Comments on: Pro bono as profit center, cont’d https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/09/pro-bono-as-profit-center-contd/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:11:01 +0000 hourly 1 By: January 17 roundup https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/09/pro-bono-as-profit-center-contd/comment-page-1/#comment-38921 Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:11:01 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5307#comment-38921 […] judge might ax $2M legal fee in Seattle ‘pro bono’ case” [ABA Journal, earlier here and […]

]]> By: Anonymous Attorney https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/09/pro-bono-as-profit-center-contd/comment-page-1/#comment-8811 Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:17:18 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5307#comment-8811 By this standard, most plaintiff’s attorneys are “pro bono.”

]]> By: Tom T. https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/09/pro-bono-as-profit-center-contd/comment-page-1/#comment-8810 Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:15:08 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5307#comment-8810 I hear what you’re saying, but let me offer the argument from the other side. The law is the law, as far as the “prevailing party” provision goes. If the parents can establish that they are a prevailing party (and substantively I have no idea whether they can or not; this isn’t my area), and Davis Wright had been billing them all this time, the school system would presumably be liable for their fees, without much question. Why, then, should the school system (i.e., the losing party) be entitled to a “windfall” due to Davis Wright’s decision not to bill the parents for seven years?

Put another way, if one is committed to the concept of and policies behind “loser pays,” then the billing structure that either counsel adopts as to its own client should be irrelevant.

]]>