Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the firm. Not doing any at Arnold & Porter while hoping to last in the litigation group would be... an error.

In comparison I don't think Quinn gives a single eff.

Really? Arnold & Porter?? I don't know the DC market as well as NYC but I've always thought the bigger/more reputable the firm was, the less time they wanted wasted on non billable work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a legal secretary to partners (who vote on which associates become partner) and can tell you that it's definitely noticed and taken into consideration. So if you're aiming to make partner, you should do more.

For two years I worked for the GC (who was also a partner) and a non-equity partner who was trying to make equity. In that time the Non-E had ONE pro bono client. It was one of many strikes against him.

If you're aiming to be rich and obnoxious and completely out of touch with the working class, then avoid pro bono at all costs.

Decide your priorities, and go from there.

Maybe at YOUR firm but this is far from universal. At my NYC firm, definitely looked down upon in litigation by the "important" partners -- the senior partners whose views matter. They view it as time that you're taking away from actual billable work for paying clients. And if you're too into pro bono -- like take on 1-2 matters per yr or more -- you are def viewed as NOT biglaw material -- bc they've had associates in the past who just didn't care about the financial/commercial work, so they'd load up on pro bono and then when asked to take a real case try to argue that they were too busy. Not saying everyone (or even most) would play that game, but bc enough people have played that game in the past -- if you're all into pro bono, you're seen as not hard charging enough to work with the hedge fund clients. Now if it's the kind of pro bono that gets you on TV, sure exceptions are made -- like DACA, travel ban etc. -- but for the day to day divorce or housing or whatever, not so much.

8th yr -- I've done one as a 2nd yr; hated it and was actually staffed on it thru junior associate assigning so I couldn't say no (bc the associate handling it was leaving the firm, so they had to make sure someone worked on it). About the same for my peers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the firm. Not doing any at Arnold & Porter while hoping to last in the litigation group would be... an error.

In comparison I don't think Quinn gives a single eff.

Really? Arnold & Porter?? I don't know the DC market as well as NYC but I've always thought the bigger/more reputable the firm was, the less time they wanted wasted on non billable work.

In DC it is seen as reputation-enhancing, unlike in NY or London.

In NY its seen as profit-diluting. In London its not seen at all.

Got it. I definitely have the NYC mindset of -- why would anyone who wants to make partner do something profit diluting?? 7 yrs in NYC biglaw will do that to you. I didn't realize DC actually saw it as a positive thing.

I won't pretend DC is some kind of utopia, but it is very different culturally than NYC in this regard. I grew up in NYC but left as an adult because I hated the Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" culture that seemed to permeate everything up there, even the charitable world. My experience has been that people in DC tend to be more committed to giving back as part of their everyday lives, as reflected by the number of people here who could make more in New York of elsewhere, but instead choose to earn less as public servants or by working for non-profit/public interest groups because they believe in the greater good of what they're doing. Law firm partners certainly do well here, but most of the ones I know do value pro bono work because they believe we should be using our skills to help those who most need them but can least afford them.

And even for those who are more profit-minded, there's something to be said for letting, for instance, a low-level litigation associate cut their teeth on a lower-stakes (for the firm) pro bono litigation project rather than having to spend more of your own time hand-holding them through the same tasks for one of your paying clients.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A very little bit is usually seen as a good thing.
Too much is a bad thing.

If you want to do none, at the vast majority of firms nobody will care or maybe even they will secretly think of it as positive though they would not openly say that.

EXCEPT

If the big boss wants to bring you in on something then you say yes and treat it like any other important matter because its important to big boss so its important to you.

AND IF

Someone is leaving and they need a pinch hitter then it depends on your workload (really busy, OK to say no, not really busy, don't) and good on you if you are more senior and can spin it into a sort of mentorship / leadership thing but not spend too much time on it.

Also the time consuming housing, etc. cases are for junior people so once you age out of it you need to move on to something more high profile or supervise junior people or just do billable work.

I am a deal lawyer too so take that for what's worth. But this is how I've seen it shake out for deal lawyers and probably how I'd view it myself as the managing partner.

Anonymous wrote:
A very little bit is usually seen as a good thing.
Too much is a bad thing.

If you want to do none, at the vast majority of firms nobody will care or maybe even they will secretly think of it as positive though they would not openly say that.

EXCEPT

If the big boss wants to bring you in on something then you say yes and treat it like any other important matter because its important to big boss so its important to you.

AND IF

Someone is leaving and they need a pinch hitter then it depends on your workload (really busy, OK to say no, not really busy, don't) and good on you if you are more senior and can spin it into a sort of mentorship / leadership thing but not spend too much time on it.

Also the time consuming housing, etc. cases are for junior people so once you age out of it you need to move on to something more high profile or supervise junior people or just do billable work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the firm. Not doing any at Arnold & Porter while hoping to last in the litigation group would be... an error.

In comparison I don't think Quinn gives a single eff.

Really? Arnold & Porter?? I don't know the DC market as well as NYC but I've always thought the bigger/more reputable the firm was, the less time they wanted wasted on non billable work.

