Pro bono bullshit

It better be okay to think you’re a schmuck while being utterly indifferent to how you or your employer or your state or your profession feels about pro bono work, because that’s what I intend to do.

yeah that’s OK

What I find most fascinating is that Rand has now made 194 posts in this thread trying to defend his position. If we assume it takes, on average, two minutes per post to read other posts and respond to them, this represents 388 minutes, or about 6 1/2 hours. So he’s spent about 30% of the time his firm would like him to spend on pro bono work arguing with anonymous people on a message board about why he shouldn’t have to do it. :smiley:

All I was trying to say is that, to me, IMHO, all you’ve said is that you are a selfish, whining schmuck. That simple.

But he’s not helping us, see. It’s helping people for any reason that Randians hate, not wasting time.

actually this isn’t true. But you knew that.

Well, you have a point. Seriously … if someone, even a large number of someones, thinks I really ought to be doing something, but it is not a legal obligation on me to do that something, and I don’t particularly want to do that something, and there is no bad effect to me for not doing that something, I’ll listen to what they have to say, and then make my own decision as to whether or not to do that something – and probably I won’t.

Personally, I think the guidelines suggest strongly that it’s a constituent part of the"good character" qualification for admission to the bar and continuing membership in it, that you do some public interest work, not necessarily unpaid legal advice (“pro bono work” in the common narrow sense). But you’ve made a surprisingly good case that the Illinois bar does not in fact require that, only that you report how much you’ve done if any. (BTW, that “surprisingly” is not a gratuitous insult of your arguing skills, but my surprise that it’s not a mandate but an “aspiration”.)

However, you know the current political climate: populist, anti-government, anti-regulatory. And you have managed to piss off a surprisingly large number of Illinois residents, including at least two members of the Illinois bar.

How much do you want to bet that this very thread is not a minor contributing element to a near-future revision of the state bar rules to prescribe pro bono work, or alternatively, to de-regulate the practice of tax law – so that paralegal who knows the basics of what you do, and some of the tricks of the trade, but does not have a law degree, can set up as a “corporate tax law advisor” and sell his services for a fraction of what your firm charges for your billables?

I “know” nothing of the sort. Randians are ideological sociopaths. Arrogant, amoral and uncaring to the bone, and despising the rest of humanity.

Nope.

Not necessarily true, though I can certainly see how you draw that conclusion. A Randian may choose to act altruistically, out of mercy, pity, or other reason that seems good to him/her. I was the recipient of a very kind gesture from a Randian. The operative word is ‘choose’ – they feel no obligation to the greater society.

Care to take time out from your busy posting schedule, on this board where no one agrees with you and everyone’s laughing at you, and share those “reasons for not wanting to” with us?

And yet they saw reason to send the e-mail as if it did discuss an obligation, and was something actually worth the time to compose. Amazing.

Some kind of lawyers *they *are, huh? Must really chap your ass knowing you’re better than any and all of them, and yet they’re the ones in charge anyway.

You have accomplished something here, at least. You got Bricker to accuse someone else of weaseling. That had heretofore been inconceivable.

  1. I worked hard to develop expertise in an area, and I really enjoy having that expertise–I don’t relish the idea of doing something in a different area (thus being a first-year again essentially).

  2. Many pro bono “opportunities” involve doing clinics and the like on weekends. I don’t want to give up a weekend (or any part of one) for that.

  3. I believe there is a very small chance of danger to me or my family from running across a crazy person.

  4. I typically work with really smart people. I like that. I don’t want to do stuff where I’m almost by definition working with very not-smart people (I like to restrict my access to such people to internet messageboards).

  5. I don’t want to deal with people that will bother me outside of my representation because now they think I’m their personal law-talkin’ guy.

What? The email said the firm has a goal of all lawyers doing pro bono–if lawyers had an actual obligation to do pro bono, the email wouldn’t say that. It would just say “have you done your pro bono for the year?” or the like.

You’re an idiot.

My exchanges with Bricker were the only parts of this worthless thread that were valuable to me (besides just the venting aspect, which is the reason I started it). But I fought lots of ignorance (including yours, in all its bounty), so onward and upward.

5 reasons, 3 of which are versions of “I just don’t fucking feel like it”, 1 of which is “I don’t want to do any more than the minimum even if I did”, and 1 of which is imagined. Wonderful. :rolleyes:

You keep claiming you’ve “won” some sort of discussion here. Who else but you thinks so, either here or in the outside world? Anybody at all you can point to? If not, what would that imply?

I for one am shocked* that you would quibble with my reasons. I was NOT expecting that.

* . . . SHOCKED

Also, several people in this thread have said that a lawyer doesn’t have an actual obligation to perform pro bono. However, that doesn’t really mean anything. The burden is on a person arguing that a lawyer has an actual obligation to demonstrate that–no one in this thread has carried that burden. Would you care to try? The fact that you haven’t tried yet says something about your estimation of your ability to do so (and I think you’re right).

I thought altruism was anathema to Randians.

I think I understand exactly what you are saying and I think its fucking sad that you will try to wordsmith your way out of your responsibilities.

Thats not how your OP reads. Kambuckta brings up the UInited Way analogy in this post http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12893663&postcount=57 A few posts later another poster points out that its nothing at all like the United Way because pro-bono is expected from lawyers as a part of their professional responsibility.

You showed nothing of the sort. You showed (and noone disagreed) that there is no penalty for not fulfilling your pro bono obligation. Several people have shown that you have a responsiblity to perform pro bono, you just won’t take it seriously because it doesn’t come with a penalty.

That moral obligation is an obligation. Not in the sense that a mortgage is an obligation but its an obligation nonetheless.

I don’t think this is the straw that broke the camel’s back for most people.

Yeah, tens of thousands of dollars. I don’t do it because I care about access, I do it because it part of my professional responsibility.

We’re not bitching you out for not doing it or not wanting to do it. We’re bitching you out for whining about being reminded of your responsibility and then splitting hairs between the words obligation and responsibility in an effort to prove that your professional responsibility is in fact not your responsibility at all. This is compounded by your assertions that you have proven that you are right when it is crystal clear to the rest of the world that you are not.

You sound like an associate who is still trying to prove he’s good at something.

You must have the worst pro bono coordinator in biglaw. The most mundane pro bono work I have seen are political asylum cases.

As a tax lawyer, most of what I do is stuff for non-profits, I don’t defend purse snatchers or drug addicts.

Randy, the only thing you’ve proven here is that you cannot understand what a professional responsibility is.

Maybe Daddy can explain it to you if you ask nicely.

And you’re going to get back to us with the list of people who think you’ve “won” this or any similar discussion, or any part of it, right? Must be a long one if it’s taking you so much time.

In Libertopia, they are all the same.