Pro Bono for Defendant Who Earns $200K? Jones Day Says Yes

Pro Bono

Pro Bono for Defendant Who Earns $200K? Jones Day Says Yes

Posted Jan 28, 2008, 04:18 pm CDT
By Molly McDonough

The former sheriff of Orange County is getting just about the best defense money can buy. Only he won't have to pay much.

Megafirm Jones Day is taking Michael S. Carona as a pro bono client, defending him on charges that he sold access to his office for cash, favors and gifts, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The decision to represent Carona without charge caused the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog to equate it to Winston & Strawn's move to represent Illinois' disgraced Gov. George Ryan. That reportedly cost the firm $20 million, and Ryan was convicted, to boot.

Carona, who collects an estimated $200,000 a year in retirement, makes him an unlikely pro bono legal services recipient.

"For us, that wouldn't be a typical pro bono client," the Times quotes Esther F. Lardent, president and chief executive of the Pro Bono Institute at Georgetown University Law Center. "When we talk about modest means, we're typically talking about someone with significantly lower income."

The Times chronicles a series of events it claims led to Jones Day taking Carona's case, including a strong interest in the case by partner Brian A. Sun, a former federal prosecutor who vindicated nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee a $1.65-million settlement.

Carona won't be getting all the work for free. He'll be expected to pay defense costs, including investigators and expert witnesses.

"To suggest that he's getting a free legal ride is wholly inaccurate," Sun is quoted saying. "Mike and his family will likely expend much of their net worth defending these charges."

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Absurdist - 7 months, 23 hours, 19 minutes ago

I was under the impression that pro bono—Latin for “for the public good” was used for the less fortunate.
Posted by Mike Hunt - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 17 minutes ago

This sheriff obviously has political connections, and friends that can help the firm $$$$$ down the line. He’ll get good representation from this firm (I’ve heard of them), and then, there will be payback. The sherriff also could be like Forrest Gump for all we know, not so dumb after all.
Posted by BIGLAW 1ST YEAR - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 37 minutes ago

That is socialist nonsense that the public good somehow equates to helping the poor.
Posted by BiglawPartner - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 21 minutes ago

Seems to me that if he has to pay attendant costs and is using up all of his net worth to pay for this, he’s hardly pro bono. Either way you slice it, the Sheriff isn’t going to have any retirement money by the time this is all said and done. Given that he’s probably in his 60’s, where is he going to be able to get a job?
Posted by BigKapono - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 14 minutes ago

"Socialist nonsense”??

What should the poor do if they aren’t offered help? Submit a grant proposal and use the funds?

Those that can afford it should help themselves; those that can’t deserve help.
Posted by BIGLAW 1ST YEAR - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 46 minutes ago

In response to post #4, which questions what the poor should do if they aren’t offered help.

1. Help themselves. Take personal responsibility. People should not expect the help of others.

2. If you are poor, you should take that into account when deciding whether to commit a crime. If you can’t afford an attorney, don’t commit crimes.
This is the problem with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment—we shouldn’t be giving free public defenders to every “poor”
person. This encourages crime.

3. I don’t know what grant you are talking. The government shouldn’t be giving out free money to begin with.

4. Speaking from experience (you wouldn’t know it from my rhetoric but I’ve done a lot of pro bono work for POOR people), giving free services to the poor furthers the mentality that they are somehow entitled to everything in life for free (welfare, unemployment benefits, housing, food stamps,
medical care, etc.). Then they treat their lawyers like crap and ask them all sorts of irrelevant questions and have them help them with all sorts of immaterial matters; a paying client would know better than to waste a
lawyer’s time because time is money.

5. Finally, helping the poor squeezes out those right above the “poor line” (whatever standard is used by the firm) and the middle class, who can’t
afford the same luxury or as good of an attorney as the poor has. Again, this creates an incentive to be poor.
Posted by Old Shark - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 21 minutes ago

I do not encourage pro bono work. First there is no (or very limited need) for it.

Thanks to LBJ, the war on poverty was essentially won. Starvation is a thing of the past in America. The poorest of the poor have cable TV, internet, soda pop, and smokes.

When I started practicing, I told the local bar to send me some needy referrals. The cases sent seemed to earn more than myself as a young attorney.

The local bar president explained that there was an initiative to perform pro bono and the bar would accept a certain number of cases to meet that quota. So poverty be damned: the bar would locate and provide a certain number of free hours using an essentially lax view of need.

My advice: Do free work if it gives you some charge. However, keep in mind based on my experience that nonpaying clients are the most demanding and the group most inclined to file a complaint with the disciplinary counsel. After all, people rarely value that which is free
Posted by bullslawdan - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 15 minutes ago

I’ll preface this by saying that before I went to law school, I got my BS in Criminal Justice, concentrating in Criminology.

Ok. Your comment that having a public defender to provide justice for the poor “encourages crime” is one of the most asinine things I’ve ever had the displeasure to read. The criminal mind simply does not work that way.

The alternative is simply wrong - having poor people go without adequate representation. They are innocent of any crime until proven guilty, remember? I know they don’t often talk about that at “BIGLAW”, but maybe you managed to squeeze a 1-credit seminar on the Constitution in between your M&A classes…

Furthermore, do you know how Clarence Earl Gideon got his appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court? A claim of inadequate representation. Imagine the cost if EVERY poor person was a Gideon and could appeal on the same basis.
Posted by Seamus - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 13 minutes ago

I was under the impression that pro bono—Latin for “for the public good” was used for the less fortunate.

And here I’d always been led to believe that “pro bono publico” meant “liberal political advocacy.” I’m always amused when white shoe firms take, as “pro bono” cases, work for such clients as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (in the famous Thornburg case decided by the Supreme Court in 1986; one would have thought that if anyone could pay legal bills, it would be a bunch of OB/GYNs), or various school districts in litigation brought by parents--but only where the school district’s position is politically correct (thus, representing the school district when the parents want their children excused from mandatory sex education class, but not when they want their children excused from saying the pledge of allegiance). If the explanation is that it’s legitimate to represent the state “pro bono publico” when the goal really is the public good, then it would seem that the quintessential litigation for the public good would be criminal prosecution, yet I don’t see any white-shoe firms offering their services to help put Mafia kingpins behind bars.
Posted by BIGLAW 1ST YEAR - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 9 minutes ago

How does innocent until proven guilty equal free attorney? Did you not read the Constitution in your seminar? It says nothing about a “free” attorney! That concept was invented by the socialists.

Pro se clients can’t provide ineffective assistance to themselves. Such a system would really help unclog the federal and state docket.
Posted by Ronnie - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 45 minutes ago

BIGLAW, I think the “innocent until proven guilty” comment was based on your “If you can’t afford an attorney, don’t commit crimes” comment. If you are innocent, and poor, a defender should be able to help, and for free if necessary. Your scenario did appear to jump to the conclusion that the defendant was guilty without having been proven so. That may not have been what you meant to say, but it certainly did read that way.
Posted by Childadvocate - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 7 minutes ago

Before folks criticize Jones Day’s pro bono choices, maybe you should look to see what other pro bono cases they have taken: habeas, asylum, human rights, immigration, 9/11 victims, and abused and neglected children. Comments such as “They should help themselves” and “There is no need for pro bono work” are ignorant and offensive. Come down from your ivory tower…
Posted by SB - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 6 minutes ago

BIGLAW, I’m impressed with how well you speak while choking on that silver spoon imbedded between your teeth…

My Constitution says that I have a right to due process and a fair trial. Your bigotted statement ignores several realities: 1) There are people in this country who are homeless, underfed, unemployed, undereducated, and unable or less able to obtain these things. 2) Those who have everything they want or need cannot understand why those who do not can’t “just get a job” and get them. 3) Poor people are more likely to commit crimes because, for example, right or wrong, stealing is one way of getting things you can’t afford. 4) Poor people are typically less educated and, therefore, less able to provide an adequate defense for themselves if left without an attorney’s assistance. 5) In my state, if a person is convicted, they have to pay the state back for the attorney fees expended by the state for their defense, so that attorney isn’t really “free.” 6) To get back to my original point, an unrepresented person is much more likely to be wrongly convicted, much less likely to recognize grounds for suppression of evidence, much less likely to know what evidence he/she needs or how to get it, etc., etc. Therefore, an unrepresented, uneducated “poor” person cannot get the fair trial and due process protections that MY Constitution says he has a right to have. This is the real reason we have court-appointed attorneys and public defenders, not some “socialist” agenda.

As an attorney, I am appalled at anyone who has that much animosity towards the less fortunate. As someone who grew up “poor,” I am disgusted and offended by the same.
Posted by Danielle - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 58 minutes ago

The Sixth Amendment states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ... have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” Therefore, I don’t understand all the debate. Prior to Gideon, when only the rich could afford counsel, this was a misinterpretation of the Sixth Amendment. From its wording, it seems obvious that the Founders intended defendants to have assistance of counsel in ALL criminal prosecutions. The notion of pro bono work therefore seems completely consistent with the Sixth Amendment.
Posted by BIGLAW 1ST YEAR - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 10 minutes ago

To Danielle (Post #13),

Wow did you miss the point! First off, never did I argue that the Sixth
Amendment bars pro bono work, rather free public defenders. Moreover, you
misquoted the Sixth Amendment. If you are going to quote something, please do it correctly (hence the term “quote”). Or are we living in a
society where our “living Constitution” is that easily amended? Based on
Post #12, that very well may be the case (I thought there was only 1
Constitution???).

“[O]nly the rich could afford counsel” before Gideon is an inaccurate
statement. As a lawyer, you should appreciate the importance of
thinking/researching before you speak. Also, doesn’t your argument
defy logic since criminal defendants also have the RIGHT to defend
themselves? I’m sure our Ivory Tower Supreme Court will take that away one
day (especially if socialist Obama gets elected).

So you’re telling me the Sixth Amendment was wrongly interpreted from its
enactment until 1960? Don’t you think our founders knew a little more about
the interpretation of it than a few judges in what was arguably the most
(or at least second most) judicially activist Court in all of history? The
right to something does not entail the right to have it for free, never has
and hopefully never will. If it does, where is my free gun guaranteed me by
the Second Amendment?

One point to SB (Post #12),

Although your point #5 would seemingly be valid if reality ceased to exist,
the fact is an overwhelming majority of the money payable to the state for
fees incurred while the state defends a person who was convicted never gets
paid back to the state. Can you think of why? Oh yes, the people are poor!
They have no money. Many of them make sixteen cents an hour working in
prison.
Posted by ADA - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 9 minutes ago

As a prosecutor, I believe that it is absolutely essential that counsel represent criminal defendants. In our modern justice system it is simply not wise or feasible for defendants to proceed pro se. To think so is a mockery of our system. How can we expect ill-educated, sometimes illiterate people to navigate a system that many lawyers, who have been educated and trained, are unable to navigate? (I would like to go up against BIGLAW any day in a jury trial). The law holds pro se defendants to the same standard as attorneys in filing motions and making legal arguments. The courts would be even more backlogged with frivolous motions and confused defendants if only people with BIGLAW’s salary were able to hire attorneys.

