Pro bono bullshit

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Damuri_Ajashi

What part of the word “professional reswponsibility” don’t you understand?

The w part.

[Shodan]

@Bryan_Ekers

@Damuri_Ajashi

What part of the word “professional reswponsibility” don’t you understand?

The w part.

But he was talking to Wand Wover!

Regards,
Shodan

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Rand_Rover

@Gorsnak

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.

I don’t know how much of a hot shot tax attorney, I don’t know how hot the market for you is right now.

You’ve already said enough that I can narrow you down to a very small handful of people (unless you lied about something), like three people and I know one of them and I don’t believe any of them are in a position to pick up and leave for simlar position at some other firm.

I am in NO WAY threatening to out you but I am saying that you are providing too much identifying information. I suspect that you have lied about being a partner so you probably have nothing to worry about but if you haven’t then you may have outed yourself. Don’t provide any more personal details.

[Muffin]

Wandy, has your firm adopted either or both of the following two American Bar Association policies with regard to pro bono services?

http://www.abanet.org/renaissance/downloads/finalreport.pdf

PRO BONO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
(AUGUST 2006)

I. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR LARGER LAW FIRMS

Pursuant to Resolution 121-A, the American Bar Association urges larger law firms to adopt effective strategies to provide their lawyers with opportunities to do pro bono work and to adopt internal policies and procedures to support such work, including policies and procedures that ensure that firms:

(a) count pro bono hours as billable hours;

(b) consider attorneys’ commitment to pro bono activity as a favorable factor in advancement and partner and associate compensation decisions;

. . . .

[Muffin]

Rand Rover, do you agree with United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion that:
http://www.abanet.org/renaissance/downloads/finalreport.pdf

Lawyers are sometimes regarded as not the best contributors to the good and welfare of society but in it for themselves or as hired guns, but the truth is that lawyers who regard themselves as professionals and not as mere journeymen have done something beyond the practice that gives them their income. The difference between an artisan, who does a day’s work for a day’s pay, and a true professional is that the true professional works not simply for his or her own good, but to make his community, his nation, her world a little better because she or he lived.

Are you a professional, or are you a journeyman/artisan? If you believe that you are a professional, precisely what have you done and what do you continue to do in your professional capacity to make your community, nation, and world a little better?

[Muffin]

Regarding a barrister’s robe’s fee pocket that is on the robe’s back, rather than front, it serves to remind barristers that they represent clients without regard to the amount of remuneration. For folks wondering what the fee pocket that hangs over the left shoulder of a barrister looks like, here is a example – the model rotates, so give it a few seconds before the dangly thingy comes into view. As with all things lawerly, it is, of course, NSFW.

[Gorsnak]

@Muffin

Regarding a barrister’s robe’s fee pocket that is on the robe’s back, rather than front, it serves to remind barristers that they represent clients without regard to the amount of remuneration. For folks wondering what the fee pocket that hangs over the left shoulder of a barrister looks like, here is a example – the model rotates, so give it a few seconds before the dangly thingy comes into view. As with all things lawerly, it is, of course, NSFW.

Now that I’d pay $200/hr for!

[Frank]

@Gorsnak

Now that I’d pay $200/hr for!

I’ll bet she doesn’t do pro bono work either.

[jayjay]

@Frank

@Gorsnak

Now that I’d pay $200/hr for!

I’ll bet she doesn’t do pro bono work either.

Pro boner, on the other hand…

[Rand_Rover]

@Bricker

@Rand_Rover

Bricker, I concur.

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.

This analysis is altogether different than the analysis of whether the rules require a lawyer to do pro bono.

The rules prove that a lawyer shall provide competent representation. The definition of “competent” is of course fuzzy, and must be looked at in terms of the representation that a reasonable lawyer would have provided in the same circumstances. I do agree with you that it is possible for a lawyer to provide representation that is not competent but in fact suffer no penalty due to the exigencies of proving what is and is not competent. However, that doesn’t mean that providing competent representation is not a requirment (i.e., because there’s not always a penalty for providing incompetent representation). It just shows that sometimes it’s difficult to prove incompetence.

