# 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:** 27
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/521 "2010-09-17T19:11:12Z")
So **Rand Rover** : in your view, what, if anything, is the effect of Rule 6.1 ? ---
**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 17, 2010, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/522 "2010-09-17T19:12:48Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > I get the distinction that you are trying to make. You believe that because this is not something that is enforced it is not a “rule” and therefore not something that you _have_ to do. Can **you** understand that when I state that you are not living up to your professional responsibilities that I am not asserting that you are breaking a rule? > > What it does mean is that you took an oath with a clear understanding of both what was required of you and what was expected of you (yes, yes we all understand that these are 2 different things. BFD) and have chosen to only do those things that are required. Which pretty much makes you unethical and shows that your word is not good. > > Probably the notion that a man is only as good as his word is somewhat outdated and the fact that this is a sentiment that I try to live by explains why people like me drive Hondas and people like you BMWs (or whatever all the cool shyster lawyers are driving these day), but there it is. At the end of the day I get to be an honest trustworthy man and you get to be an oath-breaking, loophole seeking part of the problem. Gratz. Objectivism: A sociopathy playing dress-up in Philosophy’s attic. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/523 "2010-09-17T19:39:28Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > Probably the notion that a man is only as good as his word is somewhat outdated and the fact that this is a sentiment that I try to live by explains why people like me drive Hondas and people like you BMWs (or whatever all the cool shyster lawyers are driving these day), but there it is. At the end of the day I get to be an honest trustworthy man and you get to be an oath-breaking, loophole seeking part of the problem. Gratz. Look, this argument is not on point. I am sure **Rand Rover** agrees with the value of keeping one’s word. His objection here is that he denies that Rule 6.1 has any particular effect along those lines; he does not, in other words, agree that he’s broken his word. So the argument should focus on why he’s mistaken, not castigate him for doing something he doesn’t agree he’s done. And to RR, I’ll ask again: what, if anything, is the effect of Rule 6.1? Is it a nullity? Let’s imagine that the drafters of the code wished to impose a requirement to perform pro bono on all lawyers, but did not wish to impose any penalty for not doing so. We can imagine many reasons this might be so. They may not, for example, have wished to penalize a solo practitioner who is barely making ends meet. They may have feared that other valid reasons might exist but been afraid of being unable to create an exhaustive list of valid exceptions. So they might well have said: We wish to impose a requirement on every lawyer to perform pro bono work, except when your financial or workload circumstances make that difficult or impossible, and as officers of the court we trust you to be the judges of when that point is reached. Let’s assume, arguendo, that the above is the intended result. What language might they have drafted to effect such a belief? ---
**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, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/524 "2010-09-17T19:44:42Z")
Binarydrone: I went over this exact point with Mr. Excellent. If you want to believe that I have some cosmic moral duty to do pro bono, then that’s fine, I just happeb to disagree. If you try to say that I am breaking my oath, then you are wrong. The problem is that you don’t see the difference between those two things. Bricker: I don’t know. What do you think? The effect is not to make me in violation of an oath I swore if I don’t do pro bono work. I don’t care about any effect beyond that for purposes of this thread because that is the argument I’m rebutting. Jayjay: I’m not an Objectivist (for one thing, I don’t think Rand actually crossed the is-ought divide). ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/525 "2010-09-17T19:54:45Z")
Your question is nicely worded **Bricker**. Too bad the answer amounts to: “I dunno and I don’t care. What do you think?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/526 "2010-09-17T20:01:13Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Bricker: I don’t know. What do you think? The effect is not to make me in violation of an oath I swore if I don’t do pro bono work. I don’t care about any effect beyond that for purposes of this thread because that is the argument I’m rebutting. I think that if the committee set out to craft language to give effect to the sense I laid out above, the rule they came up with might look very much like the current rule does. So my argument to you is that you are misinterpreting the rule into a nullity. ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/527 "2010-09-17T20:02:24Z")
> [@purplehorseshoe](#): > > > [@Binarydrone](#): > > > > But you haven’t. Not even close. > > **Rand** , in eleventy pages, you still haven’t answered \*\*my \*\*question, either. Let’s try again. > > Say your hourly rate is X. > > You get a client, A. You work on Client A’s case for four hours, and you bill the firm for X x 4, and get paid for it. > > Later that same day, you get client B. You work on Client B for another four hours, and you bill the firm for X x 4 again, and get paid for that, too. > > Client B is a pro bono case. But you get paid the same for B’s work as for A, do you not? If so … what the fuck do you care if the firm is paid by A, or B, or both, or neither? You make the same dough either way, don’t you? Okay, hang on. Lemme get this straight. I’m getting two things from **RR** : 1. If he works pro bono, or if he works a non-pro bono case, he makes the same amount of money. (Assuming same amt. of time involved.) He does not, personally, suffer any financial reduction as a result of working pro bono. 2. He has a little girl whom he apparently loves, and prefers to spend time with her. So … he takes the time to start a thread, reply constantly, and monitor _eleven fucking pages_ of posts, instead of spending time with his daughter, in order to defend a position that brings him no monetary gain and prompts people to point out horrible things about his character? Did I … miss something? ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/528 "2010-09-17T20:11:15Z")
