# 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:** 40
**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 22, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/781 "2010-09-22T17:21:00Z")
> [@Doxy](#): > > > [@Bosstone](#): > > > > The firm pays **Rand** his usual wage per hours billed, but doesn’t charge the client. > > Ok… I’m confused. > > If Rand is getting paid… then, technically, HE’S not working pro bono, right? > His FIRM is working pro bono. > Which would mean his firm would get the tax breaks for charity work while Rand would not. > > Or have I got this wrong somehow? > (Wouldn’t be the first time.) Nobody gets a tax break for doing services for free. Its as if you got paid and then donated that money, you are in the same place taxwise as if you had never done the pro-bono work except you don’t have to worry about any of those pesky restrictions on donating to charity and you can do work for organizations that are not tax exempt charities. The reason someone like Rand might object is that even though his pro-bono billable hours won’t be counted against him (and almost every biglaw lawyer suspects that it secretly WILL be counted against them) it reduces the amount of time he works on cases with paying clients (the kind that will improve his chances for advancement). Noone was ever elected to the executive committie in a firm for doing outstanding pro-bono work. ---
**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 22, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/782 "2010-09-22T17:32:28Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Nope, the “guild” I belong to does not require pro bono work, as I have demonstrated in this thread. It’s not a requirement simply because it does not have a sanction for it’s violation? ---
**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 22, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/783 "2010-09-22T17:44:33Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Because you have argued that the _sine qua non_ of a “requirement” is a [sanction for its violation](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12927085&postcount=536), it seemed reasonable to refute that by providing an example of a standard which you agreed was a requirement and yet did not contain a sanction. > > > > I have done so. > > > > Your response is now that this rule has less than 100% applicability. > > > > It’s true that the committee could simply have written a sanction in. But as a suggested many pages ago, the committee recognized there were situations where it was inappropriate to require pro bono work, and further that those situations did not readily admit of a bright-line definition. So the committee trusted the members of the bar to apply a Potter Stewart-esque sort of analysis to the situation, knowing it when they see it and acting in good faith. > > > > You, on the other hand,are bent on treating the rules as a criminal statute, to be liberally construed in your favor. > > Wow Bricker. This obtuseness is out of character for you. It’s sad that you have to resort to making a strawman out of my argument in order to have any response at all. Also, you are simply repeating points that I already responded to at length. > > Therefore, I will accept your de facto resignation on this point, and let’s discuss something different: what do you believe the proper test is for determining whether a rule requires an action? My Black’s law dictionary just winked out of existence. ---
**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 22, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/784 "2010-09-22T17:45:10Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@descamisado](#): > > > > Can you show that **SBG** (sic) is subject to some governing body or guild where posting nude pictures is a requirement, as opposed to it clearing having been demonstrated that you _are_ a member of such an organization that requires pro bono work. > > Nope, the “guild” I belong to does not require pro bono work, as I have demonstrated in this thread. Here are the facts: As a member of the illinois bar you have a “responsibility” to do pro-bono work. There is no penalty for not fulfilling your responsibility but the responsibility is clearly there. You choose to define requirement as something that you get punished for not doing. The rest of the lawyers on the board (I count at least 4) equate responsibility with requirement, while you split hairs and hang your hat on the fact that they don’t take away your license of fine you for not fulfilling your pro-bono requirement. ---
**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 22, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/785 "2010-09-22T17:46:46Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > He can’t for the same reasn I cant–he’s on a blackberry. Yeah, why the hell can’t I sign onto my email using Citrix on my Iphone? It seems like they could BURY blackberry if you could do that. ---
**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 22, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/786 "2010-09-22T17:55:01Z")
EP: that’s correct. Please share with us how you think one should dtermine whether a rule requires a certain action. Damuri: that’s correct. The rules don’t impose the responsibility (or a requirement or obligation). The preamble simply says that lawyers have that responsibility. So, they are clearly referring only to a “moral responsibility,” which, together with a couple of bucks, will get you a cup of coffee. Also, I think the new iphone can do push email, but the firm has to support it somehow. ---
