Any attorney-at-law—or attorney-in-fact acting only within authority the law actually permits—who accepts this challenge in advance and defeats the entirety of a covered case through a qualifying dispositive result may choose an eligible public-defense organization to receive a $1,000 donation from Paulo.

The challenger does not receive the money. Neither does the client. The successful challenger designates the public-defense cause, the donation goes there directly, and the receipt enters the record.

The rules are simple. The writing is precise.

Declare it before the contest. Identify the case and send written notice through the inquiry desk before the qualifying appearance or dispositive filing. A victory cannot be enrolled in the challenge after the fact. Acceptance is complete only when Paulo acknowledges the case-specific challenge in writing.
Appear lawfully. The challenger must be authorized to act in the identified matter. An attorney-in-fact may participate only to the extent the governing law permits; a power of attorney alone does not authorize the practice of law or courtroom representation for another person.
Win the whole case. The result must dispose of the entire covered action in the challenger’s client’s favor through dismissal with prejudice, summary judgment, or a comparable final dispositive outcome. A partial victory is not the whole case.
Let the order become final. The donation follows a final written order after ordinary reconsideration and appeal periods, unless the written acknowledgment for that case expressly provides otherwise.
Keep the donation charitable. The challenger selects an eligible United States public-defense nonprofit or fund. The $1,000 is paid directly to that organization and is not an attorney fee, client recovery, settlement payment, or inducement affecting representation.
Put proof on the record. The qualifying order and the donation receipt may be published with appropriate private information removed.

An open invitation, with local rules intact.

I openly invite confident lawyers from around the country to seek admission pro hac vice and defend the people I sue—provided they comply with every rule of the tribunal. In Virginia, that includes association with active Virginia local counsel and permission from the court under Rule 1A:4.

There is a joke in here about the Virginia defense bar needing more CLE. There is also a serious point. I routinely see sharp advocacy on the plaintiff’s side; in my personal observation, the defense side sometimes arrives less prepared to answer the actual allegation. Everyone benefits from another hour spent sharpening the craft—including me.

Adversarial does not mean indifferent to candor.

I respect attorneys who are confident, zealous, prepared, and willing to defend their clients. I do not respect laziness, and I do not admire advocacy that depends on omission, exaggeration, or mischaracterization. That is an editorial judgment about methods, not an accusation that any identifiable attorney committed professional misconduct.

“A client should be absolutely honest with their attorney, for it is the attorney’s job to confuse the issues.”

Source: Lawyers and Other Reptiles, hardcover edition, cover page 1. It is funny because it presses on a genuine tension. But confusion is not the ideal. The cleaner system is one in which the parties can agree on what happened, identify what they dispute, and let the court decide the law without first excavating the truth from competing clouds of rhetoric.

And yes, that ideal survives hard cases. Clever advocacy is part of the adversarial system, but cleverness cannot be the only value. Fair procedure matters because liberty matters; candor matters because truth matters. The challenge is an invitation to bring both.