Surely if the matter is so clear-cut, you’ll encounter no resistance… hell, they should even be grateful for your freeing the rest of the firm from their so-called obligation. There may be a raise in it for you!
Also, the email referenced in my OP shows that my firm recognizes that pro bono isn’t a requurement. If it were required, they would make sure all lawyers did it. As it is, the email was only looking for a certain percentage of lawyers to do a certain number of hours.
Rand, what is someone senior to you personally and directly asked if you would take on a specific pro bono case or help out with one? What would you say?
And yet you still felt the need to bitch about it. :rolleyes:
Your firm wants you to do this; the assembled liberal douches of the SDMB are only offering commentary. For your purposes, whether you’re right or we’re right is irrelevant–what does your boss think is right?
According to the OP, the email stated that the goal is to have every lawyer in the firm perform at least 20 hours of pro bono work per year.
So it’s clear then.
Either
- Rand Rover should clearly tell his company that since the rules merely recite the existence of the responsibility to do pro bono work, and do not specify a penalty… that therefore there is no ACTUAL responsibility to do pro bono work, and he will do none. Then he can shut the fuck up.
Or
- He can acknowledge that his firm has requested that the goal is to have every lawyer in the firm perform at least 20 hours of pro bono work per year, and do at least 20 hours of pro bono work per year. And shut the fuck up.
Even though both scenarios have a very satisfying ending (viz: shut the fuck up), I would opt for choice #1, as it would give everyone here a hearty laugh.
Oh, and kudos to everyone here for the extremely high quality of the poetry, as well as the amazing restraint shown by the relative paucity of boner jokes.
:rolleyes:
Everyone I work with knows therezks no actual requirement to do pro bono, so I wouldn’t be telling them anything they don’t know. You really shouldn’t take SDMB liberal douche thinking as reflecting actual reality or the mainstream on any issue.
I’m proud to hoist that flag!
So to speak.
I stand corrected–that is what the OP says. I’ll look back at the email, but I thought there was a percentage stated.
But the point still stands–if doing pro bono was actually required to be a lawyer, the firm wouldn’t send out emails saying “hey, we’re trying to get people to do pro bono.” The emails would say “have you fulfilled your pro bono requirement this year?” Lawyers are required to do CLE (continuing legal education–basically free lunch with someone talking about something law related), and the firm reminds people of the deadlines and registration requirements.
Also from the OP:
Huh. Go figure.
You can now join Gorsnak in the “missing the point” corner.
It’s all good.
What would Shakespeare’s lovely words be without Puck to give us comedic relief?
What else do you think that email was saying to you? You can’t really be that oblivious, can you? Can you?
And now to talk with someone worth talking to and to debate an actual issue (i.e., whether the rules require a lawyer to aspire to do pro bono), here’s the line-by-line response to Bricker’s post that I promised to do:
I actually argued that the sine qua non of a requirement is that the rules provide a sanction for its violation. As I demonstrated with the speeding example, I recognize that a sanction provided by rules is not always imposed because of practical concerns. But there is still a difference between rules providing a sanction and not providing a sanction.
[/quote]
Your response is now that this rule has less than 100% applicability.
[/quote]
No. My response is that you mis-stated the rule. As shown above, you are missing the distinction between a rule imposing a sanction and a sanction actually being imposed in every situation.
Like I said above, it would have been very easy to say that a lawyer “shall” aspire to do pro bono work. Individual disciplinary hearings could then look at the facts and determine whether a lawyer did in fact aspire but was prevented from actually accomplishing due to circumstances. But the rules clearly do not say that.
No, I just know how to tell whether a set of rules require a certain action.
I would like to hear your process for determining whether rules require an action. Upthread you responded to this request (shortly and cryptically) by saying that the determination should be made by taking into account the totality of the circumstances. But that’s not a criteria–one should always take that into account. What do you do once you’ve taken that into account–flip a coin?
Can I? CAN I??!!
Still, there’s a sharp contrast between this email (and other emails about pro bono) and emails about CLE. The emails about CLE don’t get all fired up and remind lawyers of their moral and ethical obligation to do CLE or talk about the exciting CLE programs the firm is involved in. They just say “hey, if your last name begins with a letter from a through m, then this is your month to get your shit together.”
Well that proves it. Bricker is a liberal douche.
You know, (and I say this only because I’m quite sure it won’t bother you a bit) I’ve never really liked you. I have no idea why either, just didn’t.
But this has completely changed my mind.
I…I love you man.
Did it have a sentence at the bottom, something like “If you have already done your pro bono work, please disregard this friendly reminder.”