Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yeah well the lawyers in question will probably look like shit if they lose so they want money so it's not a complete loss.

Horrible but probably true.



I don't know about you but I don't work for free, even for the noblest of causes, unless I can put food on the table (eg, the lawyers need to eat).


That's a bit of a false dichotomy though, isn't it?

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!


Lawyers charge a lot per hour but also have large overheads, especially trial lawyers. The amounts mentioned in the fundraising page seem small. I am guessing Chelsea Manning already gets a discount and that they will have to raise much more later on.

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.


Good publicity is a good return if you're a lawyer and probably cheaper than marketing so it doesn't always work like that.

Otherwise, yep.


Last time i checked good publicity had zero-calories and also came with a goverment will set you on the black-list for all times.


In my view, a side effect of our legal system is that it's a very generous public gift to lawyers. And there's probably a perverse incentive for lawyers to manipulate that system to make it more lucrative and exclusive (e.g., more complex, so that regular people can't take care of their own minor legal issues). As such, I see no problem with maintaining a more equitable distribution of legal support.

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.


That depends. Not everyone needs to work for money. There are also people who set aside certain amount of hours per week for pro bono work. Not everything has to be about money all the time.


> (eg, the lawyers need to eat).

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.


My friend is a criminal defense attorney for those who are usually unable to pay market rates. He's making a lot less than I was as a senior developer and not much more when I was a junior developer. Factor in law school loans and time spent in the books and he's not exactly rolling in cash.


> criminal defense attorney for those who are usually unable to pay market rates

So obviously he is not the typical lawyer.


"Typical lawyers" make well under $100k per year.

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.


That depends on your definition of typical, I suppose.

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.


Making your original comment some what of a "No True Scotsman"


You don't know many lawyers, then. Only the creme of the creme get rich. The average lawyer makes about $40k/year and works around the clock.


Put food on the table? Are you for real? Lawyers who work at the law firms that have expertise to represent Chelsea Manning are probably in 0.1% of top earners worldwide.

If they can't work pro bono, who can?


I was going to quote an article about how the wealthy 0.1% is a different demographic than the top 1% because the rest of the top one percent are workers for the top 0.1%. However, I guess these top one percent US people would be 0.1% worldwide.


A person with $200 000 yearly income (a very conservative assumption for top lawyers) is in top %0.04 richest people by income.[0]

Yeah, right, they have to "put food" on the table.

[0] http://www.globalrichlist.com


Rich people don't just swim in money you know. It's fairly likely they'll have far more expenses than poor people. So they might have a better pension plan, pay a gardener. Might send their kids to private school. etc etc

So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.


>So they might have a better pension plan, pay a gardener.

>So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.

Poe's law invoked.


Except that their kids have better chances in life, their retirement is secure, they have a nice garden to relax in etc etc...

Money well spent if you ask me.


I agree. I'm just saying that just because someone is a lawyer, and has a reasonably high salary, doesn't necessarily follow that they're swimming in money.


When I charged $45/hour before I quit to go back to school, I was nominally making $90k a year. According to the rich list website, that puts me at 0.09% worldwide. No, I am by no means wealthy. I have loans I am not done with!


> So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.

less disposable income != less well off


The freedom to choose to take on greater discretionary expenses like that is the definition of being more well off.


You probably should have mentioned taxes. In the US, if most of your income is employment income, the tax system is still very progressive. Not so much for investment income.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: