Okay, so then they only pay a very small portion of what others do, but still receive these services despite that? Would he be willing to represent the poor for a very tiny fraction of his normal rate? Anyway, how taxes work is not the point, though, and I’m already aware that income taxes aren’t the only ones we pay.
What I’m saying is that lawyers are not singled out as people from whom we demand free services. For other things that we’ve decided are rights, we have a system in place that gives people who cannot afford to pay for them access. This typically entails public funding, and whether or not the only taxes you ever pay are sales taxes at Rite Aid, or if they add up each year to more than my neighbor and I make combined, the firemen still come when you call. They don’t go, “Ma’am, my right is $500/hr, and I’m not sure why you would expect me to work for less than that just because you’re poor.” If we want to stick with the tax thing, if I said, “Sir, I can pay you $50/hr,” they wouldn’t go, “That’s only 1/10 of what I asked, so no dice.” They put out my damn fire no matter what, and what I am actually paying is not an issue. Unless you have your own private fire squad, the firemen are not going to charge you a fee directly. Their pay comes from a large pool of fees, to which some contribute a great deal, and to which others contribute almost nothing. Lawyers, however, do not get their pay from some giant fee pool. They charge their clients a rate, and you cannot just tell a lawyer that you’ll pay 1/10 of his price because that’s all your can afford and expect him to accept your offer unless he wants to. So how do we ensure that people who cannot afford these fees, or find lawyers who want to work for little to nothing, get fair representation?
Luggage says he believes everyone has the right to justice, but laments the pro bono expectation. This is why I asked what system he would prefer, then, to make sure everyone, even people with no money, have access to it? This question is open to anyone who objects to the pro bono expectation, except Randy, who doesn’t believe anyone should get shit except a swift kick in the ass.
MOL, I’m not sure exactly what you are saying, but I think you are missing an important distinction here.
Our society believes that all people should have fire puttin’-out services without regard to their ability to pay. So we organize a government, which puts together a fire department, which hires people who want to work as firemen. People who want to put out fires can get a job as a fireman, and everyone pays through taxes.
Some elements of our society believe that all people should have legal services for issues beyond criminal matters without regard to their ability to pay. So they (i) write the professional responsibility rules to encourage doing pro bono work and (ii) create the idea of an expectation that lawyers should do pro bono work. So people who want to be lawyers are expected to work for free. People who want to be accountants or investment bankers or whatever other service provider are generally not expected to work for free.
You don’t see the difference here? Again, I’m not sure exactly the point you are making, so maybe I’m missing the point, but I see a sharp distinction between these two.
Yes, at times lawyers are expected to work without pay because there is no mechanism in place so that they are paid for each case, even if their clients cannot afford to pay. Our government has not created a lawyerin’ service the way they have a fire-puttin’-outtin’ service, and so in order to remedy the need for legal services (which some believe is an essential right) for those without the ability to pay, lawyers have an expectation to do pro bono work. If you are a person who believes that legal services are an essential right, but opposes pro bono bullshit, I am curious to know what system we should implement to ensure that everyone, regardless of income, gets this right?
Now if you’ll excuse me, forgiveness please if my responses are untimely. I’m supposed to be someplace in 15 minutes, but am still sitting around in yoga pants. Damn you, internets. <Fist shaking smiley here>
We don’t demand, as a society, that firemen and policemen work for free. They are paid for every hour they work. Protection from fire and crime is a societal good.
We don’t demand, as a society, that lawyers work for free. Public defenders and legal aid lawyers don’t work for free. That’s also a societal good.
It is their own associations that have determined that the work of a lawyer can be so important to people who cannot afford one that pro bono work is not only a good thing, but should be encouraged. If even a tax lawyer firm like Rand’s encourages their more sociopathic partners to perform pro bono work, that just shows how ingrained it is.
But that doesn’t make it a right. If (heavens forfend) I’m in trouble with the IRS, and Rand gets a community hair up his butt and decides to perform some pro bono work, and some other guy’s application lands on his desk at the same time, one of us is out of luck. Or both of us, as the case may be. Where is my right then?
All of that said, society, and the courts, and the law firms, and lawyer’s associations, and peer pressure all enourage and desire a lawyer to perform pro bono work, and if Rand doesn’t wake up and smell the coffee, he’ll be back out here digging ditches with the rest of us soon enough.
I’m obviously not familiar with the finer details of the history of pro bono work, but didn’t y’all already discuss how this started back in Roman times? I’m under the impression that the idea didn’t start with our current society. Is that right?
