# 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:** 30
**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 18, 2010, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/581 "2010-09-18T23:23:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, thats what **Rand Rover** says, here: > > > [@](#): > > > > …If one can fail to take such action and the rules do not provuide for any consequences, then the rules do not require that action. Therefore, a person who promised to abide by those rules has not broken that promise… > > However, **Rand Rover** has bested him with this rebuttal: > > > [@](#): > > > > …But you and several others take what I’m saying to mean that I won’t do anything unless I’m coerced to do so, which is a completely asinine conclusion to draw from what I’m saying… > > I think the rest of us would do well to stay out of this, until \*\*Rand Rover \*\*resolves his differences with **Rand Rover**. Luci, you aren’t up for this discussion. It requires more nuanced thinking than you are capable of. I’m afraid I’m going to have to not pay attention to you from here on out. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/582 "2010-09-18T23:34:40Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Luci, you aren’t up for this discussion. It requires more nuanced thinking than you are capable of. I’m afraid I’m going to have to not pay attention to you from here on out. Randi, if you can get both hands to wave that fast, I do believe you could fly away. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/583 "2010-09-19T00:24:01Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > > > Your “Therefore…” statement does not follow from its precursor. > > > > Imagine you say to a child, “I promise to buy you an ice cream cone.” If you change your mind and refuse to buy ice cream for the child, you have broken that promise. The fact that there are no rules to compel you to buy ice cream for the child is irrelevant. The fact there there is no penalty for not buying the ice cream is irrelevant. > > > > You may want to argue about whether you in fact made such a promise at all, but a penalty, or lack of one, is not relevant to keeping or breaking that promise. > > > > Except that your credo that you aren’t bound by any promises you make, unless you can be punished for breaking them, makes you a scumbag. > > What the hell are you talking about? The promise I was talking about was the promise I made to abide by the professional responsibility rules. If those rules require pro bono work, I’ve broken that promise. If they don’t require pro bono, I haven’t. A set of rules requires an action if and only if there is some punishment for not doing that action. The professional responsibility rules don’t require one to do pro bono because there’s no punishment for not doing pro bono, so my failure to do pro bono does not mean I’ve broken my promise. > > Your example is not on point because it’s not about a promise to abide by a set of rules. No, my point is about what a promise IS. A promise is a promise whether it is to abide by a set of rules, or to buy a present for a child. A promise is what it is whether there are consequences to breaking it or not. It is more or less the same as a handshake agreement, or saying the phrase, “I give you my word.” It may well be true that no court will enforce such an agreement or statement. And that certainly seems to be the case in this particular instance. Like I say, this nets you no penalty other than the scorn of people who think a promise is something more than an empty phrase. I don’t even know why you are debating this. Clearly you’re not concerned about anyone’s scorn. We’re simply debating the meaning of a word, which I am not inclined to do any further. ---
**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 19, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/584 "2010-09-19T00:41:56Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > A set of rules requires an action if and only if there is some punishment for not doing that action. The professional responsibility rules don’t require one to do pro bono because there’s no punishment for not doing pro bono, so my failure to do pro bono does not mean I’ve broken my promise. So, you don’t think there are any estoppel issues or risks here, then? Is that correct? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/585 "2010-09-19T00:44:05Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Your example is not on point because it’s not about a promise to abide by a set of rules. Huh? The rule is that you have to buy the child an ice-cream cone. ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/586 "2010-09-19T00:46:41Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Luci, you aren’t up for this discussion. It requires more nuanced thinking than you are capable of. I’m afraid I’m going to have to not pay attention to you from here on out. Rather than address, explain or even rebut the apparent contradiction of your own words and reasoning, you try to divert attention elsewhere by attempting to belittle the messenger. Good thing you stayed far, far away from anything that requires litigation or litigation skills. ---
**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 19, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/587 "2010-09-19T01:31:57Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > What the hell are you talking about? The promise I was talking about was the promise I made to abide by the professional responsibility rules. If those rules require pro bono work, I’ve broken that promise. If they don’t require pro bono, I haven’t. A set of rules requires an action if and only if there is some punishment for not doing that action. The professional responsibility rules don’t require one to do pro bono because there’s no punishment for not doing pro bono, so my failure to do pro bono does not mean I’ve broken my promise. > > > > Your example is not on point because it’s not about a promise to abide by a set of rules. > > No, my point is about what a promise IS. A promise is a promise whether it is to abide by a set of rules, or to buy a present for a child. A promise