# 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:** 92
**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 20, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1821 "2010-10-20T00:37:46Z")
Keep grasping at those straws. And I like how you cut out the part of my post where I make fun of you for not being able to make an argument–too painful? I report to the bar every year that I haven’t done pro bono. And my firm knows I haven’t billed anything to the pro bono matter number. So, you got nothin’. ---
**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 20, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1822 "2010-10-20T00:47:28Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I report to the bar every year that I haven’t done pro bono. And my firm knows I haven’t billed anything to the pro bono matter number. So, you got nothin’. The thing is- and this has been explained several times- there’s an assumption that the reason you (or any other lawyer reporting zero Pro Bono hours) hasn’t done them because they’re genuinely too busy or with another valid “Professional” reason. There’s a Biblical level of difference between that, and someone who _refuses_ to do Pro Bono on principle. And that’s what people are saying: If you actually attached a little addendum to your Pro Bono Hours report that said “The reason I haven’t done any is because I don’t want to and I don’t think I should have to” (or any of the other, more wordy reasons you’ve given in the thread) then I suspect you’ll find that your superiors- or at least the Bar association- might have something to say about the matter, and it’s unlikely to be “Fair enough. Carry on, then.” ---
**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 20, 2010, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1823 "2010-10-20T00:58:47Z")
Right, Martini, that’s your little theory of the “strongly worded letter” you mentioned upthread. Keep grasping at that straw. You can use it as a fig leaf to cover the fact that you have absolutely no ability to make any kind of valid argument that I have an actual obligation to do pro bono. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1824 "2010-10-20T09:00:04Z")
This thread has surely passed its Use By Date. It’s now patently obvious that **RandRover** and his acolytes are toying with those of us who thought we might have had some ‘hope’ in disabusing him/them of his/their errant thought-patterns. Continuing this thread is just taking up cyberspace that might be more aptly used for threads like, > [@](#): > > ‘Why is my snot GREEN??’ or > [@](#): > > ‘KITTIES, SQUEEEEEE’. Can someone fucking put this thread out of our misery please? No kidding, this is painful now. It’s as useless as tits on a bull so to speak. Please?? ☹ ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1825 "2010-10-20T10:42:16Z")
> [@kambuckta](#): > > Can someone fucking put this thread out of our misery please? > > No kidding, this is painful now. It’s as useless as tits on a bull so to speak. > > Please?? ☹ But he’s SUCH a fucking dick-and-a-half!!! ---
**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 20, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1826 "2010-10-20T13:26:56Z")
K–exactly which “errant thought patterns” do I need disabusing from? ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1827 "2010-10-20T14:40:26Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Here’s a sample letter if you’re having writer’s block: > > > [@](#): > > > > Dear Illinois Bar Association: > > > > I’ve never done a single Pro Bono hour since I passed the bar, and I never intend on doing any in the future, nor do I aspire to do so. Am I in breach of my ethical obligations as a lawyer? Sincerely, Rand Rover Good one. But, heck, Blalron, he doesn’t even have to “out” himself. If he really is intellectually honest with himself, he can have a friend write something like this to his IBA: > [@](#): > > Someone in my circle of friends is an attorney and claims that there is no \*\*real \*\*obligation or **real** responsibility to do PB. I’d really like to know for certain whether this is true. > > Thank you for your time, > > (Name) _ **- Jack** _ ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1828 "2010-10-20T14:48:45Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > K–exactly which “errant thought patterns” do I need disabusing from? I suggest you start [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=577586) and read carefully. (Warning: long.) ---
**Author:** ![pinkyvee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/6de8d8/32.png) [@pinkyvee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinkyvee)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1829 "2010-10-20T16:01:30Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > You can’t leave! You’re half of the **Rand Rover** fan club! I am not a fan of this individual. I am a fan of free choice. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1830 "2010-10-20T16:12:45Z")
Me too. I would never support forcing anyone to become a lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1831 "2010-10-20T16:22:03Z")
> [@Trans Fat Og](#): > > Good one. But, heck, Blalron, he doesn’t even have to “out” himself. If he really is intellectually honest with himself, he can have a friend write something like this to his IBA: Heck, if Rand Rover doesn’t write the letter I just might do it myself. A letter from the Illinois Bar Association affirming that yes, he does have a “real obligation” should pretty much drive the nail into the coffin of his argument, shouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1832 "2010-10-20T16:25:14Z")
No. If you write a letter there will be weasel room based on the wording of the letter. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1833 "2010-10-20T16:31:49Z")
> [@villa](#): > > No. If you write a letter there will be weasel room based on the wording of the letter. Since Rand Rover feels free to insert qualifying words (“real” obligation) into a text which has no qualifying words, I don’t put much stock in his analysis. But it would greatly amuse me to post a scanned letter from the Illinois Bar that says yes, there is a responsibility, and yes, it is a “real” responsibility and a “real” obligation, not a fake one. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1834 "2010-10-20T16:41:52Z")
The thing is, **Blaron** , we all know there is. Everyone except **RandRover** and his couple of jabbering felatio monkeys knows there is. Every lawyer other than **RandRover** in this thread knows there is. Every lawyer I have asked since htis thread started, including, I am estimating, those barred in 50% of the states, knows there is. I don’t think Justice Cardozo himself appearing from the dead and telling **RandRover** the obligation is clear in the rules would make a shred of difference. ---
**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 20, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1835 "2010-10-20T17:11:28Z")
I’m not “inserting qualifying words.” I’m using a term that I have provided a very specific meaning for. Other people in this thread are content with using words with lots of different possible meanings (eg, obligation, responsibility, duty, etc.), and using those terms inconsistently with how other posters use them, whereas I have specifically defined the terms I use. And somehow that makes me the one that’s “weaseling” etc. To repeat, a person has an “actual obligation” to do something when someone else has recourse against them if they don’t do it. An actual obligation can arise in several ways, including through a person’s agreement (ie, contract) and because a person is subject to a set of rules that provides recourse if the person doesn’t do the action. ---
**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:** [October 20, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1836 "2010-10-20T17:27:53Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > SFG (and any others who care to comment): what exactly do you think that article shows that I am wrong about? Quoting directly, with extra emphasis given to one particular point… 1.) At the September meeting, the Commission first voted in favor of mandatory service, then agreed to reconsider. 2.) The Commission then unanimously agreed (with one abstention) to add a new sentence to the rule text: “Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay.” 3.) Paragraph 6 stressed the importance of “access to the legal system,” stating: “Therefore, all lawyers should devote professional time, resources and civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel.” 4.) The Reporter explained the importance of the ethical obligation, and because the current system of delivering such services was not working, the Commission sought to encourage increased participation. 5.) Building on the general principle set forth in Canon 2, [these changes] underscore the expectation that “every” lawyer should act to provide legal services for those unable to pay and the role of law firms in creating an ethical culture that actively “encourages” pro bono services. **6.) If the lawyer does nothing to provide direct service or financial support to others who serve, the lawyer presumably has violated her professional responsibility.** 7.) While the expectation remains aspirational, and is not the basis for discipline, revised Rule 6.1 clearly rejects the passive professional paradigm. Lawyers are affirmatively expected to volunteer their services and otherwise support those who render unpaid legal services, and not merely to react to fortuitous requests for help by those in need. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > And SFG and emacknight are the Rand Rovers of that thread. I’m pretty sure that level of insult is against the rules of this board. > [@pinkyvee](#): > > Separate sentences helps me see/read things more clearly. And it makes it harder to read for everyone else. You can’t collapse the text into normal paragraphs after you’re done composing? > [@](#): > > You are very rude. No shit. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > She isn’t smart enough to participate in the discussion, so she just insults people and generally acts nasty. El oh el. Once again, you see everyone as a mirror of your own worst qualities. > [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > The thing about The Pit is that it’s a bit more of a “Free For All” where people are free (more or less) to say what they like, and generally it’s not all pleasant and civilised like elsewhere on the boards. “Idiot” and “Retard” are at the milder level of the insults thrown around here, for what it’s worth. It’s generally considered a good idea to read all of a thread before posting to it; most posters generally avoid getting involved in any thread over a certain length because [Hypothetical] you end up either making yourself look silly by coming in on page 18 and saying “Well, I think you should consider [Discussion Point/Information/Argument]!” and everyone says “We did that back on Page 5”, or you say “But what about this aspect of the subject?” and everyone says “We’ve moved on from that and are now discussing [Something else].” Why are you talking to this person like they’re new here? > [@pinkyvee](#): > > I am a fan of free choice. So am I. And you know what’s funny? Randy \*chose \*to enter a profession that has _clearly deliniated responsibilities_. One of which is pro bono work. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > An actual obligation can arise in several ways, including through a person’s agreement (ie, contract) and because a person is subject to a set of rules that provides recourse if the person doesn’t do the action. AKA, “making shit up because it’s convenient.” Obligations have nothing to do with sanctions and everything to do with expectation, responsibility, and duty. None of those things are requirements, where they’re invalid if someone isn’t holding a gun to your head. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1837 "2010-10-20T17:28:27Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > To repeat, a person has an “actual obligation” to do something when someone else has recourse against them if they don’t do it. An actual obligation can arise in several ways, including through a person’s agreement (ie, contract) and because a person is subject to a set of rules that provides recourse if the person doesn’t do the action. Yes, you made it clear from the outset that you’re ignoring your obligation because there are no repercussions for doing so. What’s clear to everyone except you\* is that this makes you \*more \*of a douche, not less of one. - From outward appearances, but I’m pretty sure you realize you’re full of shit too, and are just playing “how long can I make this thread?” by 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:** [October 20, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1838 "2010-10-20T18:01:39Z")
SFG,VT–you stil don’t get it. At this point, I can only conclude that you aren’t mentally capable of getting it. You can say that I have a “moral” or “ethical” or “professional” “responsibility” to do pro bono all you want. I’m not, and have never in this thread, argued with that. Wat I have argued against is your assertion that I promised to do pro bono (and therefore have an actual obligation to do so). That is clearly not the case. You two (and several others) are too stupid to realize that there’s a difference between an actual obligation and a “moral obligation” because you live in fantasy land where you think people should do something just because you want them to. But your expectations about my behavior create no actual obligation on me. Also SFG, it’s nice how you completely misread the history there. The ABA considered imposing a actual obligation and chose not to do so. So there’s no actual obligation. That’s it. It’s that simple. Just because they use the word “responsibility” in there doesn’t mean there’s an actual obligation–you have to look at the whole situation. There’s no recourse against lawyers who don’t do pro bono, so there’s no actual obligation to do so. ---
**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 20, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1839 "2010-10-20T18:05:47Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Yes, you made it clear from the outset that you’re ignoring your obligation because there are no repercussions for doing so. What’s clear to everyone except you\* is that this makes you \*more \*of a douche, not less of one. > > - From outward appearances, but I’m pretty sure you realize you’re full of shit too, and are just playing “how long can I make this thread?” by now. I hereby declare that you have an obligation to send me $10,000. Are you going to ignore this obligation simply because there are no repercussions for doing so? The point is that I’m not ignoring my actual obligations because there aren’t repercussions–the lack of repercussions shows that there’s no actual obligation. ---
**Author:** ![elninost0rm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ed655f/32.png) [@elninost0rm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elninost0rm)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/1840 "2010-10-20T18:13:09Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I hereby declare that you have an obligation to send me $10,000. Are you going to ignore this obligation simply because there are no repercussions for doing so? > > The point is that I’m not ignoring my actual obligations because there aren’t repercussions–the lack of repercussions shows that there’s no actual obligation. Right, we can therefore conclude that it just makes you a douchebag sociopath. Forget all this arguing business. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=91) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=93)