# Pro bono bullshit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 9, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132 "2010-09-09T02:43:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/181 "2010-09-09T20:59:48Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > we can no more _ignore_ our pro bono obligations than a physician could walk past a man suffering a heart attack. You can pretty much bet that Dr. Rand Rover would check his wallet for an insurance card first… ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/182 "2010-09-09T21:01:08Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Incorrect. I’m not an employee. But thanks for playing. How are you not an employee? Are you a partner or an independent contractor? Other? What are your powers to refuse work of the normal variety in the office? ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/183 "2010-09-09T21:09:20Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@dmatsch](#): > > > > yeah. because the law and fair legal representation should only be available to those who can pay you your $100/hr. > > > > asshole > > $100 would get you about 9 minutes, bub. I need fifty dollars to make you holla I get paid to do the lawyer thing ba bah bah bah bah bahbump LAWYER THING ba bah bah bah bah bahbump LAWYER THING ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/184 "2010-09-09T21:12:41Z")
A little late on this, but what the hey. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I don’t think ALL pro bono clients are dangerous losers. I just think that the risk of exposing myself to a dangerous loser outweighs the reward of getting a smiley next to my name. > > But that doesn’t even explain all of my aversion to pro bono work. The biggest factor is that I don’t like how other people believe they have a claim on my labor simply because I’m a lawyer. The former is a legitimate concern, not just for a lawyer working pro bono but for any lawyer who works directly for individual clients. It’s really not a difficult fix, though; most problems can be avoided by a very clear explanation of the scope and eventual end of representation up front, or a gently put reminder later on. The risk of being in any danger from them is vanishingly small, though - the vast majority of the clients you’d be representing pro bono will be as dangerous as a wet kitten, and most will be genuinely grateful. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/185 "2010-09-09T21:15:34Z")
Does it matter? Do you really think you’re going to hit on the right combination of words that will make RR decide not to be a douche? He wants to get people arguing with him so he can be all martyrlike and whatever. The only way to win this game is not to not play but to mock. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/186 "2010-09-09T21:19:50Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Does it matter? Do you really think you’re going to hit on the right combination of words that will make RR decide not to be a douche? He wants to get people arguing with him so he can be all martyrlike and whatever. The only way to win this game is not to not play but to mock. He’s providing a service; people like engaging him, otherwise they wouldn’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![NinetyWt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/cc9497/32.png) [@NinetyWt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinetyWt)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/187 "2010-09-09T21:22:23Z")
C’mon **Sticks** , don’t be dragging _logic_ into it. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/188 "2010-09-09T21:33:07Z")
To be fair, wet kittens are pissed off and have sharp little claws. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/189 "2010-09-09T21:53:25Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > When you say “ethical obligation,” do you mean (1) an obligation imposed by the ethics rules or (2) an obligation imposed by some incorporeal general notion of right and wrong? If you mean 1, you are dead wrong. If you mean 2, then it’s fine if you think that I have an ethical obligation to so pro bono, but I happen to disagree, and that’s OK. > > I mean both. If it’s in the professional conduct rules (formerly known, tellingly, as the ethics rules), then you have an ethical obligation to do it. When the state bar puts something in the professional conduct rules, it’s telling you “_This_ is how we expect you, at a bare minimum, to comport yourself as a lawyer.” The fact that the state bar isn’t willing to punish you for failing to live up to this obligation isn’t relevant - not all adult obligations are enforced by threat of punishment. > > The obligation imposed by the ethics rules also squares nicely with what you describe as “some incorporeal general notion of right and wrong.” As I mentioned in an earlier post, Western civilization has recognized that lawyers have special and higher duties towards the public since at least the days of ancient Rome. We’re trained in the machinery of civilization itself, physicians to the body politic - and we can no more _ignore_ our pro bono obligations than a physician could walk past a man suffering a heart attack. Let’s also note that the rest of us have willingly granted a monopoly of the right to give legal advice for money to those people who actually trained to do it right, and that we expect them to be self-policing and disbar those scumbags who abuse the privilege, e.g., by taking retainers and doing no work, by charging inordinately large management fees on moneys entrusted to their care, etc. The Rules of Professional Conduct comprise a large part of that self-policing, lest the citizenry through their reresentatives void that monopoly. