Letters.

Pro Bono

I do not agree with Chesterfield Smith's comments in the February 15 News that lawyers have been granted a monopoly.

I paid and paid dearly to obtain my Juris Doctorate and to meet the other qualifications for admission. No one gave it to me. I continue to pay substantial licensing fees and for continuing education. It is a profession, just like any of the other professions, i.e. doctor, certified public accountant, contractor, real estate broker. People are not allowed to work in these professions unless they are licensed.

When I worked at the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, I prosecuted unlicensed activity in these areas. It is the same thing. So are all the other professions monopolies? Should they not all be doing mandatory pro bono work? To my knowledge, no one has ever expected any of these other "monopolies" to do pro bono work. (They can provide pro bono work, but they get to subtract it from their continuing education requirements).

Despite the foregoing, I believe in pro bono work. I am currently working as an attorney ad litem on a pro bono case. On the last one, I spent over 70 hours and had significant expenses--which came out of my pocket, but it was a worthwhile cause. I also do volunteer work for several community organizations, i.e. Rotary and the local domestic violence task force.

Regardless, I believe that it is inappropriate, especially from a constitutional standpoint, for The Florida Bar to "take our time and money" by forcing us into involuntary servitude. The Florida Bar should, on the other hand, continue to encourage pro bono work and should really applaud the individuals involved. The Florida Bar should educate the public that we are the only profession providing pro bono work. This would do more to create a positive perception of lawyers than trying to say we have been "given" a monopoly, which is not even true, and that we have been exempted from the due process protections and privacy provisions of the U.S. and Florida constitutions.

Donna Bass

Crawfordville

In-house Counsel

I have just read the February 15 News about the revisions in the rules relating to in-house counsel. I had some 18 years in such a "staff attorney" position and over eight as the one having that "supervisory responsibility" required by the Bar. As I am now outside such relationship, I am able and compelled to respond.

The Bar's view that an insurance company law office can practice as such, provided one person...