To my mind, it would be a better use of resources for me to give money and use that to fund a legal aid lawyer who actually works on cases that are highly suited to pro bono work.
I do not see any particular magic in me, personally, performing this service, and it has the downside that I don’t have the specific expertise to do it as well as someone who does.
In short, I agree fully with the notion behind pro bono work - that lawyers have duties towards the community at large. The particular form of the pro bono requirement made more sense in the past, when the vast majority of lawyers were generalists, and so donating their services in time was a practical way of performing community service. Now, requiring folks who have no particular expertise to personally perform community service seems awfully inefficient, if their expertise is geared towards skills that are not particularly useful.
For example, it would benefit the community far more in practical terms to donate the equivalent of 20 billable hours in money, than in reasonably low-skilled work; because that money could be used to hire someone to do far moire than 20 hours of that work.
Working with holocaust survivors is the sort of project that I’d make an exception for, since it sounds inherently interesting.
Malthus - feel free to send me a message letting me know where you are and I can see if there is a reparations project set up there that you can get in touch with. It’s very simple - filling out forms from the German government to apply for pensions for “voluntary” work performed in ghettos rather than camps.
And it is incredibly rewarding. The people I have met never fail to leave me completely speechless.
Jesus, Randy, I get that already. Maybe it would have helped if I hadn’t used the word “all”? You know, I’ve found that in general, when people use very broad terms like “all,” they seldom mean literally every, single, one. When I hear things like, “People in LA are all mean,” (which I’ve heard) I’ve never thought they were referring to each and every one of its 4 million residents, but maybe you’d interpret it that way. If you don’t care for matters of expression and would like me to type everything exactly, literally as I mean it, I will do so to make you happy. I’m a nice gal.
So then you think it is a waste of time to offer pro bono assistance, because it necessarily means there is an incresed likelihood that client will be a miscreant with self-created problems, who will resort to violence if unsatisfied with your work, than would exist with a paying client.
Is that a more or less accurate paraphrasing of this and this?
Are you … are you serious? Retaliate? Good grief, man, what in the world do you think a typical pro bono client is? Sure, I could maybe see a client asking if you’d be willing to do some work outside the scope of your project - but that’s easily dealt with. And as for the fear that a client would pose a danger to your family - that’s absurd. Why in the world would you expect an old man whose will you drafted, or an immigration client whose deportation you’re fighting, or whatever, to come after you if you didn’t perform to their satisfaction? Would you ever do such a thing? No? Then why the heck would you believe the “typical” pro bono client would?
The folks who need pro bono lawyer often have a host of problems. Poverty, lack of education - sometimes even mental illness. But they’re people, man - and, just like the bulk of us, mainly reasonable folks.
I’m amazed you hold people your Bar says you have an obligation to help in such naked contempt.
So just write back and explain that doing a tiny amount of pro bono work would cut too much into your “being a collosal prick” time. I’m sure they’ll understand.
I am sure you have. I also am aware of what an ethical responsibility is. And anyone who voluntarily and knowingly undertakes one, with no intention of fulfilling it, is a pretty worthless human being in my opinion. But there are plenty of other reasons I consider you a pretty worthless human being, if that makes you sleep any better.
It’s considered good form to read an entire post before responding to it. If you had, you might have noticed this bit:
Sure, the pro bono requirement is aspirational in character. But we’re supposed to aspire towards that - to try in good faith to meet our obligations. Not because we’ll be disciplined if we don’t, but because it’s the right thing to do. And yes, these are obligations - the fact we aren’t punished if we fail to meet them doesn’t make them less important, it merely leaves enforcement to our consciences.
Of course, I’ll concede that in some cases enforcement may be somewhat lax. Yours, for instance.
It’s not just that trying is the right thing to do. It’s that when we stood up and swore that oath when we joined the bar, we promised we would try. My word is pretty important to me. Clearly other people have lower values on their own integrity.
And somehow I didn’t see you say pretty much the same thing.
In California we have our own canons and aren’t disciplined if we do not do pro bono. However if we do pro bono and they will testify for us in an ethics case it will mitigate a non-disbarment sentence.
Where are you admitted? This is the Maryland oath of admission:
Notice that first bit, about demeaning myself fairly and honorably as an attorney? The whole point of the state Rules of Professional Conduct is that they tell us what that phrase means, at least at a bare minimum. There’s more to honorable action than honoring the Professional Rules, of course - but it starts there, and I swore to follow those rules. So did you, unless your jurisdiction has a very very strange oath.
Incidentally, villa - while I agree with and applaud almost everything you’ve said in this thread (and have tremendous respect for your pro bono work), I’d object to calling Rand Rover an idiot. Idiots don’t choose their impairment - Rand Rover has.
Okay, I’ll bite - wherein have I erred? The oath directs us to follow our state ethics rules (“demean ourselves honorably as an attorney”), the rules direct us to do pro bono work (or donate, in some jurisdictions). The pro bono rule isn’t backed by the threat of professional ruin - but the fact the rule calls on us to do this means that our honor demands it, and we’ve sworn to act honorably.
Interesting debate breaking out. Are the ethics canons encouraging pro bono work of benefit to the community, or are they a mere sop to those who can’t afford legal representation? Does the government have a responsibility to ensure that representation is available for certain legal matters (aside from criminal cases, where the responsibility already exists)?
Also, I’m not sure I would say that these pro bono “requirements” create any ethical responsibility, as I’m not aware of any penalty in any state for not fulfilling them (please correct me if I’m wrong). That’s why they’re best described as “aspirational.” Perhaps lawyers ought to feel ethically bound to provide free legal counsel, and clearly states have an interest in encouraging them to feel that way, but it doesn’t follow that they are ethically bound.
