Claver, responding to each of your paragraphs:
Other people have clearly and repeatedly called me a sociopath, so you are wrong.
I don’t know what this paragraph means. I’m not moralizing. When I discuss the value of my services, I mean only the value society puts on them as shown by what they are willing to pay, not “moral value” or any other such nebulous concept.
you seem to be talking about a different concept of value than I am.
Woosh.
In addition to sociopathy, you’re also suffering from tone-deafness.
I charge you nothing for this diagnosis–just consider it to be pro bono work.
Yes, you’ve done exactly that. Here, this was your response to my request for your explanation of the passage that **explicitly stated **that the lack of negative sanctions **should not **be interpreted to mean that there was no responsibility:
So I’ll ask you yet again…
1.) If there had been some negative sanction attached to not completing a minimum number of pro bono hours per year, would you believe that you had a requirement to complete them?
2.) If so, would you not say that this indicates that your only differentiation between what you are or are not obligated to do is what hurts you in a personal and immediate way?
3.) And if so, since the rules themselves clearly stated that the lack of sanctions should not be taken into consideration, shoudln’t you treat them exactly as if there were sanctions for noncompliance?
So now you’re admitting that you have not internalized society’s ideas of right and wrong, but have rather developed your own, and see no need for consistency either externally or internally?
When did *I *ever claim being connected to society’s ideas of right and wrong as an excuse for *my *actions? I currently, for the record, don’t eat meat except fish, drink plenty of booze, and have lots of good sex while having never been married.
Way to duck the question SFG. Why are you afraid of discussing how you determine whether an action is moral or immoral? You have said that I have a moral obligation to do pro bono and the fact that I disagree shows that I haven’t internalized society’s notions of right and wrong.
So how do you, personally, determine whether society has decided whether an action is right or wrong?
I’m not. It’s simply not relevant to this discussion, because the only person calling this a “moral obligation” is you. We’re not saying you should be doing pro bono work because it would make you a good person; we’re saying you should do it because you agreed that it was important to aspire to a minimum amount of it every year when you were licensed to practice law in Illinois.
For the record, I base my ethics off of overal harm and benefits. In this case, besides the professional responsibility you agreed to, I believe you also have an ethical responsibility to provide pro bono work, because (a) doing pro bono work has a measurable benefit to society, which consequently benefits you, and (b) not doing pro bono work has a measurable detriment to society, which also has an indirect negative impact on you, and may have zero detrimental impact in terms of taking away discretionary time.
People are calling you a sociopath because you are willing to damage society in return for minimal personal benefits, if any at all, especially when the eventual repurcussions are factored in.
By what society says about it. However, I don’t think that society is the absolute determiner of what is right and wrong. You are the one who’s trying to convince us that your ethics are based on anything other than your own personal immediate benefit or detriment.
SFG, you continue to make this discussion difficult by flipping back and forth between arguing that (a) I have an actual obligation to d pro bono (because I promised to do so) and (b) I have an obligation to do so imposed by morality or ethics or some cosmic notion of right and wrong.
I’ve already demonstrated that I didn’t promise to do pro bono, so I won’t re-visit that. On the other point, I disagree that forcing me to do pro bono only slightlÝ harms me while benefitting society. I think both sides of that are wrong–the idea that other people have a claim on my labor is very harmful to me (and to other people when applied to them), and I don’t think there’s some large societal benefit to allowing people to expect free services just because they are related to the legal system.
No, I’ve only been claiming a. *You’ve *been claiming that I’ve been claiming b, which I finally addressed. I think that b is also correct, but a is what you deserve to be pitted for. I wouldn’t care as much about a plumber refusing to help fix a poor person’s faucet as I would about you refusing to do pro bono, because the plumber didn’t agree to at least try to schedule some of that work as a condition of being allowed to fix plumbing.
You have to the same extent that I’ve demonstrated that you shove your cock in your toddler’s mouth to shut her up every time she screams because you never feed her.
Yeah, why should everybody have equal access to something we’re all required to submit to? You know what privilege means? Private law. I means that if you can pay for it, you get your own set of the rules. *That’s *what your country looks like, Randy, and it’s fucking disgusting. I hope you lose all your money, spend the rest of your life in poverty, and watch your daughter be crushed by it, just so you can finally comprehend how destructively naive your point of view is.
I can’t believe you keep referring to me having sex with my daughter and no one else has called you on it. It’s a completely ridiculous non sequitur that has no bearing on anything involved with this discussion.