In DC it is seen as reputation-enhancing, unlike in NY or London.

In NY its seen as profit-diluting. In London its not seen at all.

Got it. I definitely have the NYC mindset of -- why would anyone who wants to make partner do something profit diluting?? 7 yrs in NYC biglaw will do that to you. I didn't realize DC actually saw it as a positive thing.

Of course it's a positive, especially for a litigator. Junior and midlevel associates can get much more substantive experience through pro bono than through being staffed on a case in Big Law (everyone I know stood up for court the first time in a pro bono case, most people took their first depositions in pro bono cases, the firm I'm at now can guarantee you an argument in front of the 7th Circuit in one pro bono program), they get to choose and direct their own cases, they get to work with partners they otherwise might not get staffed with, it's positive exposure for the firm, and the hours get written off at tax time. Honestly the people saying "but whut about money?" sound simpleminded. Most of your time was getting written off until you were like a 4th year anyway, don't kid yourself about how much you were contributing to profits. And yes, I started in NYC too, and all of this was obvious (and stressed) there as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the firm. Not doing any at Arnold & Porter while hoping to last in the litigation group would be... an error.

In comparison I don't think Quinn gives a single eff.

Really? Arnold & Porter?? I don't know the DC market as well as NYC but I've always thought the bigger/more reputable the firm was, the less time they wanted wasted on non billable work.

In DC it is seen as reputation-enhancing, unlike in NY or London.

In NY its seen as profit-diluting. In London its not seen at all.

Got it. I definitely have the NYC mindset of -- why would anyone who wants to make partner do something profit diluting?? 7 yrs in NYC biglaw will do that to you. I didn't realize DC actually saw it as a positive thing.

I won't pretend DC is some kind of utopia, but it is very different culturally than NYC in this regard. I grew up in NYC but left as an adult because I hated the Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" culture that seemed to permeate everything up there, even the charitable world. My experience has been that people in DC tend to be more committed to giving back as part of their everyday lives, as reflected by the number of people here who could make more in New York of elsewhere, but instead choose to earn less as public servants or by working for non-profit/public interest groups because they believe in the greater good of what they're doing. Law firm partners certainly do well here, but most of the ones I know do value pro bono work because they believe we should be using our skills to help those who most need them but can least afford them.

And even for those who are more profit-minded, there's something to be said for letting, for instance, a low-level litigation associate cut their teeth on a lower-stakes (for the firm) pro bono litigation project rather than having to spend more of your own time hand-holding them through the same tasks for one of your paying clients.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the firm. Not doing any at Arnold & Porter while hoping to last in the litigation group would be... an error.

In comparison I don't think Quinn gives a single eff.

Really? Arnold & Porter?? I don't know the DC market as well as NYC but I've always thought the bigger/more reputable the firm was, the less time they wanted wasted on non billable work.

In DC it is seen as reputation-enhancing, unlike in NY or London.

In NY its seen as profit-diluting. In London its not seen at all.

Got it. I definitely have the NYC mindset of -- why would anyone who wants to make partner do something profit diluting?? 7 yrs in NYC biglaw will do that to you. I didn't realize DC actually saw it as a positive thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the firm. Not doing any at Arnold & Porter while hoping to last in the litigation group would be... an error.

In comparison I don't think Quinn gives a single eff.

Really? Arnold & Porter?? I don't know the DC market as well as NYC but I've always thought the bigger/more reputable the firm was, the less time they wanted wasted on non billable work.

In DC it is seen as reputation-enhancing, unlike in NY or London.

In NY its seen as profit-diluting. In London its not seen at all.

Got it. I definitely have the NYC mindset of -- why would anyone who wants to make partner do something profit diluting?? 7 yrs in NYC biglaw will do that to you. I didn't realize DC actually saw it as a positive thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the firm. Not doing any at Arnold & Porter while hoping to last in the litigation group would be... an error.

In comparison I don't think Quinn gives a single eff.

Really? Arnold & Porter?? I don't know the DC market as well as NYC but I've always thought the bigger/more reputable the firm was, the less time they wanted wasted on non billable work.

In DC it is seen as reputation-enhancing, unlike in NY or London.

In NY its seen as profit-diluting. In London its not seen at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the firm. Not doing any at Arnold & Porter while hoping to last in the litigation group would be... an error.

In comparison I don't think Quinn gives a single eff.

Really? Arnold & Porter?? I don't know the DC market as well as NYC but I've always thought the bigger/more reputable the firm was, the less time they wanted wasted on non billable work.

In DC it is seen as reputation-enhancing, unlike in NY or London.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the firm. Not doing any at Arnold & Porter while hoping to last in the litigation group would be... an error.

In comparison I don't think Quinn gives a single eff.

Really? Arnold & Porter?? I don't know the DC market as well as NYC but I've always thought the bigger/more reputable the firm was, the less time they wanted wasted on non billable work.

Anonymous wrote:I have been reporting zero pro bono hours and zero contributions to legal aid for 7 years now. I did hundreds of hours in law school and will never voluntarily work for free again.