They're often not technically pro-bono. Clarke, for example, gets paid by the government, because they have a vested interest in not having cases overturned on appeal due to insufficient counsel.

https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/judy_clarke_has_...

> Clarke would probably not want anyone to feel indebted to her. In fact, after the Smith case, she returned the $82,944 fee the state paid her, saying that other indigent defendants could use it more.

this will potentially be a self-defense case. since the shooter had chronic back pain, he could argue that shooting the ceo who denied his healthcare was his only means of protecting himself

That's not how criminal trials work. There are no free speech rights in court. Defendants can't just argue whatever they want. Judges have wide latitude to prohibit certain defenses and generally ban both the prosecution and defense from mentioning legally irrelevant points. Self defense is clearly codified under NY state law and this case doesn't even come close to meeting that standard.

There's zero chance of that.

he's looking for a spectacle. there's zero chance of it working, but 100% chance of garnering more media attention.