Fifteen Dollars' Worth of SmugWhat a New York law firm's charity-lunch program reveals about America.
By Daniel GrossPosted Tuesday, July 17, 2007, at 4:23 PM ET
Sometimes it takes a brilliant, carefully crafted novel, such as Anthony Trollope's The Way We Live Now or Tom Wolfe's The Bonfire of the Vanities, to capture a culture of money, ambition, and corporate avarice. And sometimes it takes just a few paragraphs, as with this 224-word article by Louise Kramer (fourth item down) in the Sunday New York Times business section, which describes a philanthropic trend at big New York law firms. Under the Chow for Charity program, now in its fifth year, summer associates at the giant law firm Simpson Thacher can elect not to enjoy a $60 per person lunch with a firm lawyer. Instead, if they choose to eat with the lawyer at a more down-scale joint and spend $15 or less each, the firm will donate the difference ($45 per person) to a nonprofit legal group like Legal Aid.
How does this small piece neatly encapsulate several important trends?
Related in Slate
Tim Harford argues against
charity. The Explainer uncovers how nonprofits get the check-off boxes on state
tax returns. John Merline probes the
intricacies of charity sponsorships. Jude Stewart shopped around for the best way to
micro-loan.
1. A Touch of Conscience. These days, any company that markets to or needs to hire well-educated proto-yuppies must take bold action on topics of concern ranging from global warming to poverty. Or, if it doesn't actually want to take the action, it must at least appear to be concerned. Doing good isn't a serious commitment or an end in itself. Rather, it's an ornament, like a wall sconce, that makes consumers or employees feel good about themselves and the company. The Times paraphrases a recruiter who notes that such efforts "are part of an emerging trend to add a touch of social conscience to lavish recruiting practices for top students in a competitive market." The greatest desideratum of firms is to undertake publicity-generating good works that don't require them to spend extra money or change the way they do business. Buy some renewable energy, by all means, but continue to maintain that fleet of corporate jets. Chow for Charity is a perfect case, since it doesn't cost the firm a dime.
2. The New Gilded Age. This is a golden age for corporations, and for the professional firms that service them, such as Simpson Thacher. According to the American Lawyer, Simpson racked up profits of $2.5 million per partner in 2006. (Given that, loudly trumpeting a program that generates about $50,000 in charitable donations seems a little gauche.) But this style of philanthropy neatly encapsulates the frequent obliviousness of the very rich, and of the publications that cater to them, to the nation's glaring income inequality. (Last week, the New York Times ran largely unironic articles about $60,000 beds and $225,000 parking spots.) Only in this new gilded age could a $15 lunch for a 23-year-old student be seen as a self-abnegating act. I can assure you that it is quite easy to gorge yourself on excellent food in New York for $15—a fine all-you-can-eat Indian buffet, a sublime pastrami sandwich from Katz's Deli, four street-side schawarmas. And plenty of New Yorkers would be thrilled to have $15 a day to spend on food. In the recent congressional food stamp challenge, several solons tried, without much success, to live for a week on the average food stamp budget: $3 a day.
3. Defining Public Service Down. For more and more of us, public service is something that other people do—other people with lower incomes, smaller apartments, and less nice stuff. (For the Iraq war version of this trend, see National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg.) The Times article quotes a recruiter who says law firms do this sort of charity because their recruits are really interested in community work. Now, law school is very expensive, and students take on large sums of debt to pay for it. So it may well be that many of Simpson Thacher's summer associates are just working there for the summer so they can go toil as community organizers upon graduation without excessive debt loads. But most are there because law firms such as Simpson pay massive salaries ($160,000 to start) and provide entree to even more-lucrative gigs at consulting firms, private-equity firms, and investment banks. Today, thanks to the benevolence of Simpson Thacher, you can pursue community work by taking your lunch at Pret a Manger instead of Le Bernardin.
4. It's Good To Be the King. In this economy, management and owners of capital always win. The partners of law firms have been among the most fortunate owners in this economy. They don't face competition from China. They mark up the labor of junior associates and then pass on the costs associated with that labor—copying, car services, long-distance phone calls—to their deep-pocketed clients. Summer associates are already a great deal for law firms—their hours are billed out to clients at hourly rates of between $200 and $300, but the firms don't have to pay any benefits. Not surprisingly, this charitable endeavor presents the partners with yet another opportunity to profit. "Lawyers like having lunch with a summer associate because it means a faster meal, not the typical time-sapping 1.5 hours," the article notes. Translation: It's a double-winner when kids pick the cheap meals over leisurely lunches. First, senior lawyers don't have to spend as much time feigning interest in the ambitions of 23-year-olds. And it leaves one more hour of daylight in which they can bill out their own time—and that of the community-minded summer associates.
Remarks from the Fray:
As a young liberal, I'm a sucker for polemics that demonize "the man", getting heart palpitations from rhetoric that invokes the plight of the middle class. Daniel Gross's article, unfortunately, did not trigger this reaction. In fact, Gross managed to invert my anger.
