summary

Article written by Adam Liptak

On October 9, 2010

Specialists' Help at Court Can Come With a Catch

The author uses real court cases that are being appealed to the Supreme Court to question the motives and ethics of "Supreme Court Specialists" to provide their services pro bono to a case likely to be heard by Supreme Court. He also explores If to much effort is being made to take some of the cases to the Supreme Court where the client or the Law in general would have been better served not to take it that far by law firms trying to show clients their expertise in Constitutional law.

To get into the Supreme Court bar you have to be admitted to a state bar, be a lawyer for three years, pay a 200 dollar fee and be sponsored by two lawyers already admitted to the Supreme court bar. But that does not make you a specialist in the eyes of Professor Lazarus who says you must have argued 5 cases in front of the justices or work for a firm that has done at least 10. One of the first specialists was Thomas C. Goldstein of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Who used the method of looking for two federal appeals court to have different rulings on the same subject matter , often working for free just to get to argue in front of the justices. There are now 7 law school Supreme Court clinics. They have done very well in getting cases to the Supreme Court which is a feat in itself. They also have a good record compared to other groups of lawyers on winning on the merits of the case. But are too many cases and for the wrong reasons getting fought over and pushed to the Supreme Court? The author showed several cases that did not help the client or public in the long run.