What is the purpose of the preamble? And how do you know?
Its that part of a walk that precedes the amble, which may or may not proceed to strolling.
That RR is a drone was established early on in the thread – in a world of finders, minders and grinders, he’s a grinder, dependant on his firm to provide him with work, under the thumbs of those who run the firm, and scared of the boogey man and cooties that comes with expanding his legal practice to include a modicum of prop bono.
In statutory intrepretation, preambles are used to set out how a statute should or should not be intrepreted.
When I asked him if he’d talked to his boss about his reasoning for not doing pro bono, he called me a pedophile. I think he likes you.
He likes Euphonious Polemic, but he LURVES Shot From Guns. Don’t know if RR goes for pedophiles or not, what with his rather odd ethics and all.
Have you e-mailed your bar association and put your arguments to them? I’m sure their response would make enlightening reading for everyone.
Hey, you know what they say: see a broad to get dat booty yak 'em…
What does that even mean in this context?
Any interpretation of the rules must be made in light of the preamble, and any interpretation of the rules must not run counter to the preamble – that’s fundamental to statutory interpretation. The rules say that IL lawyers must report how much pro bono they do, but there is no rule that says they must do pro bono. The preamble is used to interpret the rules, and it says that lawyers have a responsibility to do pro bono. In context, that means that even although lawyers are not forced to do pro bono by the rules, the preamble makes it clear that the rules should not be interpreted to mean that lawyers are not expected to do pro bono.
RR simply ignores the preamble, and in doing so, has come up with an interpretation of the rules that runs contrary to the preamble. As such, his analysis is botched because he does not follow the fundamentals of statutory interpretaion.
Muffin, I think we interpret the rules and preamble in exactly the same way–we both reach the result that the rules don’t require pro bono, meaning that I didn’t promise to do pro bono when I promised to abide by the rules.
You take it a step further, however, by arguimg that the expectation to do pro bono creates some obligation on my part to do it. Well, I reject that idea, but I’m fine with you believing that. Again, I’ve only been arguing against those who say I promised to do pro bono, and you are not in that group. You can think I have a moral obligation or professional responsibility to do pro bono if you want, just realize that that idea of yours imposes o actual obligation on me.
So yes or no: “is one of your responsibilities as licensed officer of the court to use your training, experience and skills to provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available?”
:rolleyes:
It depends on what “my responsibilities” means. If my responsibilities include only those things that I have an actual obligation to do, then the answer is no. If my responsibilities include anything that someone could say I have a moral obligation or moral responsibility to do, then the answer is yes.
And so the weaseling continues. Can’t even give a simple answer to a simple question.
Not a hive mind. Just the Illinois Bar Association. And they’ve been quite clear, and objective for that matter, about saying what is right and wrong in regard to a lawyer’s professional conduct.
If only you were capable of understanding what a moral obligation is.
M–if you think that spotting an ambiguity in a question is weaselling, then so be it. You’re looking pretty stupid here though.
EL–enlighten me. What is a moral obligation?
No, they aren’t. “Spotting an ambiguity” in a question isn’t weaselling. “Spotting an ambiguity” in every question is.
If you’re already an adult and you don’t understand the concept, then you cannot.
EL–yes, you’ve proven that quite handily, given that you are an adult who doesn’t understand the concept.
That’s being lawyerly.