{"id":4848,"date":"2004-05-24T22:59:29","date_gmt":"2004-05-25T02:59:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/05\/24\/putting-the-political-arm-on-"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:44","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:44","slug":"putting-the-political-arm-on-associates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/05\/24\/putting-the-political-arm-on-associates\/","title":{"rendered":"Putting the (Political) Arm on Associates"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

At pyj<\/EM>, 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 <\/FONT>William Canfield<\/FONT><\/A> in today’s Legal Times<\/EM>.  <\/EM>In an<\/EM> article<\/A> 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 <\/EM>(emphasis added):<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“[Canfield] says firms don’t need explicit policies. He likens political campaign fund raising to collecting money for a charity. ‘It’s not different<\/STRONG> than having a partner going around raising money for the United Way<\/STRONG>,’ Canfield says.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"donkey  There’s no<\/EM> 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).  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n