# 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:** 31
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/601 "2010-09-19T15:55:44Z")
I keep reading out of admiration for his persistence in maintaining the pretense about who he really is, and out of astonishment that so many people here still think he’s actually an adult. ---
**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, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/602 "2010-09-19T15:57:13Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > 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. Again, you aren’t separating out the issues well here. All I have been arguing is that a set of rules don’t require me to do pro bono work. That’s it. I have just been talking about the content of a set of 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 19, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/603 "2010-09-19T15:58:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I keep reading out of admiration for his persistence in maintaining the pretense about who he really is, and out of astonishment that so many people here still think he’s actually an adult. I’m amazed that you and others never tire of this particular line of bullshit. If you don’t believe I’m telling the truth about myself, then that’s fine. But I don’t see what you get by following me around like a puppy and nipping at my ankles. Just put me on ignore. ---
**Author:** ![Quint](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/76d3ee/32.png) [@Quint](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quint)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/604 "2010-09-19T16:33:27Z")
Well I’m glad you keep on answering because I’m finding this very interesting. I’ll readily admit that before this I had no idea what Pro Bono work was, so there’s some ignorance fought. So **Rand Rover** do you feel similar about marriage vows as you do to your profession’s code of conduct? If someone is repeatedly unfaithful to their spouse but never gets caught is that OK? I realize the two situations are not completely analogous… ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/605 "2010-09-19T16:46:41Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > > [@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. Nope. That comparison sucks. A better comparison would be I agree to babysit a kid for a year, and the parents say “It would be nice if you took the kid out for ice cream every once in a while.” As it turns out, I don’t think ice cream is good for the child, so I never take him out for ice cream. I haven’t broken my baby-sitting contract or any promise I made to anyone. > [@](#): > > 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. Wrong. Libertarian thought is based on free exchange, i.e., the honor system. ---
**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, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/606 "2010-09-19T16:48:31Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > All I have been arguing is that a set of rules don’t require me to do pro bono work. That’s it. No, you’re quibbling over what “require” means, in a concertedly self-justifying manner, using specious (and frankly descpicable) reasoning to make it mean what you want it to mean, despite universal disagreement. The problem is that here on SD there is no judge to slap your ass into the next county, so you are allowed to go on and on–or as you might put it, where the definition of “required” is infinitely mutable, you are required to go on and on. ---
**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, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/607 "2010-09-19T16:48:34Z")
> [@Quint](#): > > Well I’m glad you keep on answering because I’m finding this very interesting. I’ll readily admit that before this I had no idea what Pro Bono work was, so there’s some ignorance fought. > So **Rand Rover** do you feel similar about marriage vows as you do to your profession’s code of conduct? If someone is repeatedly unfaithful to their spouse but never gets caught is that OK? I realize the two situations are not completely analogous… I don’t see the relevance at all. You seem to believe that a marriage necessarily involves a promise not to have sex with anyone other than one’s spouse (which is probably almost always true, but not always true). Assuming that my marriage involves the promise that I won’t have sex with anyone other than my spouse (which, it turns out, it does), I would clearly break that promise by having sex with someone else. But, in the pro bono scenario, I never made a promise to do pro bono work. ---
**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, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/608 "2010-09-19T16:49:54Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > All I have been arguing is that a set of rules don’t require me to do pro bono work. That’s it. > > No, you’re quibbling over what “require” means, in a concertedly self-justifying manner, using specious (and frankly descpicable) reasoning to make it mean what you want it to mean, despite universal disagreement. The problem is that here on SD there is no judge to slap your ass into the next county, so you are allowed to go on and on–or as you might put it, where the definition of “required” is infinitely mutable, you are required to go on and on. Please offer up your own definition of “requirement” vis-a-vis a set of rules. Stated another way, how do you believe one should determine whether Action X is required by a particular set of rules? ---
**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, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/609 "2010-09-19T16:50:30Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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). Oh, I see now. You’re railing against the presumptuousness of the organization that writes your paychecks in making an aspirational rule into an actual rule. I mean, how dare they? To actually look at a rule that says, “It would be nice if lawyers did this,” and to say, “Lawyers who work for us will actually do this, on pain of having their feelings hurt!” I’m one hundred percent behind you now. This sort of brow-beating is just unconscionable. It’s the height of arrogance for a law firm to have higher standards for their lawyers than the minimum laid out by the bar association. ---
**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, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/610 "2010-09-19T16:56:15Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > 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). > > Oh, I see now. You’re railing against the presumptuousness of the organization that writes your paychecks in making an aspirational rule into an actual rule. I mean, how dare they? To actually look at a rule that says, “It would be nice if