In recent years, in-house legal departments have stepped up their commitment to pro bono work. But here's something you don't often see: an in-house lawyer litigating and winning a pro bono case that could affect hundreds of thousands of people and result in billions of dollars in government benefits. 

Take a bow, Dominion Energy Senior Counsel David DePippo, who along with Hunton Andrews Kurth associate Tim McHugh just won a major victory for veterans before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Both lawyers are veterans themselves. DePippo served in the Coast Guard from 1994 to 1999, and used the Montgomery GI Bill to attend the University of Richmond School of Law. McHugh used the Post-9/11 GI Bill to attend undergrad and law school after serving in the Army from 2003 to 2008. 

That meant the cause they were championing—educational benefits for military service members—was close to their hearts.

DePippo said he had the full support of Virginia-based Dominion, which he describes as "extremely community-minded," to litigate the case—though he admits he also put in extra time in the evenings and on weekends. 

He's been working on the case since about 2015, back when he was a lawyer at Hunton & Williams (which merged with Andrews Kurth Kenyon in 2018 to form Hunton Andrews Kurth). 

An environmental law specialist, DePippo moved in-house to Dominion two-and-a-half years ago. When he did, he got approval from his new employer to continue to work on the case. ("They maybe didn't fully realize the amount of time it would take," he said, laughing.)

DePippo and McHugh represented a veteran identified only as BO—his identity is sealed because he now works as a federal counterterrorism agent.

His tale is bittersweet. A highly-decorated Army combat veteran, he joined the military as an enlisted service member. When his initial stint was done, he attended college on the Montgomery GI Bill, then returned to active duty as a commissioned officer, deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2015, he was accepted to Yale Divinity School, where wanted to study to become an Army chaplain. Based on his service as a commissioned officer, he applied for benefits under Post-9/11 GI Bill education program, which provides more generous benefits than the Montgomery GI Bill.

BO argued that his separate periods of service independently qualified him to receive benefits under both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

"At its core, this case is about whether he, and others like him with two separate periods of qualifying service, may obtain the full benefits of both programs (subject to an overall cap)," wrote Judge Michael Allen for the Court of Veterans Claims in a 2-1 split decision.

He never got to go to Yale. The VA forced him to forfeit his remaining Montgomery benefits and limited his Post-9/11 benefits to the amount of the forfeited benefits—not nearly enough to get the degree. During the appellate process, BO had to give up his Yale admission and became ineligible to return to the Army because of his age.

DePippo said his client also wanted to see the case through "to make sure other people would have these opportunities."

In a decision issued Aug. 15 and made public on Aug. 24, the court sided with BO.

"Congress hasn't spoken directly to the precise question at issue—at least not clearly," the majority held. But the judges noted that the Post-9/11 program didn't replace the Montgomery program. "They co-exist. So, receipt of benefits under one program for one period of service can't possibly constitute benefits duplicative of those received under another program for another period of service."

"[W]e determine that Congress's statutory scheme is best interpreted to provide that separate periods of qualifying service allow a veteran such as BO to receive full benefits under both programs."

The decision is applicable to service members going back 20 years, DePippo noted. The Post-9/11 program covers not just tuition, but also a living stipend and books. "It's a full ride," he said.