From the Tribune: 
 
Free Ryan defense could get expensive 
If mistrial declared, rerun would be costly 
 
By Susan Chandler 
Tribune staff reporter 
Published March 30, 2006 
 
 The specter of a mistrial in the George Ryan case is a frightening scenario for government prosecutors who have spent years building a corruption case against the former Illinois governor. 
 
 It may be just as alarming for Ryan's lawyers at Winston & Strawn. The top-drawer Chicago law firm, which is headed by former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson, has been providing Ryan with a free defense, and it might have to do it all over again. 
 
 The cost of devoting Dan Webb, the firm's top litigator, and a small army of other lawyers to Ryan's criminal defense reportedly has cost Winston & Strawn almost $20 million. The tab stood at $10 million in November, the firm said. Indirect costs, such as a loss of new clients, are impossible to measure. 
 
 The decision to defend Ryan on a pro bono basis already has created serious dissension in the firm as partners fret that their share of the firm's profits has been dented by the cost, a source close to the case said. If Ryan has to be retried, the simmering discontent could turn into vocal resistance, the source said. 
 
 Because a mistrial is only a possibility at this point, no decision has been made at Winston & Strawn about whether the firm would provide a second free defense or attempt to withdraw from the case. 
 
 "I have no comment because I just don't know," said Thomas Fitzgerald, Winston & Strawn's managing partner-elect. A spokeswoman for the firm declined to comment on the Ryan matter because of Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer's gag order. 
 
 On Tuesday Pallmeyer added two alternates to the Ryan jury and told the group to restart deliberations in the six-month case. She made clear a mistrial was still a possibility if she concludes the process is unfair to Ryan or his co-defendant, lobbyist Lawrence Warner. 
 
 If Pallmeyer did declare a mistrial and Winston decided to stick by Ryan, that could significantly increase the firm's tab for his defense and could result in Webb being occupied for almost a year. 
 
 But if Winston decided to bail, it could erase any goodwill engendered in Ryan loyalists by the pro bono defense in the first trial, legal experts say. The judge also might not allow Winston to withdraw because it could harm his defense, they say. 
 
 Ron Allen, a professor of law at Northwestern University, believes that Webb and Winston would decide to defend Ryan the second time around. But that decision would come at a high cost. 
 
 "It's not just the money. It's the disruption for the business," Allen said. "You've got the cream of the crop of the litigation department working on a single corruption case." 
 
 In the end, the decision is probably in Webb's hands, sources close to Winston said. Webb, who reportedly bills at $750 an hour, is highly respected within the firm and is Winston's biggest rainmaker. 
 
 So far the financial pain for Winston does not appear to be acute. 
 
 "The firm has really buckled down," said an attorney at another firm who has worked with Webb. "They were on target with their profits per partner." 
 
 Indeed, times have been good for Winston & Strawn. 
 
 In 2004 the firm reported revenue of $516.5 million, a 12 percent increase from 2003, according to The American Lawyer magazine. Revenue per lawyer rose 13 percent to $650,000, while profits per partner increased 20.9 percent to $985,000. Numbers for 2005 are not yet available, but the drain of the Ryan defense will be spread out over two fiscal years. 
 
 Winston's pro bono work in the Ryan case is almost unprecedented, said legal experts who struggled to cite similar situations. 
 
 The lawyers representing President Bill Clinton in the Whitewater case and Paula Jones lawsuit may not have expected to be paid in full but they never overtly worked for free. Their risk has paid off handsomely since the Clintons both landed multimillion-dollar book deals, which gave them the wherewithal to pay legal bills. 
 
 There is more debate about whether the Ryan case will pay off for Winston & Strawn. 
 
 Law professor Allen thinks it will. "There may be a short-term hit to the bottom line, but in the long term it may turn out to be favorable," he said. "It can generate good publicity." 
 
 Legal consultant Ward Bower disagrees. Webb, one of the country's top trial lawyers, "doesn't need the publicity," he points out. "He has very little to gain from this and a lot to lose." 
 
 It's hard to see how Winston racks up points by defending Ryan for free, adds a local political consultant who asked not to be identified. Illinois Republicans, with a few exceptions such as gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka, already have turned their back on Ryan because of the embarrassment he has caused the party. 
 
 "In the court of public opinion the guy already has been tried and convicted. If he gets off, I don't think it helps anybody," the consultant said. 
 
 Still, the case likely has raised Winston's profile in the field of white-collar criminal defense, an area that has been booming lately with the legal fallout from a long list of corporate scandals. 
 
 One thing the Ryan case has done is broaden the definition of pro bono work, lawyers say. The phrase is short for pro bono publico, which is Latin for "for the public good." Pro bono work is defined differently by different firms and legal organizations, but it traditionally refers to legal work provided at no cost to clients who are too poor to pay for an attorney. 
 
 Does Ryan, who gets an annual state pension of more than $185,000 and has a half-million-dollar legal defense fund, really fit the pro bono definition? 
 
 "It's probably something of a stretch, but if the firm wants to consider it pro bono work, they can do it. There's no law as to what's pro bono," said Marc Kadish, director of pro bono activities at Chicago law firm Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw. 
 
 "You and I could not afford the services of Winston & Strawn. Very few can afford Dan Web's hourly fee. Whether they are doing a favor for a friend, that's for the media or the public to decide," Kadish said. 
 
 At Chicago firm Katten Muchin Rosenman pro bono services can also be provided to civil rights and civil liberties organizations as well as charitable groups that would have their resources depleted by paying legal fees, said Jonathan Baum, a partner who directs the firm's pro bono services. 
 
 "There are a variety of definitions. There are a lot of judgment calls involved in this," said Baum, who declined to comment on Winston's role in the Ryan case. "It's hard to run a pro bono program, and I wouldn't want to be criticizing anyone else's pro bono work."