# 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:** 25
**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 17, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/481 "2010-09-17T00:37:27Z")
> [@Quint](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > Nope. Not accurate at all. I did not swear an oath saying I would do my best to do pro bono work. > > OK. It seemed earlier that others thought you had taken such an oath, or something similar. Would you say there is room for disagreement about whether or not you made some kind of promise to that effect to some kind of guild, or am I just misunderstanding things? > > Oh, and my two-year-old is almost certainly cuter and smarter than your two-year-old. You are just misunderstanding things. I agreed to obey some rules. The rules do not say “a lawyer must (or must try to) perform pro bono work.” They just say “it would be nice if a lawyer tried to do pro bono work.” Ergo, me not doing pro bono work or even trying to doesn’t violate the rules iu agreed to abide by. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/482 "2010-09-17T01:41:52Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You are just misunderstanding things. I agreed to obey some rules. The rules do not say “a lawyer must (or must try to) perform pro bono work.” They just say “it would be nice if a lawyer tried to do pro bono work.” Ergo, me not doing pro bono work or even trying to doesn’t violate the rules iu agreed to abide by. > [@](#): > > The Introduction to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct states the following: > > \*It is the responsibility of those licensed as officers of the court to use their training, experience and skills to provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available. It is the responsibility of those who manage law firms to create an environment that is hospitable to the rendering of a reasonable amount of uncompensated service by lawyers practicing in that firm. > > Service in the public interest may take many forms. These include but are not limited to pro bono representation of persons unable to pay for legal services and assistance in the organized bar’s efforts at law reform. An individual lawyer’s efforts in these areas is evidence of the lawyer’s good character and fitness to practice law, and the efforts of the bar as a whole are essential to the bar’s maintenance of professionalism.\* I may be misreading it, but yeah, the “Rules”- specifically the italicised part quoted above - do actually appear to say “A Lawyer must, or must try to, do pro bono work,” at least IMHO. ---
**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 17, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/483 "2010-09-17T02:04:23Z")
You aren’t so good at reading rules. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/484 "2010-09-17T02:11:59Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You aren’t so good at reading rules. Care to elaborate on where the problem is? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/485 "2010-09-17T02:14:06Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You aren’t so good at reading rules. The rules say it is your responsiblity. You aren’t so good at pretending you’re not a sociopath. ---
**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 17, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/486 "2010-09-17T02:16:44Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > You aren’t so good at reading rules. > > Care to elaborate on where the problem is? Sure. The “responsibility” referred to in the text you quoted is not a responsibility in the sense of a requirement to do something. It’s only a responsibility in the sense of some cosmic amorphous moral duty. Also, the description of that responsibility is only in the intro, not in the rules itself. There is nothing in the rules imposing a requirement to do (or try to do) pro bono work. Therefore, I didn’t promise to do (or try to do) pro bono work by promising to abide by the rules. ---
**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 17, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/487 "2010-09-17T02:17:58Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > You aren’t so good at reading rules. > > The rules say it is your responsiblity. You aren’t so good at pretending you’re not a sociopath. Oh, I’m clearly a sociopath (by some definitions). I’ve never tried to pretend to be otherwise, and in fact I’m proud of it. ---
**Author:** ![BayouHazard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d78d45/32.png) [@BayouHazard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BayouHazard)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/488 "2010-09-17T02:22:54Z")
Seems pretty clearcut to me, too. Maybe we disagree on what the definition of ‘is’ is. But the quoted text also **explicitly** mentions contributing to law reform, so Rand could get out of giving time by giving money to the bar towards law reform. Then his kid wouldn’t get to miss any Daddy time, right? Partners would shut up as well. I mean, as a partner, Rand’s rolling in it, right? (Man, this is the thread that just keeps on giving, isn’t it?) ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/489 "2010-09-17T02:24:27Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > > > Care to elaborate on where the problem is? > > Sure. The “responsibility” referred to in the text you quoted is not a responsibility in the sense of a requirement to do something. It’s only a responsibility in the sense of some cosmic amorphous moral duty. Also, the description of that responsibility is only in the intro, not in the rules itself. There is nothing in the rules imposing a requirement to do (or try to do) pro bono work. Therefore, I didn’t promise to do (or try to do) pro bono work by promising to abide by the rules. Well, I’m pretty sure that the “Doing Pro Bono Work is evidence of a lawyer’s good character and fitness to practice law” thing could be used (by the same tortuous logic you’re using to pretend The Rules Don’t Apply To You because you had your fingers crossed) to argue that a lawyer who consistently _refuses_ to do Pro Bono work is not of proper character to retain their [whatever your jurisdiction calls Formal Lawyerin’ Priviliges & Accredation] and therefore probably shouldn’t get to be a lawyer anymore. And the introduction is still part of the Rules, what with legislation (yes, I know this isn’t legislation, but the same principle applies) being read as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![BayouHazard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d78d45/32.png) [@BayouHazard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BayouHazard)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/490 "2010-09-17T02:29:16Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Oh, I’m clearly a sociopath (by some definitions). I’ve never tried to pretend to be otherwise, and in fact I’m proud of it. Then why bother with all the whining and arguing with us? it’s not like we’re going to either think you’re right, give you approval, or compensate for any physical endowments you lack. Oh. Guess you really are trolling for attention…and we should all stop feeding you. Where’s the ignore feature on my control panel for this site? \*'Bye Rand. Thanks for lowering my faith in humanity just a little further. ---
