Well, I was trying to be nonjudgmental.
Just didn’t feel like pulling out the flamethrower tonight, I guess-had enough of that on the board I just quit.
Since I can’t edit, I’ll just note that I replied to this before reading the rest of the thread. :smack:
Hating on U2 is soo 1998…
Don’t know what you’re smoking, but I want some. Can you get it to me before the new Halo comes out? Groovy.
What the fuck? You are a partner and complaining about this? You could send an email to the whole office saying, “Fuck you and fuck your mother” and nothing would happen to you. The firm cannot make you do pro bono work and you know it. What is the point of this thread? That other people feel it is in the firm’s best interest to do pro bono hours in order to improve the firm’s standing in the community? It is only going to make you more money.
My god you are a troll.
I love that this little snippet means that your *entire *experience with pro bono work is… shit other assholes have told you. You know *literally nothing *about pro bono work firsthand, which means you have never done so much as an hour of it in *all the time *you’ve been a lawyer.
You’re *such *a fucking douchebarge.
My billable rate is considerably higher than that, and while I make good money compared to most people my age, I’m sure **Rand **makes a hell of a lot more.
You realize that you just supported his point even better, right?
I vote for the latter. **Rand **never moved past the age of three, in terms of his mental and emotional maturity…
Take that, Jews.
So your rate is $666 per hour? How fitting.
The reason the legal profession and judicial system is in such poor repute is because “honor” is the motivating force. Honor has no force in the legal system unless you can manage to get all the way to a jury. A jury cares about honor, but legislators, judges and lawyers care about winning and tee times and billables. The legal needs of three quarters of Americans has been dealt with by some committee recommending to the state high court that providing the non-rich with competent legal advice with an ethical consideration that it is an “obligation”.
The Second Stone - the fact that myself and many other attorneys in this thread have told you the amount of pro bono work they do should indicate to you the BS nature of what you just said.
And aside from the thousands and thousands of lawyers performing pro bono work regularly, there are also thousands and thousands of lawyers who work full time in public interest.
We aren’t all socially and morally bankrupt. Just the tax lawyers amongst us.
I know this is a joke at Rand Rover’s expense - and a good one 
- but I want to make it clear for those who aren’t as familiar with the legal profession:
There are plenty of tax lawyers who do extremely valuable pro bono work, particularly in helping poor people determine their eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit and other benefits. Rand Rover represents tax lawyers no more than he represents lawyers generally.
Entirely true. Besides, I don’t even play golf.
All judges play golf.
And lawyers who work full time in the public interest is not the topic of this thread as they get paid to do that work.
The type of pro bono work we are talking about is unpaid work that cuts into billable hours. And not the kind where the client doesn’t pay. Personally I do several hundred hours every year and I’ve tried a number of pro bono cases. (We do not have a reporting requirement in California.) I also donate a dozen hours or more a year as a mediator, more as an arbitrator and usually sit a day in small claims court as a judge pro-tem.
The fact of the matter is that not enough lawyers do these matters to make any significant dent in the legal needs of working families and the ethical consideration in the canons to do pro bono work is a Band-Aid ™ on a gangrenous amputation. For basically the opposite reason that Rand Rover has contempt for the pro bono requirement, I have contempt for the pro bono requirement: it isn’t enough, it doesn’t work, it is entirely dishonorable in a system that is indifferent to honor and it leaves those who do pro bono uncompensated and those who don’t do it rewarded for not doing it. The nature of the “requirement” seems to be one that is designed to do the most to discourage it without actually saying so. Really, a non-binding “ethical” consideration addressed to lawyers is how our legal system takes care of the poor? The only two things that would be worse would be to legally prohibit it, or remove the fig leave of the “ethical consideration”.
Well mentioning public interest lawyers was a response to…
And while I agree with most of what you are saying, I think the problem of access to legal services is a societal one, not one that can be solved by the legal profession itself.
Man’s got a point.
Bullshit.
But, don’t mind me.
He does. I don’t agree that pro bono requirements are somehow “dishonorable”, or that lawyers are indifferent to it. But there certainly is a tremendous need for additional legal services for the poor - the system we have now just isn’t sufficient.
What, then, is to be done?
For myself, I think there’s one relatively simple (but politically difficult) solution that could do a lot of good: massively increase public funding for legal aid societies and public defender’s offices. There are a lot of lawyers who want to do public interest law, and are willing to take public interest wages to do it. There’s also a tremendous need for public interest lawyers. But the bottleneck is funding - especially in large cities, public defenders and legal aid societies just don’t have the budgets to hire nearly the staffs they need to fully address the needs of their clients, and so they end up turning away the vast majority of lawyers who’d like to work for them. (The fact that these offices routinely do top-notch work despite being chronically short-staffed just goes to show the caliber of the folks who go into public interest law).
Let’s put a lot more money into these offices, so that they can hire more lawyers and provide more and better legal services to low-income clients. Who’s with me? Alternatively, who’s got a better idea?
Although never having seen either version of Cape Fear, possibly Rand Rover has, and early formed an unfavourable opinion of the sort of scum lawyers are exposed to by mere proximity with the ‘losers’ in society.
Libertarians walk in danger every hour of every day unless they keep their mouths shut.
Still… if he doesn’t want to do so, I can’t see why he should be forced to. But a compromise might be achieved by ongoing and clear honest communication with his ‘loser’ clients: if he does perform the pro bono work, but does so half-heartedly and resentfully, and explains to them constantly that he is only doing this for them under the duress of state & corporate blackmail and that he thinks they are responsible for their own troubles and should have the decency to afford his regular fees, everybody wins.
Wow, Mr. Excellent, you’ve taken a bold stand and founf an innovative solution to something you perceive as a problem–just throw more public money at it! It’s advanced thinking like that that will have lots of democratic congressdouches in the unemployment line come November.
Also, I take it you’ve conceded our debate and now acknowledge that I never promised to do pro bono work when I was sworn in.
Laugh it up, but – no lie – I was once the victim of an attempted mugging by one of my clients.
Damn. Finally a subject to make me de-lurk.
I’m with The Second Stone - where else do we see this requirement to work for free? My plumber sure as shit won’t fail to charge me when the tap needs fixing - and he makes an hourly rate that would make a UK legal aid lawyer gasp.
Of course, the UK has no requirement for pro bono work - but the great and the good make it clear we ought to do it.
My principal peeve is the current description so often seen: “pro bono opportunity”. Opportunity? Like, opportunity to get a hole in the head? Bah.
And yes, IAAL, and I do some pro bono work.
Back to lurksville. Love you all (well, many of you), thanks for the entertainment.