You can represent both times of clients at the same time so long as their interests do not conflict. For example, you could represent a women's rights group in Africa and a European film company. That's just one of a thousand examples. Many law firms encourage their attorneys to do pro bono (free work for non-profits) work and allow them a certain number of paid hours each year to do so.
In your field you would probably start at between $125k and $150k if you graduated at the top of your class from a top law school, and your earning potential would be well into seven figures or even more. You would probably make at least $500k at the top of your career in a large international firm. Your earnings would depend in large part in how much work (and fees) you bring to the firm.
I read the lawsuit. It doesn't fit easily into the sound-bite Dem v Rep narrative. It's clearly NOT intended to take away voting rights from anyone, particularly military and overseas voters. It's to fix a mess. The lawsuit asks to make everyone have the same deadline that existed in 2010 and reflect the clear intent of the Ohio voters to not make any changes to early voting while the referendum goes through the process.
Ohio passed and signed into law 3 separate bills about early voting that contradicted themselves and have created great confusion. (This is why no one has ever repealed a law that is undergoing a referendum -- things get complicated.) It's sloppy legislation.
The first bill ended early voting for EVERYONE during the 3 days before the election. A voter-initiated referendum to override that law will appear on the November ballot. (HB 194) It was a massive bill that affected many parts of the voting process. Because of the referendum, the bill won't be in effect for the Nov 2012 election. In this bill, military and overseas voters lost the 3-day window too, except that the bill forgot to actually change the language in one of the 2 sections of the specific Ohio Code, the one for military and overseas voters.
A SECOND bill a few weeks later (long before the referendum was certified for ballot) attempted to fix parts of the first bill. (HB 224) The bill was intended "to make technical corrections to the laws governing elections", one of which was the military and overseas section from HB 194. The "fix" bill was passed as an emergency bill, which is referendum-proof. PROBLEM: If HB 194 is suspended for a referendum, this bill changes one section but not the other.
A THIRD bill was passed and signed to repeal HB 194 entirely (SB 295). This bill did NOT change HB 224, only 194. This meant that the correction made to get the law back to the way it was pre-HB 194 IGNORED the changes in 224. Thus Ohio law as it stands has 2 different deadlines for the same group of people (Military/Overseas voters), and one deadline for everyone else that's 3 days earlier.
AMVETS and other military organizations want to make sure that this doesn't set a precedent that says military MUST be treated the same. That precedent could then be applied in other cases that aren't so clear-cut.
Follow that? Think that could be explained in a soundbite?
@BEKINDTOANIMALS: Not quite. This only applies to early in-person voting. Regular absentee voting is unchanged. Overseas voters are unlikely to vote in-person.