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/190 "2010-09-09T21:54:31Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > > > Does it matter? Do you really think you’re going to hit on the right combination of words that will make RR decide not to be a douche? He wants to get people arguing with him so he can be all martyrlike and whatever. The only way to win this game is not to not play but to mock. > > He’s providing a service; people like engaging him, otherwise they wouldn’t do it. The same is true of a prostitute. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/191 "2010-09-09T21:58:36Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > To be fair, wet kittens are pissed off and have sharp little claws. I actually thought of that before I posted - I’ve rescued abandoned kittens on a few occasions, and once one freaked out and went all Yoda on me such that it felt like grabbing the exposed end of a live wire. It’s a nice descriptive image of helplessness, though, even if the reality doesn’t always match up. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/192 "2010-09-09T22:42:09Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > Is your [**Rand Rover** ’s] only standard for ethical conduct “that which does not lead to bad things happening to me?” Yes, avowedly! Really, take a quick glance at the thread I linked to in Post #89. If an “ought not to” fails to include the threat of repercussions _for him_, then it is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/193 "2010-09-09T23:02:00Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Yep. I could pit shit for stinking and the usual suspects would give me grief about it. _ **What are you talking about?** _ Mine certainly does not! ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/194 "2010-09-09T23:17:41Z")
RE: my last post, if you just look at the OP in the referenced thread, it could be mistaken for run of the mill subjective morality. But [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11122642&postcount=20) and [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11122705&postcount=25) are two good examples of the positions he’s staked out. > [@Resolved: Morality is BS](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/20): > > > [@Resolved: Morality is BS](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/18): > > > > … So pretend beating up senior citizens is legal. Would you do it? Would you feel bad about hurting another person? Wouldn’t that be enough incentive to stop you? > > **In the abstract, hurting another person is not enough incentive to stop me from doing something I want to do.** > > Here’s one example: I would have killed Hitler if I were alive when he was and had the opportunity. > [@Resolved: Morality is BS](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/25): > > > [@Resolved: Morality is BS](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/23): > > > > Yeah, but that’s because you personally reject the idea of shared moral principles as having any validity whatsoever. Most people don’t agree with this assumption of yours, so your arguments based on that assumption are pretty much irrelevant. > > I addressed your objection in the OP. Sure there are shared moral principles, but this does not mean that (i) everyone applies them in the exact same way (a weak argument, I admit, as your poison ivy example points out) and (ii) everyone accords the same punishment to someone who acts not in accord with their moral principles. > > **Also, people debate about whether an action is immoral even when it would be impossible or unlikely for any (or many) other people to find out that the person did the action.** Therefore, violation of a shared moral principle with assumed consequences does not support all arguments about whether an action is moral or not. > > **Also, people debate about whether an action is immoral even when lots of people do that action without apparent consequences** (or with mildly bad consequences). For example, the many threads on whether it is immoral to drive an SUV. Seriously, he won’t shut up about whether supposedly immoral acts have bad consequences for the perpetrator; it’s the only criteria he ever recognizes as meaningful. He really doesn’t seem to grok what you guys are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/195 "2010-09-09T23:32:19Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > When you say “ethical obligation,” do you mean (1) an obligation imposed by the ethics rules or (2) an obligation imposed by some incorporeal general notion of right and wrong? If you mean 1, you are dead wrong. If you mean 2, then it’s fine if you think that I have an ethical obligation to so pro bono, but I happen to disagree, and that’s OK. > > I mean both. If it’s in the professional conduct rules (formerly known, tellingly, as the ethics rules), then you have an ethical obligation to do it. When the state bar puts something in the professional conduct rules, it’s telling you “_This_ is how we expect you, at a bare minimum, to comport yourself as a lawyer.” The fact that the state bar isn’t willing to punish you for failing to live up to this obligation isn’t relevant - not all adult obligations are enforced by threat of punishment. > > The obligation imposed by the ethics rules also squares nicely with what you describe as “some incorporeal general notion of right and wrong.” As I mentioned in an earlier post, Western civilization has recognized that lawyers have special and higher duties towards the public since at least the days of ancient Rome. We’re trained in the machinery of civilization itself, physicians to the body politic - and we can no more _ignore_ our pro bono obligations than a physician could walk past a man suffering a heart attack. I’m not going to address your second paragraph. And I’m not sure how to address your first paragraph without simply repeating myself. I agreed to abide by the rules the rules don’t require me to perform services pro bono. Therefore, my non-performance of pro bono services does not violate the rules I agreed to. It’s really that simple. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/196 "2010-09-09T23:37:29Z")
