Pro bono work should not be mandatory for attorneys.

This topic is of growing importance and is well summarized by the brief history my opponent provided in round one. Before jumping in, I would like to note my opponent has incorrectly defined the term "indigent". Indigent refers to an impoverished, very needy individual. [1]. Pro Bono is a Good Thing: My opponent is correct in acknowledging that there is inequity due to financial difficulties and that pro bono work is a "good thing". I completely support that assertion. However, that is not the topic of this debate. Mandatory Services are Similar to Other Professions My opponent asserts that other professions are required to provide services free of charge and uses the examples of doctor internships or job experience training for cosmetologist. This is a false analogy. First, internships for soon-to-be licensed doctors are just that, internships, because they are not yet doctors. Similarly, free hair-cuts are typically given prior to receiving a cosmetology license. This is not a debate regarding mandatory pro bono services by law students. It IS a debate about practicing attorneys; not students, interns or trainees. Second, my opponent's analogy of on-site job training is similarly flawed. Training for attorneys should take place in law school, not when client lives are in their hands. To reduce indigent clients to legal guinea pigs is a moral argument that I implore the judges of this debate to consider without my discussion. Allowing a hair dresser to cut my hair for the benefit of learning is hardly analogous to holding the legal future of a client. Hair grows back. Third, on-site training that takes place after someone has been hired is paid which distinguishes this type of work from an attorney having to mandatorily provide services free of charge post employment. Lucrative career and minimal time requirements. My opponent suggests that lawyers should be "required to do free work because it is only as a tiny part of their lucrative profession" and that it is moral and constitutional. I am not entirely sure why morality or constitutional issues arise in this statement because this is not a moral debate. Further, simply because something is moral does not make it constitutional. As such, I will only address the first part of this statement: First, my opponent has not established a connection between being lucrative and the legal profession. Based on the 2010 Salary guide by Robert Half Legal, first year associates make between $49,750 - $73,000 per year. [1] Considering the average law student debt amounts to well over $180,000, it is unreasonable to assert that the profession is lucrative to the point where giving free services is financially reasonable to all attorneys. Note, that I stated ALL attorneys for a reason: a mandatory provision would not discriminate between new, old, poor or wealthy attorneys in the profession. They are all treated equally under the law of the ABA. Allowing pro bono work to remain voluntary simply gives attorneys discretion as to when he or she is able to commit the time and expense to adequately represent an indigent client Further, making a claim that a lucrative profession should give back to the public is one thing, but mandated giving is another. I have yet to see CEOs, Engineers, investment bankers or gas station owners forced to give services for free because it serves the community. Just because I have more shoes than I need doesn't mean I should be forced to give it to the needy. Mandatory free services illegitimizes the nobility of providing pro bono work and will lead some attorneys to perform less than adequate services simply to finish the yearly requirement and move to more affluent clients. By allowing pro bono services to remain voluntary, attorneys can take care in choosing their clients and do so because they want to give back to the community, thereby placing more effort into the work they provide. Making the assertion that serving indigent clients requires minimal time is similar to proclaiming that doing one free surgery every year takes minimal time: perhaps you've completed the surgery and the patient comes back for numerous follow ups, what if the surgery has complications and lasts 30 hours instead of the 2 the doctor expected? Having a doctor-patient relationship is similar to that of an attorney-client: you never know how much time they will require. Is my opponent suggesting that after completion of the mandatory 40 hours an attorney is simply able to charge the client to continue with his or her legal claims? And what if that client isn't able to pay after completion of the 40 hours, is the attorney able to drop the client? Prior to asserting a plan as to how to mandate pro bono provisions, my opponent should do considerable research into attorney misconduct proceedings. Constitutionality of mandatory pro bono services. My opponent cited a law review article stating that mandatory pro bono provisions are constitutional. He has failed, however, to site any reasoning beyond "public-asset pro bono programs clearly have the constitutionally permissible effect. .. [3] Simple citation without any semblance of legal rationale provides a weak point of argument. However, after reviewing the article, it appears that my opponent has failed to note that the authors assert constitutionality based on the "public assets" theory of attorneys in which lawyers are viewed as public servants of the court. This means that the constitutional rationale the authors were referring to apply if, and only if, attorneys ARE in fact servants of the court. Theories associated with the attorneys' role in society are fun, but are no way correlated to the constitutional analysis associated in this debate challenge. Careful scrutiny of the article's footnotes suggests that my opponent is correct in asserting that the constitutional objections, such as involuntary servitude, have been rejected as it applies to mandatory pro bono provisions. However, he failed to note that the same article also stated that "First Amendment objection[s] might have some merit. " The reasoning is as follows: Suppose an attorney has a deep set of convictions that providing free service to the poor are likely to discourage recipient self-help and create a disabling and life-diminishing kind of long-term dependency on government hand-outs. As such, the attorney decides to forgo providing pro-bono work. "The first amendment. .. does more than protect the right to speak freely. . .. it also protects the "right to associate with others to promote certain causes ideas, and conduct espoused or engaged in by others. "" Requiring an attorney to provide pro bono work when he or she is opposed to the the idea of giving handouts violates the First Amendment and adheres to my contention that compelling pro bono work is unconstitutional. Monopolistic Argument My opponent argues that because legal services are considered monopolistic in this country (as only individuals licensed by the ABA may do so) it does not detract from a capitalistic society to mandate pro bono services. First, my opponent should probably look up the term monopoly. However, if we are to take his definition as true, then food service industries, nail salons, and just about any other business is monopolistic because it requires a license. My opponent then states that it takes a minimal amount of money to render free legal services. A monetary argument is irrelevant to this debate but based on the above doctor-patient example, it is difficult for the opponent to assert a value on the services rendered. Although I am in complete agreement that attorneys should provide pro bono assistance to the needy, mandatory provisions detract from the nobility of giving back to society. Citations available in the comments.