More than a decade ago, Cory Maples of Alabama murdered two people. After an evening of heavy drinking, playing pool, and riding around in a friend’s car, Maples killed two friends, shooting them execution-style.

According to court documents, he signed a confession, “stating that he: (1) shot both victims around midnight; (2) had drunk six or seven beers by about 8 p.m., but ‘didn’t feel very drunk’; and (3) did not know why he decided to kill the two men. Faced with this confession, Maples’s trial attorneys argued that Maples was guilty of murder, but not capital murder.”

A jury found Maples guilty and sentenced him to death.

Maples appealed his capital murder conviction with the help of attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell:

Maples subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, claiming, inter alia, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or present evidence of: (1) Maples’s mental health history; (2) his intoxication at the time of the crime; and (3) his alcohol and drug history.

The trial court dismissed Maples’ Rule 32 petition, and sent notice of the decision to the attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell and to local Alabama counsel. There was a 42-day period for filing a notice of appeal, but all the lawyers involved dropped the ball on the case, PepsiCo-style.

So what’s the explanation for S&C’s missing the deadline for filing an appeal?

Plenty of law schools talk about producing attorneys who are able to serve their community. But a new program at the University of Miami School of Law actually puts a little bit of money behind the commitment to public service.

Time magazine featured the school’s new Foreclosure Defense Fellowship this weekend (gavel bang: ABA Journal). The article highlights Miami’s attempts to get recent graduates into the business of serving one of the constituencies that actually needs more attorneys.

Unlike similar legal fields such as bankruptcy, foreclosure is rarely a full-time practice and is often handled by real estate attorneys or legal aid services agencies. Still, more than 3 million property foreclosures were filed in the U.S. last year; South Florida is expected to see more than 150,000 this year compared to fewer than 25,000 three years ago. And while mortgage modifications had been on the upswing in recent months, the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center reported this week that many large banks and other mortgage servicers have decided it’s cheaper to foreclose than to offer more affordable loan terms. Making matters even worse, as many as 86% of foreclosure victims in hard-hit areas didn’t have legal counsel last year, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law, which released a report earlier this month.

Miami Law has given eight recent graduates a $10,000 fellowship to do this important work. Obviously, $10K isn’t enough to live on. But instead of raising tuition and bemoaning the lack of public interest lawyers, Miami’s fellowship program is giving its graduates a little bit of help in their efforts to give back to the community.

Above the Law corresponded with Miami law professor Michael Froomkin, who founded the program. More details about it, after the jump.

Some class action settlements are highly questionable. Think of a case where, say, the victimized consumers get a stupid coupon, so they can purchase even more goods or services from the company that victimized them — while the lawyers representing the plaintiffs walk away with a big payday.

One man is out to change all that. Ted Frank — lawyer and blogger extraordinaire, from Overlawyered and Point of Law (and also Above the Law) — has left his perch as a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He’s starting a new public interest law firm that specializes in pro bono representation of consumers unhappy with class action settlements. Ted is already handling two class actions in California.

We caught up with Ted to discuss his new gig. Read more, after the jump.

We like to highlight examples of Biglaw associates who get to do especially interesting or high-profile work. E.g., Lindsay Harrison, the Jenner & Block associate who argued a case — and won — before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Most lawyers tuned in to Congress yesterday were listening to Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings (even if day 4 was less than thrilling). But over on the House side, one young lawyer was talking rather than listening. Jason Pinney (pictured), a (rather handsome) sixth-year associate at Bingham McCutchen, got to testify before lawmakers.

Pinney addressed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, specifically, the Subcommittee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight. He spoke about his work as part of a Bingham legal team representing a group of Uighurs detained at Guantanamo Bay. The Bingham lawyers obtained the release of two Uighurs in 2006 and four more Uighurs last month.

(As explained by the AP, “[t]he Uighurs, a Turkic minority from China’s far west, were sent to the U.S. facility in Cuba after their capture in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2001. The Pentagon determined last year that they were not enemy combatants.” Oops!)

Congrats to the Bingham lawyers on their successful representation of their clients — and to Pinney on his congressional testimony. To download a copy of the testimony, click here.

Today in Congress: July 16, 2009 [Washington Post]
Lawmakers want investigation into Uighurs at Gitmo [AP]
Jason S. Pinney [Bingham McCutchen]
Pinney Testimony [PDF]

We’ve received countless requests for shout-outs from worthy non-profit organizations that are seeking deferred associates and/or associates on leave from their law firms (pursuant to such programs as Skadden’s Sidebar program, Dewey’s DL Pursuits, etc.). Alas, due to the sheer number of these requests, we can’t mention them all on the main ATL homepage (which would be transformed from a blog into a bulletin board if we were to do so).

To treat these requests in a fair and consistent manner, we direct every public interest organization with a need for such help to post in our Community section, where readers can create posts on topics of their choosing (subject to moderation). The Community section is also where you can post information about charitable benefits and other events.

Update / Note: At the current time, only registered users can create Community posts — mere “guests” do not have this capability. So if you’d like to start a Community thread, please register as a site user.

Check out the Community section for yourself, and peruse the non-profit opportunities posted here, by clicking here. Additional opportunities also appear in the Resources section of the Career Center.

If you’d like the greater visibility of appearing on the ATL homepage, please consider advertising. In addition to full-scale banner campaigns and Sponsored Content, we now offer Quicklistings — an eminently affordable option, at $250 each. Thanks!

P.S. If you are a for-profit organization or have commercial goods or services to offer, please do not post in the Community section. Instead, please contact us about advertising on Above the Law. Postings of a commercial nature in the Community section will be removed. Thanks again.

Phase One: Offer associates a third of their salary to take a year off.
Phase Two: ???
Phase Three: Profit!

The Sidebar program of Skadden Arps received a glowing review in the New York Times this morning. Evidently, one-third of a Biglaw salary to not work in Biglaw is a dream job. The Times piece focuses on the story of Heather Eisenlord, a banking lawyer at Skadden who wants to use her year off “to teach English to monks in Sri Lanka, and possibly help bring solar power to remote parts of the Himalayas.”

Friday was the last day for associates to enroll in the Sidebar program. According to the Times, 125 people have expressed interest:

As of Friday, about 125 associates had expressed interest. “I think it’s fair to say that the numbers are in excess of our expectations,” Mr. Mallow said.

Only at a corporate law firm would the managers underestimate employees’ interest in taking a year off from the grind for what most of America would consider a small fortune.

A small fortune? Only the NYT’s incongruous desire to appeal to “average Americans” would make it characterize a little more than $50,000 (a third of a first-year associate’s salary) as a “small fortune.”

But that is neither here nor there. It seems that Skadden’s year-long voluntary departure program has actually worked. So far.

After the jump, we try to figure out why.

Your correspondent trekked out to Newark, N.J., to bring you news from the first-of-its-kind (that we know of) job fair for deferred associates. With firms pushing back start dates at a continually increasing rate, this fair may be the first but will certainly not be the last.

The fair was organized in short time by the Newark-based Volunteer Lawyers for Justice. Executive director Karen Sachs, a graduate of NYU Law, saw the magic that could happen by bringing together underfunded and overburdened non-profits with shiny new Biglaw-bound law grads (with deferral stipends attached). Ka-ching for the non-profits; Hallelujah for law grads in need of non-profit jobs to fill their deferred months.

This particular fair was locally focused, with 26 New Jersey organizations in attendance and over 100 attendees, mainly from New Jersey and New York law schools and firms. But Sachs said nonprofits from DC, NYC, and even Tennessee had called her hoping to take part in the economic-crisis-with-a-silver-lining event. Another fair in May that includes out-of-state organizations is a definite possibility, Sachs said.

Non-profit reps from Legal Services orgs, Catholic Charities, Seton Hall Law School Center for Justice and others sat at tables speed-dating style, while deferred 3Ls, jobless law grads, and sabbatical-seeking associates made the rounds. Mayor Cory Booker (YLS ‘97) and White & Case partner Jack E. Pace III dropped in to make speeches, emphasizing the silver lining to this. To summarize: Boo for economy; yay young lawyers getting pro bono opportunities, and pro bono orgs getting young lawyers!

Booker, whose career was launched (and law school debt paid) by a Skadden fellowship, said the Biglaw deferrals with stipends attached was “like the Skadden program 20 fold, 50 fold even.”

We liked Booker’s enthusiasm, Pace’s Brooklyn hipster glasses, and the chicken wraps provided, but not everyone was full of good cheer. Incoming associates aren’t completely drunk on the silver-lining kool-aid. More after the jump.

Is there not enough to go around, even at Skadden? Maybe so. The firm just sent around an internal email announcing the expansion of the firm’s “Sidebar” program. For the uninitiated, a tipster describes the Sidebar program:

Sidebar allows attorneys to take extended time from the Firm to pursue personal interests while maintaining a connection to the Firm.

Spending an extended period of time away from the firm? That sounds about right in today’s market. The firm-wide memo explains the reasoning behind expanding Sidebar:

In response to the current economic climate and the decreased demand for legal services, we are offering a supplement to our existing Sidebar program. During this period of diminished development opportunities, the program affords associates and counsel in US offices in good-standing the ability to pursue personal or professional interests for a one-year period with the option to return to the Firm at the end of that period. We are also offering a similar program to our class of 2009 incoming associates who may wish to defer their arrival until the fall of 2010.

After the jump, we look at what Skadden is offering to entice associates to take themselves out of the game for a year:

How should law firms respond to the recession? As reflected in the dramatic events of yesterday, which will go down in Biglaw history as the Valentine’s Day Massacre of 2009, lawyer layoffs are a common route.

But there are other options. We recently wrote about how unemployed (or underemployed) lawyers can do pro bono work — a way of enhancing their skills, while serving the public. Now one leading law firm is taking this idea and running with it.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett recently announced a new program of public interest fellowships for their associates. From the memo:

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP is pleased to announce a Public Service Fellowship Program which offers associates the opportunity to spend one year working on a public service project of their choosing, supported by a stipend from the Firm, with the option to return to the firm at the Fellowship’s conclusion. The Fellowship Program is designed to enable associates to provide greatly needed assistance, on a full-time basis, to organizations, communities, or individuals in the United States or abroad; encourage associates’ commitment to public service; and advance associates’ own vision of social justice.

One associate is pleased and proud:

I think it’s a creative, win-win solution for the firm, as well as for those of us — meaning, anyone with a paycheck and a pulse — who live in dread of layoffs. The firm saves $100k+ a year and doesn’t have either the spectre of layoffs or gaps in its associate classes when business turns around. It also sends a strong, morale-boosting signal to the associates that the firm is looking to do all it can to avoid laying off attorneys — and is actually willing to spend money to that effect (while, of course, also saving a good deal of money).

The reference to saving money while spending money refers to the stipend. Fellowship recipients receive a lump-sum stipend of $60,000, paid in advance. Yes, this is an upfront expenditure for the firm; but it’s less than the going rate for a first-, second-, or third-year associate.

More details, plus the full memo, after the jump.

When the economy was better, we had a career alternatives for lawyers series, for those in Biglaw looking to do something new. Given the layoffs and sluggish law firm hiring these days, we’re starting a new series: “Can’t find work?” We’ll offer “options” for those shut out — or forced out — of Biglaw.

On Tuesday, we suggested an “option” for recent law grads unable to find work: start your own firm. Two University of Missouri grads were unable to find work and hung out their own shingle in Kansas City. ATL readers lent their support to the venture by spell-checking the hell out of the Buckley & Hutchings website.

Today, we have a new “option” for those looking for work. Offer up your legal services for free!

