Wow… his firm earns more money than he does personally? By exploiting *his *hard labor and expertise?
No wonder he’s pissed. All apologies, RR— I had no idea.
The GB poll “Should lawyers do pro-bono work?” has settled down at:
50 % Yes – but because it’s a nice thing to do. They shouldn’t be obligated.
13.89 % Yes-there should be laws or strong social customs that force lawyers to do so.
2.78 % No: Working for free is for serfs
33.33 % No: If society wants low cost or free lawyering, it should be paid for by the taxpayers
There has been a nice RR free discussion of the issue there.
I voted for “No: If society wants low cost or free lawyering, it should be paid for by the taxpayers”, because “Pro bono is a drop in the bucket when it comes to meeting society’s needs. Pro bono makes individual lawyers look good, makes firms look good, and makes the profession look good, but it barely makes a dent in society’s need for low cost or free lawyering.”
For example, in my province, and in many other jurisdictions in Canada and the USA (including Illinois where RR lives), the interest earned by all the lawyer’s general / mixed trust accounts (e.g. the interest on the money you hand over as a retainer deposit when you hire a lawyer, or the money that you hand over to a lawyer when you purchase a house from someone, or the money that a mortgage company hands over to a lawyer when a mortgage is being to you) is taken from the lawyers and put toward the grants that make it easier for poor people to pay for lawyers.
In my province, over 15% of our province’s legal aid budget comes from such funds. It averages out to a couple of grand per lawyer per year, though of course in reality some lawyers do not have sizable general/mixed trust accounts while others do. When you think about it, the corporate and commercial bar, and the real estate bar, do the heavy lifting in funding legal aid, while the criminal bar and the family law bar do the heavy lifting in representing very poor people for free or for extremely low legal aid rates. (How low? I know a lawyer who in her first year of call was paid $12,000 per year to handle legal aid funded files. How low? I don’t even bother to bill out most of my legal aid files – I usually just do them as pro bono. How low? Last year the senior criminal lawyers said, “Fuck it, we’re not taking on new big cases for a while.”)
Despite Ontario lawyers kicking in over 56 million dollars per year into legal aid on top of the pro bono work and legal aid work they do, Legal Aid Ontario is in a funding crisis, in which even the very poorest of the poor can not always get representation because the rates paid by legal aid to the lawyers taking on the cases is so low that the legal aid organization is having a terrible time getting enough lawyers to take on legal aid funded clients. In fact, the head of the legal aid organization is meeting with a group of us today, and you can be certain that he will be pitching the need for more lawyers to take on more legal aid cases.
More lawyers taking on more pro bono or legal aid funded cases will not make a dent in the problem. Yes, on a personal basis, a difference will be made in the lives of each additional person assisted for free, however, systemically it will not make any significant difference. The volume of unrepresented poor people is so high that a bit more charity work would be next to meaningless: a band-aid on a burst artery.
As a society, we need to decide what level of access to justice is appropriate, and then put in mechanisms that make it possible. That means continuing to work on making the laws and the judicial process more accessible for poor people, putting alternatives to judicial intervention in place, and most importantly, addressing the underlying causes of poverty in the first place. If society is not willing to do this, then society should not expect lawyers to do this for free on its behalf.
Do I do pro bono work? Yes, about a new car’s worth per year. I think lawyers as a profession have a responsibility to use their skills to help society, including poor people, and as you can tell from this thread, I have no patience at all for people who do not try to give something back to society in one way or another. If you want to wear the gown, you should be willing to step up to the plate and accept the responsibility that comes with it. Pro bono or legal aid work is one of the ways an individual lawyer can meet this responsibility. That being said, I don’t think that pro bono work should be rammed down a lawyer’s throat, for at that point, society would be shovelling off its responsibility to provide access to justice onto the backs of lawyers, rather than lawyers doing their best to help society meet society’s goal of ensuring that there is access to justice for all. Yes, by keeping pro bono service, there will be lawyers who shirk their responsibility, but as you can see from this thread, those shirkers and are put under pressure from their piers to start acting more professionally and start meeting their professional responsibilities
For folks who are not lawyers, ask yourself if society, through your taxes, should pay for the defence of very poor people accused of having committed serious crimes, or should pay for the representation of very poor people fighting child protection services, or should pay for the representation of very poor people fighting over custody and support? If you think that society should not have to pay for such legal services, then I suggest that it would not be reasonable to expect lawyers to provide such services for free. If you do think that society should have to pay for such legal services, then again, I suggest that it would not be reasonable to expect lawyers to provide such services for free. The bottom line is that I believe that society should decide what level of legal services should be provided so as to ensure access to justice for all, and once society makes that decision, it is then society’s responsibility to cover the costs resulting from that decision.