That said, this is a bit much in terms of being pro bono. There are certainly more deserving clients out there. It is true, however, that Carona’s retirement will be gone, no matter the outcome.
Posted by ptd - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 1 minute ago

RE comment 7 above--No one is “innocent” until proven guilty. One is “presumed” innocent, that does not makeit so either before or after the verdict or plea. It is standard (and ignorant) fare for the news media to state that someone plead “Innocent” or was found “innocent"--no such plea or finding. Please promote use of the right term for the right presumption, plea, or finding. Guilty or not guilty, presumed innocent, found not-guilty. He may be innocent, but he is found not-guilty.
Posted by BIGLAW 1ST YEAR - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 16 hours, 53 minutes ago

Hey ADA,

I too would love to go against you in a jury trial. Not to toot my own
horn, but I was one of the best researchers/writers at my school and one of
the top oral arguers in a national competition. Additionally, you don’t
even know the law! How can you expect to win anything without knowing the
law? You said “The law holds pro se defendants to the same standard as
attorneys in filing motions and making legal arguments.” This is absolutely
wrong! I did my U.S. Court of Appeals clerkship, I know about the indulgent
standards accorded pro se filers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
Posted by Danielle - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 15 hours, 1 minute ago

Response to “Biglaw” post #14 -
No, I did not misquote the Sixth Amendment. I quoted it verbatim.
I suggest you read a copy before you attack others and make a fool of yourself.
As for the rest of your ramblings, I’m not going to dignify them with a response.
I made a salient point - and I know what I’m talking about. You are obviously a first year as your name implies.
Agree with me, disagree, I really don’t care and I don’t have time for your nonsensical ramblings.
Posted by Childadvocate - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours, 59 minutes ago

BIGLAW, please stop your egotistical and narcissistic posting. It’s making me nauseous. But if you feel you must, please respond to Post #11. Should we big firm lawyers let the abused children “help themselves”? Are there no workhouses, Ebenezer?
Posted by BIGLAW 1ST YEAR - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours, 41 minutes ago

I’m glad to see Danielle fighting back, which should further demonstrate to the readers that she is either illiterate, dense, or lacks attention to detail. It is spelled “defence” my dear. “Defense” is a term coined by the socialists (LOL). Thank you for further helping me prove my point!

What does being a first year have to do with anything? I graduated from law school, I don’t see the need in practicing for 10 years to be able to intelligently speak about the Constitution.
Posted by Ralph - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours, 17 minutes ago

How does a sheriff pull down $200k a year in retirement? That must be one heck of a 401k!
Posted by Childadvocate - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours, 8 minutes ago

BIGLAW- I see no response to Post #19 or #11. And seriously, you’ve done “a lot” of pro bono work in your one year of practice? Please.
Posted by Danielle - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 13 hours, 52 minutes ago

Response to Biglaw 1st year --
First, don’t flatter yourself that I’m “fighting back” - I only fight for things worth fighting for, and you’re not one of them. You are obviously a troll.
My copy of the Constitution has defense spelled with an “s.” It is published by Applewood Books in Massachusetts. I suggest you take up your bizarre ramblings with them.
I am sorry that your obvious mental illness compels you to post nonsensical and abusive comments.
However, psychiatric help is the appropriate place for you to continue your pathetic cries for help, not the ABA Journal website.
Posted by Jean - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 12 hours, 32 minutes ago

I think BIGLAW and John Yoo should open a firm together, dedicated to maintaining US law at 1790, damn precedents since then, AND in their firm, only Samuel Johnson’s dictionary of the English language would be allowed so BIGLAW can spell the Standard American English word “defense” as “defence” to his heart’s content…
Posted by jdp - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 11 hours, 11 minutes ago

Everyone that works with BIGLAW loathes him. He is vain and inexperienced and the reason people hate lawyers. Have fun with your document review, buddy.
Posted by George Sly - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 9 hours, 4 minutes ago