CARPLS, a legal aid society based in Illinois, is offering unemployed attorneys true pro bono work. From the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (subscription):

A local legal aid provider is seeking unemployed lawyers as volunteers to staff its telephone hotline for low-income families in need of legal advice…

The volunteers must be licensed Illinois lawyers and are asked to work on the CARPLS hotline for at least four hours each week on a morning or afternoon shift. Schwartz said CARPLS officials hope that between 40 and 50 out-of-work lawyers will volunteer for the new program. The new volunteers will supplement the work of 32 paid staff lawyers, Schwartz said.

CARPLS officials posted a job description for the new program on craigslist and other online sites Thursday afternoon, Schwartz said. By Friday morning, there were about 35 responses, he added. The first response was from a lawyer who was offended because she was being asked to work for free, according to Schwartz. The rest of the responses came from lawyers interested in participating in the program, he added.

You may not get paid in cash, but you will get basic training in family, landlord-tenant and consumer law. Press release from CARPLS, after the jump.

So, if you’re twiddling your thumbs these days, think about calling up your local legal aid office and putting some of their attorneys out of work by volunteering your time.

We received about 1500 responses to last month’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on how much of your billable work in 2008 was really for “client billable” time, as opposed to pro bono or administrative matters.

Earlier in January, we had noted that more than a quarter of you couldn’t bill 1800 hours last year, but commenters pointed out that even these numbers were probably too rosy:

It is hard to tell how busy associates really were based on this data. One problem is that “billable hour” may mean different things at different firms. At some firms “billable hour” = client billable hours only. But many firms give billable hours credit for pro bono, recruitment and professional development work. I would be curious to see how much CLIENT BILLABLE hours associates had in 2008 and what they are expecting for 2009.

On the pro bono front, it turns out that the heart is only half empty. About a third of associates spent 100 hours or more on pro bono last year, and roughly 14% had more than 200 hours in pro bono:

Results: How many hours did you did you devote to pro bono matters in 2008?

Since relatively few associates had more than a hundred pro bono hours, there was generally only a one or two percent difference between the levels of “client billable” billable hours in 2008 and the overall billable hours reported. So, for example, while 14.32% of respondents fell short of 1600 billable hours last year, that percentage rose to 16.65% of respondents when only “client billable” hours were counted.

The table below compares your 2007 hours and predictions for 2008 (from our November survey) with the overall billable hours we reported last month and the “client billable” hours from our latest survey results.

Results: How many hours did you bill in 2007 and 2008?

These numbers are, as commenters predicted, a bit bleaker than last month’s results, but about 42% of respondents still managed to bill at least 2000 hours to clients last year, as opposed to pro bono or administrative matters.

Will that hold true this year?

Some commenters thought hitting 2000 hours was actually pretty easy:

4, 18: Um, I definitely billed way over 2000 hours last year… and that’s client billable. In litigation it’s pretty easy to do. I had four appeals (one of which was a bet-the-industry appeal that I was working 48 hour stretches on), like countless depositions, unending motion practice, and two full-blown trials. Do you know how much time you have to bill preparing for a 20 day trial? And then for the trial itself?

It’s easy to rack up crazy hours in litigation when you’re busy.

Other commenters disagreed:

Hitting 2000 hours for 2008 was doable because the bulk of the slow-down didn’t occur until September/October. Only because I had very high hours before then was I able to just barely hit 2000 hours for the year. 2009 will be much worse. I’m worried.

Among survey respondents, pessimists outnumbered optimists about 1.5 to 1:

  * Roughly 44% of survey respondents expected 2009 to bring fewer billable hours than 2008, with 21% expecting much lower hours.

  * About 29% of respondents, however, expected at least a few more hours this year, with almost 9% expecting many more hours.

  * About 27% of respondents expect 2009 hours to be about the same as 2008.

—
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.

President Obama made a pretty interesting statement in yesterday’s inaugural address:

Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished.

But based on last week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey, which asked you how many hours you billed last year, these words of inspiration might not quite fit the legal profession. As we noted last week, more than a quarter of respondents were unable to bill even 1800 hours last year.

And many commenters suggested that the situation will be more dire in 2009:

Hitting 2000 hours for 2008 was doable because the bulk of the slow-down didn’t occur until September/October. Only because I had very high hours before then was I able to just barely hit 2000 hours for the year. 2009 will be much worse. I’m worried.

what are these “billable hours” of which you speak? i keep hearing they’re good to have, but i can’t find them anywhere. i’ve looked under the rug and everything!

Other commenters pointed out that even 2008 was probably a worse year financially than last week’s survey suggests:

It is hard to tell how busy associates really were based on this data. One problem is that “billable hour” may mean different things at different firms. At some firms “billable hour” = client billable hours only. But many firms give billable hours credit for pro bono, recruitment and professional development work. I would be curious to see how much CLIENT BILLABLE hours associates had in 2008 and what they are expecting for 2009.

Also, pro bono hours are way up, which is great for our day-to-day feeling of some accomplishment, but not as great for our future viability.

In today’s survey, we’ll focus on both issues: how much of your “billable” work last year was really for “CLIENT BILLABLE” time, and what do you think 2009 will look like?

Update: This survey is now closed. Click here to see the results.

—
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.

In a former life, I did a lot of coverage on Michael Bloomberg’s controversial “congestion pricing” plan for New York City. If you spend any length of time with transit policy — and don’t otherwise have a life — you’re going to find transit policy fascinating. It touches on law, politics, the environment and city planning.

It looks like Sidley Austin attorneys are getting a taste of this great work. The firm is working on behalf of a town which is trying to stop Washington, D.C.’s proposed “Purple Line.” I won’t bother you with the ins and outs of the Purple Line project (light rail versus buses!). But it’s particularly interesting that Sidley is representing the town of Chevy Chase, and the firm is working pro-bono.

When you think of disadvantaged clients in need of free legal services, you don’t really think of the well-to-do town of Chevy Chase do you? According to a press release from Action Committee for Transit:

The town has also engaged the nationally prominent law firm Sidley Austin to represent it in the transit dispute. Sidley Austin has submitted to the Maryland Transit Administration an extensive request for information, much of which duplicates an informal request previously submitted by Columbia Country Club.

At present, the town’s lawyers are working “pro bono”—without payment. However,
Sidley Austin’s web site states that the firm’s pro bono work is done “to provide legal services to the poor and to charitable, religious, community, governmental and educational organizations that otherwise would be unable to afford legal representation.” The town can easily afford to pay for legal services. Its most recent financial statement shows it has $4.4 million tucked away in the bank—more than its entire annual budget of $3 million.

In these tough economic times, maybe the firm shouldn’t be giving away services for free when the client could pay? But it’s important to remember that pro bono work isn’t just about work a client can pay, it’s also about doing work that nobody will pay for.

Does Chevy Chase fit into that broader category? More after the jump.

Every year, the National Law Journal names individual people and firms that have done outstanding pro bono work. This year perhaps more than others, it is especially important to recognize those that gave their time to charity. With the economy crumbling, there is a huge need for free legal services.

The NLJ has recognized the work done by Proskauer Rose, Holland & Knight, and Mayer Brown towards resettling Iraqi refugees:

Eric Blinderman, international legal counsel to Proskauer Rose, had gone to Iraq in March 2004 as an associate general counsel for the Coalition Provisional Authority. Later, he served as chief legal counsel and associate deputy to the Regime Crimes Liaison. In 2007, Blinderman’s firm officially became a part of The List: Project to Resettle Iraqi Refugees, a nonprofit organization founded that year to help resettle Iraqis in danger because of their affiliation with the United States. Holland & Knight had already been collaborating with the project, and Mayer Brown signed on this year.

The other big firm winner was Pillsbury Winthrop for its efforts during the election:

Firms nationwide were inspired by the historic 2008 presidential election to devote pro bono time to protecting access to the voting booth. Lawyers went to court in several states on voter access issues, most frequently to prevent a voting reform law, the Help America Vote Act, from becoming a barrier to the ballot. The law required states to match voter rolls with another database, usually the registry of driver licenses, to create a more accurate list of voters.

