Armstrong Teasdale Leads Larger Area Firms in American Lawyer Pro Bono Ranking
When it comes to pro bono work performed by U.S. lawyers, Armstrong Teasdale ranks 113 among the nation’s largest 200 firms, according to The American Lawyer. The pro bono score reflects particularly well on AT, since the magazine ranks the firm No. 187 based on revenues. The pro bono ranking also puts AT ahead of several larger Missouri firms.
The American Lawyer, which published the pro bono rankings in its July 2014 issue, made the determinations based on survey responses submitted by law firms. The magazine used that information to calculate scores based on the average number of pro bono hours per lawyer in 2013 and the percentage of lawyers who performed more than 20 hours of pro bono work.
In making its findings, The American Lawyer excluded work done by paralegals and summer associates. It also excluded time spent on bar association work and non-legal activities for charities or on boards of nonprofit organizations.
According to the magazine’s calculations, the average amount of pro bono work done in 2013 by Armstrong Teasdale lawyers was 31.3 hours. It also found that 32.4 percent of the firm’s lawyers performed more than 20 hours of pro bono work. Based on these figures, the magazine determined AT’s pro bono score to be 31.8.
During 2013, Armstrong Teasdale lawyers worked on a number of significant pro bono matters. In one case, we represented 15 bipartisan state, regional and local elected officials who supported Glossip v. Missouri Department of Transportation, a widely-watched lawsuit in favor of equality for the domestic partner of a gay Missouri State Trooper, who was killed in the line of duty. The surviving partner was seeking spousal death benefits that the state currently only allows to heterosexual married couples.
In another example, Darryl Chatman represented a Bosnian war victim in his fight against the Social Security Administration, which tried to obtain repayment of disability benefits. Darryl’s client suffered extensive mental and physical problems attributable to the abuse suffered in an ethnic cleansing camp. Darryl, who began representing the client in 2011, convinced the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review to throw out an administrative judge’s initial ruling against the immigrant and order a new hearing. The case was recently resolved in the client’s favor.