11.2. Why Doing Pro Bono Briefing for Parties and Amici Is Good For Mastery

• Jurisdiction: United States
• Publication year: 2021

11.2. WHY DOING PRO BONO BRIEFING FOR PARTIES AND AMICI IS GOOD FOR MASTERY

For lawyers early on the path of mastery, pro bono provides superb opportunities for professional growth. These include taking cases in fields outside what may be a narrow focus of the fee-earning practice, doing the work with minimal supervision, enhanced client contact, a guaranteed oral argument in court-annexed programs, direct client appreciation, and lack of pressure to limit time on the work based on potential client fee resistance. Done well, pro bono work enhances the lawyer's reputation and provides a plank in a personal marketing platform. It can be a wing-spreading experience. Job opportunities have resulted. Of course, there is the satisfaction of serving one's community and profession.

For the more experienced appellate lawyer, many of the young-lawyer benefits remain. Lawyers may learn from practice in courts in which they otherwise might not appear.⁸ But I found the peak rewards came from participating in shaping the law on vital issues of the times. The gay family law that formed the foundation for gay marriage in California began with recognizing the right of gay couples to adopt.⁹ And the importance of the issues can open the opportunity to bring all the elements of storytelling, scholarship, and advocacy together in a momentous matter.¹⁰ As a sample amicus brief, the Appendix is a brief for which I was counsel of record for thirty-five colleagues in Trump v. Hawaii.¹¹ Although it would be presumptuous to say we influenced the outcome, the majority agreed with our main argument that when any president acts as a sole law-giver, everything that president says about the subject of the law is admissible evidence of legislative intent.¹² And it agreed Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), needed to be overruled.¹³

--------

Notes:

^[8] Petalino v. Williams, 61 N.E.3d 1014 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).

^[9] Sharon S. v. Super. Ct., 73 P.3d 554 (2003).

^[10] Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018).

^[11] Amicus Curiae Brief of 36 Appellate Lawyers Supporting Respondents, Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (Dkt. 17-965, Mar. 27, 2018).

^[12] Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2420.

^[13] Id. at 2423. Finally, Justice Sotomayor's dissent, joined by Justice Ginsberg, ends with a summary of our story line. "Our...