You guys are doing a great job of illustrating the failure of the liberal douche ideology. You can’t actually make a reasoned argument showing that I agreed to do pro bono (or to aspire to), so you just keep asserting it over and over. And you also aren’t happy to simply disagree with me about whether it’s a good thing for society to require lawyers to do pro bono.
So, you simply resort to violence. You call me names and say hateful things about me and diagnose me as having psychological problems. That’s what’s always at the end of your philosophy–violence. You aren’t happy to exchange things with others on a free and fair basis, you have to try to take what you think you are entitled to.
And when you realuze thst you can’t take what you want (because nothing you say will get me or any other lawyer to do pro bono if they don’t want to), you lash out like a caged animal. Witness Obama’s demonizing of Boehner and anyone who’s got more than twenty bucks in their checking account.
You don’t see the difference between “something one must do to keep their job” (what you said) and “something the firm encourages everyone to do” (what I said)?
The difference is, I don’t have to lie about what I said to make my point.
And despite your lie in the prior post, we’ve made a simple and reasonable argument that you agreed to do pro bono (or to aspire to): you became a lawyer. Regardless of your self-absorbed delusions about the profession you have entered, there is an institutional expectation that lawyers do pro-bono.
The fact that you refuse to accept this fact doesn’t make us wrong. It’s makes you a delusional self-absorbed moron. Or to be more precise, the fact that you are already a delusional self-absorbed moron is what permits you to believe your distorted and self-serving version of reality.
And your whine that calling you names and insulting you is “resort[ing] to violence” is among the most pathetic bullshit I’ve seen in the last hour. Is this how you argue your cases? It’s a wonder you have a job at all.
Also, you apparently don’t understand what it means to agree to do sometging. Just becoming a member of a profession does not mean a person agrees to do everything that someone may expect a member of that profession to do. There’s a huge disconnect there that you aren’t seeing. I agreed to abide by the rules of professional conduct, and those rules don’t require me to do pro bono, so I didn’t agree to do pro bono. it’s just that simple. Just because you think I should do something doesn’t mean I agreed to do it.
“You can’t actually make a reasoned argument showing that I agreed to do pro bono (or to aspire to), so you just keep asserting it over and over.”
You became a lawyer, right? Welcome to “things that you should have seen coming if you weren’t a fucking idiot!” Care to guess what’s under $100?
Also, I’m not the only guy who thinks you have an obligation to do this. Your employers also think so. Not that you have any work ethic, professional pride, honesty, or the like: but you also apparently don’t have testicles, either. Did you reply to the e-mail with a nice big “FUCK YOU, BOSS!”? No? I guess you agree with me about what’s expected of you then, enough not to speak out about your supposed disagreement.
If you’ll be so kind as to tell us the name and mailing address of the senior partner, RR, who sent you the offensive letter you referenced in the OP, I’m sure many of us would be glad to inform him how grievously he has offended you. Why doesn’t such a brave, noble principled fellow who has done nothing wrong, such as yourself, make his feelings known? We’d be happy to help you out.
I’m sure you guys run straight to your boss to tell him off every time your work does something you don’t like . . .
But thanks for illustrating my point about your ideology being worthless. Keep lashing out, losers. Meanwhile, I’ll keep making the world a better place just to spite you.
I’ve asked the question twice about what he would do if someone senior to him asked him directly to do a particularly pro bono job and he hasn’t answered.
Now that he’s come out with that “Waaahhhhh, do you all go running to your bosses to tell them about everything you don’t like,” I suspect he’s just a big pussy complaining on the internet so he can tweak us for 20+ pages about the difference in meaning between obligation and responsibility, or he’s already doing the pro bono work because he likes having a job or the benefits of promotions and raises that fulfilling the quota will bring him.
No, because we lack your strength of principle, the strength that has kept you at this thread for over a thousand posts. Of course, it could simply be that your principles have no effect, and even go unstated, anywhere else.
Just for kicks, how about you explaining what a hotshot tax attorney does that makes “the world” better, not his client at the expense of the rest of the world.
As a liberal douche I resent that. I agreed on page 1 of this narcissistic train wreck that you didn’t have an obligation to do pro bono, ethical or otherwise. By any standard of liberality or douchery you don’t have an obligation. And that is my liberal douchey complaint: those without money and access to the legal system are screwed by whatever haphazard outcome they wind up with. The legal system has been getting more complex and costly in this country for two and a quarter centuries and the conservative solution is: let’s put an entirely salutary “obligation” in the code of legal ethics and call it a day.
To take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them? Well, we as lawyers should all do something about this. Let’s form a committee and pass a non-binding resolution.
So Randy, how do you feel about all that interest earned by your firm’s general/mixed trust accounts being handed over to pay poor people’s legal bills? Go on, tell us. Let it all out.
This whole thing started off with Rand being reminded about the firm’s goal. I’m disappointed he allowed himself to be tempted to stray from his original point, but ultimately, both he AND his employer see pro bono as voluntary at some level, since otherwise one would think that the initial email would have reminded them not (or at least, not only) of the firm’s goal, but also of all lawyers’ responsibility to do free work. Since they didn’t, I’d read the email as the equivalent of a United Way drive, and agree as far as the initial OP goes, with Rand.