Pro bono bullshit

All this crap about being required to work for free is a big fat red herring. It’s just a meme used to garner an emotional reaction, and it’s sad that it is used to such effect, and that so many people claiming such intelligence are suckered by it like a conservative Christian watching Fox news.

No state in the union requires pro bono work. You can’t lose your license if you don’t do any.

You can lose your job if your employers want you to do some pro bono work and you don’t. But, being such a fan of the free market, Rand Rover should be more than glad to utilize the freedom to change jobs to work at a place where he doesn’t need to do pro bono work, up to and including starting his own firm (though I suspect as a paralegal, that would be tough).

So obviously, Rand Rover has made a simple economic decision, to wit: that the cost of doing pro bono work as a condition of his employment is outweighed by the benefit of the supposedly vast stacks of cash he makes, etc. etc. etc. His protests to the contrary are nothing but smoke being blown up your collective asses, and demonstrate the sort of intellectual rigor typical of objectivist tools – given the volume of posts he’s made about poor people finding better jobs or moving across the country or whatever, it’s ironic (and typical) that when the shoe is on the other foot he fails to apply his logic to his own situation.

Furthermore, lawyers have pro bono recommendations and value pro bono work simply because most of us aren’t self-absorbed shitheads – we want to at least try to do good things. Being charitable is a good thing (unless you’re a douchebag like Rand). Rand’s supposed employers value charity, and thus make a pro bono requirement. Deal with it.

But that’s not enough for him. Instead, he uses the legal profession’s ideals to be charitable and to be a force for societal good instead of a mercenary set of hired guns to flog the dead horse that is a slutty drugged-up Russian’s arch-conservative “philosophy” and to somehow extirpate the obvious self-loathing with which he is afflicted.

In other words, he hates the poors because it it props up his fragile ego to tell himself that he’s better than they are on a fundamental level – “There but for the grace of God” is a phrase that strikes him with abject subconscious terror and threatens to rend the fragile shell that he’s built up by believing really hard that he’s better than everyone else.

So let’s instead discuss the peculiar twisted psychology of a howling hypocrite and his fragile ego and blatant penis compensation instead of trying to take seriously the idea that somehow a profession’s desire to be charitable is a bad thing. Or better yet, let’s not discuss it, because it’s fucking stupid to waste your time trying to teach a pig to think, and it cuts down on the number of mouthbreathers (do I need to name names?) who are taken in by his schlock and think he has some sort of fucking point.

ETA: Assholes.

At the commercial end of the wedge, the practice of law is about hours billed each financial year.

The problem with this business model is apparent. Lawyers in commercial practice soon appreciate that their clients in finance, having less talent and less years in college, do work shorter hours for better money. Frequently far better money.

So why stay in Law? According to the business model, the only rational path is the move into the finance industry or similar. And many lawyers do. For those who stay, it is about appreciating that the practice of law is a public service. There is more to the profession than the billing. If you are not happy with that, for any lawyer worth their salt (ha!) it is the work of a moment to move to a more lucrative field.

These days any lawyer who is in it for the money needs a thorough reality check, there’s some delusions need sweeping out there.

Edit : In other words, more power to what ^ he said.

It is required nowhere. If it were actually required, that would create tens of millions of lawyer hours every year to help people, thus actually making a significant dent in the problem of unrepresented people screwed by our ever increasingly complex system. It would also create a new problem of forced and unpaid labor, but that isn’t the problem we diverted Rand’s “woe is me I’m being asked by my partners to not bill $1000 per hour at my taxing job” rant into something more of us can relate to: namely how the legal system leaves most people out in the cold in a life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Aside from the construction errors and the “apparently didn’t notice the bolded text” thing, your stance is wrong. People who need legal assistance and can’t afford it are generally able to get that assistance. Yes, there are drawbacks because of waiting lists, and it varies by geographical area, but the idea that the justice system is the demesne of only the wealthy and the state, and that the system exists solely for the enrichment of its administrators is at least as silly as Rand’s whining.

So Rand Rover, how long until the people you work for discover who you really are?

You people are being way to harsh with Rand. Do you have any idea how hard it is to go to court and take the the prosecutors plea bargain to the crackhead that Rand would be representing? I mean that takes a lot of education and skill to say “They’re offering 5 to 10 and I think you should take it so I can go spend time with my beautiful intelligent 2 year old. Plus it’s martini time and happy hour ends at 7”.