Read the full list of winners here. And please share your stories about other great pro bono acts in the comments.

2008 NLJ PRO BONO AWARDS [National Law Journal]

ATL has been providing in-depth coverage of firm layoffs, but we haven’t written much about public defenders suffering the same fate. With state budgets experiencing big squeezes, public defenders’ offices across the country are getting downsized, while their caseloads are getting upsized.

We wrote about layoffs in Kentucky, Minnesota, Florida, and Georgia back in July. In at least seven states, “public defenders’ offices are refusing to take on cases or have sued to limit them,” says the New York Times in an editorial today. It suggests that the constitutional right to counsel in state criminal proceedings is “hanging by a tattered thread:”

In a disturbing example of legal triage, a Florida judge ruled in September that the public defenders’ office in Miami-Dade County could refuse to represent many poor defendants arrested on lesser felony charges so that its lawyers could provide a better defense for other clients. Behind the ruling were some chastening statistics: Over the past three years, the average number of felony cases handled by each lawyer rose from 367 annually to nearly 500. Misdemeanor case loads rose from 1,380 to 2,225.

Public defenders’ offices all over the country are reporting similar problems. The immediate result is that innocent defendants may feel pressure to plead guilty. There also is an increased risk of wrongful conviction, which means that the real offenders would go free.

The NYT recommends meeting the budget shortfall by increasing the state registration fees for lawyers and expanding pro bono representation by the private bar.

Another out-of-the-box solution would be to get rid of all those pesky drug laws.

Remember to send in all of your layoffs stories and worries to tips@abovethelaw.com.

Hard Times and the Right to Counsel [New York Times]

Earlier: D.C. AG Office Faces Lawsuit After Firing Attorneys (And News of Layoffs For Public Defenders in Other States)

We received 836 responses to Monday’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on whether you’ll be volunteering your services on Election Day, and the results are pretty remarkable. Over 40% of practicing attorneys who took the survey said that they would be helping out:

  * 23% will be working as election monitors.

  * 11% will be staffing call centers.

  * 7% will be members of a legal response team.

  * Another 7% are still deciding whether to volunteer.

Law students are even more active, with 46% planning to work as election monitors, 6% staffing call centers, and 9% supporting a legal response team.

Interestingly, Obama supporters were much more likely than McCain voters to spread their time around for Joe the Voter, with 30% working as election monitors (vs. 15% of McCain voters), 12% staffing call centers (vs. 4%), and 9% working in legal response teams (vs. 5%).

Formal law firm support also had a pretty substantial impact on attorney participation in next Tuesday’s efforts, especially among attorneys staffing call centers:

  * At firms counting the work as billable time, more than two thirds of attorney respondents will be volunteering their services (31% as poll monitors, 30% in call centers, and 7% in response teams).

  * The percentage of volunteers drops slightly, to 60%, at firms that consider the work pro bono but non-billable (31% poll monitors, 18% call center staff, and 11% in response teams).

  * But at firms that give no credit at all, only 34% of respondents have decided to volunteer on Election Day (24% as poll monitors, 2% in call centers, and 8% in response teams).

Quite a few firms will be giving credit. 27% of respondents said that they can indeed count their service toward their billable hours, including associates at Cleary Gottlieb, Cooley Godward, Davis Polk, Dewey & LeBoeuf, Goodwin Procter, Hogan & Hartson, Katten, Kelley Drye, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham, Morgan Lewis, MoFo, Orrick, Paul Hastings, Ropes & Gray, Shearman & Sterling, and Skadden. Another 12% of respondents will count their work as pro bono, but not billable time.

That said, though, roughly a third of respondents said that their firms would not be providing any credit for volunteering next week, and about a quarter of you weren’t sure.

In addition to firm support, there’s quite a bit of peer support going around. More than half of attorney respondents noted that their firm colleagues were also volunteering next Tuesday. 41% said that both partners and associates were pitching in, while 11% said that other associates were signing up, but not partners.

