You: "I don't have a problem with requiring students to do pro bono work. So long as a law license is required to practice law and people can be arrested for practicing law without a license, I think it is entirely appropriate for lawyers to do pro bono work, and many of the largest firms devote substantial hours to pro bono."
I see the opportunity for good in this sentence. Let me restate it two ways.
(1) "I don't have a problem with requiring all lawyers to do pro bono work. So long as a law license is required to practice law and people can be arrested for practicing law without a license, I think it is entirely appropriate for lawyers to be required to do pro bono work, and many of the largest firms should be required to devote substantial hours to pro bono work."
Indeed, mandatory free labor by lawyers, as a condition of practicing law, might completely eliminate the problem of the lack of legal help for the indigent.
Following the logic further,
(2) "I don't have a problem with requiring all doctors to do pro bono work. So long as a medical license is required to practice medicine and people can be arrested for practicing medicine without a license, I think it is entirely appropriate for doctors to be required to do pro bono work, and many of the largest private clinics should be required to devote substantial hours to pro bono work."
If all doctors were required by law to work one full week for free every year, we could provide more indigent care, and substantially reduce medical costs.
Come to think of it, this offers a lot of new possibilities. Every licensed profession should be compelled to work a week for free every year for the poor. Banks should be required to give away loans for a week, because they have to meet all sorts of regulatory requirements in order to be banks.
The principle that: "You have to be licensed, therefore we can command you to perform free labor for the good of society" is a good one. We can use it to cut the costs of everything by 1/52, almost 2%, if we just impose it on everyone. Garbagemen perform a vital service. They should be required, as a condition of employment, to work for free for one week a year. Same thing for teachers.
If we up that one week to two weeks, we could cut the deficit by 4%. Three weeks, 6%, but that's probably going to far.
Surely it is not too much to ask that every working person in America, and every company in America, should be required to work absolutely free for one full week every year, in order to give back to society. And ESPECIALLY anyone in public service, like teachers, garbage men, bankers, doctors and the like.
Or maybe we don't like this idea very much. Seems to me that if you can make lawyers work a week for free as a condition of being a lawyer, you can make absolutely anybody work a week for free as a condition of holding a job.
Yes, I think that, subject to minimum wage laws and fair labor practice laws, you can make absolutely anybody work a week for free as a condition of holding a job.