Campaign Contributions and Listervs
From one of our tipsters:
Richard Rosenbaum, president of Greenburg Traurig, made the following group email faux pas. He used the company listserv to send two emails soliciting contributions for the McCain campaign, proving that law students aren’t the only bumbling souls who screw up listserv etiquette. From Rosenbaum’s first email:
“As we have said on a number of other occasions, our firm does not support any particular presidential candidates as a firm. We are a business catering to a wide range of clients and employing lawyers and staff with a wide variety of interests and preferences in the political arena…”
Blah blah blah, a bunch of politically correct qualifiers, then BANG! The money-grab:
“I have recently been named a National Co-Chair of Senator McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. As has previously been the case, over the next several months I will be working alongside several other leaders from the American business and legal communities to personally solicit contributions and other political support for Senator McCain’s presidential campaign.”
Now, of course, Rosenbaum goes on to say that participation is voluntary, etc. But is it really appropriate for a firm President to use group email to solicit campaign funds?
More, after the jump.
To his credit, Rosenbaum seemed to realize his mistake. He sent a second email that assigned different staff members to handle contributions, assuring the firm that any donations would be confidential. But we think the end of his first email sums up Rosenbaum’s error in judgment:
“Greenburg Traurig does allow its employees to engage in personal volunteer political activity…” [Emphasis ours.]
We’re pretty confident that “personal,” in this case, means “not using the firm’s group email as a fund-raising device.”
Here are the full emails:
——-Original Message——- From: Rosenbaum, Richard A. (President) Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:17 PM To: ALLATTY; ALLSTAFF Subject: Message regarding support of presidential candidates
To all,As we have said on a number of other occasions, our firm does not support any particular presidential candidates as a firm. We are a business catering to a wide range of clients and employing lawyers and staff with a wide variety of interests and preferences in the political arena. In terms of the current presidential race, we have a number of people at all levels of our firm who support each of the candidates engaged in the primaries at this time.
I am writing now to make one point particularly clear.
I have recently been named a National Co-Chair of Senator McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. As has previously been the case, over the next several months I will be working alongside several other leaders from the American business and legal communities to personally solicit contributions and other political support for Senator McCain’s presidential campaign. At the outset of this new role, I wanted to send this email to reiterate what should already be clear: like all political activities by GT personnel, anyone’s involvement with this effort is entirely voluntary and neither I nor the firm will reward anyone for participating, nor disadvantage anyone for not participating. We encourage all our employees worldwide to participate in the political process in the countries and localities in which they reside, and we recognize that different people within the firm will personally support different candidates, parties, philosophies and ideologies.
Consistent with those commitments, those in the firm who are interested in supporting Senator McCain, or who would like to learn more about him, should contact me, Nancy Taylor or Geoff Berman via email or phone. Nancy and/or Geoff may also be in touch with you with respect to potential contributions. I am asking Fred Baggett to circulate the names of those you may contact if you are interested in supporting the other presidential candidates.
Please remember, Greenberg Traurig has not and will not endorse any presidential candidate but does allow all its attorneys and staff to engage in personal volunteer political activity if done in compliance with the firm’s policies and procedures and applicable election laws. Please contact Cliff Schulman or Fred Baggett for more information about the firm’s political activities.
Thanks,
Richard
——-Original Message——-
From: Rosenbaum, Richard A. (President)
Sent: Thu 2/28/2008 12:16 PM
To: All Staff
Subject: RE: Message regarding support of presidential candidatesTo All,
I am REALLY sorry to litter your email boxes with this reply to all. But while I greatly appreciate the many good words I have heard from many of you about this, if even one of you felt at all uncomfortable with my message, I want to be doubly clear and even stronger on certain key points:
—My message was motivated by my desire to reinforce that, notwithstanding the role I have agreed to take in this particular campaign, our firm takes no position in any campaign and no one here would be judged better or worse for participating in any particular campaign.
—There is nothing I personally value more than my commitment to integrity, fairness and respect for everyone here, from the newest staff person to the most senior shareholder, no matter what their ideas or choices may be, as long as they are ethical, of high quality and respectful to others. I probably assume too freely that this is well known and for that I apologize.
—In order to provide even stronger assurance, I want to clarify that Nancy Taylor, Geoff Berman, Gus Corbella and others who may volunteer from around the firm if they personally choose to do so, will be leading the effort with respect to this particular campaign, just as the others noted below will do for the other great candidates (both of which I have also personally supported by the way, as I do believe they are all strong candidates).
—So that you are not asked to rely upon my words alone, I want to further assure you that, going forward, Nancy, Geoff, Gus and the others will be solely involved in personal solicitations for the McCain campaign within the firm and I will be requiring that they not share with me the names of the particular individuals who choose to contribute. Anyone who approaches me directly will be redirected to them. I take your complete trust in me and our entire senior management team as an asset most dear to me and would not even want an appearance of unintended pressure of this nature.
All the best,
Richard
(50) 
Comments
see, now, this is a more appropriate political-legal tie in for this blog
and the email is totally inappropriate
Why does McCain need money, since he insists he wants public financing for the general election and has already won the primaries?
That is just outrageous. I am glad I don't work at a firm where management "personally solicit contributions" (i.e. shake-down their employees) for their favored political parties.
Greenberg = TTT.
just wonderin -
he needs it because general election money doesn't kick in until after the convention, in september. so he needs money to campaign until then, which would be a lot ...
hence the big deal with the FEC thing now, because he's basically capped out for primary spending under public financing, and thus would be prohibited from spending anything until september, which would be a total, complete disaster
12:30 = an alphabet full of T.
"[O]ur firm does not support any particular presidential candidates as a firm" but the President of the firm thinks it's acceptable to declare his political affiliation on company time, and abuse his position to solicit donations from lawyers, secretaries, staff, etc.
So hard to believe Jack Abramoff had any association with Greenberg...
Wow. A first year associate should reply-all seeking Obama donations and see if that doesn't affect their career...
Is 12.32 denying that Greenberg is a third tier toilet? If so, s/he needs to check the ATL Greenberg tag.
GT is as much a collection of hacks as there ever has been.
I agree that those emails are inappropriate. Are they also bad for business?
Greenberg has a "Government Affairs" (i.e. lobbying) practice; with a likely imminent change in presidential party, I wouldn't have thought declaring an affiliation for the outgoing party was a good idea.
How many times does GT have to get ripped on ATL before they begin conducting themselves like a professional organization? Even TTTs need to recruit, right?
OMG OMG STOP ATTACKING OBAMA!!
YOUR BIAS IS CLEAR!!!
YES WE CