Pro bono bullshit

Since he is getting paid by his firm for his pro bono work, that can’t be it. The only remaining reason is he objects to poor people getting legal services for free.

I remember that quote from college in the 80’s, I don’t think Krugman came up with it.

Lets not forget that Atlas Shrugged also has a heroine, which is why you see so many pseudo-intellectual college chicks treat the book like a bible.

Read the introduction. Not the comments. It’s been cited to multiple times, as you would know if you had read the thread.

If he is a partner like he says (I really doubt it but anything is possible I guess), then his compensation might be affected by how much money is collected on his billables. Even if its not, pro-bono takes away some time that could be spent adding more “real” billables to the partnership (of which he gets a piece).

Lousy, of course. That’s why it was only kinda special.

I have. It’s not in there, either.

I have a grand idea. Since you claim that it’s in there, and for me to weed through 19 pages would be slightly inefficient, why don’t you point me to your “cite”

[Timely, affordable counsel is essential if disputes are to be avoided and, when necessary, resolved. Basic rights have little meaning without access to the judicial system which vindicates them. Effective access to that system often requires the assistance of counsel.

It is the responsibility of those licensed as officers of the court to use their training, experience and skills to provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available. It is the responsibility of those who manage law firms to create an environment that is hospitable to the rendering of a reasonable amount of uncompensated service by lawyers practicing in that firm.

Service in the public interest may take many forms. These include but are not limited to pro bono representation of persons unable to pay for legal services and assistance in the organized bar’s efforts at law reform. An individual lawyer’s efforts in these areas is evidence of the lawyer’s good character and fitness to practice law, and the efforts of the bar as a whole are essential to the bar’s maintenance of professionalism.

The absence from the proposed new rules of ABA Model Rule 6.1 regarding pro bono and public service therefore should not be interpreted as limiting the responsibility of attorneys to render uncompensated service in the public interest. Rather, the rationale for the absence of ABA Model Rule 6.1 is that this concept is not appropriate for a disciplinary code, because an appropriate disciplinary standard regarding pro bono and public service is difficult, if not impossible, to articulate. That ABA Model Rule 6.1 itself uses the word "should’’ instead of "shall’’ in describing this duty reflects the uncertainty of the ABA on this issue.](http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/il/code/IL_CODE.HTM#Preamble)

Note that it says it is the responsibility of officers of the court to do work for which “compensation may not be available.” Now there are other ways of doing this than pro bono representation, as it says, and I will admit that I have been overusing the term “pro bono” to include all non-compensated work including thins like “assistance in the … efforts at law reform.” But I don’t think that changes it in a major sense. If Rand Rover is cheerfully volunteering at those, I will withdraw. But I am pretty certain he isn’t, and the tone of the conversation was, to me at least, including such things under the general pro bono banner.

I am a little confused here, and second guessing myself. Are these not the actual Illinois Rules? If Cornell has been playing a prank on me (or if I have simply missed something blazingly obvious in the link showing me it isn’t the rules) then I will be less than happy…

Old rules, chuckles. They were amended effective Jan 1, 2010

Next time, try primary source documents, mmkay?

So OK - looking for the 2010 rules.

These them?

Which include the following…

Are those not the current rules? I pulled them from the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois web site. I assume that would be a good source. But if I am mistaken, can you please point me to the rules as in force that don’t include this preamble?

where in there do you see an obligation for pro bono representation?

Well let’s first determine if those are the correct rules we should be looking at.

Don’t you think that is a good place to start?

Looks like Rand’s tag-team partner has arrived…

Villa, I think those are the right rules. The problem is you aren’t reading them correctly.

The actual text of the rules say “a lawyer shall” a great many times. Therefore, those are all things that a lawyer is actually obligated to do by the rules.

The preamble (ie, not the actual rules) then says that “it is the responsibility” of a lawyer to do pro bono. Therefore, the rules don’t impose an actual obligation on a lawyer to do pro bono (ie, by saying “a lawyer shal do pro bono”). The rules also do not impose an actual bligation to aspire to do pro bono (ie, by saying "a lawyer shall aspire to do pro bono). The only mention of pro bono in the rules is the preamble’s recitation of the responsiblity of lawyers to do pro bono.

I disagree that I have any such responsibility. There is no source for an actual obligation for me to do pro bono, and I choose not to, so in fact I don’t have any actual responsibility to do so. The language in the preamble is just supposed to encourage lawyers to do pro bono–it doesn’t require them to do so.

We’ve gone back and forth on that around 470 times. We aren’t reaching an agreement.

At the moment, I’d like Rumor-Watkins’ opinion on whether those are the correct rules to examine.

RR, how many hours do you think you’ve spent on this one thread, reading the posts, composing responses, etc? (Do you think - at almost a thousand posts into the thread - that it might come out to almost the same amount of hours as the pro bono requirement in the first place?)

Yes, jackass. They are the correct ones, as you very well know.

Stop trying to cover up your piss poor excuse for legal research and analysis with some trite, sophomoric “i’m not going to proceed unless i’m told that this is exactly what we’re debating”

It actually doesn’t even impart a responsibility to do pro bono… it says that you are responsible to “provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available”, “[including] but are not limited to pro bono representation of persons unable to pay for legal services”

My piss poor legal research???

You were the one who said repeatedly the the words pro bono were only in the comments.

Do you still stand by that assertion?

You told me to use primary source documents. Please show me the primary source document you used that didn’t include them.

You were an insulting jackass about it. Now, were I more mature, I would walk away, leaving it clear to everyone what a fucking idiot you made of yourself there. But I really am not that mature. So lick my sweaty ballsack, you cum stain.
How unbelievably embarrassing to get all high and mighty and arrogant about someone using the old rules, still maintaining the new rules contained no such mention of pro bono, only to be proved utterly, completely, and totally wrong. I believe the kids today would call that an Epic Fail.

Next time, before you shoot your mouth off in such an arrogant way, try to make sure you have read the document you are claiming you know so well. Otherwise you might end up with egg on your face.

Exactly what I said when you were jerking off thinking you had gotten one over me.

Try to keep up, chuckles.