Right. Your turn.
No, I think what you wrote speaks for itself.
Some help is almost always going to be better than no help.
No, because it will muddy the waters for people seeking total help, further wasting their time and harming their legal position.
What’s all this about lawyers and adoption? Be poxed if I were to adopt a lawyer.
[Muffin, Evil Family Lawyer, solving the population problem one child at a time]
After you’ve had time to read and digest the article, following your promise (of no more worth than any of your other promises in life, obviously) to respond to it, all you can come up with is that same sociopathic crap? The same line, constantly repeated from your fetal position in the corner as if it will somehow protect you from that bad old world out there and all of its morals and standards and expectations you just can’t understand? 
Poor little putz.
Can anyone here remember ElvisLives making a single intelligent post in his entire SDMB career? Anyone?
Whilst they may not directly promise to do Pro Bono (and a lot of people would argue that in fact they do), they do promise to behave in a professional way, to use their skills and experience to serve The Court and Justice, and to refrain from activities or behaviours that might have a negative effect on the public perception of the Legal profession or bring it into disrepute.
And the meta-point (or “subtext”, if you will) of many (most?) of the posters in the thread is that going on the internet and loudly proclaiming your disdain for the entire concept of Pro Bono and calling anyone who disagrees with you names, whilst bragging about how much money you earn and how awesome a lawyer you are isn’t really in line with those “responsibilities” or the professional standards one might expect from a member of the Bar either.
Fair question, but polls belong in IMHO!
I am a nurse practitioner.
If I want to do volunteer work, I will.
If I do not, I won’t.
It’s called freedom.
I could care less what RandRover makes per year.
It’s his choice to volunteer his services/skills/knowledge , or not.
I don’t even care if he disdains pro bono … the point is that HE is entitled to freedom of choice.
I have total distain for others who would impose their choice on another person, when it is really none of their concern.
Butt out.
Butt out of what? Randi is the one who came in here to bitch and moan about the responsibility he undertook when he became a lawyer. Maybe he should butt out of the legal profession.
Maybe he should practice law the way he wants to.
It’s his right.
He also has the right to bitch and moan and rant.
Bitching and moaning may make him an unpleasant fellow. But, it does not make him wrong.
Nope. Does not work that way. All lawyers are licensed to practice law only in accordance with the dictates of their governing bodies. Whether we like it or not, we are not free to practice law any way we want to.
Okay, but how 'bout RR’s right to post a thread here bitching about his workplace oppressing him? Don’t you think he’s allowed to post such a thread without all of us coming here to inform him that he’s wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, incorrect, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, factually mistaken, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong?
Agreed, Muffin. But we are also not bound to do everything that you think we are bound to do.
If what you think I’m wrong about is whether I have an actual obligation to do pro bono (or aspire to do pro bono), then I’m still waiting for someone to inform of that. So far we have lots of assertion that I’m wrong and only a couple of arguments, both of which were terrible (which is probably why the proponent abandoned them way back).
I don’t think RR’s posts in this thread have violated his license in any way at all.
God help us all if Basil Marceaux Dot Com gets elected–no more gold-fringed flags!
*Somebody’s *clearly taking the piss.
I laughed.
I couldn’t have put it better myself.
He gave the housekeeper the weekend off to shut her up after she walked in on him faceplanted into a giant mound of cocaine.
14 pt.
I never ceased to be amazed at how useful and descriptive a username you picked when you registered here. Thank you for that.
Personally, I’d prefer if they’d put **Randy **out of *our *misery.
My god, it’s almost as though *every other credible authority *agrees with our interpretation that **Randy **is a shirker and not worthy of his license!
We’re such fools for disagreeing with a single man who’s long been established as a greedy, unprincipled, lazy douchebarge, when almost every other lawyer and authority on the subject, including the rules you agreed to follow, back us up. Whatever were we thinking!
You know what I hate?
People who put carriage returns after every sentence.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Is it your way of demonstrating that we can just skip the content of what you have to say, because it’s bound to be retarded?
If so, you should have warned me.
Because I read your posts.
And you’re a fucking idiot.
You forgot a “wrong.”
I’ve since learned that I had it backwards, and that the crackpot theory is that courts displaying a flag *with *a gold fringe are illegitimate.
I apologize for my shoddy research and hope it has not too severely damaged the integrity of this thread.
If you object to this you threaten the entire structure of the Internet.
Commie.
*Besides, I have it on the best authority that he’s actually a part-time 7-11 clerk who has to collect refundable cans and bottles just to pay his ISP provider.
SFG (and any others who care to comment): what exactly do you think that article shows that I am wrong about?