lawyers did this,” and to say, “Lawyers who work for us will actually do this, on pain of having their feelings hurt!” I’m one hundred percent behind you now. This sort of brow-beating is just unconscionable. It’s the height of arrogance for a law firm to have higher standards for their lawyers than the minimum laid out by the bar association. :rolleyes: So you basically haven’t paid any attention to what I’ve said but want to come storming in and getting on my ass anyway. Yeesh. I explained upthread that what bothers me about this is the United Way nature of it–they want a certain percentage of lawyers to do a certain number of pro bono hours each year. I actually wish they would just say that “all lawyers at this firm are required to do pro bono work.” I could then decide whether to do pro bono work or to work somewhere else. Instead of doing that, they use softer bullshit frowny face techniques. ---
**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, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/611 "2010-09-19T17:11:21Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I could then decide whether to do pro bono work or to work somewhere else. You can already make this decision. Or you could whine about the situation like a little girl whose parents won’t take her to a Justin Bieber concert unless she cleans her room. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/612 "2010-09-19T17:21:57Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I don’t see what you get by following me around like a puppy and nipping at my ankles. Just put me on ignore. Already explained, son. Amusement value. ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/613 "2010-09-19T17:52:38Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. Well, estoppel comes up in a few areas of law. There is “agency by estoppel” or “authority by estoppel” too, which is somehow different from apparent authority. In this case, suppose the Commissioner of the ARDC went after an attorney who dispensed with the necessity of aspiring to do an appropriate amount of pro bono service. The attorney defends on the grounds that the Rules state no punishment for failing to do so, even if the attorney swore to undertake the obligation. The Commissioner replies that the defense should estopped from making the argument, because the attorney promised and the State of Illinois changed its position in reliance on that promise (namely, it admitted the reneging attorney to practice). What is your surreply to the Commissioner? ---
**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 19, 2010, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/614 "2010-09-19T18:46:37Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Instead of doing that, they use softer bullshit frowny face techniques. So that caused you then seek further frowny faces on these Boards. Dude, or bub, or son, or whatever you may be, you’re certainly a masochist when it comes to parading about with a “kick me” sign taped to your ass. ---
**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, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/615 "2010-09-19T22:19:16Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > 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. > > Well, estoppel comes up in a few areas of law. There is “agency by estoppel” or “authority by estoppel” too, which is somehow different from apparent authority. > > In this case, suppose the Commissioner of the ARDC went after an attorney who dispensed with the **necessity** of aspiring to do an appropriate amount of pro bono service. The attorney defends on the grounds that the Rules state no punishment for failing to do so, even if the attorney swore to undertake the **obligation**. The Commissioner replies that the defense should estopped from making the argument, because the attorney **promised** and the State of Illinois changed its position in reliance on that **promise** (namely, it admitted the reneging attorney to practice). > > What is your surreply to the Commissioner? My reply is that none of the bolded words above is correct. There was no promise to do pro bono or to promise to do pro bono on which the Commissioner could rely. In reality, the Commissioner would never do what you are saying, according to the plain language of 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 19, 2010, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/616 "2010-09-19T22:26:11Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > I don’t see what you get by following me around like a puppy and nipping at my ankles. Just put me on ignore. > > Already explained, son. Amusement value. It just doesn’t seem that entertaining to me. I mean, you are only pointing out the completely obvious–that every poster on here could be lying about every single thing they say about themselves. Doesn’t seem that entertaining to me. But some people pay women to fart in their faces, so whatever I guess. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/617 "2010-09-19T23:26:03Z")
You’re the provider of the entertainment, child. ---
**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 20, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/618 "2010-09-20T00:18:37Z")
Christ, you are thick. When I said “It doesn’t seem that entertaining to me,” I clearly meant “To me, it doesn’t seem that entertaining” (as in I don’t see how you could be so entertained by doing that). But thanks for illustrating the disconnect between what is said and what is understood (not that you don’t already do that with every word you utter). ETA: When I said “Christ” above, I did not mean to imply that I believe you are the risen Messiah. ---
**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 20, 2010, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/619 "2010-09-20T02:14:11Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > . . . the disconnect between what is said and what is understood . . . For example, the disconnect between[what the authorities state in black and white to be your responsibilities](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12926978&postcount=534), and what you understand your responsibilities to be. ---
**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 20, 2010, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/620 "2010-09-20T02:58:41Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > . . . the disconnect between what is said and what is understood . . . > > For example, the disconnect between[what the authorities state in black and white to be your responsibilities](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12926978&postcount=534), and what you understand your responsibilities to be. Yes, that post of yours is another good example of a disconnect between what is said (in the rules) and what you understand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=32)