is what it is whether there are consequences to breaking it or not. > > It is more or less the same as a handshake agreement, or saying the phrase, “I give you my word.” It may well be true that no court will enforce such an agreement or statement. And that certainly seems to be the case in this particular instance. > > Like I say, this nets you no penalty other than the scorn of people who think a promise is something more than an empty phrase. > > I don’t even know why you are debating this. Clearly you’re not concerned about anyone’s scorn. We’re simply debating the meaning of a word, which I am not inclined to do any further. We are not disagreeing, we are just talking at cross purposes. In the pro bono situation, I promised to abide by a set of rules, and some people are saying that means I promised to do pro bono work. But the rules don’t require me to do pro bono work. So, I can follow those rules without doing pro bono, meaning that I didn’t promise to do pro bono, and therefore haven’t broken a promise by not doing pro bono. In your example, I promised to buy a kid an ice cream cone. If I don’t buy the kid the ice cream cone, I very clearly broke my promise to do so. ---
**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 19, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/588 "2010-09-19T01:34:20Z")
> [@Camus](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > Luci, you aren’t up for this discussion. It requires more nuanced thinking than you are capable of. I’m afraid I’m going to have to not pay attention to you from here on out. > > Rather than address, explain or even rebut the apparent contradiction of your own words and reasoning, you try to divert attention elsewhere by attempting to belittle the messenger. Good thing you stayed far, far away from anything that requires litigation or litigation skills. Right, because I haven’t attempted to address any arguments against me in this thread. :rolleyes: I’ve addressed the arguments ad nauseum and repeatedly. The problem is that some people (like luci) aren’t capable of processing the ideas involved. So they just waltz in and make a mess of it. My unwillingness to do the work necessary to unravel the mess they’ve made doesn’t mean I won’t address the argument (which, to repeat, I have done ad nauseum). ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/589 "2010-09-19T01:54:59Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > In the pro bono situation, I promised to abide by a set of rules, and some people are saying that means I promised to do pro bono work. But the rules don’t require me to do pro bono work. So, I can follow those rules without doing pro bono, meaning that I didn’t promise to do pro bono, and therefore haven’t broken a promise by not doing pro bono work. A more apt comparison would be that you agreed to babysit a kid with the understanding that you would take him out for ice cream. You babysat, but didn’t feel like going for ice cream. You still get your money, and you might be asked to babysit again, but you didn’t live up to your agreement. That the only consequence is a teary-eyed kid who thinks you’re a big fat liar doesn’t change that fact. It’s probably tough to comprehend, being that the “honor system” is a concept foreign to libertarian thought, while “doing anything you can get away” with is fundamental. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/590 "2010-09-19T02:24:38Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > If Rand Rover is not of good character, are there any penalties in regards to his continued action as a lawyer? Well, as I understand it, a disatisfied and unstable client might kill Rover’s pets or something, and pro-bono work increases the risk of exposure to disatisfiable and unstable clients. ---
**Author:** ![Manwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e480ec/32.png) [@Manwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manwich)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/591 "2010-09-19T06:35:18Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Luci, again, and like lots of other people in this thread, you are missing the point.\*\* The issue is whether a set of rules require an action. If one can fail to take such action and the rules do not provuide for any consequences, then the rules do not require that action.\*\* Therefore, a person who promised to abide by those rules has not broken that promise. > > All throughout this thread I have repeatedly said that I am only talking about what the rules require. But you and several others take what I’m saying to mean that I won’t do anything unless I’m coerced to do so, which is a completely asinine conclusion to draw from what I’m saying. Bolding mine. Just to be clear, are you really saying that if a rule doesn’t provide a consequence for being broken it is not really a rule? I have never before heard anyone suggest that and it seems counter-intuitive. Why does a rule need a consequence? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/592 "2010-09-19T06:39:24Z")
Sometimes the consequence to a broken rule is an injury to someone who does not deserve it. Like that matters! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/593 "2010-09-19T15:28:53Z")
Looks like we are headed into 13 pages. What makes **Rand Rover** so significant and worthy of such sustained attention ? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/594 "2010-09-19T15:29:07Z")
RandRover: what is “estoppel by reliance?” ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/595 "2010-09-19T15:45:42Z")
