Attorney General Eric Holder’s stirring remarks at the 2010 Annual Seminar/Forum on In-House Pro Bono on the importance of pro bono for unpopular clients and causes generated a host of media attention, including a disturbing analysis of pro bono by Andrew McCarthy, an attorney and columnist for the National Review Online. PBI President Esther Lardent responded to McCarthy’s factually and legally incorrect position in a letter to the editor of the National Review.

McCarthy’s column, “Representing al-Qaeda,” was a response to the Attorney General’s remarks at the Pro Bono Institute’s 2010 Annual Seminar/Forum in praise of those who represent unpopular clients as patriots. Subtitled “Does helping jihadists lie, plot, and identify CIA agents demonstrate patriotism – or material support to terrorism?” McCarthy demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the meaning and importance of pro bono service. To read the full text of McCarthy’s column, click here.

Responding to McCarthy’s mischaracterization of the term pro bono publico, Lardent noted, “The acid test is not a popularity contest….Under Mr. McCarthy’s test, one wonders whether the work of the lawyers in Brown v. Board of Education…or Gideon v. Wainwright…would have been considered pro bono in light [of] what was the popular public view when they were decided. Pro bono is and must be grounded in the rule of law, not the court of public opinion.” Read Lardent’s full response here.