Carolyn Elefant at My Shingle comments in a recent post about an often-overlooked benefit of doing pro bono work: "new and/or less experienced attorneys or solos can use pro bono cases to gain substantial litigation experience."
Carolyn's post comes at the same time as the ABA Section of Litigation's "Report on the Task Force on Training the Trial Lawyer," which I posted about at the Illinois Trial Practice Blog. The ABA report found that some large firms "actively solicit certain kinds of pro bono cases that seem likely to go to trial" (Introduction, ix).
In my early career at this defense firm, I handled four federal court-appointed cases: a lawsuit by a prisoner complaining about the second-hand smoke created by his cellmate; a habeas corpus action for a convicted felon; the defense of a young man arrested for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute; and an action by an Indian inmate who wanted a sweat lodge constructed at Missouri's maximum security prison.
Based on my own experience, I agree with Carolyn Elefant and the musings of the ABA: these cases were great training. The experience was even better because my employer allowed the many hours I worked on the cases to count towards my billable hour requirements. I wonder how common that is? (I also did other state court pro bono work, such as defense of eviction actions, with the same support by my employer).
What happened with my federal court appointments? Four losses, thank you very much. On the cocaine case, however, I did shock the prosecutors by winning my motion to suppress the evidence, which delayed the trial about six months until the prosecutors obtained a reversal in U.S. v. Locklin, 943 F.2d 838 (8th Cir. 1991). At that point, we reached a plea agreement.
Comments