At pyj, we dislike poor analogies almost as much as we dislike the poor treatment of young lawyers by law firms. So, we want to respond to a comment by Williams & Jensen partner William Canfield in today’s Legal Times. In an article about lawyer contributions to presidential campaigns (“Lawyers Fill Candidates’ Coffers,” by Lily Henning, 05-24-04), Canfield is cited as seeing no need for law firms to have written policites about partners seeking political contributions from subordinates: Acording to the Legal Times (emphasis added):
“[Canfield] says firms don’t need explicit policies. He likens political campaign fund raising to collecting money for a charity. ‘It’s not different than having a partner going around raising money for the United Way,’ Canfield says.”
There’s no difference between collecting for a favorite charity and asking an associate to give money in support of Bush or Kerry or their respective parties? I bet that any mediocre lawyer (or grade school student) could come up with some very good reasons why the analogy is far from perfect — not at all on all fours (with or without a leash).
Should we be concerned that Election Law expert Canfield is currently the Chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Election Law? The Committee states its Mission to be “representing the Association’s commitment to ensure that the nation’s election laws are legally sound and are drafted to permit the broadest, least restrictive access by Americans to the ballot box.”
It’s heartening to see that Gibson-Dunn partner William Kilberg, who has raised over $200,000 for President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign, “as a rule” doesn’t ask associates for contributions. According to the Legal Times article:
“You don’t want to give people the impression that this is something that they need to do,” Kilberg says. “It’s fairly common sense that you don’t solicit people who report to you or someone over whose career you have influence. It wouldn’t be fair.”
Of course, Kilberg is also quoted saying “We have money, we have awareness, and we have interest.” The wise Gibson, Dunn subordinate might know how to keep his or her boss happy.
Brett Kappel, a federal election law expert at Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy’s D.C. office, notes that putting the arm on subordinates for political contributions “might not be fair, but it isn’t against the law either.” We hate to sound monotonous, but we’d like to think that lawyers don’t merely avoid law-breaking when dealing with their employees (or their clients).
- See Votelaw’s post quoting Kappel on how easily a corporation can violate the anti-facilitation rules under the Federal election campaign laws.