E–right, you can do that as long as you don’t mind outuing yourself as a complete idiot.
Professional courtesy: the “fantasy land” thing is completely played out, and was a non-sequitur the first time. I realize it’s your fallback attempt at ad hominem, but you should really move on to something else. Neither I nor **SFG ** expect you to do anything “just because we want you to.” We have nothing to do with it. Your own professional association defines the expectation.
You clearly feel the “actual obligation” definition is a meaningful distinction that mitigates your deliberate failure to perform pro bono. Very few people, including those in your own profession, would agree that it’s meaningful. In the end, it doesn’t really matter, because (as I pointed out pages ago) your desperate scramble to excuse your non-behavior shows that deep down, you *do *have some sense of guilt about it, and feel a need to vindicate yourself in the eyes of others who’d assume, understandably, that you’re simply a lazy, selfish asshole.
If you didn’t care, you’d have shrugged your evil shoulders at the company email and we wouldn’t be 37 pages into this game of turdball badminton. So I guess that’s something. Not quite Scrooge on Christmas morn, but at least a sliver’s hangnail of hope for your Rand-blackened soul.
If you’re willing to recognize that you’re daring him to do it, you should be willing to accept the results, right? And you already know what those will be.
do it do it do it do it do it …
VT–nope. Just fighting (your) ignorance.
I really should start a compendium of these ironic little sayings of yours.
There’s nothing I could possibly say that hasn’t been said ten times already in this thread.
You refuse to agree that anything that has been said (numerous lawyer interpretations, citations, etc.) has any credibility and that you are individually responsible for defining the word ‘obligation’. Sophistic bullshit aside, we are all permitted to label you as an idiot. This won’t bother you, but that’s okay.
E–I have not said that I alone can define “obligation.” That is absolutely incorrect. I’ve just used a term that I have specifically defined (“actual obligation”) and have shown how I don’t have an actual obligation to do pro bono.
Except that *your *definition of “actual obligation” is not an obligation at all, but a requirement. And *no one here *is saying that you have a requirement, since there is no concrete sanction involved.
See why we think you’re fucking tarded? And a sociopath? Because you recognize no duty, no responsibility, no obligation: only requirement. Only someone holding a brick over your head and threatening to smash it down if you don’t obey. Like a child. Only I’ve seen children with a better understanding of ethics.
Also, a really sick fuck for raping your daughter. (Remember, you bring this on yourself, every time you bring up that stupid fucking strawman.)
SFG–remember way back when we narrowed down the issue and I accused you of bouncing around to different issues and you were aghast at that accusation? Well, you’re doing it again. You absolutely said upthread that I have an actual obligation because I promised to do pro bono. If you no longer think that, then fine, we have nothing to argue about.
Where did I say you promised to do pro bono? Please provide a cite, which if you’re so sure of you should have no problem finding.
I have said that it is your responsibility to do pro bono, and you agreed that it was your responsibility, and that you should aspire to do it, by becoming licensed to practice law in Illinois. What I have not claimed is that you specifically promised to do pro bono, but rather that you willingly put yoruself in a position where it was expected of you. The difference is subtle, yet key.
I am not saying you’re a disgusting person for blowing off the obligation–I’m saying you’re a fucking retarded coward for claiming that there’s no obligation to begin with instead of being a proud selfish bastard.
And I’m saying you’re an idiot for believing in the reality of a moral obligation. Google “Americans have a moral obligation” for a nice listing of things you have a moral obligation to do (including promoting abortion rights, fighting abortion rights, opposing climate change activists, opposing people who oppose climate change activists, owning a gun, and getting rid of guns). Do you do all thgose things? If not, why not?
Also, I’ll post that cite for you later tonight.
Here you go (post 1107 in this thread):
Again, you’re comparing apples and oranges.
The Illinois Supreme Court, which licenses you to practice law in that state, has said that you have an *actual, real, concrete responsibility *to provide pro bono legal services. There is no similar governing body that has stated that I have an *actual, real, concrete responsibility *to do X, Y, and Z.
Do you truly not understand the difference between “a governing body to which I am willingly subject has stated that I have an obligation” and “some random dude is telling me I have an obligation”? Apparently not, because you keep trying to “prove” that we’re wrong by telling us that we’re obliged to send you cash or nudes.
“I have an actual obligation to d pro bono (because I promised to do so)”
Those are your words, not mine. My own fault for not better clarifying exactly what I meant. I believe that you have an actual obligation to do pro bono because you “promised” that you have an obligation–not because you “promised” to do pro bono. You will not anywhere in this thread find a direct quote of me saying that you promised to do pro bono–because you didn’t. What you did do is agree to abide by a set of rules, and those rules say that you have a responsibility to do pro bono.
So, you have agreed that pro bono is your responsibility as a lawyer in the state of Illinois, by the simple virtue of allowing yourself to be licensed to practice law there (i.e., becoming subject to the rules for those licensed to practice law). However, while you have the *means *to fulfill this responsibility, you have decided that “I don’t wanna” is more important than “I agreed that I should.”
SFG–you are correct that the IL supreme court is the governing body and makes the rules for what lawyers must do. But that proves my point and not yours. The rules could provde that a lawyer must do pro bono to remain a lawyer. They don’t provide that. The rules don’t mention pro bono at all. The preamble simply recites that a lawyer has a responsibility to do pro bono.
I didn’t agree that I have a responsibility to do pro bono–that doesn’t even make sense. I agreed to abide by the rules. And abiding by the rules does not necessitate doing pro bono. It really is that simple.
You read the word “responsibility” in the preamble and you aren’t capable of thinking past that. If you were, you’d realize that the rules don’t actually require pro bono, meaning that I can choose whether or not I do it. I don’t want to, so that’s the end of the matter as far as the rules are concerned.
if it is your assertion that the preamble isn’t part of the rules, then you need to hand in your bar membership card right away.
So does he have an actual obligation, a moral obligation, or is he required to do so?
I don’t fantasize that you’ll provide a straight answer to this, but: why does the preamble mention the responsibility at all? Removing unnecessary text is really easy, especially with today’s new-fangled word processors, and no lawyer (let alone a whole BAR of them!) would allow meaningless language to remain in such an important document.
Considering the number of lawyer eyes that have slithered over the thing, surely someone would’ve piped up by now and said “you know, we should really remove this bit about there being a responsibility to perform pro bono, or someone might think they’re required to do it.”
VT–two reasons: 1. Guilt trip by do-gooders. 2. Attempt to avoid the government attempting to impose an actual requirement.
Yeah, fuck those people who want to do right without being forced to.
I don’t find reason 1 particularly credible, unless you can identify these do-gooders and explain the mechanism they used to force the Bar Association to adopt language it doesn’t agree with. (An association of *lawyers *is just going to roll over to pressure, external or internal, from some minority group?)
2 is more believable, but again, you haven’t presented any evidence this is the case, and I’m guessing it would not be the response I’d get from the Bar Association if I asked.