One paragraph caught my eye in the latest outrage Executive Order spewed forth. The order is titled “Strengthening And Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement To Pursue Criminals And Protect Innocent Citizens.” With that title, you know a big steaming pile is coming, but one paragraph in particular reads:
The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action to create a mechanism to provide legal resources and indemnification to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities for actions taken during the performance of their official duties to enforce the law. This mechanism shall include the use of private-sector pro bono assistance for such law enforcement officers.
(empahsis added). The phrase “pro bono” is shortened from “pro bono publico,” and it is supposed to mean provision of free legal services by legal professionals for people who are unable to afford them, thereby serving the interests of the public.
I think it is a galactic stretch to consider police officers, who are typically defended free of charge by their public employer or union for their official acts, to be people unable to afford legal representation. And, I wonder how it’s in the public interest for the federal government to be involved in local police discipline and criminal matters to the extent of arranging free services and indemnification for possible wrongful acts.
Let’s take Derek Chauvin for an example. Chauvin was accused (and convicted at trial) of second degree murder for his brutalizing of George Floyd. That followed a long history of complaints of police brutality perpetrated by him. The City of Minneapolis declined to defend him for his actions that resulted in Floyd’s death, but the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA) footed the bill for his defense.
Now, it seems that Trump would force the BigLaw firms that have sprinted for the chance to knuckle under to his extortion and bribery to provide free services if such a case were to arise today. Everyone is entitled to a legal defense, but we already pay for public defenders to handle cases where a criminal defendant is truly unable to afford representation. Also, the court can just appoint an attorney for the purpose if public defense is unavailable or for some reason not appropriate. I don’t see why the federal government would have any legitimate interest in providing supposedly top notch representation (and indemnification!) to people who already have representation, and usually free to them as well.
Anyway, I don’t see how this can be characterized in any sense as “pro bono” work. It’s just free work to make a political point. Those BigLaw firms that have signed “deals” with Trump better be thinking about backing out if they are assigned such cases. It’s not pro bono publico work, but rather a gift for political purposes (and firmly stamps what they’ve agreed to as unethical and likely illegal). To do otherwise would make a mockery of the pro bono practice they so much like to brag about.
