pro bono efforts
We recently asked members to share their firm’s Pro Bono policies or efforts. Following
are articles submitted by Georgia Power and Pachman Richardson. This will be an ongoing series of articles so please send your firm’s policy and/or efforts to Mariana Pannell
at [email protected] to be included in future issues of The Atlanta Lawyer.
Pachman Richardson’s
Pro Bono Commitment
P
achman Richardson, LLC is committed to its pro bono
efforts. Each of its nine lawyers provide services pro
bono as Guardians ad litem for children in contested
custody cases, as well as the working poor in divorce,
custody, and legitimation actions. While the firm imposes
no minimum hourly requirement, each attorney commits at
least 100 hours each year to their pro bono clients. This
commitment is in addition to the many community service
projects the firm takes on.
The firm’s commitment to pro bono begins at the very top of
the firm. Melody Z. Richardson, Pachman Richardson’s
managing partner, has long been committed to representing
those who need, but cannot afford, the invaluable services
of an attorney. This article shares how Melody’s work has
touched the lives of others. We hope it inspires.
In June of this year, Melody received an article and thank you
letter from a longstanding pro bono client. Since July 1996,
Melody has represented Dian Wolfe and her grandchildren,
Marquis and Quincentra (“Quin”), following the murder of
the children’s mother by Quin’s father. Melody’s daughter
attended the Easter Seals Children’s Center, an inclusive
day care facility with Marquis, a child with special needs.
After Marquis and Quin’s mother was murdered, Melody
represented Dian in a custody dispute with the children’s
paternal grandfather, who sought custody of Quin. Melody
succeeded in having custody of both children awarded to
Dian.
But the children and Dian’s battle did not end there. Although
the children’s mother, Heather, earned a modest wage,
she had a small insurance policy as part of her employee
benefits package. Additionally, shortly after Heather was
killed, a letter arrived from Bank South, where Heather had
a checking account. The letter stated that the bank would
no longer maintain the life insurance policy it had offered
to customers as an incentive to open a bank account,
18
THE ATLANTA LAWYER
October 2012
effective after Heather’s death. Had that letter not been
sent, it is doubtful anyone would have known of the policy.
And because Heather had been murdered, her policies
paid double the death benefit under their double-indemnity
provisions.
Of course, since the children were only three- and one-year
old at the time, Dian had to be appointed as the custodian
of the property of the children in order for the life insurance
company to pay the death benefits to Dian for the children.
Melody, again, represented Dian to have her appointed as
the children’s conservator. The probate court