$15 doesn't go very far in NYC. If you go to anyplace outside of a McDonald's you'll pay more than that. If Simpson really cared about donating to charity, they would not set the limit and donated all the money under $60 a head.

yer moms cost less than $60 a head...

As an associate, I'd appreciate it. Would give an good "noble" excuse to avoid time-consuming, never-ending lunches with people who may be pleasant enough but don't contribute to billable hours. Sad, maybe, but true.

3:54 You'd still have to go, otherwise you wouldn't count towards the $45 a head donation.

03:52

They don't have to donate anything...

The money that they donate helps people, so what if they get a tax break?

3:55--precisely. But dining at an establishment that costs $15/head likely takes much less time than one that costs $60/head.

Yeah, but picking up a sandwich at Cosi is much faster than a three-course meal at China Grill.

Good to see Jesse Wegman not practicing law anymore!

I love the magically fried spinach at China Grill. But it's way too noisy!

Simpson's not the first to do this: MoFo SF instituted a program similar to this two summers ago. I personally loved it: The long fancy lunches could grow tiresome (and fattening) -- once in awhile, it was great to just grab a burrito or a sandwich for $8 and sit outside by the Bay/at a park/etc. Knowing that the firm would not only pick up that tab but also donate $ to my choice of a charity was great. Sometimes we would pay for our sodas/appetizers/whatever on a separate bill just to make sure we were below the dollar amount so the rest could go to the animal shelter/children's hospital/etc.

I get that it can be perceived as sort of snobby -- as if the summers are "working" or "sacrificing" to donate small change that isn't even theirs to a charity -- but that's not how it felt to me. I mean, it wasn't like I considered these to be *my* contributions to society. Instead, it was a way to encourage summers (and associates) to have a fun, non-pretentious, casual lunch and get the firm to give some cash to a community service organization.

In some ways, Simpson is employing a smart strategy: Legal Aid, etc, may very well be organizations that Simpson would have supported regardless. So these additional donations will only help to raise Simpson's profile as a Legal Aid sponsor/whatever. However, I have to say that I liked and respected that the charities that MoFo picked were non-legal community service organizations; it felt more satisfying and interesting that the donations weren't merely a way for the firm to raise its stature in the legal community or to gain PR for itself.

China Grill, I mean. Not the spinach. Or the magic frying process.

i find it ironic that the Slate author accused Simpson of being "smug," when the entire article was aimed at displaying how much more socially-concious the author is. of course, the article fails to mention the pro bono work firms like Simpson do. and god forbid Simpson lawyers do work that thier "deep-pocketed clients" are willign to pay for? i don't suppose the Slate author has ever willingly worked for less than was offered.

4:03 here. Saw that Simpson started this program 5 years ago, so perhaps they were the first to do this. Still, I was really happy with MoFo's system.

It's a win-win-win situation. Simpson partners laugh their way to the bank, throw some chump change at charity and get summers to swoon at the firm's generosity. Summers get free lunch and assuage their own guilty conscience about joining BigLaw. And LegalAid get $50K, better than nothin'

4:05 = agree. I enjoy reading Slate (esp. Dahlia Lithwick). But for them to call someone smug is very pot-kettle.

If I'm forced to have lunch with some damn summer, it's going to have to involve truffles, steak or a nice glass of wine. I'm not going endure the misery of talking about the 2L experience for anything less.

I smell a campaign. "Noble" has shot up ten points in a very short period of time.

It saves the firm money, makes associates feel good, and provides some money for charity. Sounds like a good plan to me. So what if it is self serving.

I'm a summer and I rarely get taken to lunch. I think my biglaw DC firm is saving money to raise salaries.

Guilt is a very strong motivator. Simpson is effectively using it to have the summers spend less, and take shorter lunches. This is disingenuous. They are acting like they are this great charitable organization, meanwhile they are effectively cutting down Summers' wining and dining experience for the benefit of the firm and charities. And while I am a big fan of charitable giving, I don't like forced charitable giving (which this borderline amounts to).

Kramer Levin also has a similar program, but it does not have the $15 restriction. Any funds below the allowance are given to charity. So you can have your fancy lunch and still feel charitable.

