Duties to the Public · 2-4% of the exam
22.3.2Political contributions to obtain engagements or appointments (Rule 7.6)
On this page
- Rule 7.6 — Political contributions to obtain engagements or appointments.
Why
Government legal work and appointments made by judges are public assets handed out by officeholders who also raise money. If the two could be traded, donors rather than qualifications would decide who gets the work, and the public would have no reason to trust the selection or the official who made it.
Plain English
Rule 7.6 targets pay-to-play: contributing because you want the government legal work, or the appointment by a judge to a position such as receiver or special master. The rule is entirely intent-based; an ordinary donation followed by a legitimate appointment isn't a violation.
What is barred is accepting the engagement or appointment where the lawyer or firm made or solicited contributions to obtain, or to be put in the running for, that type of engagement or appointment; a political action committee or other entity owned or controlled by the lawyer or firm counts as the lawyer or firm. Purpose is read off the circumstances, and the comment names facts that weigh against the inference. The reach covers legislative, executive, and judicial officeholders.
Rule
Rule 7.6 — Political contributions to obtain engagements or appointments.
Rule 7.6 — Political contributions to obtain engagements or appointments. No attorney or firm may take on a government legal matter or an appointment by a judge where that attorney or firm has made or solicited political contributions to secure — or to be put in the running for — that type of engagement or appointment (Model Rule 7.6). A contribution made to get onto a roster is inside the rule even where the specific matter came later.
Comment [2] — what is a "political contribution": Anything of value — a donation, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit — flowing directly or indirectly to a candidate, sitting official, party, or campaign committee in order to influence or bolster an election or retention. Services rendered without compensation are outside the definition, and so are contributions in initiative and referendum elections.
Comment [3](ii) — what is an "appointment by a judge": an appointment made by a judge to a position such as referee, commissioner, special master, receiver, or guardian, or another similar position. Being made a judge is not what this half of the rule is about.
Comment [4] — who counts as the "lawyer or law firm": the term takes in a political action committee or other entity owned or controlled by a lawyer or law firm, so routing the money through the firm's PAC does not put it outside the rule.
The intent test: The contribution is off-limits when the attorney or firm would not have made or solicited it apart from the wish to be considered for the engagement or appointment.
Proving purpose (Comment [5]): Purpose is read off the circumstances. Contributions substantial in the aggregate against what other lawyers and firms give, made for the benefit of an official positioned to influence the award, and followed by the award to the contributing or soliciting lawyer or firm, support an inference of the barred purpose — unless other factors weigh against it. Those factors may include, among others, that the contribution or solicitation furthered a political, social, or economic interest, or rested on an existing personal, family, or professional relationship with the candidate.
Categories the rule does not reach (Comment [3]):
- Services rendered on a substantially uncompensated basis.
- Selections turning on experience, expertise, professional qualifications, and cost, awarded through an RFP or other process free from political influence.
- Selections drawn under a rotation scheme from a roster built without reference to contributions.
Reach: Extends to legislative, executive, and judicial officeholders alike — not confined to appointments made by judges.
Example 1
Ex. 1
Gina is a managing partner at a bond counsel firm. Her firm contributes to the re-election campaign of the state treasurer three months before the treasurer's office selects bond counsel for a major infrastructure project. Gina's internal communications show the contribution was discussed in the context of landing the bond work. A partner wrote that the firm needed to be on the treasurer's radar for the deal. The contribution was made for the purpose of being considered for the engagement. Rule 7.6 bars the firm from accepting the bond assignment. No exemption applies: the selection was not made through a merit-based RFP or a rotational list, and the contribution was not uncompensated service. Reach for the partner's email before reaching for the three-month gap.
Tip
Questions · 1
Q 01ch22-e07
Question 1 of 1 · Rule 7.6
Attorney's firm had never given money to a municipal campaign. Two months before the City selected outside bond counsel for a transit project, the firm gave a large sum to the re-election campaign of Mayor, who controls that selection. Internal firm messages show the partners discussed the gift as a way to be remembered when the bond work was handed out. The City used no request-for-proposal process and no rotating list; Mayor picked the firm directly a few weeks later. The engagement will be billed at the firm's ordinary hourly rates. Attorney now asks whether the assignment can be taken. Is it proper for the firm to accept the engagement?
Keys 1 to 4 choose.