If BigLaw actually means what his comments say he should sign his name not hide behind a psedonym. Does he sign his briefs BigLaw? That goes for the rest of you as well. Your professionals.
I have twice been appointed by the Court to defend defendants in domestic violence matters. Both times the case was dismissed. The last case, the complainant committed perjury and the judge acquitted my client and ordered the complainant arrested for contempt. So contrary to BigLaw’s assertion not everyone who is charged with a crime is guilty. Politics has nothing to do with it. I don’t llike pro bono work because I am not a trial lawyer and I am certainly not a criminal defense lawyer, but I also know as a lawyer I have a duty to the Court and to society. Duty is a word Big Law appears to be unfamiliar with.
Posted by The Devil's Advocate? - 6 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 8 hours, 15 minutes ago

My day has actually been quite entertaining thanks to BIGLAW and the controversy he has sparked. I imagine many others out there feel the same way. Now, do I agree with him? Not really on most things, a little on a few points, and a lot on one point. Nevertheless, I like seeing a good debate. So I guess what I’m doing in this post is sticking up for him because nobody else really has. Call me a “free public defender.” :)

I find it funny the way he gets attacked. Why all the name calling? Can you really not defeat BIGLAW’s arguments on the merits? For example, he/she made a valid point regarding whether there is a constitutional right for indigent criminal defendants to be given counsel on the taxpayer’s dime. Props to BIGLAW for paralleling the 6th Amendment with the 2nd Amendment, I at least thought that was an interesting point.

Are we, as attorneys, too high and mighty to engage in a little analytical banter? Why resort to saying he is vain, inexperienced, hated, not familiar with “duty,” etc. By the way, what is wrong with document review? I would venture to guess that many attorneys in here have had to do document review a time or two. Also, he/she is most likely a litigator so there probably is not much, if any, document review for him/her.

I would like to point out the one thing I think BIGLAW is absolutely correct about. “Danielle” is, for the sake of a better word, ignorant. “Defence” is the correct spelling, not “defense.” Don’t they teach these things in American history anymore? I think it is disrespectful to our history for “Danielle” and others to nonchalantly sweep these “details” under the rug.
Posted by Jean - 6 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 11 hours, 50 minutes ago

"Defence” is the correct spelling only if the English language hasn’t changed since the 18th century. What does a change in spelling have to do with “American history,” Devil’s Advocate?

-ce/-se is a difference in varieties of modern English. Why would only “defence” be correct? Maybe BIGLAW and Devil’s Advocate only read the King James Version of the Bible too, and only refer to Samuel Johnson’s dictionary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ce_.2F_-se
Posted by jdp - 6 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 5 hours, 13 minutes ago

Devil’s Advocate- Did it ever occur to you that one of BIGLAW’s colleagues may have posted because BIGLAW cannot stop bragging about his intellectual superiority at work? Maybe he actually is vain and inexperienced? I’ve seen the “top researchers/writers” and “top oral arguers” from the best law schools come (and go) through my firm in masses over the years. They are a dime a dozen. Being inexperienced and over confident is a dangerous combination in this line of work. Notably, for all his high-dollar education, he has missed the real point. Pro bono work is not just criminal defense. As Childadvocate pointed out, it includes asylum work, immigration, human rights and child advocacy. BIGLAW failed to say whether abused children should “help themselves” and “take personal responsibility.” What a load of hooey. Pro bono work is every lawyer’s duty; BIGLAW’s assertion that he has done a lot of pro bono work is bordering on delusional and an insult to lawyers who spend their careers bettering the lives of others, not just lining their own pockets. Whatever slightly sound or interesting legal arguments he may have made were significantly diminished by the fact that he is just a jerk. I call ‘em like I see ‘em. Next time, pick a better underdog.
Posted by anonymous - 6 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 10 hours, 3 minutes ago

did anyone notice that he was a “BIGLAW 1ST YEAR” and brags about his time in Law School? How are you going to brag about your speculative trial skills. Biglaw lawyers won’t even get to see a trial until they’re Biglaw 5th years.

Being the best researcher/writer/oralist at Law School is like being the freshest turd. No one knows anything coming out of law school. Everyone who isn’t delusional knows it. Every lawyer on this site who has more than 2 weeks of experience knows it.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Pro Bono