Posted on 05/24/2016 8:41:24 AM PDT by reaganaut1
On May 16 at an American Law Institute meeting, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that she was in favor of forced labor – at least to the extent of compelling lawyers to do enough pro bono work so that poor people in America can have legal representation when they need it.
Many lower income Americans are unable to afford legal assistance when they need it. The legal establishment has known that for a long time, and often indulges in hand-wringing over it. Some law firms require their attorneys to engage in pro bono work, donating their time to help poor people. No doubt that has marginally reduced our “access” problem, but it remains so serious that Justice Sotomayor thinks we should ratchet up the level of coercion in America another notch to solve it.
“If I had my way,” she declared, “I would make pro bono service a requirement.”
Fortunately, we have not reached the point where one or even all the members of the Supreme Court can impose such a mandate on the legal (or any other) profession. For one thing, there is the considerable obstacle of the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting involuntary servitude. That amendment should be read to prohibit all kinds of forced labor, including that done under the governmental threat here: Perform enough free work or you will lose your license to work at all.
Writing on the always interesting Volokh Conspiracy blog, professor Ilya Somin argues that while there is a century old Supreme Court precedent against treating the Thirteenth Amendment as a bar to compulsory pro bono work for lawyers, that decision is flawed and should not be treated as controlling. But in any case, he says, “forced labor is a deeply unjust violation of individual liberty.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
He’s a conservative Christian was my point. Too many assume those who do probono are bleeding heart liberal defense types. MrR isn’t in the least.
Its true. If you are not forced into doing something (like probono) you are more likely to help those who need it. My husband is a great example of this. He opposed probono when we were in CA because it was required, now he does it because he is licensed in a state where he doesn’t have to do it. He chooses to. Like I said, he went into law to help people, not ‘get rich’.
Of course you don’t understand, you probably hate lawyers.
Oh, c’mon! There’s GOT to be some. Probably somewhere south of 0.01%.
Your husband’s situation highlights another corrosive feature of Sotomayor’s stupid proposition - mandatory public “service” cheapens authentic public service.
There was a time when a major contribution to the common good was voluntary activity - by churches, by fraternal organizations, by local community groups. Even deToqueville commented on how he was impressed by the way local communities prospered by voluntary activities initiated by the citizenry.
Then the liberal/socialist mindset decided that such things were best handled by bureaucrats, and gradually the role of church-based schools and hospitals, fraternal aid societies and community groups were marginalized to give us the dysfunctional systems we live with today (hello, Obamacare, etc).
There is a statistically provable inverse correlation between how liberal the voting patterns of a State are, and now much the people of that state give to charity. The Lib mindset is “that’s the government’s job, I don’t have to do it.”
Lawyers for some time now have been immune from scrutiny of their practice due to very large contributions to the Democratic Party. I have said for years: given that access to healthcare is a moral right while access to the legal system (courts, etc.) is a constitutional right why are we not regulating the cost of legal services as we do physicians services. We are required to pay hundreds (thousands?)of dollars per hour to exercise our constitutional rights to the legal system (try doing it without a lawyer and see how far you get).
Now it is coming the legal profession. All that money from the trail lawyers down the tube.
School districts in the state of Washington require mandatory community volunteerism by high school students. I guess we never had a slave issue in this country; it was actually mandatory community volunteerism that also included free relocation.
Doing "enough pro bono work so that poor people in America can have legal representation when they need it" should keep every lawyer in the country -- including the ones working as Starbucks baristas -- busy until the end of time.
‘On the other hand,if a lawyer or any other profession voluntarily does it than good for them.They should not be coerced.’
I don’t say state or local because people in USofA would have the ability to move if they don’t like taxes of a state or local.
Helping out the Fed govt should be by choice and letting each person decide.
That would make Fed govt really have to consider using what they receive material, time, abilities and money donated wisely.
The better they do with people’s donations, the more people would likely want to help or give.
They could list what’s needed and the public could consider donating or not.
I like it.
“I expected the oil company lawyers to be sneaky and dirty towards us. I was amazed when our own lawyers were sneaky and dirty towards us.”
I agree with Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor with one addition. If a case has a Pro Bono lawyer then the judge must contribute their time as Pro Bono also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.