The former is a legitimate concern, not just for a lawyer working pro bono but for any lawyer who works directly for individual clients. It’s really not a difficult fix, though; most problems can be avoided by a very clear explanation of the scope and eventual end of representation up front, or a gently put reminder later on. The risk of being in any danger from them is vanishingly small, though - the vast majority of the clients you’d be representing pro bono will be as dangerous as a wet kitten, and most will be genuinely grateful.
Does it matter? Do you really think you’re going to hit on the right combination of words that will make RR decide not to be a douche? He wants to get people arguing with him so he can be all martyrlike and whatever. The only way to win this game is not to not play but to mock.
Let’s also note that the rest of us have willingly granted a monopoly of the right to give legal advice for money to those people who actually trained to do it right, and that we expect them to be self-policing and disbar those scumbags who abuse the privilege, e.g., by taking retainers and doing no work, by charging inordinately large management fees on moneys entrusted to their care, etc. The Rules of Professional Conduct comprise a large part of that self-policing, lest the citizenry through their reresentatives void that monopoly.
I actually thought of that before I posted - I’ve rescued abandoned kittens on a few occasions, and once one freaked out and went all Yoda on me such that it felt like grabbing the exposed end of a live wire. It’s a nice descriptive image of helplessness, though, even if the reality doesn’t always match up.
Yes, avowedly! Really, take a quick glance at the thread I linked to in Post #89. If an “ought not to” fails to include the threat of repercussions for him, then it is meaningless.
RE: my last post, if you just look at the OP in the referenced thread, it could be mistaken for run of the mill subjective morality. But this and this are two good examples of the positions he’s staked out.
Seriously, he won’t shut up about whether supposedly immoral acts have bad consequences for the perpetrator; it’s the only criteria he ever recognizes as meaningful. He really doesn’t seem to grok what you guys are talking about.
And I’m not sure how to address your first paragraph without simply repeating myself. I agreed to abide by the rules the rules don’t require me to perform services pro bono. Therefore, my non-performance of pro bono services does not violate the rules I agreed to. It’s really that simple.
Well, glad to see you’ve been paying attention, but you’re mixing some things up. I didn’t say that the morality of an act depends on whether there are consequences to the perpetrator. I said that discussing whether an act is moral or not is a useless thing to do because there are no consequences to making that determination.
I don’t do tax controversy work, I do transactinal work. When people engage me, it’s because they want to form a fund or invest in a fund or buy something or sell something. Sorry to not fit into your little fantasy.
And yet, when the concept of shared moral values was ably explained to you, several times – when it was made clear that what “that’s immoral” frequently means is that something is a wrong action according to *your *ideas about ethics, not just the speaker’s – you still refused to move off of the discussion of what bad things might or might not happen to you. Either you didn’t really understand the concept, or your ideas about ethics are inexorably tied into rewards and/or repercussions for one’s own actions.
My reaction is the same as that of Hello Again and I join her inquiry. Clue us in, Rand Rover. It certainly wouldn’t befit a BigLaw tax attorney to fail to know the difference between employees, partners/joint venturers, and independent contractors.
