Pro bono work should not be mandatory for attorneys.

First I was hoping that my opponent could, in the next round, list all these counties and jurisdictions where mandatory Pro Bono work is currently in place as I'm afraid my list may be incomplete. Thank you. My opponent is correct in her definition of the word "indigent". I was not claiming to define the word, merely to point out that lower to middle class people can often not afford expensive legal representation even if they are not considered impoverished or very needy. It is not only the indigent that would benefit from mandatory Pro Bono work, but also members of the community like myself, who are not indigent, but living paycheck to paycheck. Also medical interns ARE Doctors. They graduated from medical school, with a Doctorate of Medicine. They perform medicine on real patients, not guinea pigs. Their requirement to do an internship and residency is part of their job, just as proposed minimums of service for lawyers would be part of their jobs. Pro Bono IS a Good Thing- I do not think it is appropriate for my opponent to avoid this issue. The topic of the debate is simply Pro Bono work should not be mandatory for attorneys, and should encompass all aspects of the issue. I also believe my opponent is shifting ground, because in her original challenge she stated that mandatory Pro Bono work "Does impose a duty on attorneys to be responsible for the legal needs of the community as a whole" and it is this community that I am arguing should be served. The rapidly growing need for access to legal services in America is the very reason the proposition for mandatory Pro Bono services are constantly being considered and revised. Pro Bono work is Constitutional My opponent cites the first amendment as grounds for Pro Bono work being unconstitutional. The first Amendment ensures that the Government will not interfere with a citizens five basic freedoms. It does not however; specify rules of entry into certain organizations or professions. The privilege to practice law would be contingent upon certain conditions being met, such as 20-40 hours of service minimum. If the condition did occur that a particularly morally bankrupt lawyer had a deep seeded set of beliefs that free services to the poor are bad, he would be free to choose another carer, this isn't conscription or indentured servitude. We cannot argue moral convictions against the requirements of our CHOSEN job. The ABA would not be prejudiced against that lawyer, they would be requiring him to do his JOB. If that same lawyer had a deep seeded prejudice against clients of color, he would not be afforded that exception to represent only whom he pleased. Mandatory Pro Bono undermines the spirit of charity work/ Lawyers would not perform as well with these clients- My opponent states that this is not a moral debate, but says the issue of the nobility of voluntary service is in question, and that is a moral issue. All lawyers abide by the Model rules for professional conduct which includes seeing a case through to the end, and giving the client a competent defense. To suggest that lawyers are ego-centric and would sandbag on the Pro Bono cases is an attack on their character, not the argument. Many lawyers do give back already and would not be affected by mandatory hours. In an article "Tending the Generous Heart: Mandatory Pro Bono and Moral Development" from the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, the author states that, "The opportunity to serve the poor might also increase a lawyers empathy and give them a wider perspective. improve the sensitivity and moral quality of professional relationships overall, since significant cultural and situational differences are common in legal work"