rythmicbread t1_iwuwyw2 wrote
Reply to comment by CLWR43290 in Federal Monitor Who Watches Over Rikers Island Has Made $18 million from NYC Taxpayers...and counting by mattkatz00
Like what does he even do. What specialized skill does he have that requires a higher salary?
The president of the US only gets 400k a year
Throwawayhelp111521 t1_iwwfn4j wrote
The president of the United States and the Mayor of NYC are public servants. The Monitor is not. He's a private lawyer and his hourly fee of $350 is not out of line for an experienced lawyer, in fact, it's on the low side.
rythmicbread t1_iwwh9uj wrote
Gotcha, that makes a bit more sense. Tbf, I did ask what he did. I was under the impression he was an appointed public servant.
Throwawayhelp111521 t1_iwwis8c wrote
He's a private consultant. I don't know his exact status, but agreeing to take the position does not mean he's agreeing to be paid like a typical elected or appointed official or a member of the civil service. Up higher in this thread, someone posted a link to his curriculum vitae. It's 14 pages long. I only looked at the first few pages, but he appears to have highly relevant experience in criminal justice and specifically corrections systems stretching back to 1987. When the government hires an expert it doesn't expect to get a discount. It's paying for special expertise. As I said, many experienced lawyers have a much higher hourly rate. Harping on his rate seems like a juvenile, attention-grabbing ploy and the reporter is experienced so it's disappointing.
PrebenInAcapulco t1_iwwnw1d wrote
Disagree. Even high powered lawyers do not charge their commercial rate when doing pro bono or other public oriented work. It’s one thing for Exxon to pay 500 dollars an hour or whatever but it’s a misuse of city funds that can do good elsewhere. The city should not be paying this much. Very competent lawyers exist who would do this work for much less.
Throwawayhelp111521 t1_iwz997o wrote
This isn't pro bono work. Pro Bono work is usually performed at no charge. The law firm makes a certain number of lawyers available for free and doesn't charge for expenses like photocopying, postage, service, and travel, which can be considerable. Pro bono work usually isn't open-ended. The law firm takes on discrete matters that can be resolved in a reasonable amount of time like a year or two, often less. Often law firm associates (as opposed to partners) are assigned to pro bono cases and in many large law firms with up-and-out systems, the associates leave after a few years to work somewhere else.
I don't think many competent lawyers with this level of expertise and experience would want to work for years on a project of this type for less than their normal fee. It doesn't seem to be very rewarding work and it appears that the lawyers don't have the power and political support to accomplish all that they need to. If you're going to work at less than your regular rate you want the experience to be fulfilling, to be good training for your associates, and to generate good PR for your firm.
PrebenInAcapulco t1_iwzx4gb wrote
Agree to disagree as to whether this is an attractive project for a law firm. Big law firms would salivate at taking on a high profile project like this. And yah not purely pro bono but falls in the quasi pro bono realm where billing is lower usually.
Throwawayhelp111521 t1_ix0p5by wrote
>Big law firms would salivate at taking on a high profile project like this
High profile but also high criticism, a not easily solvable problem: not that attractive.
Throwawayhelp111521 t1_iwzc9s4 wrote
Don't forget that despite their relatively low salaries, many high-profile politicians receive numerous perks, and there often are funds created by their parties and their donors from which to draw. They're not living just on their salaries. And in the future, they parlay their political experience and connections into handsomely paying positions such as consultants, board members, etc.
BiblioPhil t1_iwz5sot wrote
That was probably the intention. Part 2 was convincing you to vote against spending for public programs and in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments