Nobody gets a tax break for doing services for free. Its as if you got paid and then donated that money, you are in the same place taxwise as if you had never done the pro-bono work except you don’t have to worry about any of those pesky restrictions on donating to charity and you can do work for organizations that are not tax exempt charities.
The reason someone like Rand might object is that even though his pro-bono billable hours won’t be counted against him (and almost every biglaw lawyer suspects that it secretly WILL be counted against them) it reduces the amount of time he works on cases with paying clients (the kind that will improve his chances for advancement). Noone was ever elected to the executive committie in a firm for doing outstanding pro-bono work.
As a member of the illinois bar you have a “responsibility” to do pro-bono work.
There is no penalty for not fulfilling your responsibility but the responsibility is clearly there.
You choose to define requirement as something that you get punished for not doing.
The rest of the lawyers on the board (I count at least 4) equate responsibility with requirement, while you split hairs and hang your hat on the fact that they don’t take away your license of fine you for not fulfilling your pro-bono requirement.
EP: that’s correct. Please share with us how you think one should dtermine whether a rule requires a certain action.
Damuri: that’s correct. The rules don’t impose the responsibility (or a requirement or obligation). The preamble simply says that lawyers have that responsibility. So, they are clearly referring only to a “moral responsibility,” which, together with a couple of bucks, will get you a cup of coffee.
Also, I think the new iphone can do push email, but the firm has to support it somehow.
And you really don’t understand why peple are giving you shit for complaining about getting an email reminding you of your responsibility to perform pro bono?
Most of civilized society recognizes that rules set out by professional organizations that we belong to should be followed even in the absence of a specifically written penalty for non-compliance.
We see that the rules have meaning, and our organizations or employers wish us to follow them, even though they have not set out specific punishments if we fail to follow them.
We are not 2 year olds, who require a clearly spelled out negative consequence for every single rule. We recognize that it is in everyone’s best interests to follow the rules as they are set out, and use our professional ethics and conscience to guide our actions, rather than the fear of punishment.
The rule “requires” a certain action in that we are mature, responsible adults who recognize the rules and agree to abide by them, even though the negative consequences are not specifically stated - we know that the consequences are more subtle than that, and may simply be that others are affected negatively. For the vast majority of us, the fact that our actions may affect others negatively is enough to make us follow the rules, even in the absence of personal negative consequences.
ETA: I realize that this probably just goes straight over your head. Probably just morals crap from a liberal douche.
EP, you are still just arguing that I should do pro bono. You aren’t arguing that the rules require me to do pro bono.
You criticized how I determine whether a rue requires an action–so let’s here how you determine whether a rule requires an action. If all you want to do is argue that I have a moral responsibility to do pro bono, then that’s fine, but you can’t then argue that I promised to do so because that is clearly not the case.
Sorry. I had a brownie with my lunch today; maybe I could keep it up and pack on 30 pounds.
Obligation != requirement. You are not *required *to do pro bono work, but you are *obligated *to do so. Let’s look at a definition, shall we?
You vowed that you would aspire to complete a minimum amount of pro bono work every year. You have not aspired. You’re a liar, and one without even the balls to just come out and admit that you’re a fucking welcher.
Of course he does. He just delights in being a dick. Kind of like me, but with less logic and panache and more douchebaggery.
NO ONE IS, YOU FUCKING RETARD. That’s *your *strawman. Clearly, the rules do not *require *you to do pro bono work, or you’d be fucking disbarred by now fifty times over (shame, really). What we are saying, and what you swore you agreed to, was that you have an *obligation *to do pro bono work, a *responsibility *that any good lawyer would *want *to fulfill to the best of their ability. So for you to actively avoid doing a single second of pro bono work is to concede that you are not, in fact, a good lawyer.
This is the thread that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friends
Some jerkoff started posting it
Knowing full well what it was
And we’ll keep on posting in it forever just because…
1.) You have a responsibility as someone licensed as an officer of the court to provide services for which you, or your firm, are not compensated.
2.) This can take a variety of forms.
3.) This willingness demonstrates that you are fit to practice law.
4.) The fact that there is no solid requirement, both in terms of an absolute number and sanctions for noncompliance, is explicitly stated to not indicate what you think it indicates, i.e., that you have no responsibility to do work in the public interest, but rather that it is too complex an issue to put those kinds of inflexible restrictions on.
You weak-ass piece of slime. Grow up and admit that you have an obligation and you’re not going to do it because you just don’t want to.
A lawyer who quickly reneges his debt
To give his daughter a poor example
I am to this day glad I have not met
Since his face I may feel forced to trample
For one who says “I will” but then does not
A mote of forgiveness is too ample
Confront him and his pants he’ll surely wet
His cowardice displayed by this sample
If only **Rand **could grow a pair of balls
We could at least respect him as an ass
But no, he merely shames us, one and all
By his protestations that he has gall
Instead he’d rather show he has no class
Indulging in a textual pratfall
I went with the earlier *abab abab *for the octave, a la Giacomo da Lentini, versus the later traditional abba abba–I hope you don’t mind.
Growing up in the **Rover **household was difficult for everyone involved. “Because I said so” wasn’t an option. From the time he cut teeth, little **Randy **understood only direct cause and effect, failure and consequence.
“Randy, if you smear your poo-poo on the walls again, I’m going to take away your Barbie dolls.”
Unfortunately it didn’t stop him, as evidenced here. He was, and continues to be, such a willful little boy.