**Rand Rover** , The thing is, though, that you have a professional responsibility to do pro bono work. That is a black and white statement. What do you think that it makes you, as a professional, if you refuse to live up to your professional responsibilities? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/529 "2010-09-17T20:19:27Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > What do you think that it makes you, as a professional, if you refuse to live up to your professional responsibilities? He’s a rebel who doesn’t play by the rules! When they come after him for their pro bono consultation, the only thing they’ll find is a can of whup-ass! ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/530 "2010-09-17T20:27:13Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Binarydrone: I went over this exact point with Mr. Excellent. If you want to believe that I have some cosmic moral duty to do pro bono, then that’s fine, I just happeb to disagree. If you try to say that I am breaking my oath, then you are wrong. The problem is that you don’t see the difference between those two things… Also, I am not sure what you are reading that leads you to believe that I am seeing some sort of a cosmic moral duty. I do see the distinction that you are trying to make. Really. what I am saying is that your profession has a clear cut set of obligations and expectations. As far as I can see you seem to feel that the obligation parts apply to you because they have some consequences for not complying and that the expectations part you can take or leave as you wish. And in a way it is really pretty neat to see this laid out for me here. Because it is a glaring example of what people are talking about when they talk about the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. I must also admit that your way of thinking is pretty alien to me. Like you can have a pretty clear idea of what is expected of you, choose to not do it and then somehow rationalize doing this all the while reaping the benefits of belonging to the very organization who has set forth these standards. I confess that if I behaved like that I would have trouble sleeping at night. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/531 "2010-09-17T20:49:57Z")
That’s obviously because you’re a liberaldouche. ---
**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, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/532 "2010-09-17T21:01:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > Bricker: I don’t know. What do you think? The effect is not to make me in violation of an oath I swore if I don’t do pro bono work. I don’t care about any effect beyond that for purposes of this thread because that is the argument I’m rebutting. > > I think that if the committee set out to craft language to give effect to the sense I laid out above, the rule they came up with might look very much like the current rule does. > > So my argument to you is that you are misinterpreting the rule into a nullity. Your longer post snuck in there–this was just a reply to your shorter post. I think it would be very simple to craft a provision as you described it–the language would be something like “a lawyer must aspire to do pro bono.” Or, to use more contractual type language, the rules could say that a lawyer must use his/her reasonable best efforts to do pro bono. Then the rules would need to rpovIde that a lawyer would be subject to some penalty if it were shown that they didn’t aspire or use their RBEs to do pro bono. If that’s what the rule said, I would clearly be in violation and would have sworn an oath I had no intention of upholding. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/533 "2010-09-17T21:02:05Z")
Whoa. That’s gonna leave a mark! ---
**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, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/534 "2010-09-17T21:03:56Z")
ARTICLE VIII. ILLINOIS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF 2010 [https://www.iardc.org/newrules2010.htm](https://www.iardc.org/newrules2010.htm) > [@](#): > > [6A] It is also 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. To help monitor and quantify the extent of these activities, and to encourage an increase in the delivery of legal services to persons of limited means, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 756(f) requires disclosure with each lawyer’s annual registration with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the approximate amount of his or her pro bono legal service and the approximate amount of qualified monetary contributions. See also Committee Comment (June 14, 2006) to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 756(f). > > [6B] The absence from the Illinois Rules of a counterpart to ABA Model Rule 6.1 regarding pro bono and public service should not be interpreted as limiting the responsibility of lawyers to render uncompensated service in the public interest. Rather, the rationale is that this responsibility is not appropriate for disciplinary rules because it is not possible to articulate an appropriate disciplinary standard regarding pro bono and public service. SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS RULES ON ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS ARTICLE VII. PART B. REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS Rule 756 [http://www.iardc.org/rulesSCT.html](http://www.iardc.org/rulesSCT.html) > [@](#): > > (f) Disclosure of Voluntary Pro Bono Service. As part of registering under this rule, each lawyer shall report the approximate amount of his or her pro bono legal service and the amount of qualified monetary contributions made during the preceding 12 months. > . . . . > (g) Removal from the Master Roll. On February 1 of each year the Administrator shall remove from the master roll the name of any person who has not registered for that year. A lawyer will be deemed not registered for the year if the lawyer has failed to provide trust account information required by paragraph (d) of this rule or if the lawyer has failed to provide information concerning malpractice coverage required by paragraph (e) or information on voluntary pro bono service required by paragraph (f) of this rule. Any person whose name is not on the master roll and who practices law or who holds himself or herself out as being authorized to practice law in this State is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and may also be held in contempt of the court. > . . . . > Committee Comment > (June 14, 2006) > Paragraph (f) is derived from the findings of the Special Supreme Court Committee on Pro Bono Publico Legal Service. The Special Committee recognized the vast unmet and burgeoning legal needs of persons of limited means in Illinois, and the unique role that lawyers play in providing greater access to these critical legal services. Therefore, the rule is established to serve as an annual reminder to the lawyers of Illinois that pro bono legal service is an integral part of a lawyer’s professionalism. > Through this annual reminder, the primary intended goal is to increase the delivery of legal services directly to persons of limited means in paragraph (f)(1)(a). While the provision of legal services as defined in the other categories is laudable and beneficial to local communities and various organizations, the vast unmet need calls out for increased direct legal services to persons of limited means and support of the organizational infrastructure providing those legal services. > Paragraph (f) is not intended to impose upon lawyers a mandatory duty to provide pro bono service but, rather, is intended to impose a mandatory reporting requirement. The rule was drafted to encompass a broad spectrum of pro bono legal opportunities, including not only traditional services, but also training and monetary contributions. So there we have it. There is no penalty for Rand Rover: 1. failing to meet his “responsibility” to provide pro bono services, 2. failing “to demonstrate good character and fitness to practice law” through providing pro bono services, 3. failing to participate in pro bono “efforts of the bar [that] as a whole are essential to the bar’s maintenance of professionalism,” 4. failing to provide pro bono services that are “an integral part of a lawyer’s professionalism,” 5. failing to provide alternate pro bono services in lieu of pro bono representation, such as “training and monetary contributions,” as long as he faithfully reports his failure to offer pro bono services each year in his “annual registration with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.” Rand Rover, do you agree with my conclusion that you have failed to meet your professional responsibilities with regard to pro bono services, and that there is no penalty for such failure because “it is not possible to articulate an appropriate disciplinary standard regarding pro bono and public service?” ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/535 "2010-09-17T21:17:28Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > I think that if the committee set out to craft language to give effect to the sense I laid out above, the rule they came up with might look very much like the current rule does. > > > > So my argument to you is that you are misinterpreting the rule into a nullity. > > Your longer post snuck in there–this was just a reply to your shorter post. > > I think it would be very simple to craft a provision as you described it–the language would be something like “a lawyer must aspire to do pro bono.” Or, to use more contractual type language, the rules could say that a lawyer must use his/her reasonable best efforts to do pro bono. Then the rules would need to rpovIde that a lawyer would be subject to some penalty if it were shown that they didn’t aspire or use their RBEs to do pro bono. That’s not quite crafting the provision as he described it, though - his idea was: > [@Bricker](#): > > Let’s imagine that the drafters of the code wished to impose a requirement to perform pro bono on all lawyers, but did not wish to impose any penalty for not doing so…So they might well have said: We wish to impose a requirement on every lawyer to perform pro bono work, except when your financial or workload circumstances make that difficult or impossible, and as officers of the court we trust you to be the judges of when that point is reached. Adding a penalty for noncompliance was exactly the result he was trying to avoid. ---
**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, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/536 "2010-09-17T21:45:20Z")
Well, Bricker said “impose a requirement,” and he said he didn’t want penalties for not doing pro bono, so I assumed he meant there must be penalties for not trying to do pro bono. Otherwise, it’s not a requirement. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/537 "2010-09-17T21:58:32Z")
Clearly, the aspirational urging towards _pro bo_no work should not involve any actual penalties. One is invited to be a better human being, there is no just sanction possible, the crime and the punishment are as one. ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/538 "2010-09-17T22:22:56Z")
Ooh, I like it when you talk dirty, luci. You (and others) ever stop to think why you call people sociopaths and other dirty words when they don’t voluntarily give you (or others) their property or their time? You ever think the only reason you are doing that is because you are trying to force them to give it to you (or others)? You ever think the reason you resort to force is that Ýou don’t have anything you can (or are willing to) give up for my propertty or time in a fair exchange? It’s really sad that all I want to do is order my life around making fair exchanges instead of force and just for that you idiots give me grief. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/539 "2010-09-17T22:40:33Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > …You (and others) ever stop to think why you call people sociopaths and other dirty words when they don’t voluntarily give you (or others) their property or their time? You ever think the only reason you are doing that is because you are trying to force them to give it to you (or others)? You ever think the reason you resort to force is that Ýou don’t have anything you can (or are willing to) give up for my propertty or time in a fair exchange?.. More than anything it is probably human’s ability to cooperate with each other in a society and to look out for the groups interests as well as their own personal interests that has allowed up to become the dominant animal on the planet. So when we encounter a person, like yourself, that seems to be incapable of seeing beyond his personal needs and hungers we see a person that is giving nothing to the overall survival of the human species. You are more than happy to reap the benefits that have come from all of this cooperation that has occurred and unwilling to give anything back. Moreover you seem pitifully myopic and unable to see the big picture. Like when you give some of your resources to another you are also helping society as a whole produce more and, by extension, participating in a system that will ultimately have more to offer you and your progeny. Simply stated, your model of thinking would be unworkable on a large scale and would result in a lot of misery and needless suffering. So you are sort of a parasite. Taking from society and contributing nothing. People tend to have a less than favorable view of this. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/540 "2010-09-17T23:02:42Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > It’s really sad that all I want to do is order my life around making fair exchanges instead of force and just for that you idiots give me grief. And yet, the only obligations that you apparently recognize as real are those which involve an externally imposed penalty, i.e. force. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=28)