I just can't muster the disdain that the Slate article seems to level at this practice. It's a novel way to spread the costs of the summer associate budget in a way that benefits someone besides the lawyers and the summers (and the restaurant owners that serve them). STB doesn't seem to be expecting accolades, so I don't see what elevates this to "Bonfire of the Vanities" style self-delusion and unintentional satire.

I'd be one of the first out there to agree that charity is rarely motivated by pure altruism (the NYT article about the rich lamenting how the super-rich can buy better table seatings at charitable events comes to mind), but this doesn't strike me as terribly smug. The obvious critique of faux-charitable giving is that altruism must in some way be self-depriving, but slamming STB for taking a modest step towards social responsibility seems misguided.

The real target shouldn't be the partners and associates who indirectly benefit from this (evidently the author just couldn't get over the "mind blowing" salaries), but the naive summer associates whose bleeding-heart tendencies are assuaged by this relatively simple program.

There's nothing funnier than seeing the statistics showing what percentage of the 1L class claims to want to do public interest right after law school versus the percentage that actually does so.

Bingham does this as well. I think it is a good idea

I think the part that makes it rather smug is publicizing a $50,000 donation. But I guess you could justify it given the 'innovative' nature of the program and the idea that you can credit the generosity of the summers.

what really gets me is that they act as though big firms don't do pro bono. i know this was already mentioned, but they really act as though this is the only thing that firms do to "give back."

considering there are firms out there with high averages of billable time being put toward pro bono.. and resources, travel costs, etc... that seems a lot more socially responsible than sitting at a website snarking about how much lawyers make and how easily they can be convinced they're doing something good.

The Slate article is very good. Perhaps it doesn't cater to the worldview of jaded and greedy law firm associates but it definitely has something interesting to say.

we have something similar at Weil - I think you can choose to pay for your lunch on your own and donate what the firm would have paid to charity, not really sure how it works.

Enough bashing of Simpson. Lots of firms do pro bono, lots of firms rent tables at charity dinners, and lots of firms handle custody cases, etc.

But, how many firms have done what Simpson Thacher has done in the area of public education funding?

If the program catches on and becomes the norm, then you'll have dozens of firms making $50K donations (maybe multiple donations, accounting for different branches' summer programs). Then you're looking at an amount that's above a critical mass of sorts and is able to really make a dent.

Kelley drye has the same thing.

I think it's a way for the firm to make itself look good at the expense of its summers. It makes the summers and associates give up something, so that Simpson can get the benefit and goodwill. Simpson is paying the sixty bucks either way -- this is a way to turn it into a write-off and goodwill for the firm, while screwing their summers in a way they would appear petty to complain about. Pretty sneaky and evilgenius-ly clever of them, if you ask me. Typical of dirty evil corporate law firms.

Great. Now instead of feeling mildly guilty at a $60 lunch, I have to feel really guilty.

The Slate article loses some credibility with this one, I don't know of too many firms that make money on their summer program:

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.

Give me a break. The original Slate article is needlessly smug, self-righteous and critical. Bravo to Simpson for taking a step in the right direction, no matter how minor or seemingly absurd.

Pardon the rough math, but assuming an average office has a summer class of . . . say 40? . . . and each of those summers goes out to a $45/head lunch everyday with at least one associate/partner . . . The firm will (conservatively) spend more some $17,500 every week on stinking lunch food. All the summers participate in the $15 plan every day for a week? That's a lot of stinking money that can do a lot of good. And that's just one week.

The author of the Slate article is obviously the one detached from reality. I volunteer at a non-profit legal clinic in the evenings and we'd love that kind of money! Sure there's a lot of need in this world. And sure there's a lot of wealth that could be better shared. But instead of criticizing the good moves (no matter how small or minor), we should identify their absence among counterparts. Simpson and others took a step in the right direction. Bravo.

Somebody seems to like the bagel hole a little bit more than the bagel.

"Screwing" the summers who get paid to waste other people's time in the Name of Recruitment??? Let's see what you think when you're actually working for a firm.

There's something to be said here for perspective, and for appreciating getting paid more than you're worth, summers, in the form of money, food, and parties.

Associates, though, are worth every penny the market determines they're worth.

5:34--

You've got to be kidding. A "great deal"?? They know squat and usually don't work hard enough to try. Not blaming them---I milked it too as a summer. But no one can say they are a "good deal" for the firm unless you mean they make up for it when they return as associates.

5:34 is right. So much work that summers do has to be written off b/c you wouldn't charge the client for that kind of busywork.

It's not the summers' fault; they're learning. But it's dubious to view summers as a profit center.

5:47, I agree with you, I was quoting the article.

5:47...you must not have read the article, as :34 was quoting that line from it.

5:45, sweetie, I DO work for a firm. I'm a second-year litigator. Which is how I know how very calculating and greedy firms are about every damn thing. Granted, yeah, the summers don't earn their lunches -- but the fact of the matter is they have to depend on these summers giving up something else they'd otherwise get in order to get the benefit of a tax write-off. How do they do this? Convince the summers that they're helping people, thus getting the tax write-off without spending a dime more than they otherwise would! It's ingeniously evil.

Now, granted, I think it is good THAT this money is going to charity. But in terms of how I view Simpson, the ends don't justify the means. The fact that they are doing something good does not diminish the fact that they are doing it cheaply, selfishly, and for bad reasons.

5:22,
"Screwing" the summers? You mean because they would only have a $45 lunch paid for, instead of a $60 lunch? Is it too late in the day for me to register sarcasm, or were you really not kidding?

I can haz tax breaks?

If I was a partner, I'd rather just have the money. If I was an associate there, I'd rather just have a raise.

Law firms don't pay taxes.

6:24, did you not read my clarification? Or did you just see that I was clarifying and decide, rather than read it, you'd focus on ONE WORD in my earlier post? Great debating skills, chief.

To clarify FURTHER, because some people have myopia, I don't give two shits if they want to cut the price for their summer lunches down to 15 bucks (they'd never do it because of the bad recruiting PR) and then told people they were doing it because they were going to donate the other 45 bucks to charity, making it mandatory rather than optional. They won't do that because 1) this isn't about helping charity, it's about making Simpson look good and 2) the summers would riot, because no one likes to be "forced" to "give" to charity.

Does that make it a little clearer why Simpson is evil? Simpson gets kudos for a choice the SUMMERS are making -- and which they'll feel intense pressure to make, because if they don't do it, well, how GREEDY of them to take the expensive lunch when they're already being paid more than they're worth. Do you get it? Simpson doesn't spend a DIME above and beyond its regular summer costs, but at the same time it manages to get a tax cut and look like a "hero" when it's actually the summers and associates who are in a sense "giving" something up. If this were really about charity and not PR, Simpson would cut the money out of its budget somewhere -- be it the summer program or partners' two-high salaries -- and just straight out give it to charity. Simpson is not a good guy here. It's a greedy, selfish, evil bastard law firm, just like the rest of them.

5:22-- Long hours recently, huh?

hahaha, "two-high" should be "too-high"... can you tell I'm overworked?

Law firms make decisions in a self-interested, profit-centered way. What's newsworthy about that? Does any business really donate to charity for reasons other than PR or a tax write-off? Was Phoebe on Friends smarter than Dan Gross and a lot of lawyers when she figured out that most people who do nice things for other people aren't completely altruistic? I say better to do it than not to do it at all.

The Slate article seems to ignore the fact that Simpson Thatcher (and other firms) make lots of small charitable contributions throughout the year -- a table at a charity event here, a sponsorship of a 5k there, etc. Of course they are going to publicize the donations. I assume that when Dan Gross makes a donation to a local charity, he makes sure to specify that he wants to be listed as "anonymous" on the charity's marketing materials.

I guess the only criticism that I have is that Simpson Thatcher's intent might seem a little more genuine if they substituted $20 or $25 for $15. Although I don't think that summer associates need to be wined and dined every day, using such a low limit does imply that they don't want people to take advantage of the program very often.

Frankly, this pseudo charitable act sickens me. Summer associates deserve good food after working so hard at law school. They should only be served the best NYC has to offer. Screw the folks who can't afford good food.

What happens to all the eating places that are denied all this revenue?

Side note, how often to summer associates at Biglaw get taken out to lunch? I worked at a small firm in NYC after my 2L year, and we got taken out once a week. A few times times we got taken to a nice restaurant, the rest other times we went to good nearby dive joints (the food was amazing), but even the those places were probably around $20 a person after tip.

