Maeglin–the critical difference people in this thread are missing is the diffrence between what a person thinks is right or wrong for that person to do and what they think is right or wrong for someone else to do. I think almost all people in a society (ie, everyone except those with cognitive issues or who were socialized in extremely bad environments) have the same basic notions of what is right and wrong for them to do. The difference between me and others is that I realize that my opinion of what is right and wrong for me to do does not impose an obligation on others. When it comes to political issues, I argue from a policy viewpoint (ie, what would be the best thing for a society to do) instead of a moral viewpoint (ie, what I think others have a moral obligation to do).
So, if I were raised in Alabama in the 1930s, I very well may have thought that separate but equal was perfectly fine. Currently I think it’s not fine. In both cases though, it would be meaningless for me to say that other people had some obligation to do what I think is right.
I’m not going to read 29 pages of troll food, but I’m curious: has a single person participating in this thread changed their stance even one single iota?
You keep repeating this as if we think you should do pro bono work because it’s a good thing. It’s not. We think you should do pro bono work because the bar association, the people who granted you your license and have the ability to revoke it if necessary, have said that you should.
If you were to complain to the bar that your boss was encouraging you to do pro bono, you would have gotten the exact same arguments as from us. You can only afford to be an asshole to us about it because we have no authority over you.
When it comes to “imposing my moral views on others,” I’m pretty laid back. Someone asks my opinion, I’ll tell them, but they’re adults and can screw themselves up as they like, unless I have a personal vested interest in the matter. But you opened this thread to bitch about a job duty and claim something counterfactual, and that’s where the argument comes in.
He has been given clear guidance, unsought of course, by both the ABA and his employer as to his professional responsibility on this subject. He has chosen instead not to reject it on moral or principled grounds or even the lack thereof, but on the sole basis of the small personal inconvenience that following it would cause. To do so, he has not made any other counterargument or exploration of the subject, he has simply tried to find a weaseled loophole in the clear guidance he has been given. To do that, he has had to invent his own definitions of words in that guidance, and deny the very existence of the concepts the guidance is based upon.
No wonder he lacks the true-Randian personal integrity to present his “arguments” to either his employers or his licensing association.
But if he remains an asshole while simultaneously achieving douchebag, would this be a threat to the fabric of space-time? Can we afford to take that risk?
You know, if the Internet had existed in the 1930s, Howard Roark would have written snide, smug threads on the SD instead of blowing up buildings. Same principle, really.
What exactly do you think the bar association would do if I “presented these same arguments” to them?
Also, I really like the slams based on me lacking the courage of mý convictions since I don’t tell te bar association what I’m saying in this thread. It really shows that you guys have nothing else to say that you have to grasp at that straw.
I don’t do pro bono and I report to the bar that I haven’t done any pro bono. I’m not afraid of them finding out. My employer also is fully aware of the fact that I haven’t done any pro bono.
So, if you don’t have anything intelligent to say, consider just keeping quiet instead of grasping at straws and proving it.
BT–perhaps you should read the OP. The situation I was bitching about was that my firm is using bullshit United Way techniques–everyone gets a frowny face next to their name until they do some pro bono, and then they get a happy face. Some idiots in this thread said that I am required to do pro bono by the rules and/or I promised to do pro bono. I’ve demonstrated why those idiots are wrong. And then some people called me names. And here we are.
As you know, I don’t do pro bono work and don’t plan to do any in the future. I’d appreciate if you could remove my email address from the distribution list for future solicitations.
No sympathy there. What I’ve been saying is that “should,” meaning someone else’s sense that you have a responsibility or obligation to do something, carries weight when that person is in a position of authority over you. If your company thinks you should do pro bono work, and believes it strongly enough to institute policies to encourage pro bono work, then tough shit. If you don’t want to, then you can either find another job or deal with being the odd man out. You knew pro bono was a part of the job when you became licensed, even if it’s a non-essential part. You really don’t have any grounds for bitching.
VT–keep grasping at those straws. With any luck I’ll say something soon that you can twist and construe into me being a hypocrite (the favorite insult of small SDMB minds).
BT–you still don’t get it. I would actually prefer that the bar association or my firm simply require me to do pro bono work. If they did I’d just do it and be done with it–it would just be one of those annoying things I’d have to do to be a lawyer, like doing CLE. As it is, there’s this whole bullshit soft coercion thing masquerading as an actual obligation going on, and I find it annoying.
And there you go again, confusing obligation with responsibility. Too bad you have poor skills at statutory interpretation. My guess is that you have never even drafted any statutes. If you had, you would understand how rules are interpreted in light of preambles, but as it stands, you still can’t tell the difference between the rules saying there is no obligation, and the preamble saying that there is a responsibility. They are different concepts.