# 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:** 42
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/821 "2010-09-23T00:23:16Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > I ask again, have you presented the arguments you’ve been using in this thread to your firm? Surely if the matter is so clear-cut, you’ll encounter no resistance… hell, they should even be grateful for your freeing the rest of the firm from their so-called obligation. There may be a raise in it for you! ---
**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 23, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/822 "2010-09-23T00:26:25Z")
Also, the email referenced in my OP shows that my firm recognizes that pro bono isn’t a requurement. If it were required, they would make sure all lawyers did it. As it is, the email was only looking for a certain percentage of lawyers to do a certain number of hours. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/823 "2010-09-23T00:28:13Z")
**Rand** , what is someone senior to you personally and directly asked if you would take on a specific pro bono case or help out with one? What would you say? ---
**Author:** ![LeeshaJoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LeeshaJoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LeeshaJoy)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/824 "2010-09-23T00:29:50Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Also, the email referenced in my OP shows that my firm recognizes that pro bono isn’t a requurement. If it were required, they would make sure all lawyers did it. As it is, the email was only looking for a certain percentage of lawyers to do a certain number of hours. And yet you still felt the need to bitch about it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/825 "2010-09-23T00:35:30Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Frank, why would I? Your firm wants you to do this; the assembled liberal douches of the SDMB are only offering commentary. For your purposes, whether you’re right or we’re right is irrelevant–what does your boss think is right? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/826 "2010-09-23T00:41:18Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Also, the email referenced in my OP shows that my firm recognizes that pro bono isn’t a requurement. If it were required, they would make sure all lawyers did it. As it is, the email was only looking for a certain percentage of lawyers to do a certain number of hours. According to the OP, the email stated that the goal is to have _every_ lawyer in the firm perform at least 20 hours of pro bono work per year. ---
**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 23, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/827 "2010-09-23T00:55:51Z")
So it’s clear then. Either 1. **Rand Rover** should clearly tell his company that since the rules merely recite the existence of the responsibility to do pro bono work, and do not specify a penalty… that therefore there is no ACTUAL responsibility to do pro bono work, and he will do none. Then he can shut the fuck up. Or 1. He can acknowledge that his firm has requested that the goal is to have every lawyer in the firm perform at least 20 hours of pro bono work per year, and do at least 20 hours of pro bono work per year. And shut the fuck up. Even though both scenarios have a very satisfying ending (viz: shut the fuck up), I would opt for choice #1, as it would give everyone here a hearty laugh. ---
**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 23, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/828 "2010-09-23T01:07:06Z")
Oh, and kudos to everyone here for the extremely high quality of the poetry, as well as the amazing restraint shown by the relative paucity of boner jokes. ---
**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 23, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/829 "2010-09-23T01:11:06Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > > [@Frank](#): > > > > I ask again, have you presented the arguments you’ve been using in this thread to your firm? > > Surely if the matter is so clear-cut, you’ll encounter no resistance… hell, they should even be grateful for your freeing the rest of the firm from their so-called obligation. There may be a raise in it for you! :rolleyes: Everyone I work with knows therezks no actual requirement to do pro bono, so I wouldn’t be telling them anything they don’t know. You really shouldn’t take SDMB liberal douche thinking as reflecting actual reality or the mainstream on any issue. ---
**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 23, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/830 "2010-09-23T01:13:17Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > as well as the amazing restraint shown by the relative paucity of boner jokes. I’m proud to hoist that flag! So to speak. ---
**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 23, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/831 "2010-09-23T01:19:15Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > Also, the email referenced in my OP shows that my firm recognizes that pro bono isn’t a requurement. If it were required, they would make sure all lawyers did it. As it is, the email was only looking for a certain percentage of lawyers to do a certain number of hours. > > According to the OP, the email stated that the goal is to have _every_ lawyer in the firm perform at least 20 hours of pro bono work per year. I stand corrected–that is what the OP says. I’ll look back at the email, but I thought there was a percentage stated. But the point still stands–if doing pro bono was actually required to be a lawyer, the firm wouldn’t send out emails saying “hey, we’re trying to get people to do pro bono.” The emails would say “have you fulfilled your pro bono requirement this year?” Lawyers are required to do CLE (continuing legal education–basically free lunch with someone talking about something law related), and the firm reminds people of the deadlines and registration requirements. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/832 "2010-09-23T01:19:38Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Everyone I work with knows therezks no actual requirement to do pro bono, … Also from the OP: > [@](#): > > Apparently our section wasn’t doing so hot compared to the rest of the firm. Huh. Go figure. ---
**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 23, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/833 "2010-09-23T01:20:49Z")
> [@LeeshaJoy](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > Also, the email referenced in my OP shows that my firm recognizes that pro bono isn’t a requurement. If it were required, they would make sure all lawyers did it. As it is, the email was only looking for a certain percentage of lawyers to do a certain number of hours. > > And yet you still felt the need to bitch about it. :rolleyes: You can now join Gorsnak in the “missing the point” corner. ---
**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 23, 2010, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/834 "2010-09-23T01:24:23Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > > > as well as the amazing restraint shown by the relative paucity of boner jokes. > > I’m proud to hoist that flag! > > So to speak. It’s all good. What would Shakespeare’s lovely words be without Puck to give us comedic relief? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/835 "2010-09-23T01:33:26Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The emails would say “have you fulfilled your pro bono requirement this year?” What else do you think that email was saying to you? You can’t really be _that_ oblivious, can you? Can you? ---
**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 23, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/836 "2010-09-23T01:33:28Z")
And now to talk with someone worth talking to and to debate an actual issue (i.e., whether the rules require a lawyer to aspire to do pro bono), here’s the line-by-line response to Bricker’s post that I promised to do: > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > Look at the speeding example. > > > > You seem to be using this as a gotcha. You think that I must be arguing that a rule does not impose a requirement unless a sanction is imposed for an infraction 100% of the time. But I’m not saying that at all. > > > > To return to pro bono, it would have been very easy to erite a rule saying that a lawyer shall try to do pro bono and to provide a sanction if a lawyer doesn’t try. The fact that a lawyer doesn’t do any pro bono would be evidence of the lack of trying. But the rules don’t say that. The rules themselves provide no sanction for not trying to do pro bono. The fact that in reality there is also often no sanction imposed in situations where the rules do impose a sanction is completely irrelevant. > > 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. I actually argued that the sine qua non of a requirement is that the _rules provide_ a sanction for its violation. As I demonstrated with the speeding example, I recognize that a sanction provided by rules is not always imposed because of practical concerns. But there is still a difference between rules providing a sanction and not providing a sanction. [/quote] Your response is now that this rule has less than 100% applicability. [/quote] No. My response is that you mis-stated the rule. As shown above, you are missing the distinction between a rule imposing a sanction and a sanction actually being imposed in every situation. > [@](#): > > 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. Like I said above, it would have been very easy to say that a lawyer “shall” aspire to do pro bono work. Individual disciplinary hearings could then look at the facts and determine whether a lawyer did in fact aspire but was prevented from actually accomplishing due to circumstances. But the rules clearly do not say that. > [@](#): > > You, on the other hand,are bent on treating the rules as a criminal statute, to be liberally construed in your favor. No, I just know how to tell whether a set of rules require a certain action. I would like to hear your process for determining whether rules require an action. Upthread you responded to this request (shortly and cryptically) by saying that the determination should be made by taking into account the totality of the circumstances. But that’s not a criteria–one should always take that into account. What do you do once you’ve taken that into account–flip a coin? ---
**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 23, 2010, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/837 "2010-09-23T01:36:09Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > The emails would say “have you fulfilled your pro bono requirement this year?” > > What else do you think that email was saying to you? You can’t really be _that_ oblivious, can you? Can you? Can I? CAN I??!! Still, there’s a sharp contrast between this email (and other emails about pro bono) and emails about CLE. The emails about CLE don’t get all fired up and remind lawyers of their moral and ethical obligation to do CLE or talk about the exciting CLE programs the firm is involved in. They just say “hey, if your last name begins with a letter from a through m, then this is your month to get your shit together.” ---
**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 23, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/838 "2010-09-23T01:46:30Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > here’s the line-by-line response to Bricker’s post that I promised to do: Well that proves it. Bricker is a liberal douche. ---
**Author:** ![moejoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@moejoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moejoe)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/839 "2010-09-23T01:48:33Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > SFG: I’ve already covered your argument 100 times in this thread. The preamble to the rules (ie, the part you quoted) does not impose a responsibilitý to do pro bono. It just recites the existence of that responsibility. And the onlý place it exists is in the ether of a “moral obligation.” I did not take on that responsibility by agreeing to abide by the rules because the rules don’t impose that responsibility. > > > > The language you quoted is just some flowery bullshit language that’s just supposed to remind lawyers of some amorphous ethereal bullshit “moral responsibility” Þhat doesn’t actually exist in the real world. > > > [@The\_Bith\_Shuffle](#): > > > > **SFG** : this is too easy! You must reply with two villanelles separated by a WCW-style enjambing poem of about fifteen lines or so. > > Fucking hell. Do you know I had to go \*look up \*what a god damned villanelle is? Okay, fine, here we go: > > \*\*Rand \*\*is a fucking tard > To anyone that’s clear > Being human is hard > > His mind a tub of lard > Logic is nowhere near > \*\*Rand \*\*is a fucking tard > > At those been dealt a card > Of poverty he jeers > Being human is hard > > His recollection scarred > By chugging Everclear > \*\*Rand \*\*is a fucking tard > > He could defend a ward > Of state, his daughter’s peer > Being human is hard > > He’d rather do the yard > And cower home in fear > \*\*Rand \*\*is a fucking tard > Being human is hard > > What may seem to us > to be self-evident– > to those granted great power > responsibility is also given– > somehow elude this thing. > (I shall not name him man > for that implies a level of maturity > that he has not attained.) > We might wish to offer pity, > but that would be neglectful > of his own neglect > of his own oaths, > freely given. > The benefit without the payment; > A hoarder of justice. > > Obligations denied > He claims it doesn’t count > We can all see he lied > > Relentless as the tide > \*\*Rand \*\*runs off at the mouth > Obligations denied > > With any shyster tied > In equivocation’s amount > We can all see he lied > > Excuses, they have vied > To overtop the mount > Obligations denied > > How long can we abide > The way we’re being wound? > We can all see he lied > > His vows he’ll override > With a juvenile pout > Obligations denied > We can all see he lied You know, (and I say this only because I’m quite sure it won’t bother you a bit) I’ve never really liked you. I have no idea why either, just didn’t. But this has completely changed my mind. I…I love you man. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/840 "2010-09-23T01:53:00Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Also, the email referenced in my OP shows that my firm recognizes that pro bono isn’t a requurement. If it were required, they would make sure all lawyers did it. As it is, the email was only looking for a certain percentage of lawyers to do a certain number of hours. Did it have a sentence at the bottom, something like “If you have already done your _pro bono_ work, please disregard this friendly reminder.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=41) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=43)