During his career as an attorney did John Edwards do any pro bono work?

[cali]

The answer appears to be no. It's standard for lawyers to do pro bono work, and for attorneys who care about social and environmental justice, it's vitally important. I know a lot of lawyers. They all are devoted to pro bono work.

Why is this important? Because it's another piece of who John Edwards is/was. When he had the opportunity to stand up for social justice, he didn't- either in the Senate or in his life as a high powered attorney.

Prior to two years ago, John Edwards was not a progressive or a liberal. He was a centrist/conservative dem.

He may very well be sincere in his change of belief. But will he change again at some time in the future when it's to his advantage to do so? I don't know. Neither does anyone else here.

[hlthe2b]

1. Cali... How do you back up this assertion?

I'm undecided in the primaries, but this strikes me as grossly unfair, unless you have documented proof that he did no pro bono work and frankly, I don't know how you could. :shrug:

[mirrera]

2. Read his book "Four Trials" and get to know him...n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

4. John Edwards is a reliable source on John Edwards?

That's the funniest thing I've read on DU all morning!

[1932]

11. Some anonymous poster with an obvious ax to grind is an expert? That's funnier.

[EV_Ares]

12. The Washington Times had this article, appears to have come from them.

[goodgd_yall]

128. hmph---figures

[Clark2008]

108. Cali has no ax to grind.

Hell, she only tentatively has a candidate in DK.

I don't have a candidate, myself, and I know that her post was dead on. It was researched in 2004, but, like his Senate record, people keep forgetting about how poor it was.

[hlthe2b]

120. This is why I stay out of these discussions. I too am undecided

But, I feel compelled to speak out when someone is being unfairly portrayed. Have at it, folks. Count me out..

[mirrera]

143. I missed your reply..

If we were talking at a party or Democratic gathering, I do not think you would answer my reply that way. We are all nice people. I really meant it when I said read John Edward's book. I read Barack Obama's "Dreams of my Father" and it was really very eloquent. I would rather hear from someone about themselves then other's opinions anyday. It is like having a friend over, they tell you about themselves. Much better then other people gossiping about them.

It is important to judge people by their fruits as well. John Edwards has done some stupid things, and I am completely in line with Kucinich on issues and votes. I just suggest the book be read to get to know him so you can judge the behavior a little more clearly. He is NOT a bad man, I do not think any of our candidates are bad people. They are just at varying states of awakedness— or asleepedness.

[OzarkDem]

3. Do you have a link?

Or is this just another example of the "when did you stop beating your wife" school of campaigning?

[cali]

14. here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/campaign/14career.html?ex=1247544000&en=870846aae154e1d1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921189.html

There are varying claims. The NYT says "no notable pro bono work" Infoplease and other sources, both from the left and right say no pro bono work. NO ONE can find a single source that can name even one pro bono case he worked on or any civil rights work. He doesn't tout it as any part of his experience.

[Beaverhausen]

111. Maybe you missed the word "notable" - it doesn't say he didn't do any

How many flame wars can you start today? You seem to be very good at it.

[stranger81]

124. You should keep in mind that many pro bono cases are never

officially published or reported, since they tend to be smaller matters, and many of them settle before trial. So the fact that publicly available sources don't reveal pro bono work by a particular attorney demonstrates nothing -- that attorney may well have done a significant amount of pro bono work.

And as for touting your pro bono as part of your experience, I don't know anyone who does that. In most cases, your pro bono work is outside your main practice area, and there's no reason to promote yourself as practicing a kind of law that isn't your bread and butter.

[EV_Ares]

25. John Edwards Director Of Poverty Center - This not pro bono work

UNC-Chapel Hill creates Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity;
names former Sen. John Edwards as director

CHAPEL HILL -- The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is launching a Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity that will be led by former U.S. Senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards.

The Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity will be a nonpartisan initiative, bringing together UNC-Chapel Hill faculty and other national public policy experts to examine innovative and practical ideas for moving more Americans out of poverty and into the middle class. The center will have an advisory committee of senior faculty representing multiple disciplines across campus. In addition to leading the center, Edwards also will serve as a guest lecturer on campus.

"John Edwards is a distinguished Carolina alumnus, and we are delighted that he will return to campus to bring together today’s best minds to focus on issues that affect us all," Chancellor James Moeser said.

Edwards spent six years in the U.S. Senate. In that time, he championed policy initiatives such as raising the minimum wage, expanding the earned income tax credit, creating matching savings accounts for low-income families, and providing incentives for teachers to teach in low-income schools. Edwards also focused on poverty during last year’s presidential campaign.

"The time I spent at Chapel Hill gave me many of the tools I have used all my life to help those who are struggling, and I am so proud that I will be able to continue this work and also give something back to UNC-Chapel Hill," Edwards said. "As director of the center, I will work to explore creative approaches to the difficulties that families in poverty face every day."

"John Edwards will be a marvelous resource for faculty and students across campus," said Law School Dean Gene Nichol. "His life experiences as well as his time as senator and vice presidential candidate make him ideally suited to lead this new center."

Link: http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb05/edwards020405.html

This is only part of the work John Edwards has done for those struggling in life along with his union work and support he has done and still does.

[Adelante]

35. He took a salary

Not a lot, $40,000 or so, but not pro bono.

[EV_Ares]

37. No, but the point is this follows in all of his work he has done. The

article about pro-bono is totally unfair and nothing but a hit job on him. If you want to get nip & tuck with all these attorneys running, it could be fun. Do you expect him to be able to do all of the things he has done for those less fortunate if he did his attorney work for free. The pro-bono thing is rediculous with the time he has given in more causes than you can name.

To say that Edwards took no "pro bono cases" is a half-truth at best. Every case a trial lawyer like Edwards handles is taken on a contingent basis. That means the lawyer takes no money from the client up front. In fact, the lawyer normally funds all the costs of the case from his own pocket. Those costs can run into the millions of dollars, all being funded by the lawyer and with no guarantee he'll get any of it back.

So the "no pro bono cases" remark, coming from the Washington Times who did a piece on this, is intentionally misleading. Every case Edwards handled is "pro bono" in the sense that he asks for nothing from the client up front. Or to put it differently, a lack of funds does not prevent poor people from gaining access to the legal system - the classic definition of "pro bono."

But the irony of the remark from the Washington Times goes beyond that. Right wing publications like the Times frequently object to the contingent fee arrangement because it gives people too much access to the courts, thereby (in the view of the right wing) resulting in spurious litigation. For the Times first to criticize trial lawyers from making litigation too easy and then criticize John Edwards for not taking "pro bono" cases is laughable.

Think about it, what merit does this issue of one person, John Edwards & pro-bono work even have & is not even true.

[Adelante]

47. I don't agree that contingency and pro bono is the same thing

Pro bono is not taking money, while contingency is taking money if you win. But my post was to point out there was a salary involved in the poverty center, so that work can't be called pro bono, either. The point about whether he did or didn't do pro bono work doesn't especially interest me, though I see why someone would see it as relevant and pose the question about an anti-poverty candidate.

[EV_Ares]

48. Pro bono: being fair to Edwards

A Washington Times editorial asserts that John Edwards during his career as a plaintiff's lawyer "took no pro bono cases", which if true might expose him to obloquy and also could put him into conflict with the ABA's Model Rule on the subject ("The science of malpractice", Jul. 25; see KipEsquire, Jul. 25). Tucker Carlson voiced the same charge on CNN "Crossfire" Jan. 12 (transcript).
But is the charge accurate? In a quick search on "John Edwards" + "pro bono", the most prominent article to turn up is Adam Liptak's Jul. 14 New York Times piece, "Edwards's Lawyerly Style Drew Fierce Foes and Fans", which phrases things rather differently: "Mr. Edwards handled no notable pro bono cases, the typical vehicle for lawyers who want to have a larger impact." (emphasis added). The difference is potentially significant, since an attorney might devote considerable effort to pro bono work without handling any court cases that his colleagues might recognize as notable (say, because they sought to shape the course of the law).

No doubt we'll be hearing more about the nature and scope of Edwards' pro bono efforts as the campaign proceeds. In the mean time, those of us who are skeptical of his candidacy should be careful not to let our criticisms run ahead of the available evidence.

Link: http://www.overlawyered.com/2004/07/pro_bono_being_fair_to_edwards.html

Again, maybe to be exact they may not be exactly the same. But, you tell me, to try and attack John Edwards not doing any pro-bono the article above pretty well explains it. Strange to me some posters all of a sudden consider the Washington Times credible when they want to use it for basically a hit piece on John Edwards. He has done way more than most for those unable to fight for themselves and other causes. Can you tell me what exactly is the point of this being brought up from the times, would be interested.

[Adelante]

52. I didn't bring up the subject

I don't especially care about it one way or another. That the Washington Times wrote about it is also immaterial to me.

[EV_Ares]

60. I understand that; it is just that the post has no credibility and is totally

unfair, no point to it other than a hit on Edwards. It is not fair to do that to Hillary or Wes or any of the other candidates.

In a sense, trial lawyers who represent personal injury plaintiffs do virtually nothing but pro bono work, though they can occasionally get rich from doing it---that is, lawyers like Edwards represent people for a contingency fee, with victory being the contingency. When they lose (and 2/3 of the time they do, completely), they get nothing. And the law firms advance the costs of the litigation, and don't even bother trying to recover it from the family of the injured person. So Edwards probably has done far more pro bono representations than any of the other attorneys.

[Adelante]

68. I have known Cali as a DUer for a long time

She criticizes who she thinks is wrong and commends who she thinks is right. She does it all the time, so, no, the OP is not a hit on Edwards any more than her threads criticizing any other candidate.

But a reaction I had to the rest of your post is that a more likely pro bono situation for a personal injury lawyer would be taking on cases that aren't recognizably viable, ones that the track record for loss shows itself higher than for wins, so that a victim who might not draw much monetary reward for the law firm is given capable legal representation just because it's right that they have it. That I would call pro bono. Recognizing the paying case is good business and knowing which cases will bring the pay out is how this type of lawyer makes his or her living, most often among people who don't have the means. The case load would be mighty slim without contingency. Crediting that plain fact of a personal injury lawyer's working life as equivalent to pro bono is not something I would do. Now, if Edwards did indeed take cases in which there was little projected chance of success, I would say mazel tov, even though I don't see him as having been under such obligation.

[EV_Ares]

69. Hard to reply to your post as appears to just be your guessing or

what you want to guess. The point of pro-bono or not-pro-bono I think you can get from plenty of the posters here who have knowledge of it and I would have to say it is hard to try and slam John Edwards for not doing any pro-bono work expecially when it really is not a factual statement.

[Adelante]

71. Okay, then

:hi:

[bpeale]

93. "no NOTABLE"

<<Jul. 14 New York Times piece, "Edwards's Lawyerly Style Drew Fierce Foes and Fans", which phrases things rather differently: "Mr. Edwards handled no notable pro bono cases, the typical vehicle for lawyers who want to have a larger impact." (emphasis added). The >>

the operative words are "no NOTABLE". that does not mean no cases. that means they did not make headlines of any sort.

cali, you seem to be doing the work of the notorious Moonie washington times. yeah, that's real news all right. ... bullshit!

[cali]

38. good. that's wonderful. But that's the new JE

not the JE who was in private practice or the Senate.

[flyarm]

81. did Hillary??????? eom

edit to add..i found my answer..

thanks anyway..

fly

[hlthe2b]

122. Good heavens... I'm all for supporting one candidate over another

but this does seem like you have an incredible axe to grind, vis-a--vis Edwards, Cali. Others (who I believe, like me are undecided) are similarly expressing surprise at your postings, Cali. Why not be specific and straight forward as to what it is about JE that you really don't like, rather than this kind of attack, that really does seem like sniping? I respect that people have many reasons for choosing one candidate over another. But, why is Edwards expected to have never made a living from law if he is to be considered a sincere populist?

[faithfulcitizen]

75. Didn't he create this after his 04 run and knowing he'd run in 08?

It's a great thing, but come on...

[Vickers]

5. "The answer appears to be no."

That's some hard-hitting investigative work there, Cali! :patriot:

[OzarkDem]

7. I find it interesting

That the OP goes for every Dem candidate's jugular on a daily basis, yet claims to have no Dem candidate that he/she favors.

Interesting, no? Maybe the candidate the OP favors isn't a Democrat.

[EV_Ares]

13. No merit to the post; appears to be nothing but a hit piece on Edwards. eom.

[sufrommich]

26. Why cast dubious suspicions on any poster?

If you believe you've encountered a troll,hit your alert button.I believe that's what it was designed for,no doubt to stop posters from publicly making false accusations without proof.

[cali]

goes for the jugular? hardly..

I post things critical of many of the dems. They should all be scrutinized.

And go _____ yourself (use your wild imagination to fill in the blank) for suggesting I'm a repuke troll. I'm not. I've often said I'll crawl through broken glass to vote for the dem nominee, no matter who it is, and I've said good things about all of them, and defended each from time to time.

[spotbird]

33. Actually, she

is more supportive of some than others.

[karynnj]

54. Or far more likely from everything she has ever posted,

she is a liberal Democrat who is looking at all of 2008's candidates and trying to weigh their real cons along with their real pros. I love her posts as they are always on substantive issues. I have not found a candidate that I enthusiastically support, so these discussions are helpful.

