Blah, blah, blah. Since we’re all so wrong, why don’t you show us up and leave? I promise no one worthwhile will miss you.
Could it be that he secretly craves our acclaim, being a Randian uebermensch and all that?
I like fighting ignorance, and I found the motherlode at the SDMB.
My point is that a contract is simply different. I think oaths are to an extent “sacred” though I would rather not use the word because of religious overtones. It’s about honor. My word is my bond. Not because being known as a person who breaks his word would be bad for me financially (though it would) but because it is my word.
Obviously we think differently on this one.
I will, however, point out that the general trend is in error on one point here. Assuming RandRover is a partner, he isn’t paid for pro bono in the same way that I am. Partners’ pay is based on firm profitability, and so if the hours he would do pro bono would reduce his billable hours, then his pay would be (minimally) lower. Also any expenses of pro bono representation would reduce the firm’s profits, and therefore reduce (minimally) his pay.
But that is all completely tangential to the point. It’s also ignoring the benefits that accrue to law firms from performing pro bono. They might be (and probably are) sufficient to offset any costs, therefore meaning doing pro bono would increase his compensation.
Of course he does. Why is that even a question? He’s a child saying “No!” to everything so that mommy and daddy pay attention to him.
Why don’t you go hang out with the Freepers? They’d love to have you, and there’s much more ignorance there.
Indeed. If everyone at Rand’s firm declined to live up to their oaths, I have no doubt that it would reflect very poorly on them and they’d lose business. So, really, he’s just not fucking himself over, but everyone else he works with.
He Kant imagine anyone else skipping out, so it’s okay.
I fully live up to my oath. I do everything I (and every other lawyer) swore to do.
Except aspire to do pro bono work.
Because its voluntary.
Again, you and he both have understandings of the meaning of “oath” that are inconsistent with being officers of the court.
Things that reflect poorly and harm business are already mandatory and are aggressively enforced, pro bono is not one of them but you can fantasize if you want.
The oath allows for pro bono to be the responsibility of the lawyer to aspire to.
The oath takes for granted that lawyers will understand that “should aspire” means “should aspire.” The oath is flawed, and should clearly be dumbed down further so that even the lowest-common-denominator attorneys like Rand Rover don’t waste hundreds of billable (or even pro bono!) hours arguing that the rules don’t apply to them because the courtroom flag doesn’t have a gold fringe on it.
Isn’t it time he took you for a walk? I know you lapdogs have such tiny bladders…
I still maintain that Redpill’s bladder is within Rand Rover’s body.
The oath is already perfect and penned by someone smarter than you understands the nature of voluntary work.
Its OK to lose an argument with grace.
See, I just don’t buy that. If it were truly voluntary, then wouldn’t it read something more like “pro bono work is entirely voluntary and may be accepted at the attorney’s sole discretion”?
That’s qualitatively different from “every attorney has a responsibility to perform pro bono work and should aspire to complete at least 50 hours a year; the lack of a punishment does not diminish this responsibility.”
And, it should be noted, the lack of a punishment is not because they are trying to allow for people who don’t want to do it, they’re allowing for people who can’t do it.
All Rand is doing is exploiting a unfortunately big loophole that allows shirkers to shirk without penalty. Good for him, the snake.
Custer enjoyed fighting Indians, too, and was overjoyed to find that big encampment of Sioux.
Rand, you’re crammed so full of arrows at this point you make a porcupine look bald.
Very good point.
They don’t want do diminish the importance of pro bono work. (A good thing for people like me) Pro bono is important to society and there is a “responsibility”, therefore any lawyer who doesn’t do it is not being “responsible” in the area of pro bono, but the level of coercion stops there. Because anymore would be inappropriate and change the nature of the voluntary act. A subtle but important difference.
Can’t includes not wanting to do it. Not wanting to do it is the biggest can’t in a democracy.
Belief in legal loopholes is a bit simple minded. Everything is there because it works.
Mostly it’s there because it never occurred to anyone back in the 19th Century/1950s/Whenever the legislation was drafted that someone would try and do [Loophole activity].
The ignorance just keeps on rollin’ along.