I find myself confused. There is, apparently, no requirement to perform pro bono work because there are no consequences for failing to do so: > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Please demonstrate your reasoning on that point. The model rules plainly say that a lawyer “should aspire” to do pro bono, but nothing happens to those who don’t aspire. Therefore, aspiring is not a requirement. The Illinois rules reach the same result in different words. And yet, **Rover** is being _coerced_ to perform pro bono work by his firm, who make him feel bad and post his name on the bulletin board if he doesn’t. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@Gorsnak](#): > > > > It’s a simple question. Where is the coercion? > > Several posters in this thread have expressed the idea nicely. A lawyer is supposed to “feel bad” if they don’t perform pro bono work. Many firms up the ante by making it clear that those who don’t are in the bad group and those who do aren’t. that’s different than firing or beating up those who don’t, but it’s just a difference of degree. I’m having trouble here. I mean, I’m having trouble beyond my difficulties in seeing hurt feelings as coercive in a work environment. If there’s coercive behaviour to enforce a rule then failing to follow the rule has consequences, because that’s what coercion _is_ - undesired consequences imposed by an external agency to influence, usually heavily, your choice of action. If there aren’t any consequences, then there can’t be any coercion. If there’s coercion, then by definition there are consequences. ---
**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 19, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/596 "2010-09-19T15:46:31Z")
Bricker, I imagine you are getting at the idea I know better as “promissory estoppel,” which is a contract notion (I think it’s in paragraph 90 of the second restatement, or thereabouts). The idea is that if A promises B that A will do something, B relies on that promise, and then A doesn’t perform, B can sue A for damages even though there wasn’t an actual contract formed. Please explain how you see the application to the topic under discussion. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/597 "2010-09-19T15:47:20Z")
Why do I suspect **RR** ’s role model is Collis P. Huntington, that robber baron who proclaimed “Whatever is not nailed down is mine. Whatever I can pry loose is not nailed down”? He’s the poster child for solipsistic, simple-minded, narcissists everywhere–or is “admirers of Ayn Rand” a more elegant way of phrasing that? He gives self-serving legalistic, selfish casuists a bad name. ---
**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 19, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/598 "2010-09-19T15:49:57Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > I find myself confused. There is, apparently, no requirement to perform pro bono work because there are no consequences for failing to do so: > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > Please demonstrate your reasoning on that point. The model rules plainly say that a lawyer “should aspire” to do pro bono, but nothing happens to those who don’t aspire. Therefore, aspiring is not a requirement. The Illinois rules reach the same result in different words. > > And yet, **Rover** is being _coerced_ to perform pro bono work by his firm, who make him feel bad and post his name on the bulletin board if he doesn’t. > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > Several posters in this thread have expressed the idea nicely. A lawyer is supposed to “feel bad” if they don’t perform pro bono work. Many firms up the ante by making it clear that those who don’t are in the bad group and those who do aren’t. that’s different than firing or beating up those who don’t, but it’s just a difference of degree. > > I’m having trouble here. I mean, I’m having trouble beyond my difficulties in seeing hurt feelings as coercive in a work environment. If there’s coercive behaviour to enforce a rule then failing to follow the rule has consequences, because that’s what coercion _is_ - undesired consequences imposed by an external agency to influence, usually heavily, your choice of action. If there aren’t any consequences, then there can’t be any coercion. If there’s coercion, then by definition there are consequences. You are indeed confused. You aren’t properly separating out the person that imposes the bad consequences. The rules don’t impose any consequences for failing to do pro bono. Therefore, pro bono is not a requirement of the rules. My firm is intimating that I will be making them feel bad if I don’t do pro bono. That’s coercion (fairly mild as far as coercion goes, but coercion nonetheless). ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/599 "2010-09-19T15:52:09Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Looks like we are headed into 13 pages. > > What makes **Rand Rover** so significant and worthy of such sustained attention ? Entertainment. He makes me laugh, like watching videos of the world’s dumbest criminals. They think they are getting away with something, but we all know it is going to end with the bumbling crook falling through the ceiling. I like to watch **Randi** fall through the ceiling, and he never disappoints me. ---
**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 19, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/600 "2010-09-19T15:54:45Z")
Let me try once again to expand on an idea I’ve raised several times in this thread and that has gone over the heads of many of our esteemed members. The entire conversation about whether the rules require pro bono work is in the context of whether I had promised to do pro bono by becoming a lawyer. It has nothing to do with whether I think it is a “moral duty” or “ethical responsibility” to do pro bono work. So, again, there are two separate things going on here: what the rules require a lawyer to do, and what any individual person feels that a lawyer should do. Now, I haven’t discussed the second thing in this thread because I don’t think it’s a useful thing to discuss. People can have different ideas about what is or is not a “moral duty,” and that’s OK. Therefore, arguing about whether someone has a moral duty to do something is the same as arguing whether tomatoes are tasty. People can disagree, and that’s OK. Therefore, it’s not the case that I am proving that I will only do “the right thing” if I am coerced to do so. It is also not the case that I am proving that libertarian ideas won’t work because people will only do the right thing if they are coerced. Rather, I simply disagree that I have a moral duty or ethical responsibility to do pro bono work. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=31)