Also, prr, any time you want a go, I’m here for you. You bring the brick and I’ll bring the skull.
RR:
We don’t live in society where there is no right or wrong, and everyone decides for themselves that they can do whatever the fuck they want. It’s never worked that way, and never will work that way. That is simply reality.
In every society there are those like you, who only think of themselves, and will not voluntarily help others. In the past, these folks were shunned and kicked out of the village, or shamed into going along. Today, when there is more anonymity, we force you to contribute through taxation.
Suck it up.
Meh. I can’t get worked up either way. On the one hand, society has carved out an exclusive trade for lawyers. Non-attorneys representing clients is forbidden, so the elite nature of the legal profession has been given the force of law. In exchange for this artificial monopoly, the bar associations agreed to be self-policing and ensure the ethical and socially responsible behavior of their members. Much like Wall Street said they’d use ratings agencies to make sure banks didn’t sell a shitty investment as a good investment and fuck the economy. Given the actual numbers of pro bono hours worked at most firms, as opposed to the hours the bar association said they would promote when they accepted a de facto monopoly on this type of service, it seems this social contract has worked out for society about as well as trusting rating agencies to be the watchdogs of Wall Street did. Can’t get too upset at someone at Moody’s who rated a batch of mortgage-backed securities AAA, their fee was contingent on a good rapport with the bank, so they did what was rational. Similary, if you can duck a onerous task, most people will. It’s the nature of the beast. It may be anti-social, assholish, or in the case of those who wrecked the economy, unconscionable, but it’s hard to get upset at a banker for being greedy, a snake for biting, or a lawyer for weaseling.
Enjoy,
Steven
Ooh, all these implied threats of *violence *are givin’ me the vapors! If only a big, strong MOD were around to do the *gentlemanly *thing and close this *beast *of a thread…
In our quest to penalize and collect from the “cheaters” we give up our reliance on goodwill thus making it irrelevant. A much bigger loss in my opinion.
I don’t agree that they can be called free-riders and I don’t think the peer care much.
Assuming they do care, now it becomes a chore done half-heartedly or escaped somehow. Doesn’t work, wrong approach.
Unfortunately we pretend to. We tend to live by what’s legal and illegal no matter if its right or wrong. Sometimes illegal and wrong overlap, sometimes not. We made this bed, we must sleep in it.
From those who don’t want to contribute, we mostly end up forcing the dumb and powerless. The system is set up that way, unfortunately.
No - you will ignore it again. I’m tired of going round and round with you on this. I have no interest in further discussing it with you.
Just because he denies it, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Read the thread, moron.
And where do I say it is my motivation for doing pro bono, you retarded ass clown? It gives me a reason to be concerned about whether he does pro bono.
Reminder:
Thanks. No warning issued.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
For the second time, take it up with him. Doesn’t change my argument. Pro bono shouldn’t be coerced.
Its your motivation for expecting from him, or any lawyer. You are a lawyer.
(Are you really? I’m starting to have doubts, you lose composure too easily)
PS: Why are you so angry? We are just talking. Calm down.
And, you goat fucking imbecile, it isn’t. Even your shrivelled little walnut of a Randian brain should be able to grasp that when you voluntarily swear an oath to do something, it isn’t coerced. No one makes you become a lawyer, or join the Illinois bar.
I am angry because idiots such as you decide to rehash things that have been discussed ad nauseam because they are too fucking lazy to read the thread. When clowns like you have a smug smile on their face thinking they have contributed something novel and intelligent when it has been discussed time after time, and refuted time after time, I get a little peeved.
I expect people to keep to their word. I don’t think that is too outlandish a thing. And when violating their word reflects badly on me, I expect them to do it even more.
I do pro bono for multiple reasons. One of them is I swore an oath. Another is that it is the right thing to do. A third is that I want to. But even if I didn’t want to, even if it sucked, even if I loathed doing it with every fiber of my body, I would still do it, and do a good job at it. Why? Because decent people keep their word, especially when they swear a formal oath.
You don’t seem to think a person’s word has any value. That says a lot about you.
Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!
WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BRING YOUR COMMUNIST INTERFERENCE INTO MY GRANDMOTHER’S RIGHT TO LIVE ON CAT FOOD
It is to roffle.
Since you’re apparently Mr. Tough Guy, you would presumably not object to providing one of us with your name, the name of the firm you work for, and the name of the senior partner whose polite reminder you’re whining about. After all, if you’re eager to fend off a man with a brick, you should have no problem at all defending yourself against mere words.
No it doesn’t. What you do reflects on you. Good people, bad people. Good lawyers, bad lawyers.
You will just be disappointed and bitter.
No, you wouldn’t. Try thinking about it before you say something.
Promises can get broken, all we can do is intend and try.
Wow. Aren’t you full of yourself, you pompous little shitstain.
Except people unfortunately don’t see everyone as individuals. Not everyone is as enlightened as you. I hate seeing British people tip poorly, because I know it makes it more likely that when people hear my accent, they will think I tip poorly/ I hate it when gun owners act irresponsibly because it makes it more likely that people will assume I am irresponsible when they find out I own a gun. And I hate it when lawyers act like selfish sociopaths because it reinforces the public prejudice against lawyers, and means that prejudice is more likely to negatively impact me.
Yes, I can, over time, break down the stereotypes. But that isn’t easy. And other people’s actions can make it harder.
I am not going to stop expecting people to do the right thing just because some don’t. Most do.
Where do you get off assuming you understand how I work? Are you saying I cannot do a good job at something I don’t want to do? I have multiple times done good quality work for things I don’t want to do. It’s professional pride. Try it some time.
Try looking at the guy you are throating - he neither intended nor tried. Just swore the oath and ignored it.
Hate, hate hate because me, me, me. You will never change the world, you can only hope to change yourself and even that is extremely difficult to do proactively. Trying to break stereotypes over a long time is your best bet.
Be my guest.
I don’t believe you.
For the third time, take it up with him.
We are taking it up with him. And you’re defending him. That makes you just as tarded, if not more so.
When you quote someone else, it is considered proper to actually quote them. If you remove words, replace them with an ellipsis. Not to do so is fundamentally dishonest. And that is exactly what you have done.
Thanks, but I don’t need your permission for anything.
Are you really arrogant enough to assume that because you cannot do something, no one else can? Why if that were the case, there would be no one capable of expounding a well thought out argument.
I am more than able to do quality work on things I do not enjoy.
Are you really this stupid? Apparently so.
I repeatedly have “taken it up with him.” I mention it to you because you were talking about the oath.
Villa–which arguments have I ignored? I’ve responded to every single one, even when I had to do the arguing part for someone else because all they had the ability to do was to assert. You are making increasingly vociferous assertions that lawyers have sworn to aspire to do pro bono, which is simply not true, as I have demonstrated repeatedly.
You just want to yell and cuss instead of actually laying out your argument, and then you say that my actions are reflecting badly on you. Well bub, looks to me like your own actions are reflecting pretty badly on yourself.
I will live with you thinking badly of me. I have multiple times said where I think your oath required you to aspire to do pro bono. I am tired of your hand waving on it, and your claims that you have repeatedly demonstrated the opposite. You haven’t.
There’s no point in laying it out again. All you will do is the same incorrect analysis, the same hand wave, and the same patently false claim of victory. There’s no point. You aren’t going to change your mind, and every other lawyer in this thread telling you that you are wrong won’t do it.
So why should I waste my time?