So, all you are arguing is that I promised to do pro bono? That’s it? Well, that argument is easily handled. I very simply promised to obey the rules (that’s it), and the rules don’t require me to do pro bono. You refuse to understand this argument or argue against it–you just keep referring to me having sex with my kid and arguing that I have a moral obligation to do pro bono.
As far as the societal benefits of doing pro bono–you do realize that we are only talking about civil law, right? Everyone gets a free lawyer for criminal proceedings. I think you are simply misunderstanding how civil law generally works. Many of the types of civil law that a poor person runs up against are set up to deal with pro se litigants. It is not the case that people are not allowed to enjoy some legal privilege simply because they didn’t file a particular form in triplicate (or do something that only a lawyer would know how to do). So, having a free lawyer isn’t something that is absolutely necessary so a poor person doesn’t get screwed–it just makes it easier. Which is pretty muc the same situation with lots of other services people perform (eg, plumbers, electricians, architects).
Finally, the most important point on the moral obligation side is that we simply disagree. There’s no basis for saying your opinion is right and mine is wrong. You can’t say that I am acting “immorally” or am somehow doing something wrong in an objective sense. You are just saying ýou don’t like me because I don’t provide free services to people. That’s fine–not everyone has to like everyone else.
Rationalize this however you choose to–it still remains that you have joined a firm and a profession that recognizes pro bono works as an obligation and a responsibility (how humans, not sociopaths, define those terms, please) and, for the sake of your preferences and convenience, you have opted to ignore those obligations and responsibilities you agreed to fulfill by joining your firm and your profession. You could resign from the Illinois state bar and from your firm, and hold your head up high, stating (stupidly but correctly) that you could not stomach those disgusting and onerous conditions of your employment, and on principle have decided to flip burgers for a living. Or you could kill yourself. Or take on other options that might leave a few people respecting you as a principled, if moronic, person. As of now, you have earned a unprecedented degree of contempt from the entire SD community, who normally can’t agree on the weather or the time or if eating breakfast is a good idea. And I say this as a former contender for “The Most Widely Disliked Poster on The SD.” I had a few defenders, even in my most obnoxious postings–as far as I can tell, you have alienated everyone except “Howard Roark,” who is surely a sock, if not of yours then of someone else’s. Does that not suggest to you that maybe you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong?
Funny, just like every post *you’ve *made to this thread.
And nobody’s called me on it because all it does is reflect what a disgusting person *you *are. Contrasted, for example, with you calling Dio’s daughters sluts or whatever it was you were saying people yelled at you for, which reflects on them rather than on him.
Since apparently you’re inacapable of processing a logical rebuttal, I’ll respond with the same level of coherence that you have used so far in arguing your position: twelve calculating since the widdershins applicably posted bills absolute syntax rollercoaster.
I think **prr **handed it pretty well, too, but you’ll just ignore it like everything else that doesn’t fit neatly in with your worldview. Now there’s something you have in common with Dio.
You do not provide services to society, you provide services to your paying clients.
The vast, vast majority of society values your services at precisely zero. That there is a miniscule fraction of society that will pay you says nothing about the value of your services to society as a whole.
Prr, I did not agree to do pro bono. You are very simply wrong about that (in the sense that you are making a factual statement that is factually untrue).
You and SFG (and others) have let your ideas about what you think I should do cloud your thinking about what I have agreed to do.
Syntax Rollercoaster will be the title of my first book of verse.
Given that his services go to a small amount of people who are interested in *avoiding *paying their fair share for the maintenance and improvement of society, I suspect the vast majority would assess his value as a significant negative.
To be honest, I’m failing to see what your intention is with those comments.
Yes, yes, cleave to the letter and not the spirit, despite the bar’s explicit instructions to follow the spirit. You’re what happens when lawyers use their training for evil.
The “letter” says he agreed to aspire to do pro bono. He does not, in fact very vociferously the opposite. That puts him in violation of his oath.
Splitting hairs extremely finely, “should aspire” puts no actual onus on the person. There’s a discussion somewhere back in this thread about should versus shall. But that’s a pretty shitty thing to do. It basically makes him no better than a surly wage worker who does just enough to not get fired but resists anything more.
Then he agreed, formally, at the time, that he should so aspire. He now disagrees that he should so aspire.
Nothing in that sentence from the OP contradicts anything I said.
You don’t like pro bono, become a bus driver. You shitsack.
And, he lacks the courage to actually *tell *the senior partner “Go stuff yer e-mail, I ain’t gotta and I ain’t gonna.” Kinda implies he recognizes the “being employed” consideration as being a real one, don’t it?