Anonymous Lawyer

I've been asked by multiple readers to post about the Michael Vick dogfighting situation. And I've been reluctant to do so thus far because Vick is actually one of my clients. I've strayed from my usual practice and taken his case pro bono because I want to make a difference in the world, and stand up for people like Vick, people who hold other people (and animals) accountable for their actions and discipline them appropriately when they don't meet the standard. We've become too weak in this country, too tolerant of laziness, of people (and animals) who don't work hard, who don't have the will to compete, who don't constantly try to better themselves. Vick merely held the dogs accountable for their performances. I aspire to do the same with associates, but "political correctness" gets in the way. Those dogs signed up for the fights, they signed consent forms, they knew the risks. Or at least that's my argument. We have paw prints.

Vick has been a victim of the same kinds of reactions we received when our underground associate-fighting ring was exposed by a rejected summer associate. It used to be the highlight of my Thursday nights. Take two young associates, put them in a ring, give them each a stainless steel letter opener, and let them battle for who would get to work all weekend for the meanest partner at the firm. (Obviously that was the prize for the winner, not the loser. Face time is important, above just about anything else.) And, yes, sometimes we got carried away. Perhaps leaving the loser in the middle of the woods to fend for himself, with only a copy of the bankruptcy code to protect him, was a bit of an overreaction. But we did count those hours as billable, so I think it all ended up fair for all sides.

See, I do a lot of pro bono work. It's not just Vick. That basketball referee who was betting on the games he officiated, he's a client too. I don't see the conflict of interest. We advise clients all the time on all sorts of matters that ultimately affect how much we get paid. We tell clients not to settle, regardless of whether it's in their interest to do so, if we know we'll receive more money merely by dragging the case out for fifteen more years until they finally do end up settling, for half the money they could have gotten before, and with legal costs that eat up most of the settlement anyway.