesn't talk the pro bono talk. Basically you are precluded from pro bono work because you're overloaded with billable work. It also ensures that associates have limited and minimal trial/advocacy experience, which is part of, in my opinion, a grander scheme to keep associates unmarketable and 'stuck' from seeking more valuable experience at a more prestigious firm.

Ok, I don't agree with 2:50, but still ...

When I started at my firm, I was as excited as any other fresh-faced new attorney to help the poor and underprivileged. And then I did some pro bono work over the new few years, and found out the hard way that the clients were (1) really rude and disrespectful, (2) impossible to get in touch with and rely on to do their (very limited) part and (3) borderline insane. You know, I would rather not be cursed at (for telling a girl that her "discrimination" claim had no basis and that another argument would be better), harassed (by her mother) and subjected to a barrage of random "documents" to sift through - e.g., tangentially related newspaper clippings with insane notes in the margins. Super-fulfilling though that is. And yes, at one point I was a little worried that I was going to be followed home one late night.

And, ok, I recognize that not all pro bono clients are like this and many are deserving and not imbalanced, but frankly two crazies was enough for me to wipe my hands of it. No one likes to talk about this part of pro bono, but it can put you into close contact with some scary people. I definitely don't think it should be mandatory.

Exactly 3:29. I once brought such a case to my prior firm's pro bono coordinator and asked permission to take it. I was told it was a no go because the clients were not "indigent." I said pro bono means "in the public interest" and not "clients are destitute." She looked at me like I was from Mars.

KE gives full credit with no cap.

2:23 - "a lot of pro bono cases involve representing dangerous people"? OMG are you a nut job or what? unless you're doing criminal defense, or defending a husband against a domestic violence divorce proceeding, i have a hard time believing you. my husband works for legal aid and all he does is represent poor people. we've never had one "threat". furthermore, i used to be PD, and even there, i was never concerned for my safety. i think you must live a very, very sheltered life...

PH does 1:1 without a cap.

I can confirm the reported treatment at Skadden, and I'm not just a summer associate.

Skadden counts every pro bono hour 1:1 and recognizes every attorney who has billed at least 50 hours on pro bono projects. For those who bill over 200 hours, the firm donates $1,000 in their name to a charity of their choice.

Pro bono is currently receiving a renewed push by the firm's management. While I am not in firm management, I understand their policy to be that they want everyone working on at least some pro bono work. Pro bono participation is encouraged from the top down.

I can confirm the reported treatment at Skadden, and I'm not just a summer associate.

Skadden counts every pro bono hour 1:1 and recognizes every attorney who has billed at least 50 hours on pro bono projects. For those who bill over 200 hours, the firm donates $1,000 in their name to a charity of their choice.

Pro bono is currently receiving a renewed push by the firm's management. While I am not in firm management, I understand their policy to be that they want everyone working on at least some pro bono work. Pro bono participation is encouraged from the top down.

Sorry about the double-post... damn network!

"For those who bill over 200 hours, the firm donates $1,000 in their name to a charity of their choice."

So conceivably you could set up a shell charity, bill 200 PB hrs for that charity while really just sitting on your ass, and then collect an additional $1000 via the fake charity at the end of the year.

Looks like Skadden takes the lead in the Greedy Slacker Firm Pro Bono rankings.

Sure, greedy slacker, or just do it like this guy:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/08/above_the_law_lawyer_of_the_da_1.php

2:56 -- A LOT of people want to work for a firm that *requires* pro bono. Anyone who, for their own reasons, is really serious about doing pro bono themselves, for example.

If you're a law student, deciding which cookie-cutter biglaw firm to go to, and you want to do pro bono work -- wouldn't you rather go somewhere that you know doing so can't be held against you because pro bono is required?

On the other hand, why would a firm want to require pro bono work? How about this: Maybe the lawyers who WANT to do pro bono work are most likely the same ones who are actually committed to a career in the law, rather than just make big bucks for a few years, pay of the loans, and go do something else. Maybe they (we) are the ones who are the most serious about acquiring a lawyer's skill set at the earliest possible time. Maybe they (we) are also incrementally less likely to get their (our) firms into ethical messes, because we think about our obligations to the community as more than just dollars and cents. (Okay, that last one's a stretch.) And, if all of those are true, and it's also true that the ones who WANT to do pro bono will feel more comfortable in an environment where it's required, then requiring it is a way to recruit those who want to do it anyway. Yep, at the risk of pissing off those who don't want to do it. So the firms who require it must value those who want to do pro bono more than those who do not.

I don't know why, really. But the firms tend to act rationally in most other respects, and quite a few people on this thread have said that their (top) firms require pro bono. So, not rhetorically, assuming that the firms who do require it have a good reason for it (even taking into account the visceral reaction of 2:56), what might that reason be?

I billed 200 hours doing pro bono work for the Human Fund and then collected a check for them at the end of the year. Happy Festivus!

Yes, 2:40, I've been billing hundreds of hours a year doing the corporate work of the Human Fund.

2:40 really hung that curve over the fat part of the plate, eh Human Fund?

I call bullshit on all of the claims of unlimited 1:1 pro bono. The fact is that law firms are businesses, and they are not in business to work for free, and nobody gets paid $160,000 to work for free.

If that were truly the policy those firms would go out of business right quick.

At Arnold & Porter, I worked nearly 500 hours of pro bono one year when our case went to trial. I never heard a peep from any partners upset that I was devoting so much time to pro bono. The firm fully supports associate involvement in pro bono projects and as a policy devotes the same firm resources it does to paying clients.

Has anybody ever been assigned a pro bono case that they didn't agree with? If so, were you able to get out of it? How?

Covington is number one in pro bono according to the AmLaw. I know that they have several full-salary, full-time, 6-month rotations for legal services and some other organizations.

4:07 - i don't know how being assigned to a pro bono case you don't agree with is any different than being assigned a for-pay case you don't agree with. suck it up.

My thoughts on the comments about pro bono being left-leaning, and much of it being random work that it seems bizarre for a biglaw attorney to be doing.... Generally, I agree. Some random thoughts:

1. Many big firms are populated with smart people from good law schools, top of their class, non-Loyola2L-types, etc. If you're in that position, then put your smarts and abilities to work on real pro bono legal matters -- whether left-leaning or right-leaning. By that I mean, it really doesn't take a genious to fill out the paperwork for uncontested divorces. Sure, there's a need for attorneys to help with that. But it is clear to me that a lot of biglaw attorneys take on those assignments because they are easy, mindless and fulfill their firm's pro bono requirement (and makes them feel slightly better about themselves). Take on the more challenging work if you're serious about serving the public some way.

2. It kills me when I see some of the requests for people to work on an amicus brief for some ultra-lefty cause du jour. While writing an appellate brief might be more in line with the sophisticated pro bono work you probably should be doing as a biglaw attorney, it's really a major waste of resources to have every liberal organization submit its amicus brief for every semi-important case, each backed by 2 major law firms writing their briefs. Again, I see a lot of these projects as people just trying to pretend they are "making a difference," when really they're not. They're just writing briefs that no one will read.

3. Firms that give pro bono credit for serving in soup kitchens and the like. Absurd and disingeuous, for obvious reasons. By all means, go serve in a soup kitchen on your own time -- it is indeed rewarding, and there is a need for people to help. But it's not legal work; just a ploy by some firms to boost their pro bono numbers with minimal effort or commitment.

4:04 - All the major lists of prestige etc to which we cleave so dearly count pro bono work in their rankings. The reason Skadden is so gung ho on everyone doing pro bono right now is because they fell off an important list b/c a small number of attorneys were doing the bulk of the hours and the list makers started counting number of attorneys who did more than x hours (in addition to total hours, which is why it still makes sense to give unlimited credit). Clients want to hire firms that are viewed as prestigious and good law students want to work at those firms. Ergo, pro bono is good for business.

I have personally worked more than 400 pro bono hours at Sidley in the last year. There are enough people doing that here that this info does not out me. The managing partner recently confirmed that the 1:1 credit extends through the bonus range (i.e. 2300 with 400 probono would count like 2300 all billable).

To the pro bono = lefty commenters, there are plenty of veterans service organizations needing counsel, religious groups, and plenty of other "right-wing approved" pro bono you could do. Plus you get more responsibility than you would on the doc review.

I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading here. Pro bono is lefty, anyone who can't afford to pay doesn't deserve your help, a convicted rapist doesn't deserve an appeal, it would make more sense to give your asylum money directly than waste time helping them, blah, blah, blah. Since when is it "left" to help someone flee a country where they may be killed for practicing their religion? And how is it going to help them if I give them money and then they get deported? And since when is it unseemly for a convicted rapist or murderer to file an appeal? They have a right to an appeal and a right to counsel to help them with it. I'm sure you've represented clients that were getting a bad deal before. Well, poor people are no different. In fact, they usually get screwed worse. The laws aren't exactly written to make their lives easier, and most of them are holding on by a thread as is.

I'm sure somebody will write back and say you grew up poor and you pulled yourself up all by yourself and nobody helped and now you can look down on anybody who hasn't done the same. Whatever. But most of you know you grew up privileged and you have no idea what these people went through and why they're in the situation they're in.

