This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhC: Addressing the Most Important Weakness of Conservative-Libertarian Public Interest Law: I recently renewed my m.. http://bit.ly/6Azv88...

David Nieporent:

But — Wouldn’t Ayn Rand oppose pro bono work by anyone?

Assuming for the sake of argument that this question is serious rather than snark — I’m feeling generous — no. Not even close. Why would she? Rand is not some left-wing caricature of someone obsessed over accumulating money.

I think the underlying question is legitimate: why isn’t public-interest law profitable?

Arbitrary Aardvark believes it can be, despite his own experience to the contrary. Maybe, but assume arguendo that it isn’t.

The answer, I believe, is that the law is a commons. Even had Angel Raich or Susette Kelo won her respective case, she would barely be compensated for her own trouble, let alone her lawyers’ — but the rest of us would (collectively) be hugely better off.

(I wanted to cite some winners of libertarian Supreme Court cases. The most recent I could think of were Alfonso Lopez and Antonio Morrison: a gang-banger and a rapist, and 15-year-old cases at that, not the best examples. Sigh.)

I get the impression that even the more “white-shoe” firms would rather their associates work on pro bono matters with a higher PR pay-off (help for the homeless, SS disabilities claims, etc.) than just promoting free-market principles and property rights through litigation.

I think you’ve nailed it here. Many law firms couldn’t care less about the individuals, or even the principles, involved. They simply want to have the “feel-good” stuff to tout to the public on their websites and to idealistic law students in their recruiting brochures/sites.
If it were that important, why wouldn’t the corner-office partners spend hundreds of hours a year on it rather than dump it on the lowest ranking associates (and then expect those associates to bill 2500 hours a year on top of it)?

But — Wouldn’t Ayn Rand oppose pro bono work by anyone?

Assuming for the sake of argument that this question is serious rather than snark — I’m feeling generous — no. Not even close. Why would she? Rand is not some left-wing caricature of someone obsessed over accumulating money.

If you spent the time earning money rather than donating your time, aren’t you helping society much better than giving away your expertise for free?

Why would Rand care about “helping society”?

If people can’t pay for representation themselves, isn’t that their problem?

It is, to Rand, if the question is whether they’re somehow entitled to your assistance. It’s not, if the question is whether you want to represent them.

Rand did not oppose charity. What Rand opposed was the notion that need was its own justification for charity, or worse, that need created an obligation on the part of others to provide charity. That people should feel guilty if they didn’t provide charity.

Moreover, the pro bono work that’s being discussed isn’t merely about helping an individual plaintiff, but about shaping the laws in a more liberty-oriented way. Rand certainly would have endorsed that.

Unlike some posters, I’m open to the possibility of being entirely wrong…

But put Dean Smith in prison using civil rights criminal law – or even make a good try at it – and Dean Jones will be much cautioned. Of course, this involves enlisting prosecutors against the Establishment, not an easy thing to do, but the effort would certainly be worthwhile, and not merely for the sort of cases brought by FIRE.

I doubt it. She did not object to people donating their time to promote their ideology (she did it herself in several political campaigns). But even if she would, so what? I’m not a Randian, and neither are most other libertarian and conservative lawyers.

If you spent the time earning money rather than donating your time, aren’t you helping society much better than giving away your expertise for free?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If donating your expertise for free helps combat a large-scale injustice like eminent domain abuse or infringements on economic liberties, it could benefit society much more than spending the equivalent amount of time on a paying case.

If people can’t pay for representation themselves, isn’t that their problem?

Perhaps it is if their case affects only their own interests. But if it involves broader legal principles that are important to many other people, then the situation is different.

Would you really want a lawyer who’se never been in a court room representing you? And he or she is treating this as a ‘learning experience.?’

If he were better than any lawyer I could afford to hire for pay, absolutely I’d want to have him.

If you spent the time earning money rather than donating your time, aren’t you helping society much better than giving away your expertise for free?

If people can’t pay for representation themselves, isn’t that their problem?

” At many firms, partners are happy to have associates take on such work even if they don’t necessarily agree with its ideological orientation; after all, it’s still valuable experience that can benefit the firm when the associate uses what he or she has learned in later work for paying clients”

I imagine Ayn would say this is a mere rationalization at best, and untrue at worst. Perhaps the best experience is working for paying clients who will reward you if you do a good job, and punish you if you don’t. Freebie clients have no economic clout to punish you if you screw up the case. And isn’t there someting condenscending about putting inexperienced people in charge of people’s lives? Would you really want a lawyer who’se never been in a court room representing you? And he or she is treating this as a ‘learning experience.?’

While rooting hard, of course, against social conservatives.

Obviously, libertarian causes benefit from the efforts of liberal lawyers in areas where liberal and libertarian agendas overlap. The libertarian-conservative public interest law movement, however, focuses more on those areas where they conflict: property rights, affirmative action, campaign finance, economic liberties, and so forth.