Pro bono bullshit

[Mr.Excellent]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yeah, some people just mumbled “watermelon” over and over the whole time.

Hey! You swore you wouldn’t tell anyone about that!

[elninost0rm]

@Bryan_Ekers

@Inner_Stickler

ME is not the evaluation mark you’re supposed to want.

Okay, but where are the droids you’re looking for?

Thank you for that.

[villa]

@Mr.Excellent

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.

That’s fair. Apologies to all the idiots out there.

[Enderw24]

@villa

@Mr.Excellent

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.

That’s fair. Apologies to all the idiots out there.

Apology accepted

[Little_Nemo]

Christ MOL, you are quite the nuanced thinker (that’s sarcasm). I don’t think ALL pro bono clients are dangerous losers. I just think that the risk of exposing myself to a dangerous loser outweighs the reward of getting a smiley next to my name.

I think Rover has a legitimate fear here. We only have to deal with him online and look how we feel about him. Imagine how people who have to meet him in person feel about him. Probably most of the people he’s met in his life have thought about hurting him in some way or other.

[MeanOldLady]

Eh, Randy’s all right, and makes me laugh sometimes. That’s worth something, right? Making me laugh? Then again, he never responded to my last post, so I’m deducting 10 points.

[Rand_Rover]

@Mr.Excellent

@Rand_Rover

You are correct so far, Mr E. But you haven’t yet brought your case all the way home.

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.

The bolded part is where you err. The rules don’t “direct” us to do pro bono work. The rules only say that it’s a nice thing when lawyers do pro bono work and every lawyer should trý to do it. It doesn’t say every lawyer is required to trý to do it.

And your argument on “honorably” is quite weak sauce. Using that logic, I could argue that a lawyer has sworn to do just about anything. The rules say what they say, so I think the specific rule controls over some vague duty bound up in the concept of demeaning oneself honorably.

[Rand_Rover]

MOL, sorry. Yes, I’d say that sums up my position fairly well. Please feel free to hoist me on my own petard or whatever.

[Mr.Excellent]

@Rand_Rover

@Mr.Excellent

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.

The bolded part is where you err. The rules don’t “direct” us to do pro bono work. The rules only say that it’s a nice thing when lawyers do pro bono work and every lawyer should trý to do it. It doesn’t say every lawyer is required to trý to do it.

And your argument on “honorably” is quite weak sauce. Using that logic, I could argue that a lawyer has sworn to do just about anything. The rules say what they say, so I think the specific rule controls over some vague duty bound up in the concept of demeaning oneself honorably.

I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree - the rules don’t just say that pro bono work is “nice,” they say that we have a responsibility to render pro bono service (both the ABA and Maryland rules use that language), and that the specific minimum we should be shooting for is 50 hours per annum, but that we won’t be punished if we don’t do this. The only distinction between this rule and any other is the lack of a threat of sanction. Do we only follow consider these rules binding because we fear punishment?

As for my argument regarding our oath to act honorably - well, I would agree with you that lawyers have sworn to do a whole host of things beyond those laid out in the Rules of Professional Conduct. But it starts with the Rules - and as you said, the rules say what they say. One of the things they say is that we should try to perform pro bono service. You flat-out refuse to try. How does this square with our obligation to act honorably as lawyers?

[MeanOldLady]

@Rand_Rover

MOL, sorry. Yes, I’d say that sums up my position fairly well. Please feel free to hoist me on my own petard or whatever.

Ah, then you’re right. I made a crazy ass leap when I said you think pro bono clients are losers, and the people who help them are wasting their time, which makes them losers too.

[Rand_Rover]

@Mr.Excellent

@Rand_Rover

The bolded part is where you err. The rules don’t “direct” us to do pro bono work. The rules only say that it’s a nice thing when lawyers do pro bono work and every lawyer should trý to do it. It doesn’t say every lawyer is required to trý to do it.

And your argument on “honorably” is quite weak sauce. Using that logic, I could argue that a lawyer has sworn to do just about anything. The rules say what they say, so I think the specific rule controls over some vague duty bound up in the concept of demeaning oneself honorably.

I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree - the rules don’t just say that pro bono work is “nice,” they say that we have a responsibility to render pro bono service (both the ABA and Maryland rules use that language), and that the specific minimum we should be shooting for is 50 hours per annum, but that we won’t be punished if we don’t do this. The only distinction between this rule and any other is the lack of a threat of sanction. Do we only follow consider these rules binding because we fear punishment?

As for my argument regarding our oath to act honorably - well, I would agree with you that lawyers have sworn to do a whole host of things beyond those laid out in the Rules of Professional Conduct. But it starts with the Rules - and as you said, the rules say what they say. One of the things they say is that we should try to perform pro bono service. You flat-out refuse to try. How does this square with our obligation to act honorably as lawyers?

You are still missing the critical distinction between "should aspire"and “must aspire.” Also, the title of the ABA rule is "VOLUNTARY pro bono publico service. Finally, you aren’t grasping the importance of the fact that nothing bad happens to a lawyer that never does any pro bono work and doesn’t even “try to” (and I would know)–that shows that doing pro bono is voluntary and not required.

[MTCicero]

@jayjay

Gee, why am I not surprised that Rand Rover considers pro bono work bullshit?

This was my first thought.

[Hello_Again]

So, DO your pro bono hours go to billables or not?

[Mr.Excellent]

@Rand_Rover

@Mr.Excellent

I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree - the rules don’t just say that pro bono work is “nice,” they say that we have a responsibility to render pro bono service (both the ABA and Maryland rules use that language), and that the specific minimum we should be shooting for is 50 hours per annum, but that we won’t be punished if we don’t do this. The only distinction between this rule and any other is the lack of a threat of sanction. Do we only follow consider these rules binding because we fear punishment?

As for my argument regarding our oath to act honorably - well, I would agree with you that lawyers have sworn to do a whole host of things beyond those laid out in the Rules of Professional Conduct. But it starts with the Rules - and as you said, the rules say what they say. One of the things they say is that we should try to perform pro bono service. You flat-out refuse to try. How does this square with our obligation to act honorably as lawyers?

You are still missing the critical distinction between "should aspire"and “must aspire.” Also, the title of the ABA rule is "VOLUNTARY pro bono publico service. Finally, you aren’t grasping the importance of the fact that nothing bad happens to a lawyer that never does any pro bono work and doesn’t even “try to” (and I would know)–that shows that doing pro bono is voluntary and not required.

Is your only standard for ethical conduct “that which does not lead to bad things happening to me?” Would it be ethical for me to steal candy from infants, if I could be reliably assured that no harm would befall me from so doing? The fact that lawyers aren’t punished for failing to meet their pro bono requirement is absolutely meaningless with regard to the question of whether or not pro bono service is an ethical obligation.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Rand_Rover

You are still missing the critical distinction between "should aspire"and “must aspire.” Also, the title of the ABA rule is "VOLUNTARY pro bono publico service. Finally, you aren’t grasping the importance of the fact that nothing bad happens to a lawyer that never does any pro bono work and doesn’t even “try to” (and I would know)–that shows that doing pro bono is voluntary and not required.

You are required to report the amount of pro bono work you [del]did[/del] didn’t do, though, and there are penalties for failure to do so.

[Knowed_Out]

Is RR the type of lawyer who represents clients in court and argues their cases? Or is he more of a desk jockey who serves as an extra body to make his firm look more impressive? He doesn’t seem to show much of the eloquence I would expect from an effective lawyer, and he’s not too good at responding to allegations brought up by the SDMB chorus. I also highly doubt his superiors are as impressed by his little Rover as he seems to think. So who does he work for, Dewey Cheatum and Howe?

[villa]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You are required to report the amount of pro bono work you [del]did[/del] didn’t do, though, and there are penalties for failure to do so.

Are you sure? I can’t chose not to report hours I work?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I know lots of effective lawyers who are not eloquent.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

@Rand_Rover

You are still missing the critical distinction between "should aspire"and “must aspire.” Also, the title of the ABA rule is "VOLUNTARY pro bono publico service. Finally, you aren’t grasping the importance of the fact that nothing bad happens to a lawyer that never does any pro bono work and doesn’t even “try to” (and I would know)–that shows that doing pro bono is voluntary and not required.

You are required to report the amount of pro bono work you [del]did[/del] didn’t do, though, and there are penalties for failure to do so.

Not in my jurisdiction.

Unless things changed since I went inactive, which I suppose is possible, but I tend to keep up on this stuff.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@villa

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You are required to report the amount of pro bono work you [del]did[/del] didn’t do, though, and there are penalties for failure to do so.

Are you sure? I can’t chose not to report hours I work?

Apparently not if you’re in Illinois, which I believe is where RR is:

(f) Disclosure of Voluntary Pro Bono Service. As part of registering under this rule, each lawyer shall report the approximate amount of his or her pro bono legal service and the amount of qualified monetary contributions made during the preceding 12 months.

(1) Pro bono legal service includes the delivery of legal services or the provision of training without charge or expectation of a fee, as defined in the following subparagraphs:

    (a) legal services rendered to a person of limited means;

    (b) legal services to charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental or educational organizations in matters designed to address the needs of persons of limited means;

    (c) legal services to charitable, religious, civic, or community organizations in matters in furtherance of their organizational purposes; and

    (d) training intended to benefit legal service organizations or lawyers who provide pro bono services.

In a fee case, a lawyer’s billable hours may be deemed pro bono when the client and lawyer agree that further services will be provided voluntarily. Legal services for which payment was expected, but is uncollectible, do not qualify as pro bono legal service.

(2) Pro bono legal service to persons of limited means refers not only to those persons whose household incomes are below the federal poverty standard, but also to those persons frequently referred to as the “working poor.” Lawyers providing pro bono legal service need not undertake an investigation to determine client eligibility. Rather, a good-faith determination by the lawyer of client eligibility is sufficient.

(3) Qualified monetary contribution means a financial contribution to an organization as enumerated in subparagraph (1)(b) which provides legal services to persons of limited means or which contributes financial support to such an organization.

(4) As part of the lawyer’s annual registration fee statement, the report required by subsection (f) shall be made by answering the following questions:

    (a) Did you, within the past 12 months, provide any pro bono legal services as described in subparagraphs (1) through (4) below? ____ Yes ____ No

    If no, are you prohibited from providing legal services because of your employment? ____ Yes ____ No

    If yes, identify the approximate number of hours provided in each of the following categories where the service was provided without charge or expectation of a fee:

        (1) hours of legal services to a person/persons of limited means;

        (2) hours of legal services to charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental or educational organizations in matters designed to address the needs of persons of limited means;

        (3) hours of legal services to charitable, religious, civic or community organizations in furtherance of their organizational purposes; and

        (4) hours providing training intended to benefit legal service organizations or lawyers who provide pro bono services.

    Legal services for which payment was expected, but is not collectible, do not qualify as pro bono services and should not be included.

    (b) Have you made a monetary contribution to an organization which provides legal services to persons of limited means or which contributes financial support to such organization? ____ Yes ____ No

    If yes, approximate amount: $_____.If yes, approximate amount: $_____.

(5)  Information provided pursuant to this subsection (f) shall be deemed confidential pursuant to the provisions of Rule 766, but the Commission may report such information in the aggregate.

Same rule in Florida - voluntary pro bono service, but mandatory reporting.

ETA: Correction - there may or may not be penalties in Illinois. I assumed that was taken from a model rule, but the Florida rule does have penalties incorporated in it.