D.C. attorneys devote significant numbers of pro bono hours to matters involving protection of victims of human trafficking, asylum and immigration matters.  In recent precedent-setting advocacy, we filed a RICO complaint, claiming a family of five was an enterprise that trafficked the Firm’s client into the United States and into 19 years of forced labor.  The RICO counts survived three motions to dismiss.  We then obtained a seven-figure settlement for the plaintiff, including a six-figure cash award from the defendants’ three homeowners' insurance companies.  This was the first case in public record in which insurance companies have paid out substantial damages in a human trafficking suit.

Additional recent pro bono matters include:

A mid-level associate (now a partner) arguing a pro bono case before the U.S. Supreme Court, securing a landmark asylum law win in Nken v. Holder in 2009.  It was the associate’s first argument in any court.

Representing Hastings Outlaw in a 5-4 victory in which the Supreme Court ruled that a public university law school can require student groups it recognizes to open their membership to all students, and can decline to fund a religious student group that requires its officers and voting members to agree with its core religious beliefs, effectively excluding gay and lesbian students and students with other religious beliefs.

Successfully challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which defines marriage, for all federal purposes, as a union between one man and one woman.  Working with co-counsel, we secured a victory for the plaintiffs – seven same-sex couples and three survivors of deceased same-sex spouses, all of whom were legally married in Massachusetts.  The Massachusetts federal court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, holding that married same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples.

Successfully representing a Special Committee of the Council of the District of Columbia investigating voting-machine and other irregularities in primary elections in the District in 2008, in what the Washington Post called “one of the most comprehensive probes on the reliability of electronic voting equipment.”  We broke new ground when, despite lack of precedent, the Court granted our motion to enforce a D.C. Council subpoena with no related lawsuit, compelling Sequoia Voting Systems, the company that provided the machines, ballots and software for those elections, to produce materials subpoenaed by the Special Committee.  The materials sought were turned over, enabling the investigation to proceed.  We then assisted in writing the Committee’s report to the Council, with recommendations that were incorporated into the D.C. Omnibus Election Reform Act of 2009, landmark legislation thought by many to make the District’s elections among the most progressive and inclusive in the country.