Great article. A couple reactions –

When i worked at STB in the mid-90’s there was a Dan Gross who also wrote for the NYT magazine there. maybe the same guy?

The program is silly and definitely caters to the Generation Silly’s penchant for feigning virtue at no cost to themselves. It’s pathetic.

We used to go out to awesome mega-lunches, had the private number to Nobu and kept hordes of NYC’s creative types employed. If STB’s program diminishes traffic at good restaurants and leads to unemployment amongst said creative types then what has it accomplished. I’d rather eat and keep my hot young waitress in acting school.

I thought the article was really insightful. The author singles out Simpson, but it seems to me he's really trying to point out the built-in hypocrisy of these kinds of programs. I also think it puts summer associates (of all people) in a weird position of feeling guilty for going out for a fancy lunch.

"The program is silly and definitely caters to the Generation Silly’s penchant for feigning virtue at no cost to themselves. It’s pathetic."

Well-put, though I think this is a multi-generational tendency. I work at a large law firm and do pro bono work. I believe it's my duty to do it. Do I consider myself somebody who "does" community work? Not really. I'd last a day at Legal Aid and I know it. At least I'm not deluding myself.

I'd love to see the firm do the same to its clients.

"The program is silly and definitely caters to the Generation Silly’s penchant for feigning virtue at no cost to themselves. It’s pathetic."

Bullshit. It's Biglaw actually doing something worthwhile.

There are two Americas. Those that eat at Nobu and those that eat at Nathan's.

The article is incorrect that all summer associate hours are passed on to clients. What few billable hours are worked are often cut. Hell, many of these firms have to write off first year associate time, as well.

I know that many firms NEVER bill summer associate time, because when I was a summer associate, I didn't turn in my time sheets for the entire second half of the summer. No one even mentioned it to me.

For everyone who said that Simpson is just doing this for a tax write off, go talk to your tax attorneys, or any 2L that's taken federal taxation for that matter. Whether they pay the money to a charity, or use it to buy lunch for summers, the money spent is deductible. If donated, its deductible as a charitable contribution, if spent on lunch, its deductible as a business expense.

8:34, but charity buys them better press without them having to spend extra money.

Jealousy. Just pure jealousy.

Less swilling = more billing
it's win-win-win

I only give to charity if I feel privileged and it's hard to feel privileged when I am standing in the soup line with everyone else.

S&C is cheap!

"They know squat and usually don't work hard enough to try."

Y'know, I've heard comments about how summers allegedly don't do any work often enough on this board. When I was a summer, I pulled at least three all-nighters, learned how to close a deal, and spent a considerable amount of time at the printers. To suggest we did nothing other than party all day is ludicrous.

I have a question to pose. If you were out at a summer associate lunch at Simpson and the bill came back at $14/person would you short change the waitress on the tip to stay below charity giving threshold?

The argument that associates are worth every penny because their salaries are calculated by the market, but that summers are just free loaders, grossly misapprehends what is meant by "market." Summers salaries are ALSO determined by the market. It's a lot harder to attract a 2L summer to return to your firm for the initial year than it is to have a 1st year associate stay one extra year. 2Ls are free agents, so to speak, and as such, the world is their oyster and to them your BigLaw firm is (as it should be) fungible. To you, your firm is not. You're already invested.

8:39: If you are getting a $14 lunch in Manhattan, you are not at a restaurant where tips are necessary. But to indulge the hypo, you should definitely stiff the server. They are only losing about $1 per head (assuming 15% tip), but the organization is gaining so much more.

That said, the TRULY benevolent thing (and the right thing) to do is to give a $1 tip "on the firm", but then out of your own pocket leave an extra buck or two.

To those that would never consider doing that, it's probably too late for you--just turn your souls in now while their redemption value is still in the black.

You wonder why people hate lawyers?

BTW, White & Case started this program around 2000, as far as I recall. Guess they need a better PR department. I assume it's still running. I forget who the other firm was.

5:10 is totally right. Simpson spent several years and $10 - $15 million worth of billable time on education related pro bono.

The chow for charity is just another way this firm is giving back to the community.

How much did the slate donate or give to charity last year?