Actual participation may be even higher though, as 38% of respondents weren’t sure whether other attorneys at their firms were getting involved. Only 9% of respondents said that neither their peers nor their partners would be volunteering next week.

So, overall, it looks like next Tuesday’s going to be a pretty quiet day at the office. Probably a good day to do some volunteer work. (You can still sign up here or here.)

—
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.

Earlier this month, an ATL / Lateral Link survey found that 86% of you were talking about politics in the workplace. And 18% of you reported that a fellow associate had tried to convince you to vote for their favorite candidate.

But are politics just seeping into your workplace, or will you be taking your profession to the polls? As the Obama campaign recruits lawyers to join the world’s largest law firm next week and the McCain campaign recruits its own Legal Response Team, how are you and your firms planning to spend the day?

Will you be policing the polls for pro bono — or billable — credit?

Update: This survey is now closed. Click here for the results.

—
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.

Yesterday, we criticized law schools for slavishly following the dictates of U.S. News and World Report. But a law firm responding to associate concerns is a different matter entirely.

A tipster informs us that Wiley Rein associates were told that up to 50 pro-bono hours would be credited towards meeting billable targets.

Firm Chairman Richard Wiley delivered the message personally to associates at an afternoon lunch yesterday. The new policy could be a response to the firm’s low pro-bono commitment rating in this month’s AmLaw midlevel survey (subscription).

Is 50 hours a “commitment,” or merely lip-service? How does the new Wiley Rein policy stack up with your firm’s?

American Lawyer Midlevel Associates Survey [American Lawyer (subscription)]

Earlier: The American Lawyer Midlevel Associates Survey: Open Thread

A recent bar passer sent this query into Freakonomics:

I recently passed the bar and am currently applying for jobs. My main concern is bringing out the most charitable result. Should I work in the nonprofit section where my services are passed directly along to the most needy, or should I get the high-paying firm job and donate the difference in my salary to charity?

A certain Harvard Law School grad might say, “Do the right thing at every moment” — and avoid the Big Bad Law Firm. But Freakonomics blogger Stephen Dubner seems more skeptical of public interest work:

I am not so convinced that working for a nonprofit means that one’s “services are passed directly along to the most needy.” Here’s one reason why.

One Freakonomics commenter’s response to the question of “public interest v. Biglaw”: neither.

If you want to make the most “charitable result”, you’re too late. Lawyers rarely add any value to the economy (after all, this IS an economics blog). Lawyers don’t make anything but they consume large amounts of capital, both human and financial. Had you wanted to be a net contributor to society, an MBA or engineering degree or medical degree or some such would have been the way to go or even just start a small business. This would allow you to actually produce something of value. A law degree only allows you to add friction to the economy….

Scrap the law degree, start a company, get rich, buy a big house and a big boat, give generously when you can and do what Buffett and Gates are doing, give it all away when you’re finished. Nothing wrong with that at all. That would be a life well lived.

ATL readers, what do you advise?

Our Daily Bleg: How Can You Maximize Your Charity? [Freakonomics / NYT]

Earlier: Working in Biglaw = Killing Babies?

Where is the Institute for Justice when you need it? Or maybe the Pacific Legal Foundation?

A libertarian public interest organization needs to defend two victims of intrusive government regulation. From the Seattle Times:

Regan “Draco” Lane-Smith and “Naughty” Nonah Elliston outfitted their six-bedroom rental house with 15 mattresses, bondage crosses and sex swings. They built elaborate sets in their backyard for taking erotic photos. And they promoted the Hardwood Cabin online.

Up to 60 guests at a time came to mingle, sunbathe nude by the pool and have sex with fellow swingers and fetishists, Elliston said. Parties were frequent enough that the couple’s laundry service was cycling through 50 bedsheets a week.

But the couple shut down the sex club last month when they were cited for running a business without a license and threatened with fines of up to $513 a day.

So it was the commercial component that got them in trouble. A post-bar-exam orgy, or some German prison role playing, would have been just fine.

There are legal connections to this story in addition to the licensing and zoning issues. Read more, after the jump.