A clinical psychologist friend of mine has several patients he sees pro bono.
He told me that he gets a tax break for doing so.
(They actually pay him with baked goods! LOL)
One lady brings him a home-baked pie every week, another brings cookies and another brings muffins…
I’m sure he said he receives a tax break for doing so…
I’ll ask him to clarify next time I see him.
Maybe it’s different for care givers?
Hold on… he’s objecting to “pro bono” work he’s being paid for?
If so, what we assumed was the bottom of the barrel has splintered apart to reveal an infinite chasm of loathsomeness.
Incorrect. In that case, the obligation to do pro bono would have been a part of the deal I made. I wouldn’t like it (in the same way that I don’t like taxes that are used for things that I don’t believe the government should do), but that’s a different issue than you trying to impose some “moral obligation” on me to do pro bono work simply for being a lawyer.
A lawyer worth even a minimal damn would have read the paperwork before applying to the bar. Tell your dad to quit whining and be grateful he has a job.
Wow. You are really approaching gonzomax levels of dumbassery here, buddy.
TL:DR
He doesn’t have hatred towards poor people. He has contempt for the whole world. I hope being a father changes his perspective but the fact that Cheney is such a good grandfather and such a horrible person gives me little hope.
He has an undeniable responsibility to perform pro bono work. He doesn’t equate responsibility to obligation (even if that obligation carries no penalty if unfulfilled).
I don’t know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but having some experience representing others in State Bar Court (they haven’t caught me yet!) it always mitigates the punishment if there are people who will testify that the convicted has done pro bono work.
It’s also an ethical obligation, which I have said all along. But interesting - if all I was doing was “drive-by sniping” I wouldn’t have had anything to back pedal from, would I?
I cut the rest of the nonsense because I have no more interest in Randian thought than I do in the theology of Scientology.
Oooh, it is both a moral obligation and an ethical obligation. Woowoo.
Not being an attorney (my field is psychology) it would seem that the question of RR doing pro bono work is neither a moral obligation nor an ethical one but is, instead, a corporate one. Since his firm requires him to do so, and they pay him to do so, the rest of the argument is moot.
There’s really no need to take the argument any farther unless it’s just to practice your arguing/reasoning skills, which I would imagine are of considerable importance in this line of work.
Firstly I don’t understand what the fuck you’re complaining about if you’re getting billable hours from pro-bono work. You dont have any right to tell your company which clients they should give you (as stated previously, they are richer than you and therefor must be smarter/more hardworking/better people). You can always quit and go to another, more assholish firm if you disagree with their policies.
And as to ethical obligations, you didn’t have to become a lawyer. Some (usually very highly paid) professions carry certain aditional societal expectations. If you collapsed in the street and a doctor was walking past would you argue he had no moral or ethical obligation to help you?
To summarise: Get over yourself.
Because you have argued that the sine qua non of a “requirement” is a sanction for its violation, it seemed reasonable to refute that by providing an example of a standard which you agreed was a requirement and yet did not contain a sanction.
I have done so.
Your response is now that this rule has less than 100% applicability.
It’s true that the committee could simply have written a sanction in. But as a suggested many pages ago, the committee recognized there were situations where it was inappropriate to require pro bono work, and further that those situations did not readily admit of a bright-line definition. So the committee trusted the members of the bar to apply a Potter Stewart-esque sort of analysis to the situation, knowing it when they see it and acting in good faith.
You, on the other hand,are bent on treating the rules as a criminal statute, to be liberally construed in your favor.
Wow Bricker. This obtuseness is out of character for you. It’s sad that you have to resort to making a strawman out of my argument in order to have any response at all. Also, you are simply repeating points that I already responded to at length.
Therefore, I will accept your de facto resignation on this point, and let’s discuss something different: what do you believe the proper test is for determining whether a rule requires an action?
Perhaps you could link to the post or posts where you responded “at length” to these points. I tried to read everything but it is a long thread; perhaps I missed something.
No resignation from me.
Answer to your question: the totality of circumstances surrounding the rule.
Rand Rover’s Rules for Debate
When challenged:
Oh, it’s the Pit, calm down. The only thing that’s really weirding me out is your insistence on putting a new line after every sentence.
Sorry, I can’t be friends with people who are *willfully *retarded, just the regular kind who actually stretch to reach their full capacity.
And your explanation of your poor use of pronouns doesn’t address the further problem that you keep bringing up this retarded strawman that bears no resemblance to any argument anyone is making.
When I have one.
Maybe I’ll go join Suicide Girls and post a bunch of photos of my apartment.
I would be shocked if you could find any sizeable firm that doesn’t encourage its lawyers to perform pro bono work.
Bingo.
Actually, in a larger sense, this thread illustrates the failure of libertarian thinking, not just of the narrower Randianism (which term I still hestitate to use, implying as it does that there is actually serious, coherent thought behind Rand’s philosophy.) What you’re seeing here is the result of RR’s belief in the supremacy of the individual, and the lack of legitimacy of the state or another organization, to compel each individual’s behavior. It works okay, until you get some selfish sociopath like **RR **, who sees in any system built on honor and decency the chance to justify blatant self-interest, and fuck everyone else. Hence, and sadly, we rely on state power (or other non-individual power) to coerce.
It’s fairly amazing to me that you’ve got your head so far up your ass that you can’t see that literally EVERYONE doesn’t like taxes that are used for things that they don’t believe the government should do, and that “government” understands this concept very well, and so does every citizen with this realization. The difference is that no one (but you) thinks this point is worth articulating, it’s just part of the concept of governance. Likewise, pro bono work (as agreed by everyone but you) is a moral and ethical requirement of legal practice but you seem to think it’s necessary to point out that you would prefer to work on cases that you LURVE and spend your other time with your family, doing fun stuff, jerking off, etc., just like all of us don’t like doing the things we prpefer to do.
Bricker, I will do a line-by-line response to your post later tonight.
Lobo, I guess you missed where I already responded to each of Bricker’s points.
SFG: Why don’t you believe you have a moral obligtion to post nudie pics? I said you do. What makes you right when you say I have a moral obligation to do pro bono and me wrong when I say ýou have a moral obligaþion to post nudie pics?