Pro bono work should not be mandatory for attorneys.

Mandatory Pro Bono Jurisdictions The only jurisdiction that I am aware of that imposes mandatory pro bono provisions is Orange County. [1] My opponent is welcome to do additional research for a more complete list. Doctor Internship/Residency Requirements are Analogous to Mandatory Pro Bono Having no information on the requirements of becoming a doctor, I will concede to my opponent that an internship and residency are mandatory provisions for new doctors. While this may be the case, it is easy to distinguish these types of mandatory requirements from those proposed by mandatory pro bono services. First, internships and residency requirements apply to NEW doctors, that is, a doctor who recently graduated and needs to practice his or her skills while being supervised by a more experienced member of the field. Mandatory pro bono provisions, however, apply to new and old attorneys, thereby imposing a duty on the profession in manner that far exceeds that placed on doctors. While a doctor is able to finish their internship/residency and be done with the requirement, the duty imposed by yearly pro bono requirements would follow an attorney throughout his or her career. Not only would attorneys have to do it in the beginning of their practice, but every subsequent year thereafter. Second, internships are PAID. Pro bono work is, by definition, free of charge. Third, in spite of my opponents plea that patients are not guinea pigs, new doctors have to train on someone; just as new lawyers have to train on someone. My reference to guinea pigs was meant in jest to imply that new patients and new legal clients are being experimented on just as guinea pigs in a drug laboratory. Fortunately, the medical profession requires interns and residents to be supervised so that medical guinea pigs are not harmed. In solo practice or small law firms, there is no regulating factor to make sure legal guinea pigs are sufficiency taken care of while new attorneys train. Unless the ABA reforms a considerable amount of its processes to match that of the medical profession, mandatory pro bono provisions can, in no way,be comparable to that of the medical profession. Pro bono is a good thing: My opponent claims that discussing the benefits of mandatory pro bono provisions merits continued debate because we "should encompass all aspects of the issue" and my attempt to move on was "shifting ground". I conceded that Pro Bono is a good thing in round two and do not entirely understand why it warrants further discussion. I will assume that my opponent is trying to say "Pro bono work should be mandatory because it is a good thing and serves the community". My response to that statement is simple: there are many things every profession can do to benefit the community, however, few are mandated to do so. Unless there is a provision upon ALL service based industries to offer services free of charge because it serves the community, it is discriminatory to apply these provisions on select fields. Just like my opponent, I too live pay check to pay check. However, I do not receive free manicures because I am unable to afford them. Mandatory Pro Bono Work is Constitutional. My opponent claims that mandatory pro bono provisions are constitutional because they do not inhibit the five basic freedoms : speech, press, religion, petition and assembly. Unfortunately, my opponent failed to note the intricacies in each of these freedoms and thereby did not address the freedom of speech arguments stated in Round 2. My opponent argues that mandatory pro bono provisions would not violate freedom of speech because they would simply serve as entry requirements to the profession and attorneys can choose whether or not to go into this field based on those provisions. However, attorneys already inducted into the ABA would not be given a choice because mandatory pro bono provisions would apply to ALL attorneys, new or old. Therefore, mandating pro bono may hinder an attorneys freedom of expression because he or she is mandated to engage in conduct that he or she feels morally reprehensible. While county wide mandatory pro bono provisions allow attorneys the freedom to change jurisdictions if he or she has morality inhibitions to serving the needy, imposing an ABA specific rule would impose a duty upon the attorney to engage in an activity which he or she may finds morally repugnant and and therefore be classified as compelled speech. A brief excerpt from a previously cited source states: “Whether or not our principled lawyer is right or wrong is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes. What matters is that, through a strict mandatory service policy, he or she is being forced by government not just to indirectly support but to actively foster or defend policies and programs that might fairly be regarded as political or ideological in character. … The First Amendment, of course, does a great deal more than protect the right to speak freely,… it also protects "the right to associate with others to promote certain causes and ideas, and to be free from coerced association with causes, ideas, and conduct espoused or engaged in by others." [2] Nobility of voluntary services: I concede that arguing the nobility of pro bono work undermines my stance that this debate is not about morality. Therefore, I will gladly refrain from making future arguments alluding to moral behavior. Prior to citing the professional rules of conduct, my opponent should take the opportunity to read these rules thoroughly. They have nothing to do with morality. Rather, the rules prescribe a minimum level of service & diligence and adhering to them provides just that, minimum levels of service. My position that attorneys would adhere to the minimum levels of service if they are mandated to perform services free of charge is not an attack on the character of an attorney, it is a simple way to imply that only those who WANT to do pro bono work will do so with the same levels of diligence as working for a paying clients. My opponent is correct that many attorneys already give back and would not be affected by mandatory requirements. However, in my attempt to limit the morality argument for the purposes of this debate I will not comment on the article cited by my opponent. Instead, I bring your attention to my blurb above in "pro bono is a good thing". My position is simple: attorneys should be given a choice in the matter of pro bono work rather than having a provision of this caliber imposed upon them. Thank you to my opponent for taking this debate and thank you to the judges who read it. [1] http://www.legalaidocba.org... [2] 19 Hofstra L. Rev. 885, 950 (1991).