She cannot have it boh ways.
amone of those much hated (on this forum) lawyers. I volunteer to accept court appointed indigent cases. I was recent compensated $125.00 for a case which took about 12 hours of my time and rerquired 5 sepearte court hearings. Am I complaining? No - because I was a volunteer.
This whiny doc wants to have it both ways. She wants to accept indigents and have someone else pay her the going rate. That someone else is ultimately you and me the taxpayer.
Oops... #53 was intended for you...
I write a column for a local newspaper. I might spend 2-6 hours on the column. They pay me 30 bucks. My real work pays me a bit more than that :-). But I don't consider my writing "charity work" because I'm not really GIVING anybody something, I am getting paid to perform a service, just paid relatively poorly.
It doesn't COST me anything but my time, and I give my time to writing because I enjoy writing, and because I like having the opportunity to pursuade others of my opinions.
A doctor who treats patients and gets paid less for it isn't doing "charity", unless she specifically is turning away paying patients in order to treat the charity cases.
I suppose the same is true for you and your indigent work. It costs you your time, but you do get paid, just very little relative to your normal compensation. If you turned down paying clients because you don't have time because of this work, you did lose money. But if you took those clients, whoever ended up NOT taking those clients would have more free time to work cheaply for the indigents.
The only way the "cheap lawyers for poor people" actually can be considered "charity" is if there are so few lawyers in the world that there are paying customers who never get a chance to have a lawyer because the lawyers are too busy doing "charity work".
Otherwise, it's just a business which already is operating and realises that making less money is better than making no money. Like a store that does a sale.