After a series of idiotic comments, this takes the biscuit. I guess there is an awful lot of people who can’t (in the biggest way) pay their taxes every April.
Right. So you think that: (i) a bunch of lawyers (who read and interpret and apply rules all day long) get together to write the rules of professional conduct; (ii) they want to achieve the result of a person who wants to be a lawyer being required to perform pro bono service to maintain their status as a lawyer; (iii) but instead of actually writing a rule saying “a lawyer shall perform pro bono work,” they just put some language in the preamble saying “a lawyer has the responsibility to perform pro bono work”; and (iv) they absolutely had no idea that some lawyers would actually not perform pro bono work. That’s some good ignorance.
Things that matter get “occurred” pretty fast.
The rules and the language used is fine because things are fine the way they are. (Don’t forget too much pro bono may be bad for business)
Some lawyers do it some don’t and that’s fine.
Please, you’ve had the biscuit firmly up your ass for several pages now. The law provides that all U.S. citizens (plus some other folks) are required to pay taxes. Guess what happens if they don’t? They go to jail and/or get fined and/or have their property taken away from them.
You really think that a lawyer is required to do pro bono in the same way that U.S. citizens (etc.) are required to pay taxes?
And that’s fine as because they will pay the penalty set up by system. In this case there’s no penalty beyond the lawyer being deemed “not being responsible in the area of pro bono”.
Not a well thought of analogy, maybe you “can’t”.
No dumbass. I was critiquing your chum’s comment. It had nothing to do with pro bono, just the idiocy of a comment suggesting that don’t want to equals can’t in a democracy.
And you were too stupid to see that. I expected better from you. I’d never before thought you were just incredibly dumb.
For explanation, see above comment to your Dad.
This thread provides ample evidence to show which of us is the stupid one. I have the ability to read a set of rules and determine whether a given action is required. You have shown that you don’t (and still somehow feel the need to maintain the charade that you are a lawyer).
So your response here is “you’re dumb & you’re not a lawyer”?
I expected better, like a 15 page attempt to talk around the fact you were honesty stupid enough to think I was comparing taxes to pro bono work. This is WEAK!
You made a mistake. You so wanted me to have said something wrong, you misinterpreted a very obvious comment I made. Come on, admit it. You’ll feel better. It gets easier each time you do it.
I can help you with understanding this. A sufficiently strong “Don’t want” becomes “Can’t” because it goes against your ideas. The democratic system allows more “can’t” than a communist system.
Think a doctor who can’t perform an abortion because he doesn’t want so he just opts out, and that’s OK by the system.
Do you see it now?
At least it’s an improvement over “You’re stupid and so are your arguments!” Gotta love the way everyone else is expected to provide thorough and comprehensive explanations and justifications and reasoning to back their arguments up, but Mr. Rover is allowed to just ignore it or respond with “Nuh-uh!”
An honest question here - is English a second language for you?
Let’s look back at what you said:
Not “is a can’t”
Or “is a big can’t”
Or “is one of the biggest can’ts”
No, you called it “the biggest can’t”
To you. it is a bigger “can’t” to not want to do something than to not be able to do it.
So if I say “I can’t become President of the United States” you think it is more likely I mean “I don’t want to become President of the United States” (which is true) rather than “the United States Constitution does not permit me to run for President of the United States.”
Do you use an emotional defense like this often in courtroom. I can just imagine the opposing lawyer just “admitting it”.
That’s all you got, boy?
If someone coerces you to run for presidency, you can just say “I can’t” and if asked why, you can just say because “I don’t want” and that would be OK in a democracy.
And then pay the penalty for it. (Which there is none, thank God)
Do you see it now?
What are you talking about? I’ve provided a complete argument for my position, and I’ve stated it several times, and provided examples showing my reasoning, and shown how others’ reasoning is faulty. Over and over. So much that people have gotten on my ass for repeating myself. Other people have just repeatedly made the same assertions without even attempting to put some analysis together.
I know exactly what you mean, but to say it is the biggest can’t is imbecilic.
In a democracy “don’t want” should be sufficient for refusal to participate in something you don’t believe in and just going ahead and paying the penalty for it.
Do you want to talk more about coerced pro bono?
I’m not trying to change your mind, and we can just agree to disagree.
About ten minutes of searching reveals that this appears to be a contentious issue in the field. I don’t have Lexis access, but this looks like a frequently-cited analysis of the issues:
Judith L. Maute, “Changing Conceptions of Lawyers’ Pro Bono Responsibilities: From Change Noblesse Oblige to Stated Expectations,” 77 Tul. L. Rev. 91, 96 (2002)
Perhaps if we could take a look at the state of more learned opinion, we might generate a little more light in this conversation. Crazy, I know.
Good luck with that. This thread jumped the shark quite some time ago.