TheAgitator.com
Sticking Up for the Little Guy
Monday, July 26th, 2004According to the Washington Times, John Edwards didn’t take a single pro bono case for his entire legal career.
I wouldn’t consider that a valid point of criticism, except that that the guy alleges his entire career has been about bringing justice to the powerless.
Apparently, only those powerless whose claims carry big payout potential need apply.
There’s a big suprise. A politician casting themselves in a positive light, while the truth casts them into the shadows.
Outrage isn’t dead… it’s simply the norm.
The better question is how many cases he took on contingency.
PI lawyers who work on contingency are, in essence, taking every case pro bono. No victory, no charge to the client.
Pro bono is largely a large-firm practice in which a few hardworking associates who are never going to make partner anyway take on high profile cases which allows the firm to appear (falsely) to the next generation of first-year lawyers that the firm has a heart.
fdl:
Your point is a good one. Contingency lawyers do often represent the interests of those who could not otherwise afford legal representation.
However, contingency fee work is NOT pro bono work. There is most certainly a difference: namely, the latter involves pure charity work. As far as I know, contingency work does not satisfy the ABA’s recommended 50 hours per year of pro bono work for lawyers.
I am surprised that a lawyer with political aspirations (Democratic ones at that) would fail to meet his 50 hours a year.
Sparky-
Why be suprised?
You must remember the motto of today’s politician. Do as I say, not as I do. (Works well for both parties.)
Go easy on Mr. Edwards. He hasn’t been around long enough to have a Sandy Berger destroy these embarassing marks on his record before the public finds out. Give him time.
Radley -
Given your commentary on Mr. Edwards, the headline for this post should really read:
‘Sticking the Little Guy’
Heh.
JG
Like I’ve said in the past, we should try nationalizing trial lawyers first before we nationalize health care, and see how the lawyers like Edwards think it works …
Perhaps Edwards has a little Objectivist in him and believes that by working in his own self-interest he is helping all men, or some sort of Randian drivel like that.
ttam117 -
Edwards is by no means an Objectivist! An Objectivist wouldn’t support filing lawsuits based on fradulent, alarmist, “politically-driven” science just to make a cheap buck. That’s something which Rand’s villians (e.g. Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead or Orrin Boyle in Atlas Shrugged) are very good at doing. If anything, Edwards is a populist–which means he’s an egotist (i.e. not egoist) at heart. He sees healthcare as a “right” which everyone is entitled to, not a service which doctors trade in a free market (and of their own free will) with their patients. In other words, ttam117, by calling Edwards as an Objectivist, you grant him an honor which he does not deserve.
Oh, and if you really want to know what Rand thought about health-care, you should read the following speech by Leonard Peikoff, her intellectual heir. It lays out the anti-Edwards view quite nicely.
http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html
JG
viagra online ViaT8898111-01-01-22