Legal News

Chemerinsky Stands by Op-ed, Calls for Throw-Down With Jacobs

By Dan Slater

Not since the law school rankings kerfuffle between the Buffalo law dean and U.S. News has the Law Blog performed referee duty, a function we try to avoid. But since the rules of civil procedure typically allow for a complaint, an answer and then a reply, we think it’s appropriate to give Dean Chemerinsky the final say on the pro bono squabble.

We just received an e-mail from Chemerinsky, via his spokesman. It reads, in part:

Having read Judge Jacobs’ speech, I believe that the newspaper reports about it were accurate. He twice refers to pro bono work as “anti-social” . . . He equates pro bono work with public interest work and says: “My point, in a nutshell, is that much of what we call legal work for the public interest is essentially selfserving.” He criticizes law firms that do pro bono work and says it is done “to assist their recruiting — to confer glamor on their work, and to give solace to overworked associates.”

At the end, he does acknowledge that some pro bono work is useful — but the earlier part of the speech makes clear that this is not so if it is against the government or in impact litigation. The speech is very strong in criticizing public interest law and impact litigation. . .

I thus believe that the reports of his speech were in context and that my criticism was necessary and appropriate. But if Judge Jacobs feels differently, I would be honored to debate him about this. It could be jointly sponsored by the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society. I’d be delighted to host this at the University of California, Irvine, or come to New York, or even both. . . A debate could be an important forum for exploring this issue in more depth.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on October 24, 2008 (boomark / email).