So in other words, there is not a single law firm in US which will take on Chelsea Manning's crucial cause without eyeing for money? That's why she's resorting to ask for donations? Is that even possible?
For a case like this with 100,000's of documents tons of witnesses and experts you need more money just for the discovery phase that any non-tv law firm will be able to put out.
The defense also needs to be able to bring their own experts which in this case might be psychologists, social liberty experts, computer security and forensic experts, anti-terror and national defense experts and more, all of those cost money and a lot of it even if they are willing to come out and testify at cost.
Horrible but probably true.
In the same way that lots of tech firms release some open-source code (in some cases, quite a lot!), legal firms often do a fair bit of pro-bono work.
Releasing stuff/providing legal services for free doesn't mean you can't eat!
A high profile criminal case such as the one against Chelsea Manning where the government throws in many man-years will only be successful if the defense also throws in a team of competent defense attorneys, researchers, assistants etc. In a huge case like this that stretches over several years and where there is vast information to deal with, this could amount to decades of man-years.
A one man boutiques usually can't handle such cases and the largest law firms typically don't take such cases. So the defendant often has to pick among law firms with 5-20 lawyers.
Such small firms usually cannot afford to allocate that much manpower to pro bono cases.
But even if they could afford it, there are numerous faster and cheaper options for marketing. As for professional satisfaction, there are plenty of cases that provide that and pays a salary meanwhile.
Otherwise, yep.
The ideal situation would be to establish a social norm, where successful pro bono defense work was a badge of honor. This work should include not only criminal defense, but also helping the poor deal with civil cases.
At the price they are working at, it's not about eating anymore, it's about being able to afford 3 houses, an apartment in New York, Cocaine every Friday and the Tesla or a BMW to complete the picture.
I have never seen a poor lawyer.
So obviously he is not the typical lawyer.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/...
Average salaries are skewed because the top-end is so high. If you have all the bona fides (top-tier law school/clerking opportunities, high-paying specialty, good track record of winning cases) you can command an astronomical hourly rate.
However, the vast majority of lawyers don't get those opportunities, and are working schlubs just like the rest of us.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/pf/jobs/lawyer-salaries/
There's indeed a lot of potential to make third-house money as a lawyer, but it is by no means a given, and it seems a lot less likely than you think.
If they can't work pro bono, who can?
Yeah, right, they have to "put food" on the table.
So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.
>So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.
Poe's law invoked.
Money well spent if you ask me.
less disposable income != less well off
They are the second most hated. The most hated is the one hate groups compare all other minorities to when attacking them. The catch is that the most hated group has far better ability to pass than transgender individuals, meaning that a 'which group is worse off' classification is harder to determine.
1. She's trans.
2. Her case is complex with many elements to it, requiring a large amount of money and time by many different people to argue correctly.
Or some combination of the two. I think 2 is far more likely here, while you seem to only think 1 is a factor. I find that position obsurd.