think about the sort of service people forced into it might provide.

Related to this, although in a different profession, is this quote from a character in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, speaking about socialized medicine:

"I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind--yet what is it they expect to depend on, when they lie on the operating table under their hands?. . . Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to put their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it--and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't."

That's not fair, unless every person who works also must contribute pro bono work. Doctors, lawyers, chefs, home health aids (although they make so little money that the first lost paycheck might make them homeless.

While I don't agree with compulsory pro bono work, there are ways to encourage volunteerism.

For instance, my husband had been fighting to keep his vision for the past 2 1/2 years. Last weekend, the retina in his "good eye" began to tear. He has since had 10 areas repaired by laser surgery. As it scars over the next couple of weeks, he is likely to become visually impaired. Right now he cannot pick up anything over 10 lbs, nor can he drive.

The lawyers association has stepped up to help him. They have appointed someone to sit second chair at all of his trials. While some attorney's will get paid extra for their service others get points which move them to the top of the appointment list.

Young lawyers tell us that they are excited about the opportunity because my husband is very prepared and intelligent so it is a learning opportunity.

Likewise pro bono work can be an important opportunity to develop. For better or for worse, pro bono work is often above the lawyers experience level. This means that the lawyer may have to rise up to the challenge. Some lawyers will be able to do so while others will not. If pro bono work is rewarded with points that help attorneys get court appointments as well as experience it would be a smart thing to do and would remain voluntary.

Encouraging volunteerism is great, and I read often about research that finds that helping is beneficial to the helper, too. I wrote about this in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck."

However, encouraging volunteerism rather than mandating it is the way to go.

Hmm, I thought we were not allowed to question the words of a "wise Latina"!?

P.S. Lawyer's wife - best of luck to your husband; retina problems are a real challenge.

Hmmm...never go against a Sicilian when the first amendment is on the line?

Apparently the wise Latina has never heard of the 13th amendment.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Or is that just a suggestion?

That's not fair, unless every person who works also must contribute pro bono work. ~ Samm at May 21, 2016 12:41 AM

Doctors, chefs, home health [aides] are not officers of the court with all the attendant privileges. Sometimes those privileges entail obligations.

Sotomayor seems to be thinking attorneys should be required to provide free criminal and civil legal services for the poor. The wise(?) Latina's opinion reflects the limits of her experience. She is experienced in criminal law, having been a prosecutor and a judge. Much legal work is done that never sees the inside of a courtroom.

Lawyers specialize. While I'm sure the poor would appreciate pro bono contract, patent, or tax law work, is there enough of that work that those specialized attorneys can meet their obligations without having to delve into areas in which their inexperience and lack of specialized knowledge could have serious negative effects for their pro bono clients? Or are only certain types of lawyers to be obligated to donate their time and expertise?

People that want/advocate "free" stuff never think about the fact that somebody else decides who gets/supplies it, what/how they get it, and that it might be them being told what they will/can get or have to provide.

It's all good in their imaginary world.

Oh, and just what is stopping HER from volunteering HER time to help others?

Leftists who cry for "society" to do more for others so rarely volunteer themselves or their money.

"Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, speaking about socialized medicine"

You must be referring to Ayn Rand O'Connor.

At least that's the name she used to get government handouts.

Conan:

The wise(?) Latina's opinion reflects the limits of her experience. She is experienced in criminal law, having been a prosecutor and a judge. Much legal work is done that never sees the inside of a courtroom.

You must remember, she's a "wise Latina woman." You certainly don't want to confuse them with the "wise Latina men." (Though in this day and age, with the newfound pronoun fluidity, it wouldn't surprise me if such things existed.)

I suppose new lawyers could be required to do an internship, of sorts, pro-bono. Other professions require it, including mine.

However, that would consign the poor to inexperienced help. And as one who once had to remind a public defender of something that should have been obvious, as well as the horror stories I've collected from others dealing with public defenders, I know that new lawyers can be a pretty clueless bunch.

I think deregulating the legal profession sounds like the best solution. It will still shut out the most indigent from legal services, however, unless it involves the ambulance chasers who agree to collect only if they win.

Yes, it would be nice if all lawyers could agree to do a small amount of pro-bono work for the indigent. But I don't believe we should force lawyers to do this. As you point out, forcing a resentful professional to forego the fee to which he is entitled is a virtual guarantee of shit-quality work.

I believe the 35% of my paycheck that goes to various taxes counts as "involuntary servitude"...the problem is that when you think the money the gov spends is free, you can think up an infinite number of things to spend it on, and with little regard for efficiency.

we can greatly reduce the cost of legal services (including for the poor) by deregulating the legal profession.

A good idea . . . which will happen around the time that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Kim Jong-un join the cast of Kinky Boots,

To: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
May 21, 2016 9:41 AM

It is refreshing that you have come around to the conservative position. Namely, that social security and medicare are government handouts. Those are the handouts that Ayn Rand collected from the government.

Most progressives stubbornly proclaim that these are universal social programs. But, when a conservative receives benefits, he is a hypocrite. This, despite being forced to pay taxes to the program against his will.

Your snide argument is a variation on the "roads and protection" excuse. "We supply roads, police protoection, water, and garbage collection, among other things. Without those, you peasants would not be able to live. So, hand over your stuff for the greater good, administered by me."

The must-read essay "Your Dog Owns Your House" by economist Anthony de Jasay discusses this in detail.

( easyopinions.blogspot.com/2010/12/your-dog-owns-your-house.html )

Your dog may have scared away burglars and vandals, and may have warned you about a fire which would have destroyed your house. By leftist thinking, your dog then owns your house, or a good chunk of it.

Not in a free society. Government agencies protect us, but we don't therefore owe the government everything. A free man can arrange a better deal than that. Of course, a slave has no option.

JD: which will happen around the time that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Kim Jong-un join the cast of Kinky Boots,

Hmmmm...I'd pay to see that. We should send them audition notices.

"It is refreshing that you have come around to the conservative position. Namely, that social security and medicare are government handouts. Those are the handouts that Ayn Rand collected from the government."

And I truly appreciate your going public with your gender transition.

You're a very brave girl! Almost. But soon!

"That's not fair, unless every person who works also must contribute pro bono work."

What do you think the goal of a leftist is? You've just denoted socialism.

You must be referring to Ayn Rand O'Connor. ~ Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 21, 2016 9:41 AM

Here's what Rand herself had to say on the subject:

We [her newsletter, The Objectivist] are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”

I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it.…

The recipient of a public [government] scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.…

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.