Here’s a similar example: a driver that speeds will not always be caught, and even if caught will not always receive a ticket. I do not believe this means that obeying the speed limit is not a requirement–it clearly is because the rules require a driver to obey the speed limit and provide penalties if he doesn’t. The situation is just a reflection of the reality that what happens in the real world doesn’t always line up with the rules.

Now, I believe you were going to make a point about promissory estoppel at some point. Have you dropped that?

[Rand_Rover]

@Muffin

@Rand_Rover

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?

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.

Well, according to your penultimate paragraph, it sounds like we agree. The rules do not impose a requirement for a lawyer to do pro bono. The “responsibility” referenced in the preamble is only a “moral responsibility” or “ethical responsibility.” That is, it exists only in the sense of floating in the ether of the realm of morality, and is not imposed by the rules.

[Rand_Rover]

@Shot_From_Guns

@Rand_Rover

And my counter to this argument is: the rules do make ASPIRING to do pro bono a requirement.

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.

That quote you attribute to me was actually written by Bricker.

[elucidator]

@jayjay

Pro boner, on the other hand…

If you turn yourself in, it will save us the trouble of hunting you down.

[E-Sabbath]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You’ve already said enough that I can narrow you down to a very small handful of people (unless you lied about something), like three people and I know one of them and I don’t believe any of them are in a position to pick up and leave for simlar position at some other firm.

I call bullshit. There’s no way he’s dropped that much information.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Rand_Rover

That quote you attribute to me was actually written by Bricker.

Yeah, sorry, I don’t know how I ended up with that cropping. I think this is what I meant to grab:

@Rand Rover

The model rules plainly say that a lawyer “should aspire” to do pro bono, but nothing happens to those who don’t aspire.

And yet again, you’re demonstrating that your only concept of “right” and “wrong” is “what benefits you” and “what hurts you,” respectively, in the most direct, obvious, limited, and selfish ways possible.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@E-Sabbath

I call bullshit. There’s no way he’s dropped that much information.

Specialized tax attorney working in a company with over a thousand lawyers who’s a partner, has never done any pro bono work, is vaguely libertarian, and has a two-year-old daughter. I’d say that’s pretty specific.

[jayjay]

@Shot_From_Guns

@E-Sabbath

I call bullshit. There’s no way he’s dropped that much information.

Specialized tax attorney working in a company with over a thousand lawyers who’s a partner, has never done any pro bono work, is vaguely libertarian, and has a two-year-old daughter. I’d say that’s pretty specific.

And is probably in either Chicago or Springfield, because those are probably the only places in Illinois that would have 1000-lawyer firms (Chicago because it’s Chicago (duh!) and Springfield because it’s the capital).

ETA: Rand did say he was in Illinois when someone asked about the jurisdiction trying to find the relevant professional conduct rules.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shot_From_Guns

Specialized tax attorney working in a company with over a thousand lawyers who’s a partner, has never done any pro bono work, is vaguely libertarian, and has a two-year-old daughter. I’d say that’s pretty specific.

… and has a bright teenage son who spends too much time on the computer …

[Polycarp]

@elucidator

@jayjay

Pro boner, on the other hand…

If you turn yourself in, it will save us the trouble of hunting you down.

What!? Many Republican attorneys willingly do pro Boehner work!

[Polycarp]

@Polycarp

Alternatively, given the standards defining “pro bono publico legal work” in Illinois, Randy could simply work on drafting and promoting proposed Federal and Illinois state legislation which would make it easier and more effective to be a Galtian businessman. That I would personally be opposed to such legislation does not mean that I cannot see it as something he can morally do, given what he has said herein, that would comply with expectations and fulfill his “aspirational” commitment and the intent of the Illinois bar/SSC rules.

I am going to bump this, which went by without comment, to see if either RR or his detractors have any thoughts on it.