While it may seem smug for a giant corporate law firm to charitably donate the price differential between a sandwich at the corner deli and a noontime serving of foie gras, $50,000 is not a paltry sum of money, especially when taking into consideration - as Gross does - that a person can eat fairly well for less than $15, even in New York. Every $45 donated is the equivalent of three $15 lunches. $45 in groceries that go towards a meal provided by a soup kitchen can be stretched even farther. While it may seem disingenuous to boast about this charitable act, it is still a meaningful contribution.
Numbers aside, it would be a travesty to deter people from donating to charity if the money they donate is not proportional to the profits generated, which Gross might call charity as "an end in itself." There is an obvious dilemma: what exactly constitutes a "fair" proportion? We might decry the "ornamentation" of charitable giving by the behemoths of industry but that does not negate the real money that flows into social services. In lieu of the fact that the current tax policy is skewed such that it perpetuates wealth and adversely affects social services, volunteerism should be both an acceptable and encouraged interim alternative until policy-makers [implement] changes [which] need to be made.
Gross also riled me up on a personal level. I currently work at a public interest law firm and will start law school in the fall. I recently took out $45,000 in loans to cover my first of three years of law school. While there are opportunities for students interested in public interest law to ease their debt burden, there are still outstanding deterrents to pursue this kind of work. First, fellowships that pay your loans are extremely competitive and are disproportionately awarded to students who have resumes chalk-full of non-profit work. Non-profit work not being the most profitable line of employment, kids with impressive credentials are often the progeny of upper middle class and wealthy parents who provide considerable financial support. Second, unless a school has the coiffeurs of a school like Harvard or NYU, there are not a ton of debt forgiveness programs available. Furthermore, the law schools that offer these debt forgiveness programs have arbitrary salary cutoffs, i.e if you make $41k as a public defender in Omaha, you're covered but if you make $45k doing the same work in San Francisco, you're not. Family wealth is often a prerequisite for participation in public interest law.
It is not always the uber wealthy who search hard for the corporate jobs that lead to the fat salaries. Many are middle and lower middle class kids who want to change their position on the socio-economic ladder and pay off their substantial debts. Yes, there is a systematic perpetuation of wealth and growing income gap. But can we fault law students for not wanting to take advantage of the economic opportunities available to them? Going back to my argument against Gross's totalizing demand for charity "as an end in itself", shouldn't we embrace young lawyers who want to work for firms that have a track record of public service? Wouldn't it be great if firms encouraged and promoted pro bono work as a means to provide essential legal services to those who can't afford them?
--bennyprofane
(To reply, click here.)
Contrary to some people's opinions, which are unfairly propagated by people like Gross, most lawyers-even the ones at big law firms-aren't self-centered, money-hungry, self-congratulatory people without an ounce of social conscience or sense of what real charity is.
No one participating in those lunches actually believes that their "sacrifice" of an expensive lunch will somehow open up the pearly gates. Why do the firms do it? Maybe you could take a less cynical approach and think – well maybe as a way of acknowledging the decadence of the summer associate experience and as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with privilege. Or simply as a way to give to charity!
As for the recruiting aspect, it's true that firms compete for qualified applicants by advertising their commitment to pro bono work. Does it matter whether they have committed to it for altruistic or self-serving reasons? The fact is, it is a commitment that is being echoed around the city. During my summer, every associate I worked with had at least 1 pro-bono matter on their docket, and all of them were doing these matters voluntarily and in addition to their 60-hour billable workload. In fact, I spent probably 50% of my hours over the summer on a pro bono assignment, so the partners attempt to get me back to my desk faster didn't actually work out as profitably as Mr. Gross suggests.
It's unfortunate that the wealth distribution is this country is askew, and I admit that it is, but don't paint me or my peers with the broad stroke of selfishness and social irresponsibility because I am going to get paid well for doing a job which I hope to enjoy, work incredibly hard at, and hope to learn from so that I can become the kind of lawyer that is capable of accomplishing social change through the legal system.
--MADMouse
(To reply, click here.)
This is just the sort of thing that would be lauded in a typical self-congratulatory Bar Journal. In fact, I'm surprised I haven't read about it yet. Big firm lawyers overcharge corporate clients, overpay associates, get publicity for every let-them-eat-cake "charity" work they do, and then have the gall to bemoan society's antipathy towards lawyers. In the meantime, the lawyers who are out there providing good and necessary services to the public (government lawyers who keep things running behind the scenes, family lawyers who try to straighten out your messy personal problems, the lawyer who sues the contractor who screwed you, the lawyer who defends you against your insurance company, etc.) are largely ignored by the press and the population in general. And BTW, most of the lawyers I just described would consider $15 daily lunches a luxury!
--Austin Annie
(To reply, click here.)
