Understanding Disparities in Legal Representation for Immigrants

A recent article by Harvard Law School sheds light on the differences in win-loss rates among lawyers working for Big Law and those working for non-Big Law firms, especially when it comes to immigration cases in federal appellate courts. The article draws on interviews with 22 lawyers, which reveal four key themes that emerged from these discussions.

Resources play a pivotal role. Big Law firms have substantial financial resources, enabling them to afford extensive support staff, research tools, and other expenses. This advantage allows for comprehensive preparation, including moot arguments and thorough brief reviews, contributing to better representation.

Case selection differs significantly between Big Law and non-Big Law practices. Big Law firms can afford to be highly selective in pro bono cases, focusing on those with realistic chances of success. In contrast, non-Big Law practitioners often face pressure to take on fee-paying clients, even if their cases are less meritorious.

Big Law firms boast specialized appellate practice groups, providing expertise in litigation strategies and court procedures. Although not immigration specialists, these lawyers transfer their skills effectively, leveraging their understanding of legal principles and case presentation to secure wins.

Finally, there’s a potential “halo effect” associated with Big Law representation. Judges may view Big Law lawyers favorably due to their reputation and connections within the legal community. Additionally, clients of Big Law firms may offer support or publicity, further enhancing the perception of their cases.

Analysis of data spanning both the Obama and Trump administrations corroborates these findings, indicating consistent disparities in win rates between Big Law and non-Big Law lawyers across different political contexts.

The study underscores the importance of legal representation for immigrants, particularly in appellate courts, and advocates for equitable access to quality legal assistance. While government-appointed counsel for immigrants remains an ideal but distant prospect, the study urges lawyers to recognize their capacity to make a difference and calls for collective action to address the urgent need for comprehensive legal representation in immigration proceedings.