I keep reading out of admiration for his persistence in maintaining the pretense about who he really is, and out of astonishment that so many people here still think he’s actually an adult.
Again, you aren’t separating out the issues well here. All I have been arguing is that a set of rules don’t require me to do pro bono work. That’s it. I have just been talking about the content of a set of rules.
I’m amazed that you and others never tire of this particular line of bullshit. If you don’t believe I’m telling the truth about myself, then that’s fine. But I don’t see what you get by following me around like a puppy and nipping at my ankles. Just put me on ignore.
Well I’m glad you keep on answering because I’m finding this very interesting. I’ll readily admit that before this I had no idea what Pro Bono work was, so there’s some ignorance fought.
So Rand Rover do you feel similar about marriage vows as you do to your profession’s code of conduct? If someone is repeatedly unfaithful to their spouse but never gets caught is that OK? I realize the two situations are not completely analogous…
Nope. That comparison sucks. A better comparison would be I agree to babysit a kid for a year, and the parents say “It would be nice if you took the kid out for ice cream every once in a while.” As it turns out, I don’t think ice cream is good for the child, so I never take him out for ice cream. I haven’t broken my baby-sitting contract or any promise I made to anyone.
Wrong. Libertarian thought is based on free exchange, i.e., the honor system.
No, you’re quibbling over what “require” means, in a concertedly self-justifying manner, using specious (and frankly descpicable) reasoning to make it mean what you want it to mean, despite universal disagreement. The problem is that here on SD there is no judge to slap your ass into the next county, so you are allowed to go on and on–or as you might put it, where the definition of “required” is infinitely mutable, you are required to go on and on.
I don’t see the relevance at all. You seem to believe that a marriage necessarily involves a promise not to have sex with anyone other than one’s spouse (which is probably almost always true, but not always true). Assuming that my marriage involves the promise that I won’t have sex with anyone other than my spouse (which, it turns out, it does), I would clearly break that promise by having sex with someone else. But, in the pro bono scenario, I never made a promise to do pro bono work.
Please offer up your own definition of “requirement” vis-a-vis a set of rules. Stated another way, how do you believe one should determine whether Action X is required by a particular set of rules?
Oh, I see now. You’re railing against the presumptuousness of the organization that writes your paychecks in making an aspirational rule into an actual rule. I mean, how dare they? To actually look at a rule that says, “It would be nice if lawyers did this,” and to say, “Lawyers who work for us will actually do this, on pain of having their feelings hurt!” I’m one hundred percent behind you now. This sort of brow-beating is just unconscionable. It’s the height of arrogance for a law firm to have higher standards for their lawyers than the minimum laid out by the bar association.
:rolleyes:
So you basically haven’t paid any attention to what I’ve said but want to come storming in and getting on my ass anyway. Yeesh.
I explained upthread that what bothers me about this is the United Way nature of it–they want a certain percentage of lawyers to do a certain number of pro bono hours each year. I actually wish they would just say that “all lawyers at this firm are required to do pro bono work.” I could then decide whether to do pro bono work or to work somewhere else. Instead of doing that, they use softer bullshit frowny face techniques.
You can already make this decision.
Or you could whine about the situation like a little girl whose parents won’t take her to a Justin Bieber concert unless she cleans her room.
Already explained, son. Amusement value.
Well, estoppel comes up in a few areas of law. There is “agency by estoppel” or “authority by estoppel” too, which is somehow different from apparent authority.
In this case, suppose the Commissioner of the ARDC went after an attorney who dispensed with the necessity of aspiring to do an appropriate amount of pro bono service. The attorney defends on the grounds that the Rules state no punishment for failing to do so, even if the attorney swore to undertake the obligation. The Commissioner replies that the defense should estopped from making the argument, because the attorney promised and the State of Illinois changed its position in reliance on that promise (namely, it admitted the reneging attorney to practice).
What is your surreply to the Commissioner?
So that caused you then seek further frowny faces on these Boards.
Dude, or bub, or son, or whatever you may be, you’re certainly a masochist
when it comes to parading about with a “kick me” sign taped to your ass.
My reply is that none of the bolded words above is correct. There was no promise to do pro bono or to promise to do pro bono on which the Commissioner could rely. In reality, the Commissioner would never do what you are saying, according to the plain language of the rules.
It just doesn’t seem that entertaining to me. I mean, you are only pointing out the completely obvious–that every poster on here could be lying about every single thing they say about themselves.
Doesn’t seem that entertaining to me. But some people pay women to fart in their faces, so whatever I guess.
You’re the provider of the entertainment, child.
Christ, you are thick. When I said “It doesn’t seem that entertaining to me,” I clearly meant “To me, it doesn’t seem that entertaining” (as in I don’t see how you could be so entertained by doing that). But thanks for illustrating the disconnect between what is said and what is understood (not that you don’t already do that with every word you utter).
ETA: When I said “Christ” above, I did not mean to imply that I believe you are the risen Messiah.
For example, the disconnect betweenwhat the authorities state in black and white to be your responsibilities, and what you understand your responsibilities to be.
Yes, that post of yours is another good example of a disconnect between what is said (in the rules) and what you understand.