You know, some urchin is likely to suffer a sound thrashing after that.
Please. As if you (or the typical liberal douche) stand by the idea on any other topic that coercion is only a bad thing if armed thugs are at the door . The typical liberal douche finds coercion in every aspect of a poor person’s life. Many believe that the nature of employment itself is coercive (i.e., a person must work to eat, so their boss already has power over them).
Also, I’ve never said anything about my firm “firing” me if I don’t do pro bono work, and I don’t think they would.
So, sorry, not a coward or a hypocrite. Thanks for trying to bring the hate though, I appreciate it.
Haven’t read the thread… just this one post.
That being said, I don’t believe ANYONE has an “ethical obligation” to work for free.
You may have a “corporate obligation” if your firm requires it of you… but “ethical”?? Nope.
Do grocery store owners have an “ethical obligation” to donate to food banks/soup kitchens?
Do doctors have an “ethical obligation” to donate services?
What about dentists?
Are plumbers ethically obligated to do a certain amount free repairs each year?
The one I want to see do some pro bono work is the thieving car dealership when I have to bring my Windstar in for repairs!!! :eek:
Should my computer repair guy do pro bono work???
What about pro athletes? Should they be required to donate a specific amount of their salaries to promote physical education for youth?
You know, “liberal” and “douche” use to be two stand-alone words. The way you use them, it reminds me of the way some folks can’t separate “damn” and “yankee”.
Sure. I believe that threatening someone’s employment is coercion. But you don’t. And yet you’re complaining about being coerced, presumably by your own standards.
And now you say that you don’t even think you’d be fired. So where, exactly, is the coercion? I can only assume that you can’t stand up to the disapproving glances from senior partners. That makes you a pussy. I can only assume that you don’t have the balls to stand up to them or to find different employment. That makes you a coward. I can only assume that you’re using the liberal douche definition of coercion now that it suits you, in spite of shitting in gods know how many threads where people ranted about far more egregious work complaints. That makes you a hypocrite.
Gorsnak, if you don’t stop right this minute, then I shall be forced to cry myself to sleep. 
:rolleyes:
Now Sugah… y’all know that a Yankee is one-a them folks from up Nawth that comes ta visit God’s Country.
An’ a Damn Yankee is one that visits God’s Country and nevah leaves! 
It’s a simple question. Where is the coercion?
Heh.
Say, has anyone seen Liberal lately?
Several posters in this thread have expressed the idea nicely. A lawyer is supposed to “feel bad” if they don’t perform pro bono work. Many firms up the ante by making it clear that those who don’t are in the bad group and those who do aren’t. that’s different than firing or beating up those who don’t, but it’s just a difference of degree.
Fair enough. I’m going to have to stand by the cowardly hypocrite assessment then.
Oh, people try to make you feel bad. My stars and garters, how do you ever manage to struggle on under such a burden?
If that’s pit-worth coercion, you should probably hang up your parenting hat now–kids are the very devil for trying to make you feel like shit if you don’t give them what they want.
You should go back and read the thread.
The expectations that the law firm has of of RR, be it as an empoyee or as a partner, include his competing tasks for which the law firm can bill clients, and tasks for which the law firm can not or does not bill clients. Pro bono is one such task for which the law firm does not bill clients. The law firm, not RR, gets to decide whom to bill, and how much to bill. RR can leave if he choses to.
It is normal for pro athletes in team sports to have a clause in their contracts that requires them to participate in promotional activities, without being paid anything extra unless otherwise contracted.
Did you get your law degree out of a box of Weetbix or something? Seriously, “A Lawyer’s First Duty Is To The Court” is first year undergrad stuff. And, were I your boss, something I’d want to be Having A Serious Talk To You About if I ever heard you saying it. It’s like a Doctor saying “Stuff patient confidentiality, that shit doesn’t apply to me”.
It’s not a good thing, in case you’re still unclear on the point.
I like the comparison between liberal douches and children–very astute of you.
Based on his attempts at legal analysis in various threads, it looks like he is hyper-specialized to the degree that he really knows little about law and the legal profession – he is too insulated from the practice of law to grasp what it is about.
Which, regardless of my position that pro-bono could be viewed as an established customary part of the legal profession, and that RR should have expected the expectation (if you’ll forgive the twist of phrase), does sound to me like a lame approach to seeking to achieve a worthy goal. Guilt-tripping or appeals to honor are weak tools in today’s world.
That said, the passive-aggressive approach may be barely coercive, but to be consistent I have to say that if someone higher-ranking is telling the lower-ranking “It would be really good if I saw you all expending more effort on nonmandatory thing X”, the lower-downs may feel uncomfortable about it, depending on what “X” is.
(BTW, Randians, IIRC, do not reject charity outright, but rather that it be demanded by social expectation instead of arising spontaneously from the individual. If not enough individuals are spontaneously charitable, well, TFB.)
For example?
This, sorta. But let’s be fair.
Notice how seldom, and no doubt poorly, I chime in when the topic is, say, wills and estates.
Things in that area I learned for the bar have long-since been consigned to the dustbin of memory. Sure, I’m a mouthy bastard when it comes to criminal law, but it’s obvious that on this board, questions wth at least tangential relevance to criminal law are about a zillion times more frequent than questions that impact on tax practice.
I don’t sign on to the “not knowing what law is about” merely based on general practice area rustiness.
Well, Muffin and Bricker, I think your points of view are susceptible to the same criticism. You are both geared toward thinking of the legal profession from the POV of a small firm litigation practice (and don’t tell me about how you used to work in some 50-lawyer firm, so you know big firms, or whatever).
The legal profession is a big thing. There are lots of ways to be a lawyer. Some of them virtually never involve such principles as “A Lawyer’s First Duty is to the Court” (whatever the hell that means, really).
Also, Bricker, I’d appreciate a little clarification as to exactly which parts of Muffin’s post you are signing on to, if you don’t mind. Thanks. ETA: Basically I find that whole post so pejoratively phrased that I’d appreciate seeing you just affirmatively state what you are saying here. Thanks.