A recent piece in The New York Times about a Manhattan law firm's charity program has been vexing me, and it seems I’m not alone.The Times article (fourth item down) highlights a Chow for Charity program at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. There, summer associates get a $60 lunch allowance when they meet with firm lawyers. But if an associate spends just $15, the firm will donate the remaining $45 to a nonprofit legal organization.
Hmmm…
The essence of charity—to me at least—requires a conscientious act of selflessness. And Chow for Charity doesn’t pass muster.
The $45 donated to Legal Aid is money that the firm had expected to pay anyway, so there's little conscience. And eating a $15 meal versus a $60 meal hardly constitutes sacrifice—someone who trades extravagance for abundance shouldn't sit at the same table as, say, a Red Cross or Children's Law Center volunteer.
To be fair, Simpson Thacher has other, meaningful pro bono and Legal Aid programs. And I heartily applaud all attorneys who donate time and money for the greater good.
But Chow for Charity is not true charity—it's a sideshow, like Crocs or Adam Sandler movies. I'm glad that our firms here in Minnesota have better sense.
