Oh, I understand perfectly well what they are. It just appears to me that you’ve invented your own definition different from the one that the rest of the English-speaking world uses, so you can try and justify not doing something that’s expected of you because it doesn’t suit you.
Look, it’s absolutely no skin off my nose if you don’t like or don’t want to do Pro Bono work. But since you’ve admitted you don’t care what people think, why don’t you just get a blog like most of the other corporate malcontents out there and rant to your heart’s content without the inconvenience of dissenting opinions or people trying to make you feel bad for not conforming to certain societal/ethical expectations?
Isn’t that the entire point of reading a set of rules?
Yes . . . allow me to rephrase. YOU, Martini Enfield, do not have the ability to read a set of rules and determine what the rules require a person to do or not do.
Well, others here seem to disagree, but I am in no position to judge who is right and who is wrong. Some of this thread was a pretty interesting read though.
So what allows you to do that and not me, or the other contributors to this thread, or anyone else with an education?
It’s all very well to insist that you’re right and everyone else is wrong (I’m a huge fan of that technique myself, FWIW) but it works better when backed up by something besides a metaphorical WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! without further explanation.
Martini, what would you like me to do that I have not already done? We are all reading the same very plain words and arriving at different meanings. I can’t get in yoiur head and turn off the crazy that leads you to believe those words require pro bono work.
Also, the burden is on you to prove your assertion, I don’t have the burden to disprove it. All you have offered in the way of argument ius “sure looks like it requires pro bono to me.”
I have to admit that I have found the conversation between Mr. Excellent to be absolutely fascinating. A real insight into what all of us non lawyers hate about the law and its application. On the one hand you have a set of ideals and a set of standards that are pretty clear in their spirit. They you have some shyster come along and essentially start arguing about what the meaning of is is and going through all sorts of mental gymnastics and contortions to wiggle out of a pretty clear set of expectations.
I get the impression that being a lawyer is supposed to be some sort of a solemn, almost sacred trust. That lawyers are meant to advocate for Justice (as in Justice with a capital J. The best human understanding and application of the Good). To see how horribly this has been perverted is pretty lamentable.
Yep. I have. Everyone that has tried to show that I agreed to perform pro bono work simply by becoming a lawyer has failed, miserably and obviously. But they keep trying, gotta give them that.
Putting your hands over your ears and shouting “LALALALAICAN’THEARYOU!” doesn’t constitute mincing anything other than your dignity and (admittedly minuscule) potential for rationality.
Rand, in eleventy pages, you still haven’t answered **my **question, either. Let’s try again.
Say your hourly rate is X.
You get a client, A. You work on Client A’s case for four hours, and you bill the firm for X x 4, and get paid for it.
Later that same day, you get client B. You work on Client B for another four hours, and you bill the firm for X x 4 again, and get paid for that, too.
Client B is a pro bono case. But you get paid the same for B’s work as for A, do you not? If so … what the fuck do you care if the firm is paid by A, or B, or both, or neither? You make the same dough either way, don’t you?
purplrshorseshoe, I think what you’re saying is correct (ie, I will not personally be paid less if I do pro bono work), but my concerns about doing pro bono work extend beyond how much I am paid. Also, I won’t be paid more for doing pro bono work, so it would just be additional work without additional compensation.
Jayjay, care to step up to bat, or are you just going to snipe from the peanut gallery like a little bitch?
The way that I read Mr. Excellent’s post was that (at least were he is licensed) he agreed to the following:
Now I have read the whole thread and if there is a post of yours where you assert that what you agreed to is fundamentally different I somehow missed it.
I freely admit that I am not a lawyer, but the words in the quote above are not very complicated and the meaning does not seem in any way ambiguous or all that nuanced. A lawyer has a professional responsibility to render pro bono publico legal service. Assuming that you took a similar oath, and you are not rendering pro bono service I fail to see how any reasonable person could conclude anything but that you are not living up to your professional responsibility.
Step up to bat how? You’ve been shown quite a few examples from quite a few different states as to the expected personal responsibilities of licensed and admitted attorneys from those states, and pretty much ALL of them (including your own state’s) expect attorneys to provide service pro bono.
You can cry your bitter Objectivist tears all you want, but it’s obvious to most of us that you are a little crybaby whose odious personal philosophy is at odds with your chosen career’s professional standards.
Binarydrone, you aren’t a lawyer? Really? Color me surprised as fuck. Your legal reasoning is so superb that I thought youwere the reincarnation of Learned Hand himself.
Look, it’s verý simple. The professional responsibility rules require a lawyer to do certain things. By swearing an oath to abide by those rules, I promised to do those things required by the rules. The rules don’t require a lawyer to do pro bono work–the rules only say that a lawyer “should aspire” to do pro bono work. Therefore, I didn’t promise to do or to aspire to do pro bono work. The fact that I dnt do any doesn’t mean I am in violation of the rules.
Which part of the above are you having trouble with?
Rand Rover, I see no need for the snide and hostile tone that you are taking with me. It is unseemly. Also, here is the thing, I am not trying to use legal reasoning. In fact I think that the fact that you are applying legal reasoning in this instance speaks to the very heart of your problem here. What I am doing is reading clear, unambiguous words written in my native language and seeing the obvious meaning behind them. Let me quote them again:
This is not some deep, nuanced statement that requires years of schooling to interpret. Its meaning and the sentiment behind it are very straightforward.
I get the distinction that you are trying to make. You believe that because this is not something that is enforced it is not a “rule” and therefore not something that you have to do. Can you understand that when I state that you are not living up to your professional responsibilities that I am not asserting that you are breaking a rule?
What it does mean is that you took an oath with a clear understanding of both what was required of you and what was expected of you (yes, yes we all understand that these are 2 different things. BFD) and have chosen to only do those things that are required. Which pretty much makes you unethical and shows that your word is not good.
Probably the notion that a man is only as good as his word is somewhat outdated and the fact that this is a sentiment that I try to live by explains why people like me drive Hondas and people like you BMWs (or whatever all the cool shyster lawyers are driving these day), but there it is. At the end of the day I get to be an honest trustworthy man and you get to be an oath-breaking, loophole seeking part of the problem. Gratz.