With an increasingly wealthy society fixed on supplementing one's own personal income, both articles address a valid and dire need for continuous pro bono work, while at the same time possessing juxtaposing qualities both in the presentation of the material as well as the viewpoints conveyed. In having different positions on the issue, along with the use of similar modes of discourse, the two authors are able to present clear, strong viewpoints with accurate supporting information that leaves the reader, although perhaps not persuaded, with considerable respect for both opinions.
A good article that wants to impress upon the reader a certain opinion will in most cases be persuasive in style. The first article, which stresses that volunteering rates in legal professions will continue to drop, attacks the issue from a persuasive standpoint. Through imparting the reader with sufficient factual and statistical data, the author of the first article is able to efficiently show the reader the legitimate and substantial points of supporting his altercation. Likewise, American Bar Association (ABA) pro bono committee chairman Robert Weiner, the author of the second article, also uses the device of persuasion in his writing in much the same way as in the first article; that is, through numerical statistics as well as quotes. .
In observing the structure of the articles, the reader will find that while both authors have discrepant opinions about the future of pro bono work, their subtitles both denote the official view of the publication. This heading enables the reader to instantly recognize the author's definitive message, even before reading the editorial. Another correlating feature that the two articles share is that they are both in accord with the idea that pro bono work is extremely beneficial to the public and is a feature of the American legal system that should be regulated and continuously practiced.