Anything can be solved with math.
Not mine, you haven’t.
You started this thread to say, essentially, “I’d rather spend time with my daughter than do something that’s ethically and morally, but not necessarily legally, required.” Then you spend … how much time reading the posts and writing lengthy responses of your own? … instead of spending that same time with your daughter.
How do you respond to that argument? Is the third time the charm, or are you going to ignore me yet again? (Kinda like you’re ignoring your daughter to stay in this thread…)
Muffin, yes, the preamble to the rules do use the word “reponsibility” a lot. Please answer yes or no: does the preamble itself impose that responsibility?
Bricker, I concur.
Purpledumbass: yes, participating in this thread has taken a herculean effort that has strained my marriage and my work in addition to my relationship with my child. But the fight against ignorance must go on.
Great.
Now, let’s talk about that range of representation that falls between X and Y. Providing service to a client minimally above point Y, such that a malpractice suit simply isn’t feasible or winnable, is still service below that level of professional responsibility contemplated by the rules. Yet it has no penalty.
So I’m curious to hear if you would maintain that there is no requirement to provide service about point Y, since there is no penalty associated with providing that level of service.
So here we have the body of the statutes that do include a reporting requirement but do not include a pro bono requirement because it is too messy to assign a penalty to lawyers who fail to perform pro bono services. That leaves an ambiguity as to whether or not lawyers have a responsibility to provide pro bono services despite there being no penalty should they not perform such services.
The preamble and the commentary settle this ambiguity by clearly setting out that lawyers do have a responsibility to provide pro bono services despite there not being a rule that assigns a penalty. The preamble and commentary provide the context that is necessary to ensure that there is no ambiguity as to whether or not lawyers have a responsibility to provide pro bono services. Any interpretation of what is and what is not in the statutes must be construed in light of the preamble and commentary.
Now since you are supposed to be a lawyer, you should know how preambles and commentaries are used to provide context when settling statutory ambiguities.
Your question of whether there is a imposition is a truly stupid question, for as I have repeated told you, the statute makes no such requirement. What you have been unable to understand is that the responsibility to perform pro bono services exists, but is not imposed. The preamble and the commentary serve to remind lawyers that there is indeed a professional responsibility to provide pro bono services – the same way that the little pouch over the shoulder of my robe serves as a reminder – despite there not being a penalty for failing to meet one’s professional responsibility. Your truly do not get what being a lawyer is about.
Bottom line: you have failed in meeting your responsibility to provide pro bono services.
In other words, “do just enough at your job to not get fired, but not an inch more than that.”
Sounds like the people I used to work with, who seemed to spend more time visiting each others cubicles and gossiping, or talking to their friends on the phone, than they did actually working. And since it was a government office, “enough at your job not to get fired” was a joke anyway.
At your daughter’s expense?
Educating the public on the legal system and a lawyer’s responsibilities is part of a lawyer’s responsibilities. Doing it without pay is pro bono work. Neglecting family do that pro bono work: altruistic.
What is neglecting one’s family in order to spend time being laughed at on some message board, then?
Masochism combined with stupidity.
And yet, you do not *aspire to *pro bono work. You do, in face, **depise **pro bono work. So, your word is worth the lying tongue you spit it out with.
ISTR that people have mentioned meeting **Rand **in person. I realize it’s hard to swallow, but there actually are grown adults in professions requiring post graduate work who are this fucking childish.
The better analogy is that he should aspire to be a loving and caring husband and father. But if he really belittles his wife all day and constantly screams at his daughter, apparently that would be fine, and he’d still be a good husband and father, because he didn’t actually *swear *to do those things. He’s just supposed to *aspire *to them.
Dear sweet Og, whatever would possess a person to do that?
Well, I think this thread convinced me he actually IS a lawyer (and hence, an adult). No teenager would keep up a 13 page rant about being asked to do a measly 20 hours a year of pro bono work. You have to be an actual fully grown moron to do that.
It’s only convinced me he picked up some jargon at the dinner table from a tax-attorney parent who likes to let off steam once in a while.
Randy’s threads are really just failed submissions to “$&%*&# My Dad Says”.
When you’re coordinating Doper meet ‘n’ greets publicly on the forum, it’s a little hard to say “Everybody’s welcome *except *Rand Rover.”
One might cancel the whole event if Rand Rover expressed interest in appearing. I’m not saying this happened, I’m just saying it MIGHT have happened, because no one wants to do pro bono work converting Rand Rover into a normal human being.
[quote=“Rand_Rover, post:605, topic:553132”]
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.
[quote]
What part of the word “professional reswponsibility” don’t you understand?
Its not a professional REQUIREMENT, you won’t lose your license. But it is a responsibility.
You can continue to ignore your responsibility (it sounds like you ignored it when you swore your oath) but it seems odd that you think its reasonable to complain that people are harassing you for ignoring your responsibility (and it doesn’t sound like a LOT of harassment).
That’s not an honor system, that is an exchange system.