I look back nostalgically to 2004, when at this time my biggest concern was that I worried that the 2 candidates I was very impressed with would not win as they were both New Englanders and would split the same vote.

But, that was unusual. I realized in 2004, that it was the first time in my voting life that I cast a vote in the general election for a candidate that I really was excited by who had a chance to win. I liked McGovern, but knew from canvassing that it was hopeless.

[PVnRT]

72. Seems to me she goes after Edwards mostly

Because apparently, since he's not poor, he's a fake.

[flyarm]

82. several today in fact!! that i have seen... eom

[Clark2008]

110. No. He's a fake because everything he says is the opposite

of what he did/does.

[EV_Ares]

6. So where is the link and support for your assertion he did no pro

bono work. Besides most trial attorneys do pro-bono by the fact they take no money for the cases they take to fight corporations as Edwards did during his trial attorney years.

"To say that Edwards took no "pro bono cases" is a half-truth at best. Every case a trial lawyer like Edwards handles is taken on a contingent basis. That means the lawyer takes no money from the client up front. In fact, the lawyer normally funds all the costs of the case from his own pocket. Those costs can run into the millions of dollars, all being funded by the lawyer and with no guarantee he'll get any of it back.

So the "no pro bono cases" remark, coming from the Washington Times, is intentionally misleading. Every case Edwards handled is "pro bono" in the sense that he asks for nothing from the client up front. Or to put it differently, a lack of funds does not prevent poor people from gaining access to the legal system - the classic definition of "pro bono."

But the irony of the remark from the Washington Times goes beyond that. Right wing publications like the Times frequently object to the contingent fee arrangement because it gives people too much access to the courts, thereby (in the view of the right wing) resulting in spurious litigation. For the Times first to criticize trial lawyers from making litigation too easy and then criticize John Edwards for not taking "pro bono" cases is laughable."

[bpeale]

96. and who gives a shit anyway?

what bearing does this have on the issues in the campaign? try to stay on topic ... issues not supposition.

[1932]

8. I know a lot of lawyers, and the only ones who do pro bono work are insurance defense lawyers

and corporate transactional lawyers, and only if they have a conscience. I know plaintiffs lawyers who have a conscience, and their pro bono work is basically the work they do every day -- they take on cases, for regular people who need a lawyer to right a wrong caused by a power imbalance. If they win, they get a fee commensurate with the service they provide, and if they lose, they take a fee that is about 1/3rd the hourly rate that corporate transactional or insurance defense lawyer takes.


Also, if you're confused about the social, political and economic repercussions of the kind of work Edwards did as a lawyer, you should read his book Four Trials.

[EV_Ares]

10. Re my post, did you note the Washington Times put this out on Edwards

also.

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. that's not true. lots of lawyers do pro bono work

[1932]

17. I'm being honest with you.

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. me too

Perhaps we just live in two different worlds. In my arena--and I work with lawyers all the time--many different types of attorneys do pro bono work.

[1932]

24. What kind of lawyer and what kind of pro bono work?

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. Here are some of what I have witnessed

Criminal Defense lawyers / family law lawyers / personal injury lawyers all do pro bono work. The type of work that I have seen mostly (although there are other types) are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault who don't have money for services and are sometimes left homeless / or penniless and need various services (no-contact orders / eviction and other housing issues / divorce or separation...that kind of stuff.

[1932]

49. I've seen criminal defense lawyers do "pro bono" work, but I suspect part of the reason

is for publicity, and part of the reason is because they don't like spending all their time defending people they feel are guilty.

I know all kinds of lawyers who take on clients within their practice area recognizing they might not get paid, and call it pro bono if they don't.

But, seriously, the only lawyers I know who do something outside their practice area knowing up front that they won't get paid for it are lawyers who represent powerful clients and get paid well for it.

Lawyers like Edwards was, for whom every case can have broad social, economic and political ramifications, and who get paid on contingency, generally do not go outside their practice area, and neither do they stay within their practice area, win their cases, and forego their fees. (Why would they do that if their clients are more than happy to pay for the services?). They tend to donate a part of their income to charities, which Edwards did a lot of, and which seems to have been the best use of his time for everyone -- for his clients, and for the charities that benefitted from his income.

Furthermore, the guy left the very lucrative practice of the law to become a public servant and to run for president on behalf of people without power -- what could be more "for the public good"?

[cali]

19. He got paid exceeding well for the cases in his book.

Nothing wrong with that at all; he did extraordinary work for his clients and took on corporations and insurance companies.

I know literally dozens of lawyers, most in either private practice or non-profit law firms. Obviously the latter have built their professional lives around social or environmental justice, but ALL the attorneys I know in private practice do a considerable amount of pro bono work now, or have done so in the past.

[1932]

27. How about some examples?

I also know ACLU lawyers who don't do pro bono work because they consider the work they go into the office and do every day for a salary "for the public good."

[cali]

30. Sure.

I have a friend who's done pro bono work for families with special needs children, and one who's done pro bono work for the local domestic abuse prevention organization.

[1932]

34. And what do they do for money?

My point is that if you're going into work every day working hard for the public good (regardless of how much your paid), you don't go out and do the same work for free for someone who is perfectly content to have you do it for the same compensation you were doing it the day before.

Lawyers I know who get a salary every day to represent people (like ACLU lawyers) don't decide the next day to defer their salary and do the same work. Lawyers I know who get paid well to represent people who recognize the costs of bringing their suits successfully require a huge investment in resources generally don't have clients ask them to do the same work for free.

Lawyers I know who are well paid to do things that generally help people who already have great resources are the ones who tend to try to balance things out and take some of the ill-gotten gains to underwrite assisting people without power.

[cali]

43. They both work in fairly small private firms. Both are partners

in those firms. I'll grant you, this is VT with more lawyers per capita than any other state, and, I've been told, with a higher amount of pro bono work done by lawyers than any other state.

I already told you that the lawyers I know working for non-profits don't do work outside of that sphere. These are lawyers in private practice.

[1932]

46. And the work they do is...?

What? Wills and estates for people with assets? Real estate transactions for people with money to buy houses?

[cali]

56. why? this has gotten absurd

does it really matter what kind of legal work they do? this is the last of your third degree questions I'll answer. One does jack of all trade work- real estate, divorces, you name it. The other works for a larger firm- there are 16 lawyers- and does almost solely divorce law.

[1932]

59. Don't give up until you've answered my question in 41 below!

And if you don't understand how your answer to that question supports my argument, then I can understand why you posted your OP.

[hlthe2b]

28. If he took those cases on contingency, where's the beef?

He assumed the risk, did the work, and shared in the return on a successful outcome? :shrug:

Cali, I'm surprised at this, but I have to go to work, so I guess this post can run amok. I'm just looking for fairness on posts about all the candidates. This strikes me as a hit job.

[Clark2008]

114. But, that's not pro bono - that's contingency.

He only took cases he knew he could win. He never took a case without the potential for a big pay-off.

That's the point of Cali's argument. He's not done much for the people he now proports to care about.

[hlthe2b]

125. re; "He's not done much for the people he now proports to care about."

You've not proven this at all.... I don't really care if you support Edwards or not... I've not made up my mind about him, myself. But, your premise is without demonstrable basis in fact.

[1932]

29. By the way, are you acknowledging the positive political, social and economic ramifications

of Edwards's cases?

Don't you think that results in a public good?

Do you think Edwards should have been doing the same work, but not charging his clients for it?

[BadgerLaw2010]

40. Most big firms encourage at least some pro bono.

The actual dedication to that in practice varies, and is more a cultural thing than anything else.

There are some Wall Street firms that average more PB hours per lawyer than medium sized firms.

[durrrty libby]

9. Good question .

[MethuenProgressive]

16. Edwards isn't the only lawyer running for President.

He's the only one who took truck loads of cash as his "share" of victim's settlements.
All lawyers should be civil service employees working for minimum wage.
Perhaps then, perhaps only then, would equal justice for all really have meaning.


edit: the usual

[1932]

18. That makes no sense.

[MethuenProgressive]

20. Taking all that cash from the victims? I agree.

But that's American justice.

[1932]

23. You know that money is tax free, and lawyers take less than that money would be taxed if it were

income, and the lawyer is actually doing all the work to get the money for the clients.

If clients didn't feel that fees were fair, there are certainly enough lawyers out there that I'm sure they could pay lower fees if they wanted to.

Obviously, the market sets lawyers fees at pretty much the value clients place on lawyers' services.

[BadgerLaw2010]

44. Yeah, bar access to courts for all personal injury plaintiffs. Great idea.

Absent a contingency fee, those cases wouldn't be litigated at all. The math simply makes it so no one can afford to pay the actual costs unless they're filthy rich, let alone a profit for the office.

[EV_Ares]

50. Exactly:

Pro bono: being fair to Edwards
A Washington Times editorial asserts that John Edwards during his career as a plaintiff's lawyer "took no pro bono cases", which if true might expose him to obloquy and also could put him into conflict with the ABA's Model Rule on the subject ("The science of malpractice", Jul. 25; see KipEsquire, Jul. 25). Tucker Carlson voiced the same charge on CNN "Crossfire" Jan. 12 (transcript).
But is the charge accurate? In a quick search on "John Edwards" + "pro bono", the most prominent article to turn up is Adam Liptak's Jul. 14 New York Times piece, "Edwards's Lawyerly Style Drew Fierce Foes and Fans", which phrases things rather differently: "Mr. Edwards handled no notable pro bono cases, the typical vehicle for lawyers who want to have a larger impact." (emphasis added). The difference is potentially significant, since an attorney might devote considerable effort to pro bono work without handling any court cases that his colleagues might recognize as notable (say, because they sought to shape the course of the law).

No doubt we'll be hearing more about the nature and scope of Edwards' pro bono efforts as the campaign proceeds. In the mean time, those of us who are skeptical of his candidacy should be careful not to let our criticisms run ahead of the available evidence.

http://www.overlawyered.com/2004/07/pro_bono_being_fair_to_edwards.html

[BadgerLaw2010]

142. Pro bono doesn't have to be expensive or in your practice area, though.

Tort lawyers don't like expensive losers of cases because they can wreck the office, but an inexpensive, no payoff case could be absorbed by an otherwise successful PI firm. Not every case is complex or against a client with a big corporate law firm in his corner.

It's a matter of work versus what the payoff actually is. That's the calculation made at every PI firm when a case staggers in the door. There are some big payoffs that aren't worth suing over, because the odds of winning are low and the client is known to be represented by brutal corporate pitbulls who will bury you in man-hours.

Read A Civil Action for what happens when a small tort firm makes a big miscalculation over what is involved in litigating a mega-payoff case.

Similarly, not every "this case won't pay rent" claim is going to require the firm to really work all that hard or put a lot of resources on the line.

Or do you really think that White and Case, for example, puts their normal resources behind a pro bono deportation appeal?

[MethuenProgressive]

144. That's an extremely dumb idea. Who said that? Edwards?

Putting words in my mouth? What are you, a trial lawyer?

[BadgerLaw2010]

146. What's a dumb idea? Your post that I responded to? I just gave you the ramifications.

Forget fees. The actual expenses of a major injury case are very significant, at least tens of thousands of dollars and sometimes two digits higher depending on what the issue is. Yes, two digits - expenses in a really big case can run up to and over the million mark without attorneys actual "fees".

See A Civil Action. Tremendously expensive case in even 1980's dollars, but very few frivilous expenses.

Who is going to cover the expenses if the lawyer is not getting a big contingency fee at the end if he wins to pay them off? Forgeting for a moment about office overhead and that the lawyer is actually getting paid, since you seem to think lawyers should not be paid.

[MethuenProgressive]

148. The cure is simple: All lawyers should be civil service employees working for minimum wage.

"you seem to think lawyers should not be paid."
No, they should all get minimum wage as civil servants.
My lawyer. Your lawyer. Monsanto's lawyer.
If lawyering wasn't so lucrative, justice wouldn't be so expensive.

[hlthe2b]

22. Pro Bono work and Contingency work.... both are methods

to help the poor gain justice. I don't know whether Edwards did pro bono work, but as a civil litigator, I'd be willing to bet he took on many cases under contingency (win, he gets paid, lose, he gets nada)....

[cali]

31. baloney. not the same. at all.

and Edwards was very well known for having a good eye for picking winning cases. Nothing wrong with that, but contingency work is not the same as pro bono work.

[1932]

41. Once again, do you acknowledge that the ramifications of Edwards work was a public good?

Regardless of how he was paid (and I argue that he was paid exactly what his clients thought his services were worth to them), do you admit that Edwards had high impact cases that seriously shifted power imbalances in society back to something closer to being fair?

If you acknowledge that, than why would you want Edwards to do anything other than that?

Why should he do a dog bite case for a poor kid, when he could sue a swimming pool drain manufacturer whose product was killing an maiming something like 30 kids whose parents did not have the same financial resources to fight their cases that the manufacturer had to defend the claim?

What would have been a better way to spend his time than suing a interstate trucking company whose policies meant that truckers would drive 20 hours straight and run into a beaten-up subcompact, killing a poor minister and his wife, and winning money for their orphaned child, which forced trucking companies to change their policies, thus protecting 100s of people -- until the Republican NC legislature passed a law that reversed the good effects of Edwards's victory, and made Edwards realize that he could be more effective as a Senator and President.

OH, WAIT, I GET IT! THIS IS THE PRO BONO PART OF HIS CAREER!!!

Cali, this is a true story. Edwards cites that case as one reason he left the law and ran for Senate. if your gold standard is pro bono work, you gotta love a lawyer who has given up his lucrative career as a lawyer to make a bigger difference on larger scale.

[yodermon]

70. Not! The Same! At All!

Pro Bono work was the subject of the OP and Pro Bono work is all this thread may discuss!

There *are* no mitigating factors, and Edwards *is* a hypocrite, I mean look at his senate voting record! Big ass house! Hedge Funds! Bankruptcy bills! He's no true friend of the poor! Ack! Thbbbt!

We should be Very Concerned about Edwards.

But don't worry, we're not DOOOOMED if he's nominated. And the sky's not falling.

[cuke]

133. I'll take that question

There is a large difference between doing pro bono work and taking a "socially beneficial" case on consignment. The people who require pro bono representation are generally not in the position to offer ANYTHING to an atty as compensation because most people who need a pro bono atty need one in order to DEFEND themselves from legal action.

Without a pro bono atty, these people have NO HOPE of legal representation. The people Edwards represented had a chance to get another atty if Edwards had chosen to not represent them. The people who need a pro bono atty do not have the luxury of looking around for another atty. That why the Bar Association puts pro bono work in a class by itself by strongly recommending that ALL attys do a minimum of pro bono work every year.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

152. Very good explanation

[1932]

51. Why do you answer all my questions except the one just above?

[hlthe2b]

119. They are both mechanisms to allow the disadvantaged a

chance at justice, a chance at the courts, that they would not otherwise have. I am very very very surprised at you, Cali. This doesn't sound like you. No, I am not pushing Edwards. I speak out if Obama or Kucinich, or Clinton is similarly misrepresented. I thought in the past that you did too.

[cuke]

134. There's a big difference between pro bono and working on consignment

People who need a pro bono atty are people who are generally DEFENDING themselves against legal action. The people who get an atty on consignment are generally SUING others. If you don't get a pro bono, then you will have no representation. If an atty doesn't want to take your case on consignment, you can always find another lawyer (if you really do have a case)

[hlthe2b]

121. So what is the point? That Edwards is only commendable...

if he were poor and received no salary for his efforts to win justice for those he represented? :shrug:

[H2O Man]

36. Did you know

that John Edwards used to be in the third grade? I'm not sure if he's still in the third grade. But do we want a third-grader for president? Good golly gosh, I've known a lot of third graders, and though I like many of them, I don't want one for president.

[Dora]

137. Oh, my. Now I have to rethink my personal candidate rankings.

:banghead:

Third grade! Why, John, WHYYYYY????

[H2O Man]

151. And I refuse

to even discuss the rumors that he didn't wash his hands once after going to the bathroom. I don't have a link handy, but I am confident it will appear elsewhere in this thread, or one of the many spin-offs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Other Reasons To Like Or Dislike Him

The thing that irks me is the "my candidate's virginal and your candidate is dirty" mentality...The candidates, in the final analysis, are all human beings with all the foibles being a human being brings...

[EV_Ares]

42. Pro bono: being fair to Edwards

A Washington Times editorial asserts that John Edwards during his career as a plaintiff's lawyer "took no pro bono cases", which if true might expose him to obloquy and also could put him into conflict with the ABA's Model Rule on the subject ("The science of malpractice", Jul. 25; see KipEsquire, Jul. 25). Tucker Carlson voiced the same charge on CNN "Crossfire" Jan. 12 (transcript).
But is the charge accurate? In a quick search on "John Edwards" + "pro bono", the most prominent article to turn up is Adam Liptak's Jul. 14 New York Times piece, "Edwards's Lawyerly Style Drew Fierce Foes and Fans", which phrases things rather differently: "Mr. Edwards handled no notable pro bono cases, the typical vehicle for lawyers who want to have a larger impact." (emphasis added). The difference is potentially significant, since an attorney might devote considerable effort to pro bono work without handling any court cases that his colleagues might recognize as notable (say, because they sought to shape the course of the law).

No doubt we'll be hearing more about the nature and scope of Edwards' pro bono efforts as the campaign proceeds. In the mean time, those of us who are skeptical of his candidacy should be careful not to let our criticisms run ahead of the available evidence.


Link: http://www.overlawyered.com/2004/07/pro_bono_being_fair_to_edwards.html

[1932]

57. Furthermore, isn't giving up the practice of the law to run for president on behalf of the powerless

the ultimate pro bono act?

[EV_Ares]

65. Yes it is. What is so asine about this post is just posting something

like this that originated out of the Washington Times (and we know their agenda) and ignoring all of the work this guy has done for those unable to help themselves. I mean if he just made himself rich and did nothing to help others, that would be different. John Edwards has used his money fighting the corporations that have been negligent and corrupt to help the people fight for their rights. You can't do that without money. Now, he is devoting his money and time to try and do more.

[noamnety]

135. No, it's not.

If he wins, he will receive close to $200,000 per year for life.

The "ultimate pro bono act" does not involve the potential of getting paid millions of dollars over your lifetime.

Work for hire is not pro-bono, work on spec is not pro bono, paid work, work done with the hope of getting paid does not magically become pro bono by being "for a good cause."

[1932]

149. He gave up a lucrative career to become a public servant.

People are complaining about whether he followed his professions recommendations on voluntary service.

Here's the rule:

Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Public Service
Rule 6.1 Voluntary Pro Bono Publico Service
Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay. A lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year. In fulfilling this responsibility, the lawyer should:
(a) provide a substantial majority of the (50) hours of legal services without fee or expectation of fee to:
(1) persons of limited means or
(2) charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and educational organizations in matters that are designed primarily to address the needs of persons of limited means; and
(b) provide any additional services through:
(1) delivery of legal services at no fee or substantially reduced fee to individuals, groups or organizations seeking to secure or protect civil rights, civil liberties or public rights, or charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and educational organizations in matters in furtherance of their organizational purposes, where the payment of standard legal fees would significantly deplete the organization's economic resources or would be otherwise inappropriate;
(2) delivery of legal services at a substantially reduced fee to persons of limited means; or
(3) participation in activities for improving the law, the legal system or the legal profession.
In addition, a lawyer should voluntarily contribute financial support to organizations that provide legal services to persons of limited means.

It seems to me that if a plaintiffs lawyer takes a case on a contingency, representing a person of limited means whom they know will not be able to pay if they lose, they satisfy rule 6.1(a)(1). It seems that by running for president and participating in a public debate on important issues, he's satisfying rule 6.1(b)(3).

Furthermore, if you look at his FEC filings, you'll see that he has given significant donations to charities throughout his career, and he gave a lot of money to charities before running for president. I don't know if those organizations provide legal services, but they definitely provide valuable services to people.

[noamnety]

150. I gave up a lucrative career to be a public servant.

My previous job earned three times as much money as my current one, but I opted to take this.

If I went around claiming this was pro bono people here would call me a pompous liar, with just cause. If I'd quit my previous job and then spent a year networking to get this job for less pay, not knowing for sure if I would get it, that would still not make it pro bono.

I've taught some classes knowing we might have budget cuts and I might not get paid for them. That is STILL not pro bono work.

I donate to charities, but that's not what pro bono WORK is.

Whether he did or didn't do pro bono work, I don't know. I haven't seen any evidence proving he did or he didn't, either way. But I do know his supporters look like dishonest fools when they claim that work he did "kinda sorta counted" as pro bono, even though he had a written contract stating that if his clients won the case he'd get paid.

[mtnsnake]

45. K&R

[EV_Ares]

80. I agree, K&R. Did so myself, this post needs to get up there for

all to see. I like how this has shown others the good work John Edwards has done and could do in the future.

[saltpoint]

53. I remain impressed by and committed to John Edwards, would like living

in a United States under his governance, and reiterate my support for his campaign.

[Clark2008]

115. I'd move.

I'm looking to do so now.

The only people who'll get to be president - on both sides - are those who kiss corporate ass, including Edwards.

I don't look any forward to living under John "Weathervane" Edwards than I would Mr. 9/11, Mr. I'm Really a Christian or Mr. Lazy on the Republican side.

[saltpoint]

131. I think you should move. Definitely. I'll help pay for the U-haul.

[JTFrog]

55. When an attorney takes a case

on a contingency fee, he takes a big gamble. He agrees to work for free. For nothing from his client. His clients don't pay a cent, and he often works for years without any payment of any kind. Beyond that, he often advances the cost of litigation. And if the attorney loses, they likely won't get back the money they advanced for litigation costs.

[Lex]

63. Exactly.

nt

[frazzled]

84. Bull ... litigation lawyers only work on contingency when they know they can win big $$

They can pick and choose which cases to take... and they're happy to take a case on contingency if they think the payoff will be big and the case is strong.

By pro bono, we're talking something else entirely.

[JTFrog]

90. Tort lawyers do not do pro-bono.

As noted many places in this thread, this isn't really a fair comparison.

[BadgerLaw2010]

141. There's nothing stopping a tort lawyer from doing some pro bono

It's not illegal or against eithical rules. :eyes:

A PI firm probably can't litigate a complex case pro bono because the costs are dramatic in litigation, but that doesn't mean they can't do OTHER work where their skills would be very much appreciated.

Most pro bono work isn't squarely in someone's billable expertise i.e. international transaction law firms representing people from Africa at deportation appeals.

[EVDebs]

58. A better question, how many cases taken on contingency basis on progressive causes

I'll bet a high number. The swimming pool case that started him with media attention most likely was done on a contingency basis. This is how most groups and individuals (see the movie "A Civil Action" with John Travolta) get funded at all, waiting to win at trial and take the fees out of the losing corporation....

Ahhh, that's the ticket, the Corporate Power doesn't want to see JE in the Oval Office since he'd empower the weaker individual REAL persons, not the continuing aglomoration of Corporate LEGAL Power. It's time to scale back that corporate legal muscle.

[Melinda]

61. How Tortious! Personal Injury Attorneys do NOT perform Pro Bono - not ever.

No such animal exists in the area of Tort law. Not now, not ever.

Now if Edwards had been a Family Law, Criminal Law, Probate, or even Reparian rights attorney, the Washington Times article may have contained merit.

As it is, it's nothing more than a multiple years long hit piece continually smearing its way across the web and, with the help of some here at DU, into the culture of today's non-thinking electorate.

:eyes:

[BadgerLaw2010]

145. Tort lawyers are not excused from ABA guidelines.

Everyone is supposed to do some PB work.

[Melinda]

153. Tort attorneys do not do plaintiff pro bono, they can do defense, however:

in my now 20+ years in the legal profession, I have yet to meet a private practice attorney who has represented a defense client at no cost. Look a bit closer at this reference to the guidelines once more:

9] Because the provision of pro bono services is a professional responsibility, it is the individual ethical commitment of each lawyer. Nevertheless, there may be times when it is not feasible for a lawyer to engage in pro bono services. At such times a lawyer may discharge the pro bono responsibility by providing financial support to organizations providing free legal services to persons of limited means. Such financial support should be reasonably equivalent to the value of the hours of service that would have otherwise been provided. In addition, at times it may be more feasible to satisfy the pro bono responsibility collectively, as by a firm's aggregate pro bono activities.

This would, by definition, include Edwards Public service as a US Senator, as well as his involvement in UNC's Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, and the John Edwards Center for Poverty.

And then of course, there is the pesky fact that the OP is citing a Washington Times article as 'factual'.... when did DU begin relying on, and believing in anything published by the moonies?

My head spins.

[gratuitous]

62. Sifting the evidence; verdict: Hit job

Sorry, this one doesn't pass any kind of test for someone who's worked in the legal business for more than a quarter century. This spurious charge is propagated by folks who either don't understand the nature of pro bono work or who depend on general public ignorance of what pro bono work is.

While plaintiff's attorneys, as has been discussed in this thread, take on cases on a contingency fee basis (they only get paid if they win), plaintiff's attorneys will sift through anywhere from five to five hundred potential clients to find one paying case. Of the cases that don't go anywhere, many of them will require at least a half hour and others many hours of lawyering before it becomes apparent that the case is a loser. In none of those cases will the attorney realize a dime for his or her work.

That being said, there are all sorts of work that can be considered pro bono - that is, for the public good. One lawyer I knew routinely offered the writing of two simple wills as a raffle prize for a local charity. Others will often counsel callers with legal questions for which they don't receive any compensation. Some local bar associations are very organized, and have a pro bono vehicle or a volunteer lawyers project that assists low income folks with things like renter disputes or government agency snafus. In addition, there are pro bono "lawyer to lawyer" projects where an experienced attorney will advise a new attorney without charge on procedural conduct of a case.

Pro bono work often doesn't involve any court filings or the official involvement of an attorney and there is therefore no public record of a lawyer's work on a case. Some pro bono work makes significant legal advances, but the near totality of pro bono cases are low-profile work that doesn't generate anything except the resolution of a conflict. The statement that John Edwards didn't do any pro bono work is spurious. The conclusion that he didn't stand up for social justice isn't warranted at all based on that spurious statement.

Verdict: This post is an inflammatory hit job.

[Lex]

64. The whole article depends on ignorance of everything you just set out.

nt

[EV_Ares]

66. Second the hit job analysis.

[PVnRT]

73. Very well done

:applause:

[Mass]

67. Tort lawyers do not do pro-bono. They do contengency work.

All the goal is to get their client MONEY, and they get a % of what their client gets. If their client gets nothing, they get nothing. This is how poor people can afford suing big corporations.

You can discuss whether Edwards was taking a particularly large % or not. I do not know the answer to this question, but it could be worth asking, but the probono question strikes me as totally silly.

[noamnety]

86. That's odd.

LAW FOUNDATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, INC.

PLACE: Probono lawyers may use meeting space at the Law Foundation's offices (5303 Baltimore Avenue (Rte. 1), Hyattsville, MD). Volunteers also may work at a number of Prince George's County shelters or soup kitchens (generally located in Hyattsville, Capitol Heights, Beaver Heights and Adelphi) during the evenings, at lunch time or on weekends.

LAW MEMBERSHIP: Volunteers must be members of the Maryland Bar to volunteer with the Law Foundation's programs.

MALPRACTICE INSURANCE: Provided through the Prince George's County Law Foundation.

TRAINING/ORIENTATION/ASSISTANCE: Formal training sessions are provided once per year. However, videotapes of a training session and a manual are available for volunteers. In addition, the Law Foundation has a network of mentoring attorneys including a family law clinic operated by three leading family law attorneys in Prince George's County.

KINDS OF CASES: The Law Foundation has several programs. The main program consists of representing individual clients in family law, landlord?tenant, tort defense, replevin, will and power of attorney preparation, and school suspension cases not involving drugs or weapons.

http://www.dot.gov/ost/ogc/PRO%20BONO/serviceproviders.htm

[JTFrog]

94. self-delte n/t

[yodermon]

74. yes, yes, very troubling.

Edwards may in fact be engaging in populist shtick just to get elected, just to turn and go all Bilderberger on us. Oh no! We just don't know now, do we?

I'm he spent his career suing huge negligent corporations with a wink and a nod, and with a middle finger raised behind his back to his poor downtrodden clients. No social justice for them (or at least no pro bono work!), at least not when he's president. Maybe. No one here really knows, now, do they?

Your concern is palpable.

But at least the sky isn't falling, and neither are we DOOOOMED (*whew*).

[Celebration]

76. Didn't he go to a Bilderberger meeting? n/t

[yodermon]

79. Yes! Yes he did!

Ack! The new world order is upon us!

[smoogatz]

77. One of the dumbest Dem primary "gotcha" posts of the season.

And that's saying something. As others here have noted, personal injury lawyers generally take cases on a contingency or percentage basis (they typically get around half of the award amount, if they win). In essence, Edwards represented ALL of his personal injury clients "pro bono," because said clients paid nothing out of pocket for his services. All of the fees he collected were paid by the defendants, not by his clients.

[asdjrocky]

83. Thank you.

But don't expect Cali to answer someone who actually makes since.

[asdjrocky]

78. What a stupid and silly and inflammatory statement.

Do you have a job? When was the last time you did it for free?

Defense lawyers often do pro bono work. Everything Edwards did was on contingent that if he doesn't win for the people that he is representing, then he gets NOTHING. He was an attorney who sued corporations.

Again, I can understand you supporting someone, but you only seem to be here to oppose. I'm interested in your motives.

Also, I'm interested in why someone that grew up privileged, yes I mean you, would hate someone with such venom, who has a populist message.

(I only say you grew up privileged because of statements you've made in the past. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance for my misunderstanding.


Peas in a pod.

edited for spelling

[mzteris]

85. some clarifications

As a lawyer, Edwards went for the big payoffs, making millions suing doctors, hospitals and corporations and building a net worth he's reported at about $30 million. Edwards wasn't an anti-poverty lawyer, and he did b]little pro bono work. He didn't emphasize fighting poverty when he ran as a moderate in 1998, defeating Republican Sen. Lauch Faircloth, or during his six years in the Senate.
http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/372793.html

says he did "litle" not none.

*******

Mr. Edwards handled no notable pro bono cases, the typical vehicle for lawyers who want to have a larger impact. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E7DB163AF937A25754C0A9629C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=print


emphasis mine. "no notable cases" is not the same as no cases at all.
******

And another perspective -

Kirby said he was unaware of Edwards doing pro bono work while he headed his own firm, but he often adjusted or waived his fees for people of limited means. He said that about half of Edwards clients could be described as the working poor.

"What I saw up close and personal was somebody who never turned his back on anyone who was truly in need," Kirby said. "Probably the most impressive thing about John is he had a core value that everyone deserved respect whether you were a bank president or whether you were the janitor's assistant cleaning the floor." http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/story/643470-p2.html

"unaware" doesn't mean it didn't happen. I think the rest of what Kirby says is important to note, too.

[Cameron27]

87. Why would he adjust or waive his fees

if as someone said above "Everything Edwards did was on contingent that if he doesn't win for the people that he is representing, then he gets NOTHING. He was an attorney who sued corporations."

[mzteris]

88. he had more cases than just those, you know. n/t

[Cameron27]

89. Well yes, I know he had more cases than those

but the poster said everything he did.

On edit: This was said from an ardent supporter, who apparently has researched his record and history well.

[mzteris]

95. um -

could you please clarify what you said. I'm afraid I'm not following . . .

[Cameron27]

97. That's ok,

I'll ask the poster directly.

[mzteris]

101. do you mean the OP?

or what?

I'm not an ardent Edwards supporter. I support ALL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.

[asdjrocky]

91. Thank you for the words and the links.

Now I can support Edwards even more!


My pick!

It's gotta really suck to be proven wrong so much.

[Cameron27]

92. So do you know which cases he worked based on

contigency fees?

[asdjrocky]

98. Guess what?

I don't care. If it's important to you, use your own fingers and find out.

You can do it, just put one finger in front of the other.

Meet the new boss...

...same as the old boss.

[Cameron27]

99. I thought you were very concerned about links

and sourced information. I guess that only applies to other posters.

[asdjrocky]

102. I now know the information.

Why should I share it with you? It's obvious no one here is going to change your mind.

Man, it's Deja Vu all over again with you.

Good luck to your candidate!

[Cameron27]

104. I had the courtesy of spending over an hour

looking for a link for a statement that I made about John Edwards. The statement was true, it came from a law review article that was actually favorable to Edwards, but since I couldn't find the source, I retracted the entire thing.

It's deja vu with you, but not in a good way. Don't dog anyone else for source info and then put up a stink when you're asked for the same thing about a statement you made. I don't doubt that Kirby would never say anything that reflected badly on Edwards anyway, but he seems to have contradicted your previous post.

Goodbye for now.

[asdjrocky]

109. Just look up

Plenty of links for you. Lot's of information. Should I go get it for you and provide you a link in my next reply? I'm happy to do it if you just ask.

Well?

[Cameron27]

112. Povide the links that show that

all his cases were based on contigency fees as you strongly stated above. Since Kirby's contradicted that, I'd like you to post the links that back up your contention.

