O'Melveny's 2018-2019 Pro Bono Review

O’MELVENY PRO BONO PROGRAM REVIEW 2018- 2019 6 If you’re interested in pro bono work, O’Melveny is a great place to be. The firm is extremely supportive, from the top on down. ANTON METLITSKY The stakes are high in any courtroom, but in some they are higher than others. Often, if Anton Metlitsky is unsuccessful, there is no appealing to a greater power. Anton handles federal appeals and many of his cases end up before the US Supreme Court. Last year, counsel had to be appointed to represent the government on the question of whether an administrative law judge in the SEC was, in fact, an officer of the United States. Anton, a partner in O’Melveny’s New York office, was appointed. He had clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts before joining O’Melveny in 2008. Anton put together a team of O’Melveny attorneys and, in April 2018, argued the case in front of his old boss. Anton has always maintained an active pro bono docket, with a concentration in appellate practice. He is currently PRO BONO SPOTLIGHT Anton Metlitsky challenging President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to obtain funding for a border wall. In that matter, he is working with Justin Florence, the Legal Director of Protect Democracy; the two were associates together in O’Melveny’s Washington office. Anton cites the border wall case and writing an amicus brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry as two of his most rewarding pro bono experiences. Hollingsworth sought to legalize same-sex marriages in California. The parties had litigated the case on the merits in the lower courts, but Anton’s amicus brief made a robust argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and this was ultimately the basis on which both the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court decided the case. The ruling’s effect was dramatic, as marriage equality was illegal one moment and legal the next. Says Anton, “The immediate consequences of the decision were right there in front of our face.” Anton encourages associates to use pro bono matters to gain experience and build skills as litigators, which will ultimately serve all clients. “If you’re interested in pro bono work, O’Melveny is a great place to be,” he says. “The firm is extremely supportive, from the top on down. We believe in pro bono work.” because it turned on the application of a legal standard—whether the services were “reasonably necessary”—that required an evaluation of Mr. Ayestas’s “prospects of obtaining habeas relief.” This decision was invaluable to Mr. Ayestas, whose trial and state habeas counsel had failed to investigate his history of substance abuse and evidence of mental illness—factors that could have mitigated his sentence. The outcome of this case is not just important to Mr. Ayestas though; it is significant for all capital litigants who are denied access to investigative resources simply because they cannot afford them. Supporting Defendants’ Rights to Evidence Russell Overton was 26 when he was convicted of murder in Washington, DC, in 1985. After a nine-month police investigation, Mr. Overton was one of 13 young black men charged in the killing of a 48-year-old woman. Mr. Overton’s grandmother testified that he was at home at the time of the murder. Of the 13 defendants, two were acquitted; three entered into plea bargain agreements; and eight, including Mr. Overton, were convicted and sentenced to 35 years to life in prison. The three who pleaded guilty testified against the others and provided the bulk of the evidence used to convict Mr. Overton.