To Rand Rover:
And THIS is why you should stop revealing stuff about yourself, not everyone thinks as highly of you as Shot From Guns and may decide to out you if they can.
Which reminds me…
Some years after Beethoven’s demise, the city fathers decided to move his burial place to a fancy mausoleum, more fitting his stature in the world of music. When they dug up his coffin, they heard a noise from within, like scratching or scrubbing. Astounded, they tore off the coffin lid to find Beethoven lying there, surrounded by a pile of musical sheet paper, and he was busily erasing the notes from musical scores.
“Ludwig! Ludwig! What are you doing?”
“Isn’t it obvious? I’m decomposing!”
Not being EL, yet being merely obliging…
A moral obligation is something one should do since it is the only correct course of action in a circumstance. Simple to define, yet unprescribable in advance, you just know it when you see it.
Well, not you, of course.
I don’t look for loopholes to decrease taxes for “OMG teh corporations!!!” Rather, I help people buy and sell businesses and assets etc., which creates jobs and grows the economy. People wouldn’t buy or sell as readily if they couldn’t be certain of the tax risks and consequences–I provide that certainty.
Claver, how do you determine the only correct course of action in a circumstance? What if I disagree with you about the correct course of action?
You are very welcome to disagree as to the correct course of action: in my case, if I saw a drunk lying in his stupor on the pavement, I’d be disinclined to haul him onto a bench, whereas good samaritans would feel no such distaste; yet neither you nor I would lash into his prostrate form with our walking-canes shouting ‘Sinner ! Sinner !’.
The first choice is optional social charity. The second is a moral obligation of good manners and self-restraint. If your lawyers rules told you you must want to help people, I should agree that you should not be coerced into having ---- or pretending to have — feelings alien to you, any more than that you should have had to be a devout marxist to practice in the old USSR; if though, as here, they implicitly set it as a condition of admission that you should do it — or merely aspire to do it — or just pretend to merely aspire to do it — regardless of your desires, that seems fair enough, just as if someone joining the army may perhaps find there are duties he’d rather not do, but which aren’t up to him to refuse.
And one popular wartime British Army saying to conscripts was “If you can’t take a joke, you shouldn’t have joined.”
By seeking guidance from your governing body, from your firm’s senior counsel, and from the ABA, all of which have told you that you have a responsibility to provide pro bono services.
I’m surprised you never learned that.
There has to be a title for the guy whose job it is to go out after the battle to shoot the wounded.
“Luci,” if you go over to Wet Canvas and search my name, which you know, all your questions will be answered. Better yet search “Nude Self Portrait Extravaganza” and questions you haven’t asked will be answered.
So in the US between 1876 and 1965, separate but equal treatment and accommodations for black folks was the only correct course of action?
Interesting that you feel that way, but whatever tickles your pickle.
You’re the one equating Jim Crow laws with making you do pro bono work.
You exemplify all that is foul about lawyers.
Poor Rand Rover, the modern day white slave, begging to be freed from the bounds of pro bono. Won’t anyone help him and his cause?
Who’s weaseling now?
You said that the way to determine the only correct course of action was to seek guidance from the governing body. The governing body in several US states for a long time mandated separate but equal accommodations for black folks.
So, providing separate but equal accommodations for black folks must have been the only correct thing to do, right? A simple yes or no, please. Or will you weasel?
A simple “No”. See, it’s really that easy to answer a simple question. You should try it someday.
No, institutionalized racism is not the only correct thing to do. Not a correct thing to do at all. Bad laws.
Both you and the people promoting racial discrimination put themselves first over others. Your betters such as the ABA, your state regulatory body, and your senior partners, are not putting themselves first, and therefore can not be compared to the racists.
Note that I advised you to “seek guidance” rather than tell you that your betters were right and that you were wrong (although in my opinion, that is the case), so you are quite off track in trying to pin argumentum ad auctoritas on me. As far as argumentum ad auctoritas goes, of course it is a fallacy, so of course it is possible that your betters are wong, just as the racists were wrong, or that the racists were right for that matter, however, it is entirley illogical to assert that because one societal norm was wrong, your expected societal norm is right. What has been painfully obvious in this thread is that you have not sought the counsel of your betters to assist you in understanding what being a lawyer entails.
In any event, you will have whatever world view you want. What I would like to know, and what confounds you, is “yes or no: is one of your responsibilities as a 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?” Too bad you can not bring yourself to answer this directly.
If you do not understand what your governing body meant in the preamble that sets out that lawyers have a pro bono responsibility, then you should seek guidance to learn what was meant. If you do understand what your governing body meant, then you should be able to state whether or you have such a pro bono responsibility. It really is that simple to answer. Yes, or no. Take your pick.
That’s some good weaseling. So, to determine the only correct thing to do, one should seek guidance from the governing body, except, of course, for those cases in which one should not seek guidance from the governing body.
Thank you for exemplifying the nonsensical arguments of those into the reality of moral obligations.
I understand exactly what they meant. You don’t. They meant that I have a moral obligation to do pro bono. As I have explained, if by “responsibility” you mean “moral obligation,” then the answer is yes. It just so happens that I don’t give a shit what other people say about my moral obligations–the fact that someone tells me I have a moral obligation to do something doesn’t mean I’m automatically going to do it if I don’t think it’s the right thing to do or just don’t want to do it.
Golly gee, and here I thought that giving a very clear and simple “No” was not weaseling. Well, you’re the master at the art of weaseling, so I bow to your experience.
Seriously, as a lawyer, when faced with professional practice problems, you should always seek guidance from your governing body. Whether or not you should follow it is up to you to decide based inter alia on your morality (or in your case, your lack thereof). Which brings us right back to the basic question that you are allergic to: “yes or no: is one of your responsibilities as a 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?”
You don’t believe in either the independent existence of moral axioms or in taking your moral cues from some authority. But you do say you’ve internalized the norms of society and act accordingly, though you aren’t real clear on what grounds you pick your norms. Ok, accepting all of that for sake of argument, would you have objected to separate but equal if you were a lawyer in the year 1800? On what basis?
It was, after all, a pretty well established social norm.
I’m not going to even try and defend Rand Rover here, but “Elitist” isn’t an insult, IMHO.
Rand Rover is the reason people think that it is.