**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 17, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/491 "2010-09-17T02:33:08Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > Sure. The “responsibility” referred to in the text you quoted is not a responsibility in the sense of a requirement to do something. It’s only a responsibility in the sense of some cosmic amorphous moral duty. Also, the description of that responsibility is only in the intro, not in the rules itself. There is nothing in the rules imposing a requirement to do (or try to do) pro bono work. Therefore, I didn’t promise to do (or try to do) pro bono work by promising to abide by the rules. > > Well, I’m pretty sure that the “Doing Pro Bono Work is evidence of a lawyer’s good character and fitness to practice law” thing could be used (by the same tortuous logic you’re using to pretend The Rules Don’t Apply To You because you had your fingers crossed) to argue that a lawyer who consistently _refuses_ to do Pro Bono work is not of proper character to retain their [whatever your jurisdiction calls Formal Lawyerin’ Priviliges & Accredation] and therefore probably shouldn’t get to be a lawyer anymore. And the introduction is still part of the Rules, what with legislation (yes, I know this isn’t legislation, but the same principle applies) being read as a whole. That’s a shitty argument. The preamble just says that doing pro bono work is evidence of good character and fitness. It doesn’t say that not doing pro bono work is evidence of a lack of character and fitness. ---
**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 17, 2010, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/492 "2010-09-17T02:35:31Z")
> [@BayouHazard](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > Oh, I’m clearly a sociopath (by some definitions). I’ve never tried to pretend to be otherwise, and in fact I’m proud of it. > > Then why bother with all the whining and arguing with us? it’s not like we’re going to either think you’re right, give you approval, or compensate for any physical endowments you lack. > > Oh. > Guess you really are trolling for attention…and we should all stop feeding you. Where’s the ignore feature on my control panel for this site? > > \*'Bye Rand. Thanks for lowering my faith in humanity just a little further. You are welcome. It really is horrible how I won’t believe everyone’s bullshit arguments to get me to give them money or free labor. I know, that makes me a horrible person. How about this: if you don’t paypal me $20 right this fucking second, then you are officially an Extremely Bad Person not even fit for pig food. That’s all the actual content in these arguments in favor of pro bono work and higher taxes etc.: do it or you are a bad person. At least I’m saying it directly. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/493 "2010-09-17T02:37:13Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > That’s a shitty argument. The preamble just says that doing pro bono work is evidence of good character and fitness. It doesn’t say that not doing pro bono work is evidence of a lack of character and fitness. I rather think it does, actually. And even if it doesn’t outright say it, it’s a pretty strong indicator in that direction. Especially when the not doing Pro Bono work is a conscious choice (verging on concerted effort) as opposed to “Professional Lawyer so snowed under with important client work that they simply don’t have time and instead donate to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau or something similar”. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/494 "2010-09-17T02:39:34Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The preamble just says that doing pro bono work is evidence of good character and fitness. It doesn’t say that not doing pro bono work is evidence of a lack of character and fitness. I’m just curious, it’s really none of my business, but - have you run that argument past your senior partners yet? ---
**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 17, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/495 "2010-09-17T02:41:48Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > That’s a shitty argument. The preamble just says that doing pro bono work is evidence of good character and fitness. It doesn’t say that not doing pro bono work is evidence of a lack of character and fitness. > > I rather think it does, actually. And even if it doesn’t outright say it, it’s a pretty strong indicator in that direction. Especially when the not doing Pro Bono work is a conscious choice (verging on concerted effort) as opposed to “Professional Lawyer so snowed under with important client work that they simply don’t have time and instead donate to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau or something similar”. If the folks who wrote the rules wanted to make it a requirement for lawyers to do pro bono work, then they could have written the rules to say that. They didn’t. ---
**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 17, 2010, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/496 "2010-09-17T02:42:53Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > The preamble just says that doing pro bono work is evidence of good character and fitness. It doesn’t say that not doing pro bono work is evidence of a lack of character and fitness. > > I’m just curious, it’s really none of my business, but - have you run that argument past your senior partners yet? You’re a pedophile. And I don’t talk to pedophiles. (Hey, if you can call me bad words based on absolutely nothing at all, I suppose I can do the same to you.) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/497 "2010-09-17T02:45:34Z")
> [@BayouHazard](#): > > Oh. > Guess you really are trolling for attention…and we should all stop feeding you. Where’s the ignore feature on my control panel for this site? > > \*'Bye Rand. Thanks for lowering my faith in humanity just a little further. Well at least he isn’t the fellow from Christmas Island. Right? Please tell me I’m right about this, despite the similarity. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/498 "2010-09-17T02:48:27Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > If the folks who wrote the rules wanted to make it a requirement for lawyers to do pro bono work, then they could have written the rules to say that. They didn’t. But they did, and you’re apparently the only one in this thread who can’t (or won’t) see that. Look, I often agree with some of the points you make (shock, horror!) but seriously, at this point I suspect that if I was to tell you that Denial wasn’t a major river in North Africa you’d tell me that it was and ignore anything anyone said to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/499 "2010-09-17T02:50:22Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You’re a pedophile. And I don’t talk to pedophiles. > > (Hey, if you can call me bad words based on absolutely nothing at all, I suppose I can do the same to you.) I called you a sociopath based on evidence you have provided, and you admitted that you are a sociopath and proud of it. Regardless, this post is not an answer to the question I asked, nor is it in any way relevant to the question I asked. ---
**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 17, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/500 "2010-09-17T02:53:19Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > If the folks who wrote the rules wanted to make it a requirement for lawyers to do pro bono work, then they could have written the rules to say that. They didn’t. > > But they did, and you’re apparently the only one in this thread who can’t (or won’t) see that. > > Look, I often agree with some of the points you make (shock, horror!) but seriously, at this point I suspect that if I was to tell you that Denial wasn’t a major river in North Africa you’d tell me that it was and ignore anything anyone said to the contrary. Well, I don’t know what to tell you, bub. You simply are quite unclear on the concept of what a “requirement” or an “obligation” is. And you can’t read a set of rules and determine whether something is or is not required. You appear to be beyond my help on this point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=26)