# 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:** 47
**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 24, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/921 "2010-09-24T14:24:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > He just seems to be against pro-bono requiremnts on principle. > > He has some sort of mental roadblock that either says that its wrong to ask lawyers to do work for free … Since he is getting paid by his firm for his pro bono work, that can’t be it. The only remaining reason is he objects to poor people getting legal services for free. ---
**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 24, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/922 "2010-09-24T14:43:27Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > What many here fail to understand is that RR presents a straightforward application of Objectivist ethics. Ayn Rand fanatics don’t just get their pants in a twist about those who use Big Guv to redistribute income. They also strenuously object to those using “Moral guilt” to “confiscate the accomplishments of society’s productive members”. Or so I understand from wiki’s entry on _Atlas Shrugged_. > > You see, objectivists have hearts of delicate crystal: they are easily perturbed and don’t like to be subjected to moral suasion. It’s too much for them, so they lash out. Some may say that if you’re moral system is vulnerable to guilt tripping, then maybe there’s something about the human experience that you’re shutting out: maybe you’re screwed up. Krugman’s blog today didn’t go that far necessarily: > > > [@Paul Krugman](#): > > > > The best line I’ve ever heard about Ayn Rand’s influence: > > > > ``` > > There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. > > > > ``` I remember that quote from college in the 80’s, I don’t think Krugman came up with it. Lets not forget that Atlas Shrugged also has a heroine, which is why you see so many pseudo-intellectual college chicks treat the book like a bible. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/923 "2010-09-24T14:45:38Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > The words “pro bono” only occur in the comments section, which you should know are as binding as jack shit. Read the introduction. Not the comments. It’s been cited to multiple times, as you would know if you had read the thread. ---
**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 24, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/924 "2010-09-24T14:47:04Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > He just seems to be against pro-bono requiremnts on principle. > > > > He has some sort of mental roadblock that either says that its wrong to ask lawyers to do work for free … > > Since he is getting paid by his firm for his pro bono work, that can’t be it. The only remaining reason is he objects to poor people getting legal services for free. If he is a partner like he says (I really doubt it but anything is possible I guess), then his compensation might be affected by how much money is collected on his billables. Even if its not, pro-bono takes away some time that could be spent adding more “real” billables to the partnership (of which he gets a piece). ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/925 "2010-09-24T14:52:17Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > > [@moejoe](#): > > > > Doesn’t _anyone_ remember 1970’s beer commercials anymore? > > Here’s to good friends, tonight is kinda special? > > Sorry…I was something like six years old. I don’t know if that was for a good beer or a lousy one… Lousy, of course. That’s why it was only kinda special. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/926 "2010-09-24T15:16:34Z")
> [@villa](#): > > > [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > > The words “pro bono” only occur in the comments section, which you should know are as binding as jack shit. > > Read the introduction. Not the comments. It’s been cited to multiple times, as you would know if you had read the thread. I have. It’s not in there, either. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/927 "2010-09-24T15:23:50Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > [@villa](#): > > > > Read the introduction. Not the comments. It’s been cited to multiple times, as you would know if you had read the thread. > > I have. It’s not in there, either. I have a grand idea. Since you claim that it’s in there, and for me to weed through 19 pages would be slightly inefficient, why don’t you point me to your “cite” ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/928 "2010-09-24T15:37:39Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > [@villa](#): > > > > Read the introduction. Not the comments. It’s been cited to multiple times, as you would know if you had read the thread. > > I have. It’s not in there, either. [Timely, affordable counsel is essential if disputes are to be avoided and, when necessary, resolved. Basic rights have little meaning without access to the judicial system which vindicates them. Effective access to that system often requires the assistance of counsel. It is 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. The absence from the proposed new rules of ABA Model Rule 6.1 regarding pro bono and public service therefore should not be interpreted as limiting the responsibility of attorneys to render uncompensated service in the public interest. Rather, the rationale for the absence of ABA Model Rule 6.1 is that this concept is not appropriate for a disciplinary code, because an appropriate disciplinary standard regarding pro bono and public service is difficult, if not impossible, to articulate. That ABA Model Rule 6.1 itself uses the word "should’’ instead of "shall’’ in describing this duty reflects the uncertainty of the ABA on this issue.]([legal ethics | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/il/code/IL_CODE.HTM#Preamble)) Note that it says it is the _ **responsibility** _ of officers of the court to do work for which “compensation may not be available.” Now there are other ways of doing this than pro bono representation, as it says, and I will admit that I have been overusing the term “pro bono” to include all non-compensated work including thins like “assistance in the … efforts at law reform.” But I don’t think that changes it in a major sense. If **Rand Rover** is cheerfully volunteering at those, I will withdraw. But I am pretty certain he isn’t, and the tone of the conversation was, to me at least, including such things under the general _pro bono_ banner. I am a little confused here, and second guessing myself. Are these not the actual Illinois Rules? If Cornell has been playing a prank on me (or if I have simply missed something blazingly obvious in the link showing me it isn’t the rules) then I will be less than happy… ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/929 "2010-09-24T15:46:04Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Note that it says it is the _ **responsibility** _ of officers of the court to do work for which “compensation may not be available.” Now there are other ways of doing this than pro bono representation, as it says, and I will admit that I have been overusing the term “pro bono” to include all non-compensated work including thins like “assistance in the … efforts at law reform.” But I don’t think that changes it in a major sense. If **Rand Rover** is cheerfully volunteering at those, I will withdraw. But I am pretty certain he isn’t, and the tone of the conversation was, to me at least, including such things under the general _pro bono_ banner. > > I am a little confused here, and second guessing myself. Are these not the actual Illinois Rules? If Cornell has been playing a prank on me (or if I have simply missed something blazingly obvious in the link showing me it isn’t the rules) then I will be less than happy… Old rules, chuckles. They were amended effective Jan 1, 2010 Next time, try primary source documents, mmkay? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/930 "2010-09-24T16:05:34Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > Old rules, chuckles. They were amended effective Jan 1, 2010 > > Next time, try primary source documents, mmkay? So OK - looking for the 2010 rules. [These them?](https://www.iardc.org/newrules2010.htm#Preamble%20and%20Scope) Which include the following… > [@](#): > > [6] As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession. As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal education. In addition, a lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority. > > [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. Are those not the current rules? I pulled them from the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois web site. I assume that would be a good source. But if I am mistaken, can you please point me to the rules as in force that don’t include this preamble? ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/931 "2010-09-24T16:38:35Z")
where in there do you see an obligation for pro bono representation? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/932 "2010-09-24T16:46:13Z")
Well let’s first determine if those are the correct rules we should be looking at. Don’t you think that is a good place to start? ---
**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 24, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/933 "2010-09-24T16:51:14Z")
Looks like **Rand** ’s tag-team partner has arrived… ---
**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 24, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/934 "2010-09-24T16:54:29Z")
Villa, I think those are the right rules. The problem is you aren’t reading them correctly. The actual text of the rules say “a lawyer shall” a great many times. Therefore, those are all things that a lawyer is actually obligated to do by the rules. The preamble (ie, not the actual rules) then says that “it is the responsibility” of a lawyer to do pro bono. Therefore, the rules don’t impose an actual obligation on a lawyer to do pro bono (ie, by saying “a lawyer shal do pro bono”). The rules also do not impose an actual bligation to aspire to do pro bono (ie, by saying "a lawyer shall aspire to do pro bono). The only mention of pro bono in the rules is the preamble’s recitation of the responsiblity of lawyers to do pro bono. I disagree that I have any such responsibility. There is no source for an actual obligation for me to do pro bono, and I choose not to, so in fact I don’t have any actual responsibility to do so. The language in the preamble is just supposed to encourage lawyers to do pro bono–it doesn’t require them to do so. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/935 "2010-09-24T16:59:14Z")
We’ve gone back and forth on that around 470 times. We aren’t reaching an agreement. At the moment, I’d like **Rumor-Watkins** ’ opinion on whether those are the correct rules to examine. ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/936 "2010-09-24T17:02:09Z")
RR, how many hours do you think you’ve spent on this one thread, reading the posts, composing responses, etc? (Do you think - at almost a thousand posts into the thread - that it might come out to almost the same amount of hours as the pro bono requirement in the first place?) ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/937 "2010-09-24T17:24:28Z")
> [@villa](#): > > We’ve gone back and forth on that around 470 times. We aren’t reaching an agreement. > > At the moment, I’d like **Rumor-Watkins** ’ opinion on whether those are the correct rules to examine. Yes, jackass. They are the correct ones, as you very well know. Stop trying to cover up your piss poor excuse for legal research and analysis with some trite, sophomoric “i’m not going to proceed unless i’m told that this is exactly what we’re debating” ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/938 "2010-09-24T17:29:20Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Villa, I think those are the right rules. The problem is you aren’t reading them correctly. > > The actual text of the rules say “a lawyer shall” a great many times. Therefore, those are all things that a lawyer is actually obligated to do by the rules. > > The preamble (ie, not the actual rules) then says that “it is the responsibility” of a lawyer to do pro bono. Therefore, the rules don’t impose an actual obligation on a lawyer to do pro bono (ie, by saying “a lawyer shal do pro bono”). The rules also do not impose an actual bligation to aspire to do pro bono (ie, by saying "a lawyer shall aspire to do pro bono). The only mention of pro bono in the rules is the preamble’s recitation of the responsiblity of lawyers to do pro bono. > > I disagree that I have any such responsibility. There is no source for an actual obligation for me to do pro bono, and I choose not to, so in fact I don’t have any actual responsibility to do so. The language in the preamble is just supposed to encourage lawyers to do pro bono–it doesn’t require them to do so. It actually doesn’t even impart a responsibility to do pro bono… it says that you are responsible to “provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available”, “[including] but are not limited to pro bono representation of persons unable to pay for legal services” ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/939 "2010-09-24T17:31:27Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > [@villa](#): > > > > We’ve gone back and forth on that around 470 times. We aren’t reaching an agreement. > > > > At the moment, I’d like **Rumor-Watkins** ’ opinion on whether those are the correct rules to examine. > > Yes, jackass. They are the correct ones, as you very well know. > > Stop trying to cover up your piss poor excuse for legal research and analysis with some trite, sophomoric “i’m not going to proceed unless i’m told that this is exactly what we’re debating” My piss poor legal research??? You were the one who said **repeatedly** the the words pro bono were only in the comments. Do you still stand by that assertion? You told me to use primary source documents. Please show me the primary source document you used that didn’t include them. You were an insulting jackass about it. Now, were I more mature, I would walk away, leaving it clear to everyone what a fucking idiot you made of yourself there. But I really am not that mature. So lick my sweaty ballsack, you cum stain. How unbelievably embarrassing to get all high and mighty and arrogant about someone using the old rules, still maintaining the new rules contained no such mention of pro bono, only to be proved utterly, completely, and totally wrong. I believe the kids today would call that an Epic Fail. Next time, before you shoot your mouth off in such an arrogant way, try to make sure you have read the document you are claiming you know so well. Otherwise you might end up with egg on your face. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/940 "2010-09-24T17:32:52Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > It actually doesn’t even impart a responsibility to do pro bono… it says that you are responsible to “provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available”, “[including] but are not limited to pro bono representation of persons unable to pay for legal services” Exactly what I said when you were jerking off thinking you had gotten one over me. Try to keep up, chuckles. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=46) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=48)