Seven pages I haven’t read and the Dope’s idiosyncracies about hating the hell out of certain things and people never cease to amaze me. So we’re pitting people who like Bono of U2 or something like that?
I assure you that if you refuse to accomodate the wishes of your employer, you will begin a downward career spiral. If you are an excellent lawyer - which, for all I know, you may be - they’ll certainly keep you, but you will have no chances of advancement. If you’re not such a good lawyer, you’ll start gradually sinking from firm to firm until you find your niche. Who knows, perhaps you’ll turn out to be an excellent ditch-digger.
For someone whose self-esteem depends on how much money you make, I think you’re awfully short-sighted.
I’m going to have to agree with Rand Rover here, if in part. The informal social pressure to donate to whatever corporate cause of the month vitiates any desire to do it. Every year before the holidays, “care captains” flagellate their subordinates into making paltry donations to any one of hundreds of possibly dubious causes. It’s impossible to give anonymously, since donations have to be tracked against each business unit’s goals. For six weeks, the office turns into the fucking Chocolate War.
So either make this bullshit a legitimate requirement for employment or stop the dishonest arm-twisting.
I don’t think you’re understanding the difference between pro bono work for lawyers and contributing to the United Way for office clerks. Perhaps you could read the thread.
Depends on where you are, Guin. They are organized on a somewhat local basis, usually county or group of small counties. I did volunteer work alongside three sequential board chairs for my hometown’s county United Way, and went to school with their director. They cap U.W. funds at 8% of donations, passing 92% on to member organizations – and that8% covers both overhead and a contingency fund for unexpected needs coming up during the year.
I’m sleepy and I only know a little about this, so I’m going to answer with wiki quotes:
So the answer to that question is kind of hazy, but it’s apparent that some of those notoriously liberally douche-ish Romans thought lawyers should not take fees. Getting legal advice before advocates were legal was apparently like asking your buddy down the road who’s “good with computers” to help out.
The same Wikipedia page doesn’t say much about medieval lawyers, but I know a bit more about them. As I recall they were as described before: being paid was pretty much being bribed, and theoretically they were supposed to be above reproach in that regard. Shaking down their clients for more money or being bribed by the local lord to argue their case poorly was, well, bad.
Since I, too, remember that the Magna Carta gave Westerners the right to due process that they’d lost centuries earlier when the Roman Empire died out, here is the text of that passage:
Which says nothing about lawyers. However, from a website dealing specifically with this as it relates to The Canterbury Tales (written by a former law student, apparently – I did not know that – and regarding the Man of Law pilgrim:
So it looks like they were required to give legal advice, but it was framed a little like it is now: as a recommendation more as “if we catch you doing this we cut one of your balls off”. I recommend “The Advocate” as a charming movie (with boobies! and Colin Firth!) taken pretty directly from the life of a medieval lawyer. It’s fiction, but pretty much all the weird shit that happens is based on actual recorded cases.
Personally? I volunteer my modest services for a non-profit organization. We have a CPA who volunteers hers for accounting and a lawyer who volunteers his for documentation and paperwork to get our ducks in a row as far as actually forming the organization with all the legal bells and whistles. Having been a part of the organization since it formed, I have no earthly clue how we could have properly incorporated without some pro bono work. We can’t apply for grants without being incorporated. We had some income just as a result of what we do, but while we reliably break past even every season we don’t make nearly the money hiring a lawyer at full price would require.
However, do I think that I should be able to walk into a CPA’s office or a lawyer’s office and demand their assistance for free? Hell no. We got people who had an interest in our group to donate their time and expertise. I do, however, think that there should be some benefit to doing that sort of work – tax credits for the company, maybe, or a taxpayer-funded stipend. Frankly, I thought something like that existed but apparently that’s not the case in America.
That doesn’t do away with RR’s concerns about working pro bono, though: apart from the idea that people are entitled to his labor, which I’m not addressing further than I have already – abler folk than I, and all that – he’s concerned about the safety of his family. Disregarding any correlation between needing free legal aid and being a shady person, disregarding as well any correlation between needing a tax lawyer and being a shady person, I have to say I would fear the wealthy businessman who A) has a great deal more to lose, B) is probably more attached to his great deal even than the fellow who has less – you don’t get rich by accident, after all, and C) can afford to send unpleasant men after you and your family.
I get this, you get this. I’m not sure a lot of conservatives get this.
I’m not sure what to do to convince people that random awful shit you don’t deserve really happens, if it hasn’t happened to them. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.
OTOH, I’ve known people who keep shooting themselves in the foot with their behavior. And they keep doing it over and over. Or they just screw up so spectacularly that they stay down permanently.