And with that, it’s time to get my lazy ass out of bed, head into town, and see what the head of Legal Aid Ontario has to say. The last time I wrote him, it was about its on-line billing system not working (a bit of an oops). Last week, I received an email a few dozen times over (another bit of an oops) saying that lawyers who have not been paid on time but who are strapped for cash can send in a letter asking to be paid in a couple of months (ne shitteth vous pas). If it isn’t one thing, it’s another, which in part is why so many of us chose to help in ways other than taking on legal aid files. This morning, he is going to try to convince the lawyers in my town to take on more legal aid files. The lad has pluck, I’ll give him that. I wouldn’t want his job, for he is faced with a Herculean task that he must meet with his hands tied behind his back. His outfit needs a lot more funds – many tens of millions more – from the government to make things work, but that will not happen any time soon. A few years ago, I spoke with the now Attorney General about legal aid funding (he used to be a criminal defence lawyer), and I can’t imagine anyone more supportive of legal aid funding, but the government’s cupboard is bare. Here in Ontario, it’s time for society – that’s me, the person next door, the business down the street, all of us – to collectively, through our government, decide what needs to be done to ensure reasonable access to justice, and then put the legislation, the systems and procedures, and the funding in place, rather than expect one group of professionals to take care of the problem for free.
That’s correct, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. People pay over a million dollars a year for my services. I don’t receive all of that personally.
By your interpretation of the rules to say the exact opposite of what they literally say, you didn’t agree to do pro bono. By almost every other person’s interpretation, including all the lawyers here (except possibly the one who thinks that pro bono is a terrible fix for a broken system), you did agree to take on an obligation to do pro bono when you became a lawyer and licensed to practice in Illinois.
The point is I only do it when Rand lies and says that one of us is saying he is *required *to do pro bono, which he isn’t, and which we aren’t saying.
What’s hilarious is that you’re actually looking into a mirror and mistaking yourself for us. This is so perfect a description of what you’ve been doing this entire thread–simply asserting your personal lie again and again–that I’m surprised no one else has put it this way yet.
Out of curiosity, what would you say about a pharmacist who refused to dispense a legal, prescribed medication? Such as, e.g., oral contraceptives?
All *I’ve *seen is lawyers who agree with me–that you have not a *requirement *to do pro bono but an *obligation *to do so. I think the main problem here is that you keep clinging to your own personal definition of “obligation,” which directly contradicts every other definition, making it synonymous with requirement, which it’s not.
That’s simple theft! Why do you allow that to happen?
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
I’m referring to the parasitic oppressors, called “senior partners” and such, who filcheth that sweat. A true Randian would never permit that.
I know. I was referencing *Bioshock *in a (mocking) support of the idea.
The United Way analogies are kind of making me laugh. If I was given a job offer by a company who had made it very clear before I accepted that United Way was a big deal in the office and they considered that every employee had an obligation to contribute, no matter how much I disagreed with UW I’d hardly be in a position to gripe about it after I accepted the job, whether or not I chose to contribute.
Not to mention that you have a lot more choice where your donation of time to pro bono work goes, versus where your donation of money to United Way gets used. Plus, there’s approximately zero loss to administrative overhead.
I think the word I used was obligation not requirement. You have a responsibility to perform pro bono, its as clear as day. Noone sends you to jail for failing to fulfil your responsibility, there is no professional censure for this failure but it is a responsibility nonetheless.
Are you saying that tehre is no expectation that you perform pro bono work? This seems contrary to the code of ethics. You can choose not to do it (and its so common it doesn’t even make you a prick) but whining about being reminded about it makes you a bit whiny.
people aren’t saying you have that responsibility because tehy FEEL you have that responsibility, they are saying that you have a responsibility because, well its part of your professional responsibility.
Yup. Through the entire thread, **RR **has been considering requirement = responsibility = obligation, which is just plain fucking wrong by any accepted definition of the words that he didn’t fucking make up to suit himself.
I don’t know what the swearing in ceremony is like in Illinois but in NY and DC, you swear an oath to comply with the rules including the ethical rules. I think they use the word “should” in NY so its aspirational but I believe every jurisdiction includes a pro bono “requirement” in their ethical rules. So while you have not sworn to actually perform pro bono, you have obligated yourself to perform pro bono to a greater extent than you have obligated yourself to pay a tip.
You act as if people are making up the pro bono responsibility out of whole cloth.
Why does there have to be another profession that is professionally obligated to perform free work?
I thought all the “professions” Doctor, Lawyer, Clergy traditionally performed services for free from time to time. So a Doctor might treat a sick patient that he knows can’'t afford his services, a Priest might perform a funeral for someone taht can’t afford the fee (is there a fee for performing a funeral?) anda lawyer might defend a black man accused of rape in Maycomb, Alabama.
In actuality, most doctors don’t work for free and neither do lawyers but they usually don’t take offense at the notion that there is a professional responsibility to do so. Something that we all intend to get around to some day but never actually seem to be able to get around to.
I didn’t think doctors were required (in the Rand Rover sense) to take Medicare. I thought it was an exchange. Medicare offers a certain amount and you are free to take it or leave it.
I think you missed the health care debate because Obamacare is not similar to medicare. A lot of liberals wishes that it were but its not.
The bar association doesn’t THINK you have a moral obligation to do anything. They SAY you have a professional responsibility to perform pro bono work.
Dude, you’re a corporate tax lawyer at a large law firm. How much “societal benefit” do you think you’re providing? The size of your paycheck (or more appropriately your client’s bill) does not necessarily correspond to your contribution to society.
Thats not to say you can’t provide value to society. But your value to society is not really well measured by how much your client’s pay you to reduce their tax bill. The two simply don’t go hand in hand.
Ah, but in the Objectiverse, they’re one and the same, don’t you see? :rolleyes: