EL, like I said, with every post you just continue to demonstrate your inability to say anything substantive on the topic–you just laugh in the corner shitting yourself like this thread’s own gimp.
Damuri, what if I told you I believe you have a moral obligation to send me $50,000. Would you do it? You said that a moral obligation is a real obligation after all.
I would like to point out that this was posted on a Sunday.
I would like to point out that it was posted by a sociopath.
Prr, please provide your definition of a sociopath and show how I meet that definition. Thanking you in advance.
And yet, correct me if I’m wrong, if there’s a hearing to disbar a lawyer, having completed pro bono work can be evidence in favor of the lawyer, i.e., that they are an ethical practitioner of the law. So, logically, it’s pretty clear that an absence of pro bono work, especially an absence of even an aspiration to such that was otherwise thwarted by circumstance, can potentially be evidence of–or at least a suggestion of, especially in the absence of mitigating circumstances–an unethical lawyer, i.e., one who is not living up to their obligations.
Not a footnote, but this is what they said:
Hrm, isn’t that funny? “The absence [of a pro bono requirement or sanctions for not completing the suggested minimum] **should not be interpreted as limiting the responsibility of lawyers **to render uncompensated service in the public interest.” Look at that. They explicitly cut the fucking legs off the kind of equivocation that you and **Rand **are trying to pull. And neither of you has a good response for that. Rand’s best attempt was “they’re saying the exact opposite of what they mean because they can’t say what they really want to say because it would make them look bad.” :rolleyes:
I think we should all start calling him after different vehicles.
I was born in '83, so no.
No, the **first **villanelle uses *Rand is a fucking tard *and Being human is hard. The **second **one uses *Obligations denied *and We can all see he lied.
:smack:
Yes, and I still haven’t seen him explain why he’d never stiff someone on a tip. After all, it’s just an obligation, not a requirement–and it’s one that costs him money with absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
Wrong. You’re confusing *obligations *with *requirements *again. Those are all the things a lawyer is required to do.
When you go out to eat, you are *required *to pay the bill, but you are *obligated *to leave a tip. Walking out without paying the former is theft but without paying the latter just makes you an asshole.
I realize you have a tiny penis and trying to fuck your wife is like tossing a hotdog down a hallway, but that doesn’t mean you can keep shoving it in your daughter’s mouth like that. You are one sick, disgusting pervert.
You have no *requirement *to provide pro bono work or the equivalent. You do, however, have an *obligation *or a *responsibility *to do so, and you promised to *aspire to *such work when you became a lawyer.
You do not have a requirement to do anything other than feed your daughter the bare minimum of her caloric requirements in the least palatable way possible, keeping her confined to her room with the exception of any periods she’s allowed outside for exercise, with minimal exposure to any friends or forms of recreation, including any games, books, television programs, etc, while clothing her in exactly the right amount of colorless, shapeless fabric to provide modesty and shelter from the elements. However, I have no doubt that you feel that you have an *obligation *or a *responsibility *to do so.
A sociopath is someone who’s figured out that the rules of society only apply so far as we choose to submit to them, and has decided that the best way to act is so that they gain maximum benefit for themselves, regardless of the expense to anyone else. It has been clearly articulated in writing, and you have agreed when you joined your profession, that you have an obligation to at least attempt to provide a certain amount of service to the community every year to help ensure that our justice system continues to function. This responsibility is one you have incurred in exchange for the power and knowledge that you have been granted. However, because you cannot see beyond your own immediate personal benefit, you have decided that the promise you made doesn’t matter, and you can simply do as you please.
SFG, we’ve been over this and over this. You are still not seeing the difference between an actual obligation that actually exists in the real world and a moral/ethical obligation.
I promised to abide by the rules. The rules don’t require me to do pro bono. I didn’t make any separate promise to do pro bono. Therefore, I have no actual obligation to do pro bono. You can believe that I have a moral/ethical obligation to perform pro bono if you want to believe that (and you apparently do), but your belief imposes no actual obligation on me.
SFG, I think the US. Would be better off if the health care reform bill were repealed. Therefore, I think you hae a moral/ethical obligation to work for its repeal. If you don’t, then obviously you are a sociopath befause you are not living up to your moral/ethical obligations to society.
How is the above any different than what you’ve been saying about me and pro bono?
Also, the above is for illustration purposes only–I don’t think in terms of whether other people have moral/ethical obligations.
It’s already been stated, you sorry excuse for a broken record. You aren’t a person of authority in that particular context. The bar association is in the context of whether or not you’re obliged to perform pro bono services.
Bosstone–agreed that the bar association is the authority here. It could have easily imposed on every lawyer an actual obligation to do pro bono (eg, by having a rule stating that “a lawyer shall do pro bono”), but it chose not to.
And that circles back to Bricker’s argument, so I don’t see any need for restatement. You’re just going to keep running from one flimsy tack to another and back again as long as you can.
Well, I addressed Bricker’s argument directly. He hasn’t come back to discuss it any further.
Pretty sure a set of obligations that are concretely spelled out that you agreed to when you became licensed to practice law in your state are the closest thing we have to “an actual obligation that actually exists in the real world.” I doubt you’ve agreed to anything that you can cite that mentions tipping, for example.
I notice you’ve still failed to reply to either the tipping question or caring for your daughter question.
Chose not to, and explicitly stated that the lack of a stick to beat you with was not in any way, shape, or form an indication of a lack of a responsibility, you retarded fucking dickgarage. They can’t get much clearer than that, short of adding a footnote that says, “Rand Rover, this means you, imbecile.”
If I was subject to professional rules of conduct that said that I “should” send you $50,000, then yeah, I’d send you that check, I’ve sent at least that much to legal aid over the years.
We’re nto saying you have a professional responsibility just because we say so, we are saying you have a professional responsibility because that is what the rules say.
And if I didn’t send that check because there is no legal requirement (punishable by some sort of sanction) it wouldn’t mean that the responsibility never existed.
Well its more evidence of moral character than ethical lawyering. You are probably in trouble because you were unethical in some way. The most common seems to be comingling your money with your client’s money, even if you didn’t actually steal any of that money you get in trouble because you didn’t maintain separate accounts. But if you also did a lot fo pro bono work, it mitigates your ethical oversight. On the other hand, if you actually stole money from widows and orphans (happens more frequently than you think), you could be in charge of the innocence project and you’d lose your license.
My mind may be stuck in the gutter but I’m not the one that made innuendo acceptable in this thread.
For the same reason he bitches on an anonymous board instead of complaining to his managing partner. All hat, no cow.
This post was also conveniently ignored.
RR, you haven’t made a promise to do pro bono, you nevertheless have a professional responsibility. Most lawyers don’t do a damn thing about that responsibility but they generally seem to understand that they have that responsibility, which is why the bars that accept monetary donations to legal aid in satisfaction of the pro bono requirement get a lot of participation from lawyers who would NEVER give up a weekend to do pro bono. Donations that i am almost positive these lawyers would not make if the bar association didn’t explicitly say that the donation satisfied their pro bono obligations.
So yeah, if you choose not to fulfill that responsibility, there is nothing anyone can do (and I doubt any amount of criticism on this site is going to trigger soulsearching on your part) but at least recognize taht the overwhelming majority of lawyers recognize the responsibility exists, its not some off the wall theory being posed by crazy liberals who think lawyers should work for free.
I’m going to try to work this word into conversation sometime this week.
And do you think that would do it if they didn’t say “and you lose your license if you don’t do pro bono”
RR seems to have created a connection between obligations and penalties that defies logic but.
I’ll in *your *endo, mister.
I have absolutely no idea what that means, but I’m sure it’s delightful.
Fake cowboy bullshit, maybe?
You may also wish to take *douchebarge *for a spin. Or, as they say in France, douchebargé.
I even quoted him the dictionary definition that absolutely nowhere requires there to be a concrete penalty for noncompliance.
You should never leave the house. I’m serious about this. Prolly your employers would be glad to make the necessary arrangements.
Meanwhile, je suis rès désolé that one of America’s greatest writers, one who will be a classic author in a 100 years, the late, great George V. Higgins, never got to study Rand Rover in the wild.
D and sfg–the penalty connection is that an action is not a requirement of a set of rules unless there is some consequence to not doing te action. And the lack of ability to use pro bono as evidence of goos character is worthless as a consequence–it’s a benefit for doing it not a punishment for not doing it. It’s ridiculous to read a set of rules as requiring all actionsthat could provide one with a benefit.
Also, the tipping analogy is a complete non sequitur. I have no actual obligation to tip, but I do it anyway, not because I think I have some moral/ethical obligation to do so, but simply because I think it’s the right thing to do.