• Home
  • News
  • Judge Warns Firms: Be Sure to Supervise Pro Bono Counsel

Law Practice Management

Judge Warns Firms: Be Sure to Supervise Pro Bono Counsel

Posted Jun 18, 2009 7:11 AM CST
By Molly McDonough

A Bronx trial judge used a divorce case as an opportunity to warn law firms that they ought to be more careful when sending inexperienced lawyers to do pro bono legal work.

The caution came from Acting Supreme Court Justice Ellen Gesmer, who granted a woman's motion to void a settlement stipulation because her pro bono divorce lawyer from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom made errors and was inadequately supervised, the New York Law Journal reports.

Notably, Gesmer said that law firms should be sure their subordinates "receive appropriate support and supervision, so that they can provide pro bono clients with the same careful legal representation that they provide to paying clients."

At issue was the staff attorney's handling of her first divorce case, which she took on for inMotion, a not-for-profit legal group that assists low-income women.

A Skadden partner in charge of the firm's pro bono program characterized the complaint as a rare instance of someone complaining about the quality of the firm's representation.

The Law Journal reports that the staff attorney accepted an initially uncontested divorce case, but failed to seek assistance once the woman's husband contested the action.

Updated at 3:07 p.m. to indicate that it was a staff attorney who handled the case.

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Jun 18, 2009 7:27 AM CST

I have to say, this is exactly the result anyone should expect, when you take a BigLaw newbie, and hand them a domestic litigation case to work on their own.  As many prior posters on this site have said of the BigLaw castaways, they indeed do not have a clue how to do the basic nuts-and-bolts litigation work that legal aid attorneys and public defenders handle every day. (One reason so many remain unemployed).  Wake up, Skadden.  Ethical obligations are fully applicable whether or not the engagement is “pro bono.”

Flag this comment

2.

Joe
Jun 18, 2009 9:03 AM CST

if Big Law can’t do pro bono, is it any wonder that Big Law is behind all the firms that are raping america on wall street?  what is big law good for other than to collect high fees?

Flag this comment

3.

No Bono
Jun 18, 2009 12:30 PM CST

The problem with pro bono work is how little the clients appreciate your work for them.  People appreciate things that they pay or work for and often don’t appreciate things that are free or inexpensive.

This is a classic case.  The client didn’t pay for the lawyer’s services, now she’s complaining about the result.  A result to which she had previously agreed.  Now she’s ruined her “free” lawyer’s career at Skadden because she’s changed her mind about what she agreed to. 

The lesson here?  Don’t do pro bono.  The clients are often disagreeable, inflexible, rude, and will turn on their attorney in a heart-beat.

Flag this comment

4.

fed up
Jun 18, 2009 8:38 PM CST

What about newbies that go solo a year out of law school, who’s protecting the public from those disasters-in-progress?

Flag this comment

5.

B. McLeod
Jun 19, 2009 11:57 PM CST

That is a good question.  I think it is the case that many of them were prepared by clinical programs at their law schools (because, unlike BigLaw candidates, they knew they were going to have to make it solo).  Others have the wisdom to seek advice from older lawyers (because, unlike BigLaw candidates, it is OK for them to admit there are things they don’t know).  Still others may learn by trial and error, and if they cause many disasters in the process, the disciplinary system will eventually weed them out (or, they may be recruited for BigLaw management committees, where causing disasters will not be a handicap).

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.