Then obviously you have a better idea that, for reasons best known to yourself, cannot be publicly discussed. 'Tis a pity indeed that the world will forever be bereft of your Randian superheroesque insight.
It’s only 20 hours. IIRC, he said he bills for $300 dollars an hour. If he fulfils the 20 hours a year, that means his average hourly rate of pay is only going to be $297. Makes me weep. Actually, that’s assuming that he actually does have to do Pro Bono for free. He’s actually being compensated for it. Which makes this 1600+ post whinefest even more absurd.
I may have missed where this was said by RR. It’s a long thread. If this is true and the employer is simply dictating how they would like RR to use his time on their books, this would change my view of the situation considerably.
I’m not really seeing the the connection between volunteering your time to those who cannot afford legal services and marking the papers of the students in your class. One is doing work for your job and the other is doing work outside your job. An actual equivalent would be teachers being asked (required), but not compensated by their employers to spend one week of their summers teaching underpriviledged children. This might do some good. It would also never happen as the unions would be up in arms that their members were being pressured to work for free.
No, I think the system is deliberately and wisely set up to let the lawyers decide according to their own beliefs. Some do it, some don’t and that’s OK.
That’s just the way I interpret it. Your views may differ.
And I’m sure there were plenty of lawyers who bitched when pro bono became standard.
Better idea is to leave things alone. The legal system, and the world in general is the way it is because the conditions exist to make it such. Everything balances something else.
If you wanna change something, try changing yourself.
And the system includes lawyers doing pro bono work. If you don’t like that, try changing it.
Ass.
System includes lawyers doing pro bono voluntarily.
I wouldn’t want to change a thing (not that one could by force). Its already fine.
(Don’t get mad now)
Yes, and therefore lawyers *not *doing pro bono voluntarily are abusing and damaging the system, si?
No, because the system is built to handle some lawyers not doing it. Thats why its voluntary. There are stiff penalties for abuse and damage.
The *only *people who would not get compensated if **Rand Rover **were living up to the responsibility he agreed to when he became licensed to practice law in Illinois ARE HIS EMPLOYERS. Who are the ones *suggesting *that he perform the incredibly niggardly 20 hours per year (versus the suggested 40 or 50 hours), so it’s pretty safe to say that they’re okay with it. **Rand **doing pro bono work would be treated by his firm in an identical manner to him doing billable client work.
You know, just last night I defended you against someone’s idea that you were a **Rand Rover **sock. But now you’re picking up his habit of making ridiculous statements that apply to himself rather than the people they’re directed at.
Congratulations on paying zero attention to the rest of the thread. Rand’s pro bono time would be treated the same as work billed to a client. The only people taking an income hit would be his employers.
No, the system is deliberately set up so that a lawyer who’s *genuinely swamped *or *literally can’t afford *to take time away from billable client work (i.e., someone who, unlike Randy, doesn’t work for a company that treats pro bono hours the same as client billable ones) isn’t punished for their inability to meet the commitment. The rules *explicitly state *that the absence of a sanction *in no way *mitigates the responsibility, but are instead because the issue is too complex to treat with an ironclad requirement. For approximately the fiftieth time in this thread, I’ll quote the relevant bit for you.
ARTICLE VIII. ILLINOIS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF 2010:
You know, from the preamble. That pesky bit of the rules that tells you HOW THE FUCKING RULES SHOULD BE READ. You don’t get to make up your own interpretation when the real meaning is hitting you over the fucking head.
I can defend myself, but thanks if you did.
Even by these standards the worst we can call RR is irresponsible, no more. You guys act like he committed crimes against humanity, compared to your own acts.
That’s just what I was gonna say to you (but without the cussing)
[QUOTE=Shot From Guns;13021285
Congratulations on paying zero attention to the rest of the thread. Rand’s pro bono time would be treated the same as work billed to a client. The only people taking an income hit would be his employers.
[/QUOTE]
Can someone point me in the direction of where RR stated this? (again, it’s a very long thread) I’m about 10 pages in and can’t find anything like this.
It was in private, not in a thread. Mostly because I don’t think **Randy **is stupid enough or that we’re lucky enough for him to hand us a golden ticket to finally get his ass kicked off this board.
Yeah, and we just want him to own up to the fact that he’s a fucking leech. If he’d simply say, “Yeah, I have the responsibility, and I don’t fucking care–my word means nothing to me,” we’d let it be.
Really? Well, I backed *mine *up with a fucking cite that says *exactly *what I’m claiming. Where’s your cite that says the Illinois Supreme Court thinks that lawyers should only do pro bono work if it gives them the warm fuzzies?
Why do you fear him?
How did it work out for you?
You cite is my cite. You interpret it one way, I interpret it another way. I use the words in the rule, you replace them with insults and profanities.
Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
Why would we want **Randy **kicked off the board? We’d lose all that entertainment value, and he’d *still *be out there in the real world, grinding away in his cubicle and telling himself he’s really smarter and more principled than the rest of the putzes in the world, wasting their time volunteering to help their inferiors.
That you interpret it as meaning something completely different to the plain meaning of the text is an indication that your powers of statutory construction are somewhat weak.
I doubt you have even read it. Your posting style, your willingness to accuse others of lying, then standing back with the whole Rodney King “can’t we all just get along” routine, your general attitude seems to me like you thoguht it would be a jolly wheeze to join in to a long thread and deliberately attempt to annoy people. You’ve not made a single new contribution - in fact, you’ve not made a signle contribution other than say “RandRover is right.” In fact, you have even attempted to put his ‘arguments’ forward, merely said they are right.
Plain and simple, you’re a troll.
Honestly, I don’t give a damn what he’s like in the real world. People talk shit on the interwebbernets all the time but rarely back it up. I’m pretty sure he just amps things up to tweak the “liberal douches,” and unfortunately he’s got a pretty good idea of what makes us bark.
The plain meaning leads us to conclude RR as being irresponsible. Unless you want it to mean something else, as I’m sure you do in the courtroom.
Ah, the old annoying = troll routine.