I've done a lot of pro bono work, and a lot of it has been for people I didn't particularly like. I hope those of you who wrote these things come around some day and realize that it may be worth your time to help people who are less fortunate than you.

Oh yeah . . . my firm (small litigation shop at top of market big law pay) has an unofficial policy: do all the pro bono you like, we'll count it all towards you bonus, but don't ever tell us you don't have time to do work for a paying client.

Same comment re. Sidley. I have over 400 hours of pro bono and will just hit 2000 and will get the standard bonus.

Same comment re. Sidley. I have over 400 hours of pro bono and will just hit 2000 and will get the standard bonus.

I grew up poor and I pulled myself up all by myself and nobody helped and now I can look down on anybody who hasn't done the same.

Screw pro bono.

5:15:

Many firms DO discriminate against conservative leaning pro bono assignments, though some do not. You haven't been reading the posts here carefully, have you?

It is typically liberal to think that someone who suffered in a foreign country is deserving of the time, efforts, and resources of BigLaw.
It is myopic (perhaps not liberal, but the two categories may coincide) not to realize that giving this person money to hire a lawyer might result in a more efficient use of time measured against the opportunity cost, where the opportunity cost is measured in foregone revenue (that can be donated) OR in foregoing the opportunity to devote Biglaw pro bono resources, time and effort to those arenas more appropriate to the skills and abilities of Biglaw.

You're lecture regarding who went through what and what their background may be is irrelevant to this discussion.

I triple (or quadruple or whatever) the Sidley comments. I billed 100+ pro bono hours, they helped me hit my 2000 billable target and I got the full 2000 hour bonus. (And I really enjoyed the case.) Pro bono participation seems to vary a lot by group at Sidley, but everyone's always very respectful of time spent on it. I think up to 60 hours is automatic in the Chicago office, and then you have to get approval from the group head.

5:37- god bless america. freedom to have the american dream handed to you and spit on everyone less fortunate. good luck to you. hope you make partner and donate lots of money to your favorite compassionate conservative candidates.

5:50:

Myopic of me to not view every aspect of the world through an economic analysis? Is it myopic of you to think that having personal contact with someone less fortunate than you and actually learning about the realities of their problems, rather than just writing them a check, might have benefits that extend beyond "efficiency"? Is it myopic of you to not see how the privileged backgrounds of most big law attorneys might have something to do with their narrow-minded rants against pro bono?

5:59,

It's myopic of you not to see "needy" people for what most of them really are--leeches with zero work ethic.

A&P's pro-bono largess is paid for by the river of tobacco blood-money running through that place. No thanks.

As a New Yorker cartoon once put it, "We can afford to do all this pro-bono work because of all the anti-bono work we do."

5:52-Read 5:37's comment in light of 5:15 (out of my brain on the train, on the train) 's comment. Douchebag.

Love,

5:37's pro bono defender

What exactly is a "conservative leaning pro-bono assignment"? Most of my work involves banks and large funds, who aren't exactly liberal. Isnt' "conservative leaning pro-bono" just cutting your time on banking assignments?

3:45 -- No, not a sheltered life, in fact the very opposite starting at a very young age. Since I've been a victim of really violent crime and have experience in privacy law, the safety of me and my family (not from the poor (duh), but from mentally deranged criminals -- unfortunately the only pro bono projects my firm sponsors) is something fundamental to me that I will forever protect. Glad to hear you and your husband have been lucky. Me, not so lucky.

Wish my firm had pro bono opportunities to do something for the arts or the general community like a neighborhood garden or playground. I'd love to help with something like that with less personal exposure.

Pro Bono is a complete waste of time, as 99% of the time you're helping people who are doomed to fail...all it does is waste time and resources shifting chairs on the Titanic...it's not PC, but its true

Working for no pay=slavery

6:55 - I don't think you're coming from out of left field. Indigent clients have nothing to lose and everything to gain from harassing you should things not go their way. 99% of my indigent clients are terrific, but the other 1% do give me pause in that they know where I work, etc. There's a ton at stake for these people, even if it's small change to the firm. I had a terrible run-in with a client once and it was pretty scary. It's not an outlandish concern. It's great work to do, but not necessarily if you're going it alone.

6:40: Representing banks, private equity firms or large corporations is apolitical, it is not "conservative" unless you believe that capitalism is inherently "conservative." If you are a socialist who believes that capitalism is inherently "conservative," you are just as out of the mainstream as a monarchist or a theocrat who believes that a democracy or Republic is inherently "liberal." There are certainly a few smart monarchists or socialists out there, but generally reasonable people across the political spectrum would agree that the preferable system involves capitalism and democracy.

Examples of conservative pro-bono assignments would include the following (none of which would be acceptable to take at a top NYC firm):

(1) Representing a white rejected college applicant arguing that affirmative action is unconstitutional.

(2) Representing a Catholic adoption agency in a case involving homosexual adoption.

(3) Representing a landlord or employer in a discrimination case.

(4) Representing a gun-owner against the state in a Second Amendment case.

(5) Writing a amicus brief in favor of the state in a case involving abortion, sodomy, or any other right made up by the Left.

I do not even include defending the government in a terrorism case as conservative because I don't think that being pro-American should amount as being conservative.

Whomever is boasting about how "awesome" it is that PB has a 100 hour "requirement" isn't in the business section regularly billing 2200 and still having to find time to do pro bono if you want a discretionary bonus.

4:07: I did a habeas appeal in a first-degree murder case. Firm did not tell me it was a murder case until after I agreed to handle it (I was only told that they had a "pro bono matter" they wanted me to do).

I was less than thrilled, but I sucked it up. It's a quaint notion these days, but part of being a lawyer is ensuring representation to those who wouldn't otherwise have it. And I won the appeal.

8:06 - It's a free country. Why don't you start your own big NYC law firm that also does those sorts of pro bono assignments?

Oh, you don't have the market power to do that? Your lawyering skills aren't good enough? Well, I guess that's how capitalism goes sometimes.

I think pro bono work is great, but I think it is hilarious that big law firm associates boast about their do-gooder work, while at the same time raising holy hell if their firms don't give them one for one credit for an unlimited number of pro bono hours. In other words, they want to get paid the full amount for their pro bono work. I hate to break it to you, but getting paid the full amount for working for the poor just doesn't have the moral appeal of doing the work for free -- you aren't sacrificing at all. Show me a solo practitioner doing free work for poor people, when it is actually hitting their bottom line, and then I'll be impressed.

Not being able to go home at 10 pm on Saturday night when I've already billed fifty hours in the week because I have to work on my pro bono case hits me directly in my bottom line. My time is more valuable than my money right now, and so it is for any Biglaw associate who hasn't already been written off by his firm. When the firm takes every non-sleeping hour you have, where do you think the time to work on pro bono comes from?

If you billed fifty hours during the week, and still can't get home before 10 pm on Saturday night because of your pro bono case, it is actually your inefficiency that is hitting your bottom line.

MoFo is great. They count it 1:1, with no limit, and actively encourage us to do it. Whenever management shows up they always seem to emphasize it, and it's how all the young litigators get real experience. I've also been told that when it comes to merit bonuses, the more pro bono you've done the better (that is, someone with 1900 traditional billed hours and 150 pro bono hours is better off than someone who has 2050 traditional billing hours but no pro bono).

I grew up poor and I pulled myself up all by myself and nobody helped and now I can look down on anybody who hasn't done the same.

Bullshit. You got lucky. Who taught you everything you needed to know to be successful, starting with literacy? Who put a roof over your head? Who let you into wherever you got your degrees from? Who befriended you despite your overwhelming ignorance and arrogance?

Nobody truly succeeds on their own.

Ah, well, Queequeg, if you actually worked in biglaw, you might understand. Until then, I guess you can stay in your fantasy about the hours we work, and thus what we actually sacrifice when we voluntarily take on extra. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good strong feeling of self-righteousness!

OK, let's look at the facts, Atticus. Let's assume the week you discussed is average. If that is the case, you bill 2500 chargeable hours per year (assuming 2 weeks of vacation) and 650 pro bono hours per year (9 a.m. to 10 p.m. every Saturday, and you're recording all of it). Sure I know some people who go that hard, but not a great number. Suffice it to say, you could drop a few matters (or get your work done more efficiently) and still be well loved by your employers and get in your pro bono commitments without blowing your Saturday night. If the week you described is not an average one, maybe you just haven't gotten used to the fact that lawyers need to work nights and weekends sometimes...

I am a litigation partner at an AmLaw 20 firm, and the only reason I chimed in is that (and I swear I thought this as an associate, too) there is more than a little unjustified self-righteousness about associates who brag about how morally superior they are because of their pro bono work. I don't mean to knock pro bono work, and I think they should do it, because there are many other great things about it. You really are helping people who need help and can't get it otherwise, and you are getting skills that you may not otherwise get. But financial sacrifice isn't part of the equation (despite Atticus' fuzzy math). Once you see the firm financials (especially if you are at a firm with a serious pro bono commitment), you will see where the financial sacrifice really lies.

Queequeg,

Without resorting to ridiculous liberal cliches, explain to me why I should have to do work without compensation. Even if my salary stays the same, the firm still loses money by doing this crap...my question is why should we have to do this? Note that any response that includes phrases like "Helping the underprivileged" may induce vomit.