I have seen MANY threads where people complain about being forced(Heavily encouraged) by employesr to donate to United Way. These OP’s always get much traction. WHy is this different? Is it just because it is Rand Rover?
I agree that charity is laudible, and it would be nice if Rand did the pro bono hours, but I don’t get where it’s an obligation and castigation for not doing it is unwarranted imo.
Each pro bono project has to be approved by the worthies, so this wouldn’t work here.
Yep. I could pit shit for stinking and the usual suspects would give me grief about it.
Maybe your firm has already taken the tax deduction for their charitable work and are worried that someone will notice that the work wasn’t actually done? Just a guess.
I can sort of sympathize with the rant about having to do extra work to fill someone else’s quota of good deeds. In our office (I am not a lawyer) they say: “it’s not mandatory but we are looking for 100% participation this year.” Stand up and say no - then your pro bono work can be fighting your own firm on behalf of other downtrodden lawyers.
That’s what I was thinking until he went into his “Helping people is for losers” shtick. I like helping people. I hate my company ramming charity down my throat. I will do charitable work, but I will not log my “volunteer hours,” and no matter how much you strong-arm me, or how many goddamn e-mails you send me everyday, or how many flyers you put in my snail mail box, I’m not partaking in this campaign. Jesus Christ.
MOL, where did I say that helping people is for losers?
Right here. I paraphrased a little, but I believe I got the gist of it.
Wow. What an … interesting … response. Well done, Rand Rover - you sure put Spectre of Pithecanthropus in his place.
You’re right, of course - the ABA is a voluntary association. But the state bars aren’t - and do you know what? Almost all of them have a pro bono service requirement. For example, I’m a Maryland lawyer:
Note that this is very, very close to the language of the ABA model rule, here: http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_6_1.html . Which isn’t surprising, because almost every state has adopted similar or identical language in its own ethics rules, and those that haven’t have still adopted some sort of pro bono requirement. See: http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/probono/stateethicsrules.html
Now, you may point out that pro bono service isn’t a mandatory requirement - no one will punish me if I don’t meet the pro bono goals the Maryland bar has laid out. But, you know what? Because I’m an adult, “you can’t make me!” isn’t a sufficient reason for me to refrain from performing my duty. And it is my duty - when I was sworn in at the Maryland Court of Appeals, I promised to abide by all the Maryland Rules of Professional Responsibility. Not just the ones I couldn’t get away with violating, but every last one of them. And you know what? When you were sworn in to your jurisdiction, you made that very same promise.
Now, the fact the rule is aspirational does mean something - if you simply can’t perform fifty hours of service (and note that most states do specify fifty hours), then so be it. I probably won’t make fifty hours this year myself. But to refuse to try - to object when someone asks you to try - that’s damn low, man.
We’re lawyers, Rand Rover. Officers of the court, with a duty to advance the cause of justice even for those who can’t afford our services. This idea is ancient - lawyers in Republican Rome were theoretically required to perform all of their work pro bono (though in reality, they normally wrangled some form of compensation, often quite generous). Your state gave you an immense honor when it licensed you to practice law - to complain that your firm is now asking you to do some fraction of what the state asks in return is churlish, petty and wrong.
It’s rather unlikely that Rand Rover is an according-to-Hoyle sociopath, but in this thread he does demonstrate a fairly profound inability to wrap his head around the concept of morality, breaking it into two categories: (1) Things that could potentially have bad consequences for me, and (2) Things that are bullshit and can safely be ignored.
A lawyer also may discharge the professional responsibility set forth in this Rule by contributing financial support to organizations that provide legal services to persons of limited means.
It may be that Rand Rover intends to comply with that promise via the means I italicize above.
If he does that, I assume you’ll agree he’s complied with the promise he made?
I love doing pro bono work. It tends to be very satisfying stuff and the clients tend to be way more grateful. It’s also great experience for me as I get to do things I wouldn’t get a chance to do for a paying client - for example it looks possible I will get to do oral arguments in front of the Seventh Circuit (I’m hoping Posner is on the panel as he is pretty much our only chance of a win).
As VarlosZ points out, Rand Rover seems unwilling to do that. But sure, I’d agree that this would be an adequate way to comply with his ethical obligation, if his state rule has that provision. Maryland does, but the ABA rule says that we should both make financial contributions and perform pro bono service. I suspect most states follow the Maryland model, but I don’t know for certain.
In the case of Maryland, I still think that actually performing pro bono service oneself is the better way to do it, and more in keeping with the spirit of the rule - but I admit that’s no more than a personal preference.
I knew it, I Knew it, I** KNEW** it. People this is just Randy trolling to get MOL into his thread.
He likes staring at her fonts!
To be fair, I did not read that as “helping people is for losers” so much as that the pro bono work would be helping losers. Which is still painting things with a broad brush.
Just a little. I’m not sure which of my pro bono clients would count as the biggest loser to idiot boy. The holocaust survivors applying for pensions from the German government? The convert from Islam to Christianity seeking asylum in the United States? The grandmother seeking to formalize the custody of the grandchildren she takes care of in place of their crack addict mother?
Let’s both be right! I read it as him explicitly saying the people who would take pro bono work are losers, excuse me – miscreants, and so helping said miscreants would be a waste of time. That says to me that you’re a time-wasting person, or “loser” as I call it, if you bother with pro bono work.
So, Rand are you saying you work at the type of shithole law firm that doesn’t let you charge a certain amount of pro bono work to billable hours?
Most large firms require so many “billable hours” of client work. That’s not hours in the office, it’s hours you can bill a client for. All the large white-shoe firms I am aware of allow you to charge a certain number of pro bono hours (WAY more than 20) to your billables – this means you are NOT volunteering, you are in fact being paid in full in full for your time, because hours of your “regular” work are actually excused.
The equivalent is not demanding that you volunteer with United Way. The equivalent is being paid your regular salary if you choose to spend your working hours volunteering for the United Way or any other charity of your choosing, instead of working.
Reed Smith - 3% of billable hours may be charged to pro bono matters
Skadden Arps - 3% of billable hours may be charged to pro bono matters
Cravath Swain Moore - Pro bono hours are fully billable, without any limit on approved projects (meaning, you could do solely pro bono work for a year and still receive your entire pay, in the right circumstances)
I can see where it’s annoying to work full time for a company and then the company jerks you into taking extra time on some random weekend to do team building exercises and crap like that when you’re in the middle of doing other things and the demand interrupts what you’d otherwise be doing.
This case seems different in that the firm is essentially saying they are going to pay you $x for y billable hours per year, but 20 of those billable hours won’t be billed out because it’s pro bono work. You have plenty of notice and plenty of time to work those pro bono hours in as part of your overall annual billable target.
ETA: Kinda what Hello Again said.
Nope. I didn’t say helping people is for losers. I said I didn’t want to put myself in a position of being a lawyer for the typical pro bono client. I’ve heard lots of stories of pro bono clients now considering a lawyer to be THEIR lawyer for all matters. And I wouldn’t want to expose my family to any risk if they don’t believe I did a good job and want to retaliate.