# 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:** 32
**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 20, 2010, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/621 "2010-09-20T03:02:10Z")
What _are_ the literal terms of Rand Rover’s relevant responsibilities, anyway? I see a lot of claims about what they are or aren’t, but what _are_ they, actually? I’m prepared to admit the possibility that they were posted and I missed them. ---
**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, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/622 "2010-09-20T03:16:13Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What _are_ the literal terms of Rand Rover’s relevant responsibilities, anyway? I see a lot of claims about what they are or aren’t, but what _are_ they, actually? > I’m prepared to admit the possibility that they were posted and I missed them. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12926978&postcount=534](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12926978&postcount=534) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/623 "2010-09-20T03:55:13Z")
Not wanting to wade through 13 pages to review, but have we established that Rand Rover has never done any pro bono work? Because if he has done any at all, even the slightest amount, aren’t we just wasting our time? Oh. Wait. We are wasting our time in any event. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/624 "2010-09-20T04:09:00Z")
Well, if it is in pursuit of the forlorn hope of changing a shuttered mind, yes, most assuredly. If it is, however, simply mockery and dersion of someone richly deserving. that’s just good clean fun. Builds character. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/625 "2010-09-20T04:16:19Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > > > 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. In some jurisidictions they do, they just don’t take away your license for breaking that particular rule. In most jurisdictions they prefer to just guilt you into it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/626 "2010-09-20T04:22:18Z")
> [@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. Noone is going to put a gun to his head to do pro bono work. He is just upset that people want to guilt him into meeting his professional responsibilities. ---
**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, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/627 "2010-09-20T04:48:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Noone is going to put a gun to his head to do pro bono work. He is just upset that people want to guilt him into meeting his professional responsibilities. That, and I don’t think he has the analytical ability to understand what his responsibilities are under the [ILLINOIS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS RULES ON ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12926978&postcount=534). Statutory interpretation obviously is not his strong suit. ---
**Author:** ![Redpill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/58956e/32.png) [@Redpill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Redpill)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/628 "2010-09-20T06:26:43Z")
Man, I wish I had the skill to get people to talk for 13 pages about me. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/629 "2010-09-20T07:38:27Z")
Well, it takes a real commitment and years of effort. A mere snotty attitude just isn’t going to get it. Have you any shreds of empathy or humanity lingering? If you came across a cold, wet puppy in the rain, looking up at you with sorrowful brown eyes, would you drop kick it across the street if somebody was willing to give you a nickel? If you can’t say yes without a moments hesitation…you probably don’t have the stuff. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/630 "2010-09-20T10:27:21Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > ETA: When I said “Christ” above, I did not mean to imply that I believe you are the risen Messiah. Who do you believe is the risen Messiah, then? Where is your god now, Rand? WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW? ---
**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, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/631 "2010-09-20T12:16:12Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > Noone is going to put a gun to his head to do pro bono work. He is just upset that people want to guilt him into meeting his professional responsibilities. > > That, and I don’t think he has the analytical ability to understand what his responsibilities are under the [ILLINOIS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS > RULES ON ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12926978&postcount=534). Statutory interpretation obviously is not his strong suit. OK, tough guy. Let’s test your statutory interpretation skills. Please point out the exact words in that statute that impose a responsibility on a lawyer 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 20, 2010, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/632 "2010-09-20T12:19:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, it takes a real commitment and years of effort. A mere snotty attitude just isn’t going to get it. Have you any shreds of empathy or humanity lingering? If you came across a cold, wet puppy in the rain, looking up at you with sorrowful brown eyes, would you drop kick it across the street if somebody was willing to give you a nickel? > > If you can’t say yes without a moments hesitation…you probably don’t have the stuff. It also takes a dedicated core of idiots that keep coming back even though I’ve completely shut down every single argument they’ve made. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/633 "2010-09-20T13:24:53Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Noone is going to put a gun to his head to do pro bono work. He is just upset that people want to guilt him into meeting his professional responsibilities. Evidence, however tiny, of the existence of a conscience, however tiny. Cause for hope? > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. Adhering to your nu, “improved” analogy—and pretending for a moment that it’s any of your business to determine what’s “good for the child,” over the wishes of the parents who employed you—the time to voice such objections would’ve been at the moment it was made clear that it was expected of you. Instead of informing your employer, up front, “I will not do that, because I don’t think ice cream is good for the child” (or in your real-life example, because you don’t think it’s “good” for poor people to have legal representation), you instead passive-aggressively failed to live up to your expectations and prayed that nobody would notice. That you would take the coward’s way out is hardly surprising— but now you’ve been given an opportunity to discover your missing balls and announce to your guilt-tripping employer, in no uncertain terms, that you don’t plan to do any pro bono work. (Instead of, you know, skulking off and whining about the unfairness of it all, on an anonymous message board.) It’ll all be on the table; they’ll know exactly what kind of person they’ve got working for them. Hell, you can even dress it up as a “principled stand” against… well, something… rather than the ugly and obvious truth: that you don’t want to spend a single minute doing something for others that you’re not directly compensated for. ---
**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, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/634 "2010-09-20T13:38:12Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@Muffin](#): > > > > That, and I don’t think he has the analytical ability to understand what his responsibilities are under the [ILLINOIS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS > > RULES ON ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12926978&postcount=534). Statutory interpretation obviously is not his strong suit. > > OK, tough guy. Let’s test your statutory interpretation skills. Please point out the exact words in that statute that impose a responsibility on a lawyer to do pro bono work. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12926978&postcount=534](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12926978&postcount=534) ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/635 "2010-09-20T14:02:56Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Say a client asks you to read a set of rules and determine whether the rules provide that he must do action x. You read the rules and determine that if the client does not do action x, then absolutely nothing will happen to the client or otherwise change in the world. And nothing happens if he does action x either. Stated another way, if one could create two worlds, one in which the client does action x and one in which the client does not do action x, then, vis-a-vis the set of rules you are looking at, one would not be able to tell the difference between the two worlds. > > In that situation, are you telling me that it would be possible for you to counsel the client that the rules require him to do action x? And this is why I would not want Rand Rover do any part of work for me\*, whether pro bono or not, court work or just tax code: because I can’t trust somebody with his twisted values and argumentation that his reasoning is in my best interest. If he reads law and comes to the conclusion that I as his client am not obliged to do x, because there’s no penalty to not doing x, and he then tells me this, I will get into trouble later when it turns out his reading was faulty, and I was obliged to do x anyway. - Yes, I know, I’m not even in the same continent as he is, so practically it’s unlikely. ---
**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, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/636 "2010-09-20T14:13:55Z")
Constanze, please demonstrate how my reading of the rules here is faulty. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/637 "2010-09-20T14:18:30Z")
Alternatively, given the standards defining “pro bono publico legal work” in Illinois, Randy could simply work on drafting and promoting proposed Federal and Illinois state legislation which would make it easier and more effective to be a Galtian businessman. That I would personally be opposed to such legislation does not mean that I cannot see it as something he can morally do, given what he has said herein, that would comply with expectations and fulfill his “aspirational” commitment and the intent of the Illinois bar/SSC 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 20, 2010, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/638 "2010-09-20T14:22:49Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > OK, tough guy. Let’s test your statutory interpretation skills. Please point out the exact words in that statute that impose a responsibility on a lawyer to do pro bono work. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12926978&postcount=534](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12926978&postcount=534) Just to be clear, is it correct that you believe the preamble to the rules actually imposes a responsibility on lawyers to do pro bono? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/639 "2010-09-20T14:29:38Z")
OK, let’s try a slightly different tack. **Rand Rover** : let’s discuss the range of representation zeal you can give to a client. I know you’re not a litigator, but presumably it’s still fair to say that you represent the interests of clients, yes? Now, there undoubtedly exists bar, some minimum level of competency, below which your performance should not fall. Let’s call that spot X. There’s also a spot at which a client would be able to successfully make a case against you for malpractice. Let’s call that spot Y. I assume you don’t contend that X and Y are the same point – that is, you acknowledge that you may fail to deliver a minimum quality of service (X), but owing to the difficulties of proof in a malpractice case, not be liable for malpractice, because the plaintiff in the malpractice action would require more egregious malpractice (Y) to make his case. Yes? Although it is obvious where I’m going, let’s stop there. Do you concur with what I’ve said so far in this post? ---
**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, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/640 "2010-09-20T14:35:01Z")
Here, I’ll even change the font of the phrases you missed the first time through. See the fourth word of the first sentence **R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y** – guess what – is means **responsibility** , you know **responsibility** as in “Please point out the exact words in that statute that impose a **responsibility** on a lawyer to do pro bono work.” > [@Muffin](#): > > 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?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=33)