Replies

That's not the way it works either under the Rules of Professional Conduct or practically. Just because one of his partners has a pro bono case does not obligate every partner to sign on.

IN a way it does. Every partner has to have a certain, shall we say, "quota" of pro-bono cases every year, as part of the contract. If in Roberts' case, he was below that quota, or not participating in another pro-bono case at the time, then yes, it is an unwritten rule of professional conduct that he would be obliged to take it on.

This is deliberately delusional, or else simply ignorant. Having worked in a firm similar to H&H, I can tell you that pro bono, by it's very nature, is voluntary and discretionary. Genuinely conservative lawyers, of comparable stature and experience to Roberts, contributed their pro bono time to cases like the Texas reverse discrimination case, on behalf of a gutsy, noble young woman who was denied admission because she was white. Where was Roberts when that was gong on? Working on behalf of radical homosexuals to overturn the democratic votes of the people of Colorado. His choice of pro bono cases is especially revealing because, as Ms. Coulter has pointed out, the man has declined to stick his neck out in the arena on behalf of any conservative cause where it was not part of his job or career advancement.

If in Roberts' case, he was below that quota, or not participating in another pro-bono case at the time, then yes, it is an unwritten rule of professional conduct that he would be obliged to take it on.

I practiced law for 25 years with much appellate work and not a little pro bono. Never heard that rule, written or otherwise. The bottom line, pro bono is something you do voluntarily and deliberately to contribute good to the society. Sometimes it is helping a widow recover money taken by a con man. Sometimes it is advancing an important point of law.

It is not something you use to help deliver body blows to the constitution, unless, like David Souter, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsberg and Breyer, you think body blows to the constitution are good things or you just don't care and you are helping a buddy in the firm deliver the body blows.

Neither explanation gives me much comfort.