[EV_Ares]

103. There is a lot of info out there on Edwards and if you have any knowledge

about trial lawyers and if you read a lot of the posts here by those in the legal profession, trial lawyers do their work on a contingency basis so the cases are numerous. Defense attorneys do theirs on a hourly billing. When you have one of them working for you, every time you pick up the phone and talk to them, you are being billed. Their phones in the large firms basically have a clock in them so they can keep track.

As for cases, it is not too difficult for you to find out. I am sure you being a DU poster, you don't mind his work for people where they needed him to go against a large corporation. If not for contingency fees, a lot of people would be defenseless.

I think this post turned out well for John Edwards.

[Cameron27]

105. Thanks but this really isn't about John Edwards,

and I have plenty of information already.

Peace

[EV_Ares]

107. Good.

[mzteris]

100. I support ALL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES!

I do have my preferences - and to be honest, it's not John - but that's for reasons that have nothing to do with how good a President he'd make. I think he'd actually make a very fine President.

I just dislike skewed, selective, out-of-context, or dis - information.

[Clark2008]

106. Thank you.

[Madam Mossfern]

113. Is Edwards running for POTUS

or saint? What does pro bono work of ANY candidate have to do with whether they would make a good president?

[Clark2008]

116. It doesn't because the other candidates aren't pretending to

care about the poor and middle class like Edwards does.

He didn't do anything for them as an attorney or as a Senator and now he says that's all he's about, which isn't necessarily true - that's the point.

[hlthe2b]

126. the other candidates aren't "pretending to care about the poor

and middle class"....? Boy, this post does give you away.... "Didn't do anything for them as an attorney or as a Senator..." Like hyperbole much?

I like and respect Clark, too. I would be equally appalled if someone painted him with such broad (and unsubstantiated) slurs.
:shrug:

[frogmarch]

117. make that, no NOTABLE pro bono cases

http://www.overlawyered.com/2004/07/pro_bono_being_fair_to_edwards.html

Pro bono: being fair to Edwards

A Washington Times editorial asserts that John Edwards during his career as a plaintiff's lawyer "took no pro bono cases", which if true might expose him to obloquy and also could put him into conflict with the ABA's Model Rule on the subject ("The science of malpractice", Jul. 25; see KipEsquire, Jul. 25). Tucker Carlson voiced the same charge on CNN "Crossfire" Jan. 12 (transcript).
But is the charge accurate? In a quick search on "John Edwards" + "pro bono", the most prominent article to turn up is Adam Liptak's Jul. 14 New York Times piece,

"Edwards's Lawyerly Style Drew Fierce Foes and Fans", which phrases things rather differently: "Mr. Edwards handled no notable pro bono cases, the typical vehicle for lawyers who want to have a larger impact." (emphasis added). The difference is potentially significant, since an attorney might devote considerable effort to pro bono work without handling any court cases that his colleagues might recognize as notable (say, because they sought to shape the course of the law).

[aintitfunny]

118. I must ask - what is it with you and your axe grinding

with John Edwards? If you don't like him don't vote for him. Please feel free to disagree with anyone who supports him or counter their positive spin with your alternative opinion. That being said, however, this along with a number of other posts I have read today under your name point to a single-minded devotion to slinging Rovian talking points against this one candidate. I wonder at the motive - are your for anyone or simply anti-Edwards?

Meanwhile I personally don't care if he has not done pro-bono work - he is not a defense attorney. As to what John Edwards was two years ago does not impact what he is today - so, again, I don't care. I do care who and what he is today, I care about what he stands for. Additionally, I have to say I admire a grown-up who acknowledges error and learns from it. We already have a President who refuses to admit any error and would not change for any reason because he believes he makes no mistakes. I am personally weary of such sociopathic rigidity.

I support John Edward's candidacy. I will vote for him in the primary. I will support the eventual Democratic nominee whoever that may be.

[stranger81]

123. I'd be shocked if he didn't do pro bono -- almost all of us do,

and the state bar organizations certainly encourage it.

[asdjrocky]

127. He has. It's been proven.

Just look up and you'll see. It's hard for a lawyer NOT to do pro bono. Anyone that knows any lawyers would know that. This is just what the person who posted the OP does. There's never any proof. One of the easiest things to do is accuse.

See the Salem Witch Trials.

And welcome to DU. Proud to have you as a fellow Dem!

[Bake]

129. The bigger question: Why does it matter at all whether he did pro bono or not?

What does that have to do with what kind of President he'd be?

Has anybody asked Dr. Ron Paul how much pro bono work he's done? What about the other lawyers who are running? Biden, I think, is a lawyer -- how much has HE done? Kucinich isn't a lawyer (as far as I know), so what do we ask HIM about? Obama is a lawyer - how much pro bono does HE do?

The whole pro bono issue is a distraction.

Bake, Esq.
Ask me how much pro bono I do.

[AZ Criminal JD]

136. Attorneys are expected to do pro bono work

By the State Bar Association of their state. Medical doctors have no such expectations. I am not going to ask how much pro bono you do because I don't care. You aren't running for President. It says something about a person's character if he is not complying with bar standards.

[Bake]

154. Wrong. In most states, at least.

Attorneys are not "expected" to do pro bono. They are encouraged to do pro bono. The rule in the two states in which I am admitted are aspirational, not mandatory.

I do some pro bono work. I'm also expected to bill 2000 hours a year.

Bake

[Poppa]

130. What a stupid, stupid post!

I find it hard to believe that someone would take the time and effort to post a question as dumb as this one and then to have the balls to answer it to try to prove their preconceived ideas. Hey Cali, ever hear of the old "answer in search of a question" routine used by someone trying to make a partisan point while hiding their poor writing and/or questioning skills There are so many more important questions that could be asked of Edwards and the other Democratic candidates. What a waste of time.

[asdjrocky]

132. We had quite a rash of stupid anti-Edwards posts on this morning.

Welcome to DU, by the way, glad to have you!


My pick in 08!

[robbedvoter]

138. I am glad you guys are above getting personal - gives you a lot of credibility

when accusing everyone else who doesn't worship your candidate of doing so.

[robbedvoter]

139. I am sure his red state constituents would have resented such a pinko attitude

as much as they would a liberal voting in the senate. What's a lawyer to do?
Antagonize his backward clientele? :shrug:

[JNelson6563]

140. "The answer appears to be..." "Some people say..."

Real high quality piece here. Fetch the crutches, serious case of lame goin' on here.

Julie

[tkmorris]

147. I don't care, and I don't know why you do

He's done tremendous good for society in his work as lawyer, and his ideas for the presidency are even better. I don't care if he did pro bono work, or adopted stray kittens, or put on a funny nose and performed for kids dying of Leukemia.

This is absurd Cali.