(click on ads for more details)

To:  The Courier-Journal

Re:  Your Editorial on Pro Bono Work From Lawyers

Dear Sir:

            You recently printed an editorial in which you lamented the fact that lawyers are not providing enough free services to suit you.  I have several problems with your initial premise.  First, on what basis do you think lawyers have an obligation to give away their services?  If giving away services is an obligation, then it is a form of slavery, which I thought we had rejected years ago as being immoral.  Second, why single out lawyers?  If lawyers have to become slaves, then why not also say that bakers should have to give away free bread, journalists free writing or reporting services, and hair dressers free hair cuts and perms?  And please don't say lawyers are somehow different because we are licensed by the state.  Hair dressers are also licensed, and, frankly, as a libertarian, I have a lot of problems with the licensing requirements, which serve more as a barrier to competition than as a protection to the public.

            Third, many of us donate much of our time to our community without reporting it to the state bar, so your assumption about the amount of time donated is probably off quite a bit.  I find it very offensive to think that someone should be expecting me to report to some authority what I do on my own time without pay, and, when I receive the reporting forms from the state bar, I throw them into the trash.  I am sure that many other lawyers do the same.  When I donate my time, I do not think I should have to keep records of the donation.  I just spent half of my day filling out quarterly tax forms for the state, county, federal government and a few others.  I don't have time for any more record keeping, and, furthermore, it is none of your business how much time I donate and to whom.

            Fourth, you regularly promote the idea of "giving back" to the community, as if people who earn a good living are somehow stealing from or abusing others and have an obligation to "give back" in order to make up for the misdeeds associated with obtaining a good living.  I would like to suggest to you that anyone who earns a good living in the free market is already providing a substantial service to the community and has not taken anything more than people willingly paid, thereby creating no moral obligation to "give back".  If a baker does not provide me good bread at a good price, I will buy from someone else who does.  Similarly, if people do not like the quality of a lawyer's services or the prices charged, they are free to hire someone else or not to purchase these types of services at all.  If a lawyer earns a large fee, it is because his client sought out his services and voluntarily agreed to the arrangement, thinking it would make him better off, not because the lawyer is stealing or abusing his client.

            Please don't think I am advocating a ruthless, "every man for himself" approach to life.  I think it is wonderful when people help each other voluntarily, as the need arises and as our time, desire, and talents permit.  But it should be strictly voluntary, with no idea that somebody owes us something.  Kindness and generosity should be appreciated and respected, not demanded as you suggest.  Just as we should each have the right to freedom in the non-physical world, such as the right to free speech, which you support, we should also have the right to freedom in the physical, economic world, such as the right to spend our time and money as we choose.  I suggest that, if The Courier-Journal and others of your ilk did not continually advocate higher taxes, which require us to work half our lives for the government, draining our time and money, there would be far fewer people in need, and we would all have more time to devote to charities, family, church, and the other things we value.

Sincerely,

Theresa Fritz Camoriano

Patent Attorney