You mean its actually harder, more difficult to be a total asshole? Then why the hell…? Oh, never mind. That’s too many for me, I fold.
No, dickface. I asked for the rules. you, in your glorious wisdom, provided outdated ones.
lets stop for a minute.
[applause]
The preamble/comments/etc. are not rules. They are not binding on fuck all. Whether you call them preambles, comments, introductions, etc. THEY ARE NOT RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
yes, I did not say “comments and preamble” when i said “only in the comments” bra.fucking.vo. you got me.
Ah, excellent. It’s all just a misunderstanding, then!
And the first few entries in the doubtlessly lengthy list of non-pro-bono “services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available” performed by Rand Rover would be… ?
Not an exhaustive list, mind you. Just the highlights, the ones you’re especially proud of.
who says the services he renders to his paying clients isn’t in the public service?
It’s an aspirational, get-off-our-backs protectionist mean-nothing phrase that imparts absolutely no ethical obligation to do anything for free.
I was thinking the same thing…
Yes I did. See, I can admit a mistake. However, there is no substantive difference between that section of the prior rules and the current rules. NONE. Nada. Zip.
Now, when are you going to admit you were totally, completely, utterly, irreversibly wrong in saying pro bono was only mentioned in the comments?
Comments and preamble are two totally different things. Try it. Admit you fucked up. You might find it liberating.
And try not to be a lying sack of shit and claim you meant “comments and preamble.” Lawyers know the difference between the two, and it is pretty significant.
And without any comment on whether they are rules or not, it is pretty damn clear from it that the Supreme Court of Illinois feels 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.”
But I guess Rumor_Rover is a better source on the responsibilities of Illinois lawyers than the state Supreme Court.
Not long ago, I heard of someone who attempted to convince a judge that his hours spent at football practice should count as “community service.”
IIRC, the judge found it about as convincing as I find your proposition.
I agree. It is also extremely clear that they didn’t want to impose an actual obligation on lawyers to do (or aspire to do) pro bono. Do you agree?
No. They did not impose a direct penalty on those who choose not to do pro bono work, becuase it is “not possible to articulate an appropriate disciplinary standard regarding pro bono and public service.”
Now, you don’t thinky ou can have an obligation to do something unless you will be punished for not doing it. I’d disagree, but we won’t get any further than that. I am glad we are in agreement that you have an ethical responsibility to do work in the public interest.
The fact that you were debating the specifics of the issue made me think you did. A moral skeptic would have no cause to argue that he has no moral obligation in a specific instance, since he believes that the entire notion of a moral obligation is vacuous.
Bith: that’s exactly why I haven’t argued at all in this thread about whether I have a moral obligation to do pro bono. I’ve specifically disclaimed any discussion of that several times, for the exact reason you mentioned–it’s a completely meaningless thing to discuss. Other posters seem to think I have an actual real-world obligation to do pro bono (or aspire to)–that’s what I’ve been arguing against.
I won’t argue whether or not Rand has to do pro bono.
I’ll just remain confident in my assessment that he is a schmuck.
But didn’t that jackass just show that you incorrect (and being kind of a prick about it (and continued to be a prick about it after being shown you were incorrect)) when you said in post 911
Yes he did. He totally fucking got you, BUT since you CAPITALIZED AND UNDERLINE STUFF then you win.
from my own experiences the words ‘lawyer’ and ‘ethical’ are usually…usually…mutually exclusive. What I really dont get is…why is anyone whining about being expected to do 20 hours of what essentially boils down to being community service per year? That is one week at a part time job per year. Seriously, we all learned waaaaaay back in preschool and kindergarten the importance of sharing. Its a basic part of the mortar that hold society together, or at least that is what most anthropologists say.
Well, most folks know that patience and generostiy are virtues, while intelligence and individuality are only characteristics. Some people get all mixed up about that, and there isn’t much can be done. You open the refigerator door, and the little light goes on, or it doesn’t. All we are is ducks breaking wind, and our farts echo no more than our quacks.
See, its not all just jokes with me, sometimes I’m really fuckn’ deep.
you are so getting quoted on that IRL.
[Kansas]Same old song,
Just a drop of avarice in an endless sea,
All RR says,
Crumbles to the ground, though he refuses to see,
Ducks breaking wind,
All we are is ducks breaking wind.[/Kansas]
Gives stand up applause for Muffin
I think lots of people still have no clue what I’ve been saying in this thread. The initial thing that pissed me off about that email* was the passive-aggressive United Way BS coercion about it–everyone has a frowny face until they get a happy face. Then, after starting this thread, several posters argued that I have an actual obligation as a lawyer to perform pro bono, and/or that I promised to perform pro bono by becoming a lawyer, both of which I showed to be completely false.
If you believe that a lawyer has a moral obligation or an ethical obligation to do pro bono (i.e., not an actual obligation in the real world, just some “obligation” imposed by some cosmic sense of right and wrong), then that is totally fine. I’m not arguing with you. I’m fine with you believing that.
I just don’t happen to share that belief. And that belief of yours imposes no actual obligation on me. I am perfectly free to do pro bono or not do pro bono. As it turns out, I have several reasons for not wanting to do it, so I don’t do it.
You are perfectly free to think I’m a bad person for not doing pro bono or wanting to do pro bono. However, for those of you that are so jazzed on everyone having “access”** to the justice system and that have gotten on my ass in this thread for not doing pro bono, have you given a single dollar to a legal aid organization? Or is bitching out a lawyer who told you he doesn’t do pro bono the sum total of your contributions to increasing access to the justice system?
*BTW, I looked back at it, and it says that the firm has a goal of having every lawyer do 20 hours of pro bono. So, I was right in the OP and wrong in that other post (where I said the firm’s goal was only to have a certain percentage of lawyers do pro bono). Sill, the email itself illustrates that my firm recognizes that pro bono is not an actual obligation like getting enough continuing legal education hours.
**So sad how liberal douches have perverted a perfectly good word. See also “sustainable.”