(5) Pro Bono Firms Reject Conservative Causes: Free Legal Help is NOT Available to Anti-Quota Plaintiffs

• About 54 percent of the law firms mentioned cases in which they represented inmates in capital and prisoner rights cases.

• About 23 percent of the 80 law firms for which data is available undertake matters concerning civil rights. Only one law firm of the 80 surveyed (1.25 percent) mentioned pro bono work that challenges affirmative action and racial quotas.  All other firms list groups supportive of racial and quotas preferences in conjunction with its mention of civil rights work (e.g., NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights).

• Of the 697 public interest organizations that were reported as represented by 70 of the largest firms in the nation, 157 (22.5 percent) can be found in The Left Guide. Only three (0.4 percent) of the listed organizations can be found in either The Right Guide or the Heritage Foundation's Policy Experts 2000 guide.

• Nineteen of the 70 law firms (27.1 percent) listed organizations represented that deal with "reproductive rights," "family planning," or "abortion rights." These represented groups were the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, the Massachusetts Family Planning Association, the National Abortion Foundation, the National Organization for Women, the National Women's Law Center, the Network for Women's Services, Planned Parenthood, Women's Law Project, and Women's Way.

• Twenty-one of the 70 firms (30 percent) identified various "environmental" groups that they have represented on a pro bono basis. Of the 16 groups that were listed by the firms, seven appear in The Left Guide; none appear in The Right Guide.

The Federalist Society's study notes one other interesting trend:

• Many law firms appear not to advertise or disclose work they do for "conservative" or "libertarian" causes in their own firm literature.  Through an independent survey of the public interest litigating organizations listed in the Heritage Foundation's Policy Experts 2000 guide, we asked each organization whether any of the nation's largest law firms had undertaken a matter for them on a pro bono basis.  The survey results revealed that 22 of the 70 (31.4 percent) law firms that list the groups they represent assisted conservative or libertarian groups on a pro bono basis, 19 more than we had discovered using data obtained from or made available by the law firms themselves.

          To read the full results of the survey, visit http://www.fed-soc.org/probono.htm.

          A copy of the Executive Summary and report for the study can also be obtained by contacting Lisa Budzynski at 202-822-8138 or by e-mailing Lisa at lisab@fed-soc.org.

          The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order.  It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of government powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what is should be.  The Society seeks to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.

[Last known link  http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0301-124.html ]

Federalist Society Unveils Survey of Pro Bono Activity at the AmLaw 100 (Posted 03/01/01)

          In January 2001, The Federalist Society released Pro Bono Activity at the AmLaw 100, a study that is the product of a survey that the Federalist Society developed and executed in order to examine the various kinds of pro bono work undertaken by the legal community. The Federalist Society initiated this project because press and public interest organizations often inquire about whether the pro bono work undertaken by the nation's leading law firms is politically/ideologically balanced. However, no comprehensive survey had been completed on this subject to date.

          The Society began its survey of the 100 largest American law firms in the spring of 2000. The study aims to provide an unbiased breakdown of the type of work that these leading firms handle. The reader can decide for himself whether this work reflects particular political or ideological preferences on the part of the law firm community. The full study can be accessed on the Federalist Society’s web site, www.fed-soc.org.

          The Federalist Society used The American Lawyer's 1998 list of America's 100 biggest law firms as its survey pool and sought to obtain data about these firms for 1998 as well as 1999. Volunteers collected information from publicly available sources, such as law firm websites, annual reports, or firm-generated pro bono summaries. The information collected comes only from the official literature or materials that are prepared and readily made available by the firm itself.

          This survey is not intended to be a comprehensive listing of pro bono work performed by the AmLaw100, and certain limitations are inherent in the study. For example, it is possible that a firm undertakes work that it chooses not to advertise or disclose. Firms cannot highlight all the work they do. And, a number of senior partners have suggested that firms may choose not to disclose pro bono work that might be considered "conservative" or "libertarian" in its orientation. The project at least attempted to offset the possibility that some of the law firms do not advertise work identified as "conservative" or "libertarian" by polling all of the litigating organizations listed in the Heritage Foundation's Policy Experts 2000 guide asking each whether any AmLaw100 firms have undertaken a matter for it on a pro bono basis. About 73 percent of these organizations responded to our inquiry.

          Throughout the process, the Federalist Society assiduously sought to avoid making any substantive or normative judgments about the kind, quantity, or range of pro bono work undertaken. In this regard, it provided a complete list of groups which the firm represented and would be recognizable by or familiar to the general legal community; it listed a broad range of litigation for each firm (when available); and it chose not to label particular kinds of pro bono work as liberal, conservative, or libertarian. The Society also did not make its own choices regarding how to describe the ideology of the groups supported by law firms, using instead the independently published and widely respected The Left Guide and The Right Guide as independent benchmarks.

Some Findings:

Within the AmLaw100, 70 law firms identified public interest groups that they represent or assist on a pro bono basis. Several public interest litigating groups that are listed in The Left Guide recur frequently as organizations represented by these 70 firms:

          In all, of the 697 organizations listed as represented by the 70 firms which provide such information, 157 (22.5%) can be found in The Left Guide. Only 3 (0.4%) of the listed organizations can be found in The Right Guide or the Heritage Foundation's Policy Experts 2000 guide.

          To account for the possibility that firms are representing conservative and libertarian organizations but not advertising that fact, the Federalist Society conducted an independent survey of the litigating organizations listed in the Heritage Foundation's guide of "conservative" and "libertarian" organizations and experts. Each organization was asked whether an AmLaw100 firm had undertaken a matter for them on a pro bono basis. The survey results revealed that 22 of the 70 (31.4%) AmLaw100 firms that list the groups they represent assisted or represented conservative or libertarian groups on a pro bono basis (19 more than we had discovered using data obtained from or made available by the law firms themselves). By way of comparison, 60 of the 70 (85.7%) AmLaw100 that list the groups they represent assisted organizations which are contained in The Left Guide.

          The Federalist Society’s survey also provides much information about the types of pro bono work that 80 of the AmLaw 100 have undertaken. The kinds of cases and other legal matters that these firms have handled are, not surprisingly, quite varied. Here is a summary of some of the work that may be of special interest:

          Representation of inmates in capital and prisoner rights cases appears to be a common feature of big-firm pro bono work, with about 54 percent of the firms mentioning cases in these areas

          Civil rights is an area that receives substantial attention as well from the AmLaw100. About 23 percent of the 80 firms for which data is available undertake matters in this area. Only 1 (1.25%) law firm referenced work that challenges affirmative action. All other firms list groups supportive of preferences in conjunction with its mention of civil rights work (e.g., NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, etc.)

          Amongst the 80 firms identifying types of pro bono work, 13 (16.25%) firms cited matters pertaining to "education," "welfare," or "public benefits." At least one of these firms states that it conducted some work in support of charter schools, and through the survey of conservative and libertarian organizations, it appears that at least one other AmLaw100 firm is defending school voucher programs

          About 18 percent of the firms (14) listed "environmental protection" as one area of pro bono work. This area is normally listed alongside references to the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and related groups. Two of the firms specifically mentioned its efforts to broaden environmental standing. One firm undertook "property rights" litigation on behalf of a conservative or libertarian group listed in The Right Guide; though the firm did not report this case in its materials, that information was obtained through the independent survey of conservative and libertarian litigating groups.

          The reader is encouraged to review the full set of findings on the Federalist Society’s web site, www.fed-soc.org. A copy of the Executive Summary and report for the study can be obtained by contacting the Federalist Society by phone (202-822-8138) or email (fedsoc@radix.net).

[Last known link http://www.fed-soc.org/probono.htm ]

Comment:  Adversity.Net has been seeking pro bono legal representation to assist us with our appeal to the IRS for tax-exempt status.

          Our dismal experience in our search is reinforced by the Federalist Society's study:  The "charity" of large law firms ends with groups who oppose racial quotas and preferences.

Economics of Pro Bono Services:   The offering of "free" legal representation is not exactly charity.   There is a direct and substantial tax benefit to the firm.  Law firms earn hefty tax-deductions for offering free legal services to indigent individuals and organizations.  The firms are allowed to "bill" substantial hourly rates (dozens of hours at $200 to $800 per hour) for representing needy people and organizations, and it is then allowed to deduct those hefty rates off the top of their annual income tax report.

          But, as Adversity.Net has learned, large law firms do not offer pro bono services to organizations that challenge racial quotas and preferences.

Excuses:  Adversity.Net has contacted a number of law firms with substantial pro bono departments to assist us with our IRS appeal for tax-exempt status.  Most of the firms simply refused to talk to us, but 3 firms did agree to talk with us, and here are their excuses:

• Firm # 1:  We simply cannot represent someone as controversial as your organization.  It would upset too many of our clients and staff.

• Firm # 2:  (Our favorite rejection) -- We really wanted to represent you.  But the partners feel that we would have difficulty meeting our "diversity recruiting" goals if we represent you.  (Meaning: The black lawyers which we need to hire to meet our racial targets would stay away in droves if we represent Adversity.Net)

• Firm # 3:  Washington, DC is a political town, and it would be bad politics to represent Adversity.Net