Quite a bit. A couple of years doing little else. A fair few more with some. Still in a firm doing a bit, albeit I don’t personally now.
I could infer various things from your question, but it’s easier to ask: do you have a view about it, and is it based on experience?
ETA: I’d’ve replied to your other points, but the quote function was screwy, though user error isn’t unlikely.
CPR.
Medical care.
Do you think free medical care should be provided:
a) by the state or
b) by people being told to work for free, because the state won’t pay?
Sure thing!
This is how threads look when you participate.
I don’t have any personal experience with Legal Aid, so feel free to dismiss my opinion. I’ve always thought they provide a very good and necessary service (and still do), but I’ve known a handful of people that have worked for them, and have a friend who works for Legal Aid now, and they’ve all described their experiences as frustrating. Their frustration does not stem, of course, from the work they do, but from their very limited capacity. 1) Their income eligibility bar is depressingly low. A family of eight needs to make less money than I do in order to qualify, and unlike our dear friend Randy here, I am not exceedingly wealthy. So a family of eight living off, say, $45,000/year would make too much money for Legal Aid, and I doubt they’d have enough to afford an attorney if they needed one. 2) They are always swamped, and often cases that come up are pressing, and need immediate attention. They have the ability to prioritize, but even the priority list is long. I’m not sure how this would change if we relied on them entirely for assistance.
Assuming you believe the correct answer to this question is a), do you believe people who do not pay taxes should be eligible for state-funded medical care or police or firemen services, etc?
I won’t dismiss your opinion - I think it’s depressingly accurate.
I start from this position: justice is as important a right as health care/education. It ought not to depend on whether you pay taxes.
My argument has nothing to do with this. I’m just pissed off that there’s this pro bono expectation, that doesn’t apply to other emanations of the state. Judges don’t get it. Etc. I won’t go back over it.
And to be clear: I don’t think any of your basic human rights should depend on taxation. Some of the people who most need the intervention of the state can least afford it. And health/police care has to be common to us all.
Having set that out, I fully expect to be thrown into the “liberal douchebag” category 
Sadly I seem to be arguing on RR’s side, when in fact I couldn’t be further from his view.
Where judges are also admitted attorneys (which is many of them) they are under same recommendation as long as the work they contribute does not create an appearance of impropriety. Where judges are not attorneys, they are advised by the Judicial Code of Conduct that
*
a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including revision of substantive and procedural law and improvement of criminal and juvenile justice. *To the extent that time permits, a judge is encouraged to do so ** through a bar association, judicial conference, other organization dedicated to the improvement of the law or through an appropriate judicial official charged with administrative responsibility by the Rules of Court.
I’ve no problem with this. Of course it’s fair to have some aspirational stuff about the work you might do for free for those who need it.
That’s a long way away from weekly exhortations to do x/y/z pro bono, from annual “pro bono week” stuff and from “here’s an opportunity to do some pro bono work”. I know of no other profession that gets this shit rammed down its throat. Mind you, if it happens elsewhere, and I just don’t know about it, I am happy to be corrected.
Leave me to do some free work, because I’ve got a decent job? Fine. I’m happy to “give some back”.
Tell me I must - bugger off. Unless you tell us all.
I think you missed my point, then. I don’t mean to turn this into a tax discussion, either. I too believe justice is as important as education or health care or firemen, or whatever. The difference is people who cannot afford to pay for firemen still get to have them come out and stop their residences from burning down. If you put out a fire in a housing project or your local mobile estates, lovingly known as trailer parks, there’s a good chance most of the people you’re saving aren’t contributing to your salary. Yes, you are getting paid for your time, but that’s because this work is being subsidized by others. So no, firemen don’t “work for free,” but often the specific people they are helping are not paying them.
Lawyers’ pay doesn’t work that way, though. It isn’t state-funded; they charge their customers directly, and those who cannot afford to pay their rates are in an unfortunate position. That’s why I asked you given this, what would you propose in order to ensure legal representation for those who cannot afford it, since you do not believe the expectation to provide pro bono work is a reasonable one.
Edit: I do agree, though, that your company/firm ramming charity work down your throat is annoying and wrong. My annual United Way campaign at work chaps my hide like a motherfuck. I do value charity, but I hate them harassing me, and I especially hate them harassing me daily about giving to their charity. And charity is supposed to come from the heart, you dicks, not your intimidation practices so that you can give yourselves free PR for being one of the good guys.
Most of the people who don’t pay income tax still pay or contribute to other taxes. At least in Missouri, fire protection districts are mostly funded by property tax, with some having income from a sales tax as well. Even people who are too poor to pay income tax pay both of those.
Can we please get away from this odd concept that income tax is the only thing that funds our civilization?
I don’t know about duty, but I’d say society would be better off in both cases, yes. In the first, because Bob could be innocent, in the second because the patent would conceivably get Joe out of homelessness and turn him into a productive, contributing member of society.
Whereas the lack of a patent would mean the big corporation next door could hear about his idea, steal it for themselves, laugh and grow fat while Joe keels over in the gutter unloved, unmourned and unwanted. Would that seem fair to you ? Wouldn’t that scenario make [del]Baby Jesus[/del]Ayn Rand weep ?
That’s what you completely miss with your parochial nonsense. While there probably is an element of “noblesse oblige” in it as well, in my opinion giving the poor a hand is not about charity or condescension at all, on the contrary it’s self-serving on two fronts : first, because it makes the whole of society that more just, wealthy and functional in the long run (or at least, that’s the goal), and second because anybody might wind up destitute at any point in his or her life life for any number of reasons, from bad calls to natural catastrophes and when that happens, we’d prefer to have a leg-up to get back on the horse rather than get spat in the face.
Have you read the canon of legal ethics?
Where are you licensed?
If your employer decides to make it a condition of employment or advancement, then I would have thought you would be the first one to say you can either take it or move to some other firm.
I never did any criminal defense pro-bono work but my bar allows me to write a check. The government spends a lot of time fighting the government so you’re in good company.
I can’t believe you are a dad and you feel such contempt for the world.
As a dad you know that we all come into this world naked and somehow you haven’t thought through what this means about the human condition.
There’s no deduction because there is no income.
There are a limited number of 1000 lawyer firms in the world. Unless RR works at a few of the “franchise” firms, there is almost no chance that Rand is a partner. If he is an associate, the chances that he will remain an associate for very long are pretty slim as well.
If you really are at a large law firm, you either have the worst pro-bono coordinator in biglaw or your firm does pro-bono work that almost non other biglaw firm does.
Examples of pro-bono work I have seen at my former firm: organizing microfinance banks around the world (getting tax exempt status for what is essentially a profitmaking activity); prosecuting war criminals at the war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and Serbia (the defense seemed to be done mostly by Brits); representing indigent clients on appeal, in one case to the supreme court; the most mundane stuff I have seen (outside the litigation department where the associates seem to do do everything from pro-bono landlord/tenant stuff to worker’s comp) is representing political refugees in immigration proceedings.
How do I have contempt for the world?
And what’s your point with asking me if I’ve read the canon of legal ethics (whatever you mean exactly by that–presumably the professional responsibility rules in my jurisdiction)?