**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 22, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/787 "2010-09-22T18:12:59Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > EP: that’s correct. Please share with us how you think one should dtermine whether a rule requires a certain action. > > Damuri: that’s correct. The rules don’t impose the responsibility (or a requirement or obligation). The preamble simply says that lawyers have that responsibility. So, they are clearly referring only to a “moral responsibility,” which, together with a couple of bucks, will get you a cup of coffee. > > Also, I think the new iphone can do push email, but the firm has to support it somehow. And you really don’t understand why peple are giving you shit for complaining about getting an email reminding you of your responsibility to perform pro bono? ---
**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 22, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/788 "2010-09-22T18:28:05Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > EP: that’s correct. Please share with us how you think one should dtermine whether a rule requires a certain action. Most of civilized society recognizes that rules set out by professional organizations that we belong to should be followed even in the absence of a specifically written penalty for non-compliance. We see that the rules have meaning, and our organizations or employers wish us to follow them, even though they have not set out specific punishments if we fail to follow them. We are not 2 year olds, who require a clearly spelled out negative consequence for every single rule. We recognize that it is in everyone’s best interests to follow the rules as they are set out, and use our professional ethics and conscience to guide our actions, rather than the fear of punishment. The rule “requires” a certain action in that we are mature, responsible adults who recognize the rules and agree to abide by them, even though the negative consequences are not specifically stated - we know that the consequences are more subtle than that, and may simply be that others are affected negatively. For the vast majority of us, the fact that our actions may affect others negatively is enough to make us follow the rules, even in the absence of personal negative consequences. ETA: I realize that this probably just goes straight over your head. Probably just morals crap from a liberal douche. ---
**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 22, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/789 "2010-09-22T18:38:31Z")
EP, you are still just arguing that I should do pro bono. You aren’t arguing that the rules require me to do pro bono. You criticized how I determine whether a rue requires an action–so let’s here how you determine whether a rule requires an action. If all you want to do is argue that I have a moral responsibility to do pro bono, then that’s fine, but you can’t then argue that I promised to do so because that is clearly not the case. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/790 "2010-09-22T19:00:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Shit, not even Rubenesque! What a disappointment! Sorry. I had a brownie with my lunch today; maybe I could keep it up and pack on 30 pounds. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > SFG: I have an obligation to perform pro bono work only if the rules I swore to abide by require me to do so (or,I guess, some other set of rules require me to do so). Otherwise, I have as much obligation to do pro bono as you do to post nudie pics. Obligation != requirement. You are not \*required \*to do pro bono work, but you are \*obligated \*to do so. [Let’s look at a definition](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obligation), shall we? > [@](#): > > 1: the action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow) > 2a : something (as a formal contract, a promise, or the demands of conscience or custom) that obligates one to a course of action b : a debt security (as a mortgage or corporate bond) c : a commitment (as by a government) to pay a particular sum of money; also : an amount owed under such an obligation \ > 3a : a condition or feeling of being obligated b : a debt of gratitude > 4: something one is bound to do : duty, responsibility You vowed that you would aspire to complete a minimum amount of pro bono work every year. You have not aspired. You’re a liar, and one without even the balls to just come out and admit that you’re a fucking welcher. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And you really don’t understand why peple are giving you shit for complaining about getting an email reminding you of your responsibility to perform pro bono? Of course he does. He just delights in being a dick. Kind of like me, but with less logic and panache and more douchebaggery. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You aren’t arguing that the rules require me to do pro bono. **NO ONE IS, YOU FUCKING RETARD.** That’s \*your \*strawman. Clearly, the rules do not \*require \*you to do pro bono work, or you’d be fucking disbarred by now fifty times over (shame, really). What we are saying, and what you _swore you agreed to_, was that you have an \*obligation \*to do pro bono work, a \*responsibility \*that any good lawyer would \*want \*to fulfill to the best of their ability. So for you to actively avoid doing a single second of pro bono work is to concede that you are not, in fact, a good lawyer. ---
