For a litigator, John Fleming has garnered two reputations that are hard to beat: “Bet the company” and “Bet my life.”

Fleming's work across 40-plus years at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan (now Eversheds Sutherland) has given him those opportunities. On the business side, Fleming tried jury cases for corporate clients in courts across the nation, including Ford and Dow Chemical and argued numerous state and federal appeals.

From 1980 to 1992, he also represented death row inmate Andrew Legare in postconviction proceedings. He won reversals of the death sentence by the U.S. Supreme Court and by the Georgia Supreme Court and eventually won a life sentence before a jury (and Court TV) in Madison, Georgia, trial court. The client was released for time served.

Fleming has headed the firm's litigation practice, served on the executive committee and is now the firm's full-time pro bono partner. In that role, Fleming led a team of lawyers challenging the government's family separation policies; worked on one of the largest labor trafficking cases in U.S. history; started another case for a death penalty defendant in Georgia; and is leading a major class action to protect medically fragile children from losing their skilled nursing care.

How should one best manage clients' expectations in so-called bet the company cases, including how to consider settlement offers?

A company, of course, should not bet itself unless it absolutely has to. But often that bet is placed by the adversary, and the company has to respond. When the stakes are very high, early, intense and continuous evaluation of the range of likely outcomes is essential. Mock juries, focus groups and other evaluation tools can be critical. Choosing an effective mediator at an early stage is a sign of wisdom, not weakness. At that point, realistic budgets by both sides for the cost of the litigation can help bridge gaps, get the case settled and leave the client with a nice pile of chips.

You have served on your firm's executive committee. What misconception do lawyers at big firms have about how firms are managed?

Some lawyers may have the misimpression that big firm management is myopically focused on short-term numbers and individual financial performance. My experience was that management spent a lot of time considering how to enhance client service and to build cooperative, team-based approaches that benefit clients and the firm over time, even at the cost of some short-term dollars.

As you've mentored lawyers over the years, how have their primary challenges stayed the same or changed?

The primary challenge for a lawyer in private practice has always been to do the best possible job for the client—to solve the legal problem in the most effective and efficient manner. That hasn't changed. The challenge of maintaining a healthy work/life balance has always been there, too. But that challenge has changed in nature, with partnership no longer a sure reward for hard work and a clean nose, with lots of other opportunities for talented lawyers, with the economics of the practice at a more stressful level and with technology moving at warp speed in both work and life. One thing that has not changed about my mentoring of newer lawyers is that I continue to learn more from them than they do from me.

As the firm's pro bono partner, what factors do you consider when determining how lawyers should donate their legal services? Should firms focus on donating lawyer time to clients who need representation or should they focus on supporting efforts to fix underlying causes of societal problems?

I consider first what the lawyer taking on the pro bono work is passionate about. We all do better at and get more out of something we want to do. And that means some contribute time to compelling direct representations, like asylum-seekers, domestic violence victims or death penalty defendants, and some work together with other lawyers and nonprofit groups to seek to effect meaningful policy change for marginalized groups. There is no shortage of matters in either category. Business development is not an issue in the pro bono world.

What improvement in the practice of law would you like to see resolved in 10 years?

I would love to see Georgia and all other states achieve access to civil justice for everyone. There are promising initiatives underway all over the country: using technology to provide services in remote areas, permitting help in appropriate situations from legal professionals who are not lawyers, expansion of pro bono and low bono work by lawyers, lawyer assistance at scale to pro se litigants and more. Wealth and income gaps are greatly exacerbated by the access to justice gap. Every person deserves a just result when his or her rights are at issue in our justice system.