(7/19)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Remarks from the Fray:
As a young liberal, I'm a sucker for polemics that demonize "the man", getting heart palpitations from rhetoric that invokes the plight of the middle class. Daniel Gross's article, unfortunately, did not trigger this reaction. In fact, Gross managed to invert my anger.
While it may seem smug for a giant corporate law firm to charitably donate the price differential between a sandwich at the corner deli and a noontime serving of foie gras, $50,000 is not a paltry sum of money, especially when taking into consideration - as Gross does - that a person can eat fairly well for less than $15, even in New York. Every $45 donated is the equivalent of three $15 lunches. $45 in groceries that go towards a meal provided by a soup kitchen can be stretched even farther. While it may seem disingenuous to boast about this charitable act, it is still a meaningful contribution.
Numbers aside, it would be a travesty to deter people from donating to charity if the money they donate is not proportional to the profits generated, which Gross might call charity as "an end in itself." There is an obvious dilemma: what exactly constitutes a "fair" proportion? We might decry the "ornamentation" of charitable giving by the behemoths of industry but that does not negate the real money that flows into social services. In lieu of the fact that the current tax policy is skewed such that it perpetuates wealth and adversely affects social services, volunteerism should be both an acceptable and encouraged interim alternative until policy-makers [implement] changes [which] need to be made.
Gross also riled me up on a personal level. I currently work at a public interest law firm and will start law school in the fall. I recently took out $45,000 in loans to cover my first of three years of law school. While there are opportunities for students interested in public interest law to ease their debt burden, there are still outstanding deterrents to pursue this kind of work. First, fellowships that pay your loans are extremely competitive and are disproportionately awarded to students who have resumes chalk-full of non-profit work. Non-profit work not being the most profitable line of employment, kids with impressive credentials are often the progeny of upper middle class and wealthy parents who provide considerable financial support. Second, unless a school has the coiffeurs of a school like Harvard or NYU, there are not a ton of debt forgiveness programs available. Furthermore, the law schools that offer these debt forgiveness programs have arbitrary salary cutoffs, i.e if you make $41k as a public defender in Omaha, you're covered but if you make $45k doing the same work in San Francisco, you're not. Family wealth is often a prerequisite for participation in public interest law.
It is not always the uber wealthy who search hard for the corporate jobs that lead to the fat salaries. Many are middle and lower middle class kids who want to change their position on the socio-economic ladder and pay off their substantial debts. Yes, there is a systematic perpetuation of wealth and growing income gap. But can we fault law students for not wanting to take advantage of the economic opportunities available to them? Going back to my argument against Gross's totalizing demand for charity "as an end in itself", shouldn't we embrace young lawyers who want to work for firms that have a track record of public service? Wouldn't it be great if firms encouraged and promoted pro bono work as a means to provide essential legal services to those who can't afford them?
--bennyprofane
(To reply, click here.)
Contrary to some people's opinions, which are unfairly propagated by people like Gross, most lawyers-even the ones at big law firms-aren't self-centered, money-hungry, self-congratulatory people without an ounce of social conscience or sense of what real charity is.
No one participating in those lunches actually believes that their "sacrifice" of an expensive lunch will somehow open up the pearly gates. Why do the firms do it? Maybe you could take a less cynical approach and think – well maybe as a way of acknowledging the decadence of the summer associate experience and as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with privilege. Or simply as a way to give to charity!
As for the recruiting aspect, it's true that firms compete for qualified applicants by advertising their commitment to pro bono work. Does it matter whether they have committed to it for altruistic or self-serving reasons? The fact is, it is a commitment that is being echoed around the city. During my summer, every associate I worked with had at least 1 pro-bono matter on their docket, and all of them were doing these matters voluntarily and in addition to their 60-hour billable workload. In fact, I spent probably 50% of my hours over the summer on a pro bono assignment, so the partners attempt to get me back to my desk faster didn't actually work out as profitably as Mr. Gross suggests.
It's unfortunate that the wealth distribution is this country is askew, and I admit that it is, but don't paint me or my peers with the broad stroke of selfishness and social irresponsibility because I am going to get paid well for doing a job which I hope to enjoy, work incredibly hard at, and hope to learn from so that I can become the kind of lawyer that is capable of accomplishing social change through the legal system.
--MADMouse
(To reply, click here.)
This is just the sort of thing that would be lauded in a typical self-congratulatory Bar Journal. In fact, I'm surprised I haven't read about it yet. Big firm lawyers overcharge corporate clients, overpay associates, get publicity for every let-them-eat-cake "charity" work they do, and then have the gall to bemoan society's antipathy towards lawyers. In the meantime, the lawyers who are out there providing good and necessary services to the public (government lawyers who keep things running behind the scenes, family lawyers who try to straighten out your messy personal problems, the lawyer who sues the contractor who screwed you, the lawyer who defends you against your insurance company, etc.) are largely ignored by the press and the population in general. And BTW, most of the lawyers I just described would consider $15 daily lunches a luxury!
--Austin Annie
(To reply, click here.)
(7/19)