I dunno, Redpill, you seem to have Randy’s cock pretty far down your throat.
ETA:
Oh, and for mentioning “my” view of “moral obligations,” I’m afraid I must inquire *once again *whether you’ve stopped sexually assaulting your daughter yet, Rand.
Why would I be sad about it? I enjoy being arrogant and judgmental.
RandRover’s decision to violate our joint professional code affects me because it impacts the public perception of our profession. That I don’t violate that code, IMHO, is a check mark on the good side of the ledger book for me, and that he does is one on the bad side for him. If recognizing that is arrogant and judgmental, so be it.
Now get back on your knees and continue your prior slurping.
Rest assured, public perception of your profession is well cemented, mostly thanks to people like you.
By pointing out that he has a check on the bad side, you put a lot more checks on your bad side too. Do you see it?
Shaming language is the hallmark of a lost argument. I hope you do better in the courtroom and as a parent.
Actually - I disagree with you. What a surprise there. I’m proud of being a lawyer, because of the good lawyers do. I don’t tend to find people have a negative response to me being a lawyer, but YMMV. Your opinion means nothing to me, to be honest.
I don’t. I am pointing out that failing to fulfill an ethical obligation, voluntarily entered into, reflects badly on someone. Fulfilling that obligation reflects well on them. I could be all coy about it, but what is the point?
Much better, in fact. What on earth do you mean by shaming language? There’s nothing shaming about pointing out you suddenly appear in this thread, tonguing RandRover’s butthole with a passion I haven’t seen outside porn. It’s a statement of fact.
Tsk-tsking at people for mocking you in the Pit is the hallmark of a whiny douchebag.
It is voluntary. Voluntary. It does not reflect badly because the motivation for volunteer work should come from within.
Doing it because ABA said it makes you a better lawyer has no meaning and goes against the spirit of pro bono. ABA understands it better than you clearly do.
Voluntary. Great if you do, ok if you don’t. Voluntary.
PS: I won’t comment on the rest.
No, it’s not okay if you don’t. There’s just no penalty for it. Which frankly seems impotent to me, but whatever.
If you knew what you were talking about it would help. It isn’t the ABA telling RandRover that he should do it that is important. Have you even read the thread, or are you spouting off half cock on something about which you know nothing?
Not that the two are mutually exclusive of course.
I can’t speak to his competence, but I don’t think it’s exactly wild speculation to suspect that he has plenty of free time at work.
Ah, more grasping at straws. Anyone who says anything remotely supportive of my view is “licking my nuts” or whatever. You might as well just post “I got nothin’” and save yourself the embarrassment.
And we get another child-raping non sequitur from one of the stupidest people, to boot.
A penalty should never be the motivation for doing or not doing volunteer work.
If you are too poor to afford a lawyer, you don’t want someone forced into representing you. It won’t work well.
Its best to remove all forms of coercion in volunteer work and charity or else it loses its meaning.
Classifying it as ethical obligation is just another form of coercion.
How old were you when you first read The Fountainhead ?
1.) This is about the rules of the Illinois Supreme Court, not the ABA.
2.) What “spirit of pro bono”? The point isn’t “do some volunteer work so you can get a warm fuzzy feeling.” The point is “our system fucks anybody who doesn’t have money, so part of the deal is that if we let you practice law, you agree to take on part of the responsibility of ensuring that people without money still have some access to our legal system.”
-
If there’s a rule, I have no problem it being enforced, but then its not voluntary anymore.
-
The system is unfair, but pro-bono by force is not the way to make it fair, just more unfair.
SFG–you just never tire of being wrong, do you? Lawyers don’t agree to do pro bono. They agree to abide by the rules. A lawyer can abide by the rules even if they don’t do pro bono (because not doing pro bono is not against the rules).
I got nothin
You know, I never got the whole A = A thing until this post. It really is bullshit.
I agree that A=A is bullshit.
If you’d bothered to read the thread (which you clearly haven’t), you’d know that “Pro Bono” covers a lot of legal service activities which aren’t “Representing Poor People In Court”. In fact, I’d say that’s probably a minority of Pro Bono work.
Further (to reiterate) the legal profession has a tradition stretching back to the dawn of the modern legal system in medieval England of doing Pro Bono work. It’s not some trendy funky initiative dreamed up by twentysomething HR women over a soy latte a couple of months ago. Every lawyer in the English-speaking world is aware of the obligation, and it’s covered at University (where you have to go to be a lawyer in most civilised countries).
As Bosstone rightly says, if the Pro Bono thing wasn’t part of the professional package of being a lawyer, no-one would care. But it is, and has been for something like a thousand years.
Being arrogant, judgemental, or elitist is not, in and of itself, something to feel sad about. And that’s the crux of the matter. If Mr. Rover had said, about 25 pages back, “Yes, I know I’m a sociopath, and I don’t care, but thanks for listening” the thread would have ended there.
Since then, however, it’s been mentioned a couple of times that the length of time Mr. Rover has invested in this thread (reading and typing replies to it) actually adds up to quite a substantial amount, and had that time been devoted to doing the Pro Bono work he’s been complaining about since the OP instead of arguing with people on the internet, he’d actually have met a significant quota of his firm’s “suggested” Pro Bono hours for the year. It’s all thoroughly meta, to put it mildly.
Tell that to, I don’t know, pretty much any major religion and note how thoroughly and comprehensively they disagree with you.
I’m not debating that there is a tradition of pro-bono, just that not doing it doesn’t make one unethical.
Being arrogant and judgemental is something to be sad about in my book.
If RR should admit to being a sociopath just because you say so, maybe you can admit to being a commie just because I say so. It’s only fair.
Being busy, lazy or not caring does not make one a sociopath or unethical. Sorry.
Your religion comment doesn’t even make the slightest sense.