As a leading global law firm, we recognize our unique ability to advance UN Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. As stated by the UN, conflict, insecurity, weak institutions and limited access to justice remain a great threat to sustainable development. We are committed to promoting the rule of law and increasing access to justice through our long-standing pro bono program.
Our distinguished pro bono history derives primarily from our profound sense of professional and moral obligation to increase access to justice and help under-represented clients and non-profits otherwise unable to access legal support.
Eversheds Sutherland lawyers are encouraged to provide pro bono legal services as a part of their well-rounded practice. This expectation of service is supported by billable hour credit and attorney review policies that include pro bono as a factor in promotion and bonus eligibility, with specific criteria varying by region. Pro bono work is both rewarding and essential to the professional development of our lawyers.
Our pro bono success stories
Eversheds Sutherland filed an amicus brief on behalf of Human Rights for Kids in a First Amendment case before the US Supreme Court regarding how to determine whether pure speech is a “true threat,” exempting it from protection of the First Amendment.
We argued that to meet the “true threat” exception—meaning an individual can be prosecuted for pure speech—the speech at issue must be both objectively threatening to a reasonable listener and specifically intended by the speaker to constitute a threat, evaluated in the context of the totality of the circumstances. Many states and federal circuits employ an objective-only test, effectively criminalizing negligent speech. We wrote to bring to the court’s attention the impact of its choice of a mens rea standard on the rights of children, especially in light of their inveterate use of social media. Although still kids, they are subject to adult criminal sanctions for speech involving threats because of transfer laws that allow them to be prosecuted in adult court. Children, with their cognitive immaturity and heavy use of social media for communicating, are especially at risk for online misunderstandings that could result in overcriminalization of their speech without both an objective and subjective review of the facts and circumstances.
Nine years ago, we began representing “J” in an asylum case. A few days ago, she and her son became US citizens.
Traditionally, asylum cases involve people who fear returning to their country because they will face persecution based on religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. Here, J feared returning to her home country of Rwanda because she would face physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, and possibly death at the hands of her husband—and her country would not protect her.
J managed to escape to America in 2011 after enduring nearly two decades of her husband’s abuse. In 1990, she had been forced to marry him after he kidnapped and raped her. Over the next 20 years, she continued to suffer from his abuse, enduring almost daily beatings and worse. He similarly abused her three children and raped her younger sister. During her marriage, Rwandan law and culture did not recognize rape and physical abuse within a marriage as a crime. Therefore, J was unable to seek and receive help and protection from the Rwandan authorities.
J came to our law firm through Catholic Charities to seek help with filing an asylum petition. Her case presented two difficult legal issues. First, the only cognizable grounds on which J could claim asylum—her extensive domestic abuse in Rwanda—was relatively unsettled law. In fact, the first reported decision recognizing domestic abuse as a legal grounds for asylum was issued only one week before her asylum hearing in 2014. As a result, her petition required extensive briefing not only on her story and substantive asylum law, but also on the history of domestic violence in Rwanda and how married women are treated in Rwandan culture. Second, asylum applicants are generally required to file an asylum petition within one year of entering the country. Due to the circumstances of how J entered the US and her ongoing trauma, she did not file for asylum until nearly three years later, well outside of the statutory deadline.
Despite these legal hurdles, following multiple briefings and a hearing, J and her son were recommended for approval for a grant of asylum in 2014. And a few days ago, J texted us with the following note: “I want to say thank you so much for your help. I’m really happy with everything you’ve done to help us. And thank you to everyone so much who helped us.”
The following past and present Eversheds Sutherland attorneys and staff helped J and her son become two of our newest US citizens: Nancy Benson, Carmen Brun, Amanda Callais, Liz Cha, Ariana Cheng, Nicole Chessin, Lynne Dudurich, Irene Foster, Shawn Johnson, Katherine Kelly, Charlie Kruly, Sandy LoJacono, Amanda Oliveira, Kristin Rininger, Brian Rubin, Katie Sabo and Lauren Shor.
We recently secured a significant victory on behalf of a pro bono client who had been wrongly imprisoned for more than 32 years.
Despite having an alibi, our client was first convicted (non-unanimously) of rape in 1991 and has been serving his sentence in Louisiana’s Angola prison ever since. The victim originally told police that she did not know the perpetrator but then accused our client, a neighbor she knew well, of the crime 15 days later. Our client has always maintained his innocence, and no physical evidence linked him to the crime.
In 2020, Melissa Fox (Counsel, US), took on the case with the Promise of Justice Initiative (PJI) to challenge non-unanimous jury verdicts. The Supreme Court had ruled such verdicts to be unconstitutional in the Ramos v. Louisiana case in 2020 – only Louisiana and Oregon had permitted them. Unfortunately, for our client, the US Supreme Court in 2021 and the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2022 ruled that Ramos was not retroactive so could not be relied upon by our client and our other clients who had completed their direct appeals.
However, our client's family hired an investigator who identified a new witness whom we interviewed. This new witness had a relationship with the victim two years after the supposed event. The victim had told him that her mother’s then boyfriend had committed the crime, and that her mother had threatened to throw her out of the house if she reported him. This new witness had learned of our client’s conviction and, based on what the victim had told him, agreed to testify for our client (whom he did not know) at a new hearing.
At Melissa’s suggestion, we and PJI expanded the scope of our representation of our client to include a new actual innocence claim, necessary to get around procedural bars from his prior post-conviction challenges.
Samantha Darnell (Associate, US) joined the team to help draft the petition based on actual innocence and Cyndie Wyke-Garrett (Paralegal Specialist, US) supported the team throughout the entire representation. Melissa filed that petition based on actual innocence supported by an affidavit from the new witness, and engaged in negotiations with the D.A.’s office. In responding to our petition, the D.A. noted that there were real concerns about the guilty verdict in this case, and expressly waived (in our client's case) the non-retroactivity defense to our Ramos claim.
In 2023, after Melissa made a proffer of what our evidence would show, the judge declared that the state had never proven our client's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and vacated his conviction based on the non-unanimous jury verdict. This could have permitted a new trial, and Melissa asked that a reasonable bond be set so that our client could be freed while the state considered this. The Assistant D.A. then stated that the State would not retry this case, resulting in our client being freed that same day.
Our client and his family are extremely pleased with the result.
Eversheds Sutherland is proud to be nominated for this year’s Collaboration Award at the TrustLaw Awards!
This award showcases highly effective working relationships between pro bono providers and recipients that exemplify the power and best practices of pro bono. Eversheds Sutherland partnered with the Thomson Reuters Foundation and Argentinean nonprofit Sustentabilidad sin Fronteras on researching best practices on climate change regulations in South America, a pro bono project to develop a comparative study on climate change legislation in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru (all of which have ratified the Paris Agreement).
US Associates Ana Rocio Monzón Woc, Natalia Cosío Ondiviela, and Claudia Chafloque Siu drafted the chapter on Chile’s legislation, which was published in the final report along with other law firms' contributions.
Legal support in this capacity is an important factor that can help shift the dial on pressing social issues. It is an honor to be recognized by the Thomson Reuters Foundation alongside other leading law firms. View the full publication (which is in Spanish).