That’s what Barry Bitter Barrister told me the other day while I was filing a motion in the clerk’s office. You see I had my motion in my Maryland Pro Bono Resource folder that I got at a recent event. The attorney next to me noticed the folder and started making the standard old, bitter, jaded litigator comments to me:
“Pro Bono?! I do plenty of that with clients who don’t pay me.”
Or a little more crude: “I am already getting bono’d by my clients, no need to be pro about it.”
I do not know if this is just the culture of the county I primarily work in or if this attitude is the norm nationwide. Is it?
A couple of years ago I interviewed at a firm and one of the last things I asked was what kind of pro bono/community involvement does the firm do? Awkward silence…
Why the awkward silence? (I got the job despite the daring question.) It seems like pro bono is why most of us went to law school: to simply help people. And if you truly are struggling to the degree that you can not provide pro bono, why is it advantageous at all for you to be condescending and bitter about it? The “Legal Lions” that I know embrace Pro Bono and promote it. If you can’t do it in this economy that is understandable… but what do you get out of doing anything but promoting Pro Bono?
What do you think?
“Every lawyer… has a responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay and personal involvement in the problems of the disadvantaged can be one of the most rewarding experiences in the life of a lawyer.” American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct
“To do good is noble. To teach others to do good is nobler, and no trouble [to oneself].” Mark Twain
A “Dictator” writes 10 pages for what should be a 3 page motion. As a former law clerk, these long dictated motions would always chap my @ss. Such a waste of time. As a practitioner, however, I see the monetary value of these long, bloated, John Candyesque (or Elvis in his later days) motions. A younger writing revolution will lead to a take over as technology continues to breakdown the old, evil, Mussoliniesque billing empires. These younger revolutionaries get their point across effectively and memorably in a paragraph as opposed to 10 pages.
As William Wallace in Braveheart meant to say:
“I am a Young Legal Writer. And I see a whole army of my professionals, here in defiance of dictation. You’ve come to write as free men… and free men you are. What will you do with that freedom? Will you write?”
Well, will you write? Or will you dictate and die like Mussolini, John Candy or Elvis. (How about that for a false dilemma?)
Or is the better question: Has dictating made legal writing suck?
The legal field somedays seems to be teeming with scumbags. On other days, there are snakes. Still other days there are rats.
Fewer days are filled with good people.
And at the end of the day you are going to want someone you can trust as your counsel. I have seen over and over again counsel pick fights to their monetary advantage and to their client’s detriment. Maybe this is more of an issue with the billable hour system; maybe not. Maybe this has something to do with the economy; maybe not. I don’t know. I just know that many times the bark of the attorney is directly correlated with how confidently they overbill you for their services.
Next time don’t hire the scumbag attorney. Hire a reasonable problem solver you can trust. Why?
Because they aren’t just being a scumbag to the other side in your conflict…