I understand that he was not obligated to do the work. He was obligated to do SOME pro-bono work. He did a great deal of it, and this was one he willingly took on. If he were paid then I would have a lesser problem with it. Everyone is entitled to representation (though I wouldn't personally choose an attorney who didn't share my convictions). But why was this case a pro-bono case? Why didn't they at least have to raise the money? Why did they get free high-end attorney services? I bet the state of Colorado (read: Colorado taxpayers) had to pay for their legal services. This whole thing smells!!!!
Yes.
Was he obligated to take the case? Would it have harmed his career if he hadn't?
Obligated? Probably not. But when you're a junior partner at a law firm, do you say "no" to a senior partner who asks you to lend a few hours (I've read 6 hours was the extent of Roberts' work) assistance?