Keep grasping at those straws. And I like how you cut out the part of my post where I make fun of you for not being able to make an argument–too painful?
I report to the bar every year that I haven’t done pro bono. And my firm knows I haven’t billed anything to the pro bono matter number. So, you got nothin’.
The thing is- and this has been explained several times- there’s an assumption that the reason you (or any other lawyer reporting zero Pro Bono hours) hasn’t done them because they’re genuinely too busy or with another valid “Professional” reason.
There’s a Biblical level of difference between that, and someone who refuses to do Pro Bono on principle. And that’s what people are saying: If you actually attached a little addendum to your Pro Bono Hours report that said “The reason I haven’t done any is because I don’t want to and I don’t think I should have to” (or any of the other, more wordy reasons you’ve given in the thread) then I suspect you’ll find that your superiors- or at least the Bar association- might have something to say about the matter, and it’s unlikely to be “Fair enough. Carry on, then.”
Right, Martini, that’s your little theory of the “strongly worded letter” you mentioned upthread. Keep grasping at that straw. You can use it as a fig leaf to cover the fact that you have absolutely no ability to make any kind of valid argument that I have an actual obligation to do pro bono.
This thread has surely passed its Use By Date. It’s now patently obvious that RandRover and his acolytes are toying with those of us who thought we might have had some ‘hope’ in disabusing him/them of his/their errant thought-patterns. Continuing this thread is just taking up cyberspace that might be more aptly used for threads like,
or
Can someone fucking put this thread out of our misery please?
No kidding, this is painful now. It’s as useless as tits on a bull so to speak.
Please?? 
But he’s SUCH a fucking dick-and-a-half!!!
K–exactly which “errant thought patterns” do I need disabusing from?
Good one. But, heck, Blalron, he doesn’t even have to “out” himself. If he really is intellectually honest with himself, he can have a friend write something like this to his IBA:
- Jack
I suggest you start here and read carefully. (Warning: long.)
I am not a fan of this individual.
I am a fan of free choice.
Me too. I would never support forcing anyone to become a lawyer.
Heck, if Rand Rover doesn’t write the letter I just might do it myself. A letter from the Illinois Bar Association affirming that yes, he does have a “real obligation” should pretty much drive the nail into the coffin of his argument, shouldn’t it?
No. If you write a letter there will be weasel room based on the wording of the letter.
Since Rand Rover feels free to insert qualifying words (“real” obligation) into a text which has no qualifying words, I don’t put much stock in his analysis. But it would greatly amuse me to post a scanned letter from the Illinois Bar that says yes, there is a responsibility, and yes, it is a “real” responsibility and a “real” obligation, not a fake one.
The thing is, Blaron, we all know there is. Everyone except RandRover and his couple of jabbering felatio monkeys knows there is. Every lawyer other than RandRover in this thread knows there is. Every lawyer I have asked since htis thread started, including, I am estimating, those barred in 50% of the states, knows there is.
I don’t think Justice Cardozo himself appearing from the dead and telling RandRover the obligation is clear in the rules would make a shred of difference.
I’m not “inserting qualifying words.” I’m using a term that I have provided a very specific meaning for. Other people in this thread are content with using words with lots of different possible meanings (eg, obligation, responsibility, duty, etc.), and using those terms inconsistently with how other posters use them, whereas I have specifically defined the terms I use. And somehow that makes me the one that’s “weaseling” etc.
To repeat, a person has an “actual obligation” to do something when someone else has recourse against them if they don’t do it. An actual obligation can arise in several ways, including through a person’s agreement (ie, contract) and because a person is subject to a set of rules that provides recourse if the person doesn’t do the action.
Quoting directly, with extra emphasis given to one particular point…
1.) At the September meeting, the Commission first voted in favor of mandatory service, then agreed to reconsider.
2.) The Commission then unanimously agreed (with one abstention) to add a new sentence to the rule text: “Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay.”
3.) Paragraph 6 stressed the importance of “access to the legal system,” stating: “Therefore, all lawyers should devote professional time, resources and civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel.”
4.) The Reporter explained the importance of the ethical obligation, and because the current system of delivering such services was not working, the Commission sought to encourage increased participation.
5.) Building on the general principle set forth in Canon 2, [these changes] underscore the expectation that “every” lawyer should act to provide legal services for those unable to pay and the role of law firms in creating an ethical culture that actively “encourages” pro bono services.
6.) If the lawyer does nothing to provide direct service or financial support to others who serve, the lawyer presumably has violated her professional responsibility.
7.) While the expectation remains aspirational, and is not the basis for discipline, revised Rule 6.1 clearly rejects the passive professional paradigm.
Lawyers are affirmatively expected to volunteer their services and otherwise support those who render unpaid legal services, and not merely to react to fortuitous requests for help by those in need.
I’m pretty sure that level of insult is against the rules of this board.
And it makes it harder to read for everyone else. You can’t collapse the text into normal paragraphs after you’re done composing?
No shit.
El oh el. Once again, you see everyone as a mirror of your own worst qualities.
Why are you talking to this person like they’re new here?
So am I. And you know what’s funny? Randy *chose *to enter a profession that has clearly deliniated responsibilities. One of which is pro bono work.
AKA, “making shit up because it’s convenient.” Obligations have nothing to do with sanctions and everything to do with expectation, responsibility, and duty. None of those things are requirements, where they’re invalid if someone isn’t holding a gun to your head.
Yes, you made it clear from the outset that you’re ignoring your obligation because there are no repercussions for doing so. What’s clear to everyone except you* is that this makes you *more *of a douche, not less of one.
SFG,VT–you stil don’t get it. At this point, I can only conclude that you aren’t mentally capable of getting it.
You can say that I have a “moral” or “ethical” or “professional” “responsibility” to do pro bono all you want. I’m not, and have never in this thread, argued with that. Wat I have argued against is your assertion that I promised to do pro bono (and therefore have an actual obligation to do so). That is clearly not the case. You two (and several others) are too stupid to realize that there’s a difference between an actual obligation and a “moral obligation” because you live in fantasy land where you think people should do something just because you want them to. But your expectations about my behavior create no actual obligation on me.
Also SFG, it’s nice how you completely misread the history there. The ABA considered imposing a actual obligation and chose not to do so. So there’s no actual obligation. That’s it. It’s that simple. Just because they use the word “responsibility” in there doesn’t mean there’s an actual obligation–you have to look at the whole situation. There’s no recourse against lawyers who don’t do pro bono, so there’s no actual obligation to do so.
I hereby declare that you have an obligation to send me $10,000. Are you going to ignore this obligation simply because there are no repercussions for doing so?
The point is that I’m not ignoring my actual obligations because there aren’t repercussions–the lack of repercussions shows that there’s no actual obligation.
Right, we can therefore conclude that it just makes you a douchebag sociopath.
Forget all this arguing business.