Reply #37: No, but the point is this follows in all of his work he has done. The

[EV_Ares]

article about pro-bono is totally unfair and nothing but a hit job on him. If you want to get nip & tuck with all these attorneys running, it could be fun. Do you expect him to be able to do all of the things he has done for those less fortunate if he did his attorney work for free. The pro-bono thing is rediculous with the time he has given in more causes than you can name.

To say that Edwards took no "pro bono cases" is a half-truth at best. Every case a trial lawyer like Edwards handles is taken on a contingent basis. That means the lawyer takes no money from the client up front. In fact, the lawyer normally funds all the costs of the case from his own pocket. Those costs can run into the millions of dollars, all being funded by the lawyer and with no guarantee he'll get any of it back.

So the "no pro bono cases" remark, coming from the Washington Times who did a piece on this, is intentionally misleading. Every case Edwards handled is "pro bono" in the sense that he asks for nothing from the client up front. Or to put it differently, a lack of funds does not prevent poor people from gaining access to the legal system - the classic definition of "pro bono."

But the irony of the remark from the Washington Times goes beyond that. Right wing publications like the Times frequently object to the contingent fee arrangement because it gives people too much access to the courts, thereby (in the view of the right wing) resulting in spurious litigation. For the Times first to criticize trial lawyers from making litigation too easy and then criticize John Edwards for not taking "pro bono" cases is laughable.

Think about it, what merit does this issue of one person, John Edwards & pro-bono work even have & is not even true.