# 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:** 69
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1361 "2010-10-08T02:29:45Z")
What is the purpose of the preamble? And how do you know? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1362 "2010-10-08T03:07:58Z")
Its that part of a walk that precedes the amble, which may or may not proceed to strolling. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1363 "2010-10-08T03:29:11Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Are you a powerful tax attorney or a drone? That RR is a drone was established early on in the thread – in a world of finders, minders and grinders, he’s a grinder, dependant on his firm to provide him with work, under the thumbs of those who run the firm, and scared of the boogey man and cooties that comes with expanding his legal practice to include a modicum of prop bono. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1364 "2010-10-08T03:32:08Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > What is the purpose of the preamble? And how do you know? In statutory intrepretation, preambles are used to set out how a statute should or should not be intrepreted. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1365 "2010-10-08T03:36:42Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > And glad to see you rise above the temptation to reply with vulgarities. Or not. When I asked him if he’d talked to his boss about his reasoning for not doing pro bono, he called me a pedophile. I think he likes _you_. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1366 "2010-10-08T03:49:17Z")
He likes Euphonious Polemic, but he LURVES Shot From Guns. Don’t know if RR goes for pedophiles or not, what with his rather odd ethics and all. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1367 "2010-10-08T04:07:02Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > EP, the two people are me and the bar association. The senior partner is actually on your side here because he’s trying to use coercion to get his way. Have you e-mailed your bar association and put your arguments to them? I’m sure their response would make enlightening reading for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Nader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Darth\_Nader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Nader)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1368 "2010-10-08T04:10:26Z")
Hey, you know what they say: see a broad to get dat booty yak 'em… ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1369 "2010-10-08T04:21:57Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > > [@Maeglin](#): > > > > What is the purpose of the preamble? And how do you know? > > In statutory intrepretation, preambles are used to set out how a statute should or should not be intrepreted. What does that even mean in this context? ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1370 "2010-10-08T04:54:32Z")
Any interpretation of the rules must be made in light of the preamble, and any interpretation of the rules must not run counter to the preamble – that’s fundamental to statutory interpretation. The rules say that IL lawyers must report how much pro bono they do, but there is no rule that says they must do pro bono. The preamble is used to interpret the rules, and it says that lawyers have a responsibility to do pro bono. In context, that means that even although lawyers are not forced to do pro bono by the rules, the preamble makes it clear that the rules should not be interpreted to mean that lawyers are not expected to do pro bono. RR simply ignores the preamble, and in doing so, has come up with an interpretation of the rules that runs contrary to the preamble. As such, his analysis is botched because he does not follow the fundamentals of statutory interpretaion. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1371 "2010-10-08T12:49:54Z")
Muffin, I think we interpret the rules and preamble in exactly the same way–we both reach the result that the rules don’t require pro bono, meaning that I didn’t promise to do pro bono when I promised to abide by the rules. You take it a step further, however, by arguimg that the expectation to do pro bono creates some obligation on my part to do it. Well, I reject that idea, but I’m fine with you believing that. Again, I’ve only been arguing against those who say I promised to do pro bono, and you are not in that group. You can think I have a moral obligation or professional responsibility to do pro bono if you want, just realize that that idea of yours imposes o actual obligation on me. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1372 "2010-10-08T13:08:33Z")
So yes or no: “is one of your responsibilities as licensed officer of the court to use your training, experience and skills to provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available?” ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1373 "2010-10-08T13:23:45Z")
:rolleyes: It depends on what “my responsibilities” means. If my responsibilities include only those things that I have an actual obligation to do, then the answer is no. If my responsibilities include anything that someone could say I have a moral obligation or moral responsibility to do, then the answer is yes. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1374 "2010-10-08T13:42:49Z")
And so the weaseling continues. Can’t even give a simple answer to a simple question. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1375 "2010-10-08T13:48:46Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You think you have the ability to tap into the mind of society or something and determine objectively what is right and what is wrong. I simply recognize that no such hive mind exists, and you therefore can’t tap into it. Not a hive mind. Just the Illinois Bar Association. And they’ve been quite clear, and objective for that matter, about saying what is right and wrong in regard to a lawyer’s professional conduct. > [@](#): > > So when you say I have a moral obligation to do something, you are just expressing your preference, which creates no actual obligation on me to do anything. If only you were capable of understanding what a moral obligation is. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1376 "2010-10-08T13:56:43Z")
M–if you think that spotting an ambiguity in a question is weaselling, then so be it. You’re looking pretty stupid here though. EL–enlighten me. What is a moral obligation? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1377 "2010-10-08T14:15:00Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > M–if you think that spotting an ambiguity in a question is weaselling, then so be it. You’re looking pretty stupid here though. No, they aren’t. “Spotting an ambiguity” in _a_ question isn’t weaselling. “Spotting an ambiguity” in _every_ question is. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1378 "2010-10-08T14:15:58Z")
If you’re already an adult and you don’t understand the concept, then you cannot. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1379 "2010-10-08T14:25:03Z")
EL–yes, you’ve proven that quite handily, given that you are an adult who doesn’t understand the concept. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1380 "2010-10-08T14:25:56Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > M–if you think that spotting an ambiguity in a question is weaselling, then so be it. You’re looking pretty stupid here though. > > No, they aren’t. “Spotting an ambiguity” in _a_ question isn’t weaselling. “Spotting an ambiguity” in _every_ question is. That’s being lawyerly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=68) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=70)