**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 22, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/791 "2010-09-22T19:10:20Z")
SFG: please demonstrate how I promised to do pro bono. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/792 "2010-09-22T19:18:09Z")
Determined to be the kind of lawyer who gives the other 1 percent a bad name, ain’tcha? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/793 "2010-09-22T19:18:55Z")
_This is the thread that never ends Yes it goes on and on my friends Some jerkoff started posting it Knowing full well what it was And we’ll keep on posting in it forever just because…_ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bith_Shuffle)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/794 "2010-09-22T19:20:29Z")
**SFG** , this is getting too easy for you. Please give your next reply as a proper Petrarchan sonnet. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/795 "2010-09-22T19:25:26Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > SFG: please demonstrate how I promised to do pro bono. As cited [earlier in the thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12926978&postcount=534): > [@](#): > > 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. […] 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. […] 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. 1.) You have a responsibility as someone licensed as an officer of the court to provide services for which you, or your firm, are not compensated. 2.) This can take a variety of forms. 3.) This willingness demonstrates that you are fit to practice law. 4.) The fact that there is no solid requirement, both in terms of an absolute number and sanctions for noncompliance, is explicitly stated to not indicate what you think it indicates, i.e., that you have no responsibility to do work in the public interest, but rather that it is too complex an issue to put those kinds of inflexible restrictions on. You weak-ass piece of slime. Grow up and admit that you have an obligation and you’re not going to do it because _you just don’t want to_. ETA: Sorry **TBS** , I missed your post. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bith_Shuffle)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/796 "2010-09-22T19:29:45Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > ETA: Sorry **TBS** , I missed your post. ☹ It’s not a big deal, but as you can see, I was right, this is just too easy for you. If he replies, stick to the format. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/797 "2010-09-22T19:54:21Z")
A lawyer who quickly reneges his debt To give his daughter a poor example I am to this day glad I have not met Since his face I may feel forced to trample For one who says “I will” but then does not A mote of forgiveness is too ample Confront him and his pants he’ll surely wet His cowardice displayed by this sample If only \*\*Rand \*\*could grow a pair of balls We could at least respect him as an ass But no, he merely shames us, one and all By his protestations that he has gall Instead he’d rather show he has no class Indulging in a textual pratfall I went with the earlier \*abab abab \*for the octave, a la Giacomo da Lentini, versus the later traditional _abba abba_–I hope you don’t mind. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bith_Shuffle)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/798 "2010-09-22T19:56:26Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I went with the earlier \*abab abab \*for the octave, a la Giacomo da Lentini, versus the later traditional _abba abba_–I hope you don’t mind. Oh I’m utterly dismayed. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/799 "2010-09-22T19:56:28Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > You weak-ass piece of slime. Grow up and admit that you have an obligation and you’re not going to do it because _you just don’t want to_. Growing up in the \*\*Rover \*\*household was difficult for everyone involved. “Because I said so” wasn’t an option. From the time he cut teeth, little \*\*Randy \*\*understood only direct cause and effect, failure and consequence. “ **Randy** , if you smear your poo-poo on the walls again, I’m going to take away your Barbie dolls.” Unfortunately it didn’t stop him, as evidenced here. He was, and continues to be, such a willful little boy. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/800 "2010-09-22T20:00:56Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > A lawyer who quickly reneges his debt > To give his daughter a poor example > I am to this day glad I have not met > Since his face I may feel forced to trample > For one who says “I will” but then does not > A mote of forgiveness is too ample > Confront him and his pants he’ll surely wet > His cowardice displayed by this sample > > If only \*\*Rand \*\*could grow a pair of balls > We could at least respect him as an ass > But no, he merely shames us, one and all > By his protestations that he has gall > Instead he’d rather show he has no class > Indulging in a textual pratfall Mine was better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=41)