Top Law Schools

.

Nope.

This isn't a dumb question. The most important thing to realize about large law firms is that they chase fees. That's why the same firm that will litigate a billion dollar anti-trust suit will also work billion dollar M&A transactions and write wills for billionaires. Sadly, good causes tend to have very shallow coffers.

The flip side is that big firms, believe it or not, are often filled with good people. Most attorneys at such firms do substantial amounts of pro bono work, usually things like representing indignant clients but also sometimes doing corporate/transactional work for nonprofits. Most firms encourage such behavior, and advertise it to those applying.

There are a few VERY narrow exceptions, at large but not traditionally 'big law' firms, which might do things like civil rights litigation. But those will be well outside of the traditional biglaw model and probably both hard to get a job at and find information on.

.

As the above poster noted, there is pro-bono.

I would also consider shooting over an app to Cohen Milstein if you have the stats for it, they do a lot of big civil rights, consumer antitrust cases

2LLLL wrote:I would also consider shooting over an app to Cohen Milstein if you have the stats for it

yes stats like 2nd or 9th COA clerkship

Sealocust nailed it; although there are plaintiff's-side firms that might be considered "do gooders," depending on how far you're willing to stretch that term. Firms like Milberg (and a few others) make big money basically finding ways to put together class-actions and sue corporations. Some of this type of work could be seen as actually beneficial (like toxic torts or products liability), but most of it is securities litigation (ie rich people fighting over money).

.

Simpson Thatcher has some kind of public interest practice, though I'm sure it's not your traditional public interest.

Aside from that, pro bono all the way.

Stanford4Me wrote:Simpson Thatcher has some kind of public interest practice, though I'm sure it's not your traditional public interest.

Aside from that, pro bono all the way.

Uh, Simpson Thatcher, while an incredible firm, does anti-union labor law, defends toxic torts, defends products liability cases (including tobacco clients), and defends companies/boards against shareholder suits. I fear that you and I have a very different definition of "public interest."

Renzo wrote:

Stanford4Me wrote:Simpson Thatcher has some kind of public interest practice, though I'm sure it's not your traditional public interest.

Aside from that, pro bono all the way.

Uh, Simpson Thatcher, while an incredible firm, does anti-union labor law, defends toxic torts, defends products liability cases (including tobacco clients), and defends companies/boards against shareholder suits. I fear that you and I have a very different definition of "public interest."

Uh, no that's not what I was talking about.

http://www.stblaw.com/practice_exemptOrg.htm

I also made it pretty clear that the practice group is not your traditional public interest practice group.

Stanford4Me wrote:

Renzo wrote:

Stanford4Me wrote:Simpson Thatcher has some kind of public interest practice, though I'm sure it's not your traditional public interest.

Aside from that, pro bono all the way.

Uh, Simpson Thatcher, while an incredible firm, does anti-union labor law, defends toxic torts, defends products liability cases (including tobacco clients), and defends companies/boards against shareholder suits. I fear that you and I have a very different definition of "public interest."

Uh, no that's not what I was talking about.

http://www.stblaw.com/practice_exemptOrg.htm

I also made it pretty clear that the practice group is not your traditional public interest practice group.

Cadwalader, the firm that ruined the economy, has one of those, too. That's PR, not public interest.

Best (and most accurate) title ever for Cadwalader.