1. I’m sort of sorry to see that the 3 people posting comments through AmLaw missed the point so thoroughly (but I don’t really prefer subscribing to every single website I think to leave a comment on either). I didn’t see anything that attacked the integrity of those that DO pro bono work, only the possible ulterior motives of those that REQUIRE pro bono work.

    First Response – If an aspiring lawyer wanted to do pro bono work, why wouldn’t they just do it instead of pick a school to go to that requires it?

    Second Response – The comment poster makes claims about untruths in the article but really only gives us his/her personal opinion as opposed to truths or logical counterarguments. It’s interesting to see that this person could still make it as counsel in a large corporate law firm, but I’ll refrain from making it any more personal than that.

    Third Response – How would requiring pro bono work enhance the legal profession again? Does it really need enhancing if there are already more aspiring lawyers than there are law jobs?

    And since those folks probably won’t come back here to read this, then I suppose the my question is … how tough is the LSAT? If these guys can pass it, I might stand a chance too! That is, once they get rid of the prerequisites to even get into the test.

    1. Thanks for the defense, JC. I don’t read the comments on The Am Law Daily as they’re usually as unthoughtful as those you describe. I have little patience for people when my first response is, “Reread the post. Understand what I’m arguing. Then respond.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s