When I read Erwin Chemerinsky's spirited defense of pro bono work and attack on Chief Judge Jacobs of the Second Circuit, I wondered if the article had correctly captured what Judge Jacobs actually said. Now comes news that perhaps the attack was more appropriately directed at a straw man than at Judge Jacobs. Pro bono work seems to generate an inordinate number of kerfuffles, mis-steps, and over-the-top reactions.
Arguments such as these have many shades of gray. Often those involved in pro bono work are pushing for a certain idealogy, but in the end all law does that. And since many legislate from the bench, it's not the best idea to criticize attorneys who may or may not be doing the same thing. Would this judge be willing to have every one of his decision examined for legislative decisions?
Posted by: JT | October 24, 2008 at 09:56 AM