[ModelBreaker]

For solo practitioners, that is clear cut. For a larger firm it isn't. If a firm takes on a pro bono client, and one of the lawyers working directly on the case calls up his partner, who may have particular expertise on an issue, are you saying that partner does not have an ethical obligation to the firm's client and a fiduciary obligation to his partner to assist in the matter? Does the partner whose help is being requested have the right to ask what kind of client this is - pro bono or fee paying - and base his willingness to help on the answer to that question?

I worked in a big firm, a medium firm, and solo. It works the same everywhere. The attorney chooses what pro bono to do. In the medium firm, I was asked to participate in pro bono work another attorney was doing to force the boy scouts to accept homosexual members. I politely declined and told them why. It was never raised again. At that time, I was a lowly associate.

[BikerNYC]

Okay, I give up. Roberts assisted with this case, not because he had any ethical or fiduciary obligation to do so, but because he sincerely desired to advance the homosexual agenda in the courts.

[Thrusher]

I think "ModelBreaker" is aptly named. Most associates, and even some of the "lower-letterhead" partners in the big firms with which I am familiar do what they are told, regardless of their personal views on the matter. Why? Because there are two law schools within 20 miles of downtown spitting out a couple hundred new attorneys every year (for better or for worse) just waiting to take their spot when they get canned, and they have families to take care of and bills to pay.

[mtntop3]

We do not know the circumstances of this pro bono case as regards the law firm of which Roberts was a member.

We do know that it was, and is, a prestigious and highly respected D.C.law firm.

I suspect that had the firm been asked to provide the pro bono assistance in this particular instance, that there would have been fairly extensive and intensive discussions at the firm in regard to the case.

A conclusion may have been that it was incumbent upon the firm to provide the very best pro bono assistance simply because of the national social climate - anything less would have reflected poorly on the firm itself and conceivably could have led to the filing of an action against the firm for misrepresenting or, in effect, under-representing, the pro bono subject.