> [@Resolved: Morality is BS](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/20): > > RE: my last post, if you just look at the OP in the referenced thread, it could be mistaken for run of the mill subjective morality. But [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11122642&postcount=20) and [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11122705&postcount=25) are two good examples of the positions he’s staked out. > > > [@Resolved: Morality is BS](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/20): > > > > **In the abstract, hurting another person is not enough incentive to stop me from doing something I want to do.** > > > > Here’s one example: I would have killed Hitler if I were alive when he was and had the opportunity. > > > [@Resolved: Morality is BS](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/25): > > > > I addressed your objection in the OP. Sure there are shared moral principles, but this does not mean that (i) everyone applies them in the exact same way (a weak argument, I admit, as your poison ivy example points out) and (ii) everyone accords the same punishment to someone who acts not in accord with their moral principles. > > > > **Also, people debate about whether an action is immoral even when it would be impossible or unlikely for any (or many) other people to find out that the person did the action.** Therefore, violation of a shared moral principle with assumed consequences does not support all arguments about whether an action is moral or not. > > > > **Also, people debate about whether an action is immoral even when lots of people do that action without apparent consequences** (or with mildly bad consequences). For example, the many threads on whether it is immoral to drive an SUV. > > Seriously, he won’t shut up about whether supposedly immoral acts have bad consequences for the perpetrator; it’s the only criteria he ever recognizes as meaningful. He really doesn’t seem to grok what you guys are talking about. Well, glad to see you’ve been paying attention, but you’re mixing some things up. I didn’t say that the morality of an act depends on whether there are consequences to the perpetrator. I said that discussing whether an act is moral or not is a useless thing to do because there are no consequences to making that determination. ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/197 "2010-09-09T23:37:44Z")
He’s a tax lawyer, right? Nobody likes engaging a tax lawyer. The need to engage a tax lawyer means you’re pretty well fucked. Which could also explain his disposition. I understand dentists have much the same problem, but at least they drug their [del]victims[/del] clients. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/198 "2010-09-09T23:48:33Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > He’s a tax lawyer, right? Nobody likes engaging a tax lawyer. The need to engage a tax lawyer means you’re pretty well fucked. > > Which could also explain his disposition. I understand dentists have much the same problem, but at least they drug their [del]victims[/del] clients. I don’t do tax controversy work, I do transactinal work. When people engage me, it’s because they want to form a fund or invest in a fund or buy something or sell something. Sorry to not fit into your little fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/199 "2010-09-09T23:57:02Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Well, glad to see you’ve been paying attention, but you’re mixing some things up. I didn’t say that the morality of an act depends on whether there are consequences to the perpetrator. I said that discussing whether an act is moral or not is a useless thing to do because there are no consequences to making that determination. And yet, when the concept of shared moral values was ably explained to you, several times – when it was made clear that what “that’s immoral” frequently means is that something is a wrong action according to \*your \*ideas about ethics, not just the speaker’s – you still refused to move off of the discussion of what bad things might or might not happen _to you_. Either you didn’t really understand the concept, or your ideas about ethics are inexorably tied into rewards and/or repercussions for one’s own actions. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/200 "2010-09-10T00:01:39Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > Incorrect. I’m not an employee. But thanks for playing. > > How are you not an employee? Are you a partner or an independent contractor? Other? > > What are your powers to refuse work of the normal variety in the office? My reaction is the same as that of **Hello Again** and I join her inquiry. Clue us in, **Rand Rover**. It certainly wouldn’t befit a BigLaw tax attorney to fail to know the difference between employees, partners/joint venturers, and independent contractors. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=11)