And all you so called “friends” should not expect me to fix your goddamn computers for free anymore. Rand has shown me the light. Besides it’s martini time and happy hour… Oh hell… Nevermind.

Rand, please do some pro-bono work for ivn’s family. I’m sure they’ve been looking for a way to have him declared incompetent for some time. It’s the merciful thing to do.

If its any consolation, Rand Rover, one of the pro bono tasks that I do is to kick people out of socialized housing. Try it – you might like it.

You may not understand it, but I certainly do. But I appreciate your efforts. Honest.

A lot of people are suggesting lawyers are uniquely positioned as to “require” pro bono, due to their licensing and involvement in the system of justice.

I’m not looking to solicit any sympathy for solicitors, but just wanted to point out that for many lawyers, practicing the law is not a special calling, but just a job that they pursued because it suited their abilities, or for any number of other reasons.

And a good many lawyers are concerned with making their clients and themselves money (or otherwise maximizing their interests) within the system - with little or no concern for maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.

It is axiomatic that a lawyer’s first duty is to the court, i.e the integrity of the judicial system. So I have some difficulty with the quoted argument.

Has this ever been in dispute?

Not disputing this either. Your friend Randy, and The Luggage are, though.

You are so charming.

Just wanted to thank RR for the thread title. Usually, he makes the subject of his particular bullshit vaguer, making me read through it more carefully to figure out what he’s bullshitting about. Not this time, though. Thx.

Dinsdale–agreed. And those of us on the transactional side have about the same relationship to the judicial system as do accountants and finance people. All this stuff about my first duty being to “the court” is complete hogwash.

I dunno, man. Don’t have the time to go into it too terribly thoroughly at the moment, but in many instances the lawyer’s main concern is in interpreting and applying the “rules” and the “process” in a manner that best serves his client’s interests. To the extent we achieve anything approximating “justice” or “fairness” results mainly from the fact that (theoretically), each interested party has the right to do the same. “Playing by the rules” - doing what is (arguably) permitted and avoiding what is expressly prohibited, is essentially all an attorney owes to the “integrity of the judicial system.”

Of course, folk with the means to pay often/generally have access to better representation. Hopefully, the legal assets of the state are exercised in a manner that at least acknowledge the interests of the less-advantaged.

But this is just off the top of my head and not proofread, so I’m sure I stated something poorly and omitted lots. HAve at me. And may I burn in hell forever (or at least get my toes singed) for coming this close to agreeing with RR on anything! :mad:

Read what you write sometimes.

The Canon of Legal Ethics are model rules that are followed in many jurisdictions.

A lot of jurisdictions (perhaps even your) imposes an ethical obligation to do pro-bono work. They won’t take away your license if you don’t but its something that you are at least supposed to feel guilty about not doing.

There is no right to an attorney except in criminal cases. We allow contingency fees so that people can get representation when they have been wronged but if you are poor and you get sued, you are basically SOL. This happens quite frequently in landlord tenant disputes. As a landlord, I know that in 90%+ of these cases the tenants just hasn’t been paying rent or has been banging on his drum set when he gets home after the bars close but sometimes the landlord is trying to fuck over a tenant and the tenant cannot afford a lawyer to represent their interests.

Rand Rover, feel guilt? How long have you been here?

You are getting at the heart of the issue, Damuri. The PR rules and some firms use bullshit coercion tewchniques to get lawyers to work for free, and many people in larger society translate this into an obligation on the part of lawyers to do free work (whereas they would impose no such obligation on other prifessionals).

Also, on the landlord/tenant issue (which has now come up a couple of times), my impression is that the vast majority of those types of cases are handled in specialty courts or small claims courts, and the cases are intensely factual in nature and involvew very little procedure (ie, essenntially no discovery). These are the perfect types of cases for pro se litigants. So, I find it strange that you and others use that as an example of a “serious civil matter” where poor people are SOL without a lawyer–a lawyer’s help really isn’t necessary.

What coercion is involved? Are they sending armed thugs to beat you up if you don’t do pro bono work? No? They’re just expressing disapproval, and possibly firing you? That’s not coercion by the standards of any good libertarian. Go find a job that doesn’t have distasteful requirements if you don’t like it. You, sir, are a coward and a hypocrite.