As a recent law school grad and beneficiary of a summer associate program, I take issue with Gross's condemnation of the Chow for Charity Program. Although his article singles out Simpson and Thatcher, many of the big law firms around the city engage in a similar program over the summer.

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.

A word of advice: Your comment "... as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with privilege, ..." might not play well before a lower middle class jury. Who granted you privilege? Are you, like the pharoahs of old, somehow godlike? Did law school confer that smug superiority which keeps you from even knowing that you have said something which would not register as acceptable to the rest of us? Try to remember who and what you are, based on millions of years of inheritence which made you, basically, no more than the rest of us.

I'm certainly no fan of Simpson Thacher, big law firms, or the legal profession in general. But I don't really think your criticism of MADMouse's comment about privilege and responsibility is fair. I don't think s/he was making an elitist remark; rather, I think s/he was pointing out the obvious.

The fact is, virtually everyone Simpson Thacher recruits has a professional degree from an Ivy League-caliber institution. For these recruits, high-paying jobs can be had with almost no effort. What else would one call it but "privilege"? (And, no, it's not necessarily a privilege derived from nepotism or family wealth. A lot of students just luck out with their entrance exams, and then get a break into this lifestyle.)

It doesn't hurt to stay mindful of that kind of privilege. Especially in this industry, which does little to preserve a person's perspective or sense of humanity.

Not to mention the privilege of being born in a particular family, in a particular place, with particular opportunities. Far from being unacceptable, recognizing that one has been given certain advantages that others have not, and wanting to give to those less fortunate would play quite well to most juries I think.

I too have a professional degree from a "Ivy League-caliber" institution. However, because of the nature of my work, my name was only familiar to some of the people who launched rockets or operated satellites. "Privilege" is neither inevitable nor necessary. I did what I did merely because I enjoyed it, probably more than anything else I could have imagined.

I'm not sure what name recognition and rocket launches have to do with this. The only point I was making is that if you've been given access to something that is difficult for most people to attain (such as incredible employability), it's admirable and wise to recognize your good fortune for what it is.

Oh, those poor lawyers. Boo hoo hoo.

Here, here, Mousie. I have a neighborhood practice and after 25 years in the profession I have developed a healthy contempt for most corporate lawyers. They are masters of the bullying letter and of paper "litigation" - to say nothing of the billable hour. Most would wet their pants if called upon to try a case before a jury.

I have come to see them as specialized tools; useful to large business but of little value to the rest of the world. If "donating" a lunch can assuage their consciences, it also suggests how cheaply they were bought in the first place.