Talk:Pro bono publico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am suprised to see that there are no comments on pro bono. Having been pro se for six years in both State and Federal Court, I have a very low opinion of lawyers which is not only shared by the populace but by the ex Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Conservative Warren Burger who said: "75 to 90% of all American trial lawyers are incompetent, dishonest, or both."

So just how much would pro bono time be worth from those lawyers? According to Burger you would have no better than a 25% chance of getting good representation. Keep in mind that in the legal biz, being wrong can cost you big time!

Also, it is traditional for lawyers in their younger years to do pro bono work to "go to school' on certain legal fields and then use that experience later in their careers. For instance, pro bono work for the Environment and then later going to work for Corporate Polluters. "Know thine enemy" is the principle here.

In any case, pro bono is just a hype job for "public service" by a monopolistic and corrupt (according to Burger) legal industry.

[edit] Source?

Can anyone state a source to back up "Lawyers are recommended under ethical rules to contribute at least fifty hours of pro bono service per year."

If not, I propose it should be removed. This is nonsensical at best, what "ethical rules" are being refered to? Suppafly 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/probono/rule61.html. This is from the American Bar Association. I will clarify the article. --Nelson Ricardo 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro bono publico

Since the full phrase is "pro bono publico", and since it is usually said in full in the UK (and presumably, therefore, elsewhere), I propose that this article be moved to Pro bono publico, with Pro bono linking there. It's also worth noting that "pro bono" doesn't actually mean "for the good" - that would be "pro bonum". The beginning of the article could be adjusted to help readers who search up "Pro bono" so that it looks like this:

• Pro bono publico (often shortened to "pro bono") is a phrase derived from Latin meaning "for the public good". It is used to designate legal or other professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment, as a public service. In some cases pro bono counsel may assist an individual or group on a legal case, in filing government applications or petitions or on appeal. If the case is won, occasionally the Judge may determine that the loser should compensate the pro bono counsel.

I'll move the article in a little while if there's no opposition, but I haven't put up a move request up because I don't think this is a very contentious issue (hopefully!). Polocrunch 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My only comment would be that I believe that most of the articles link to it as "pro bono", I don't know if that has any bearing on this sort of decision, I am aware that this is not a technical concern. 81.178.57.22 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That should be easily overcome when the article is moved, and as "pro bono" is explained in the opening words of the article, hopefully all bases should be covered.Polocrunch 15:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has now been moved, and I don't think there are any double redirects to clear up. Polocrunch 12:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but most of the links are now redirects. It seems that "link consensus" (I just coined that term) is the article should stay at "pro bono". --Nelson Ricardo 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to see all the redirects? I'd be happy to go and change incorrect links, where appropriate. Polocrunch 18:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I haven't come across that as a reason for moving a Wikipedia page before. Is there a convention or policy that you can move an article for that reason? If not, I'd say that it's more important that we are pedantic about having the right article title than about ensuring slightly quicker hyperlinking.Polocrunch 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phrase used in Dilbert

The phrase was used in todays Dilbert: http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20080226.html -- RND  T  C  16:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)