You are just misunderstanding things. I agreed to obey some rules. The rules do not say “a lawyer must (or must try to) perform pro bono work.” They just say “it would be nice if a lawyer tried to do pro bono work.” Ergo, me not doing pro bono work or even trying to doesn’t violate the rules iu agreed to abide by.
I may be misreading it, but yeah, the “Rules”- specifically the italicised part quoted above - do actually appear to say “A Lawyer must, or must try to, do pro bono work,” at least IMHO.
You aren’t so good at reading rules.
Care to elaborate on where the problem is?
The rules say it is your responsiblity. You aren’t so good at pretending you’re not a sociopath.
Sure. The “responsibility” referred to in the text you quoted is not a responsibility in the sense of a requirement to do something. It’s only a responsibility in the sense of some cosmic amorphous moral duty. Also, the description of that responsibility is only in the intro, not in the rules itself. There is nothing in the rules imposing a requirement to do (or try to do) pro bono work. Therefore, I didn’t promise to do (or try to do) pro bono work by promising to abide by the rules.
Oh, I’m clearly a sociopath (by some definitions). I’ve never tried to pretend to be otherwise, and in fact I’m proud of it.
Seems pretty clearcut to me, too.
Maybe we disagree on what the definition of ‘is’ is.
But the quoted text also explicitly mentions contributing to law reform, so Rand could get out of giving time by giving money to the bar towards law reform.
Then his kid wouldn’t get to miss any Daddy time, right? Partners would shut up as well.
I mean, as a partner, Rand’s rolling in it, right?
(Man, this is the thread that just keeps on giving, isn’t it?)
Well, I’m pretty sure that the “Doing Pro Bono Work is evidence of a lawyer’s good character and fitness to practice law” thing could be used (by the same tortuous logic you’re using to pretend The Rules Don’t Apply To You because you had your fingers crossed) to argue that a lawyer who consistently refuses to do Pro Bono work is not of proper character to retain their [whatever your jurisdiction calls Formal Lawyerin’ Priviliges & Accredation] and therefore probably shouldn’t get to be a lawyer anymore. And the introduction is still part of the Rules, what with legislation (yes, I know this isn’t legislation, but the same principle applies) being read as a whole.
Then why bother with all the whining and arguing with us? it’s not like we’re going to either think you’re right, give you approval, or compensate for any physical endowments you lack.
Oh.
Guess you really are trolling for attention…and we should all stop feeding you. Where’s the ignore feature on my control panel for this site?
*'Bye Rand. Thanks for lowering my faith in humanity just a little further.
That’s a shitty argument. The preamble just says that doing pro bono work is evidence of good character and fitness. It doesn’t say that not doing pro bono work is evidence of a lack of character and fitness.
You are welcome.
It really is horrible how I won’t believe everyone’s bullshit arguments to get me to give them money or free labor. I know, that makes me a horrible person. How about this: if you don’t paypal me $20 right this fucking second, then you are officially an Extremely Bad Person not even fit for pig food.
That’s all the actual content in these arguments in favor of pro bono work and higher taxes etc.: do it or you are a bad person. At least I’m saying it directly.
I rather think it does, actually. And even if it doesn’t outright say it, it’s a pretty strong indicator in that direction. Especially when the not doing Pro Bono work is a conscious choice (verging on concerted effort) as opposed to “Professional Lawyer so snowed under with important client work that they simply don’t have time and instead donate to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau or something similar”.
I’m just curious, it’s really none of my business, but - have you run that argument past your senior partners yet?
If the folks who wrote the rules wanted to make it a requirement for lawyers to do pro bono work, then they could have written the rules to say that. They didn’t.
You’re a pedophile. And I don’t talk to pedophiles.
(Hey, if you can call me bad words based on absolutely nothing at all, I suppose I can do the same to you.)
Well at least he isn’t the fellow from Christmas Island. Right? Please tell me I’m right about this, despite the similarity.
But they did, and you’re apparently the only one in this thread who can’t (or won’t) see that.
Look, I often agree with some of the points you make (shock, horror!) but seriously, at this point I suspect that if I was to tell you that Denial wasn’t a major river in North Africa you’d tell me that it was and ignore anything anyone said to the contrary.
I called you a sociopath based on evidence you have provided, and you admitted that you are a sociopath and proud of it. Regardless, this post is not an answer to the question I asked, nor is it in any way relevant to the question I asked.
Well, I don’t know what to tell you, bub. You simply are quite unclear on the concept of what a “requirement” or an “obligation” is. And you can’t read a set of rules and determine whether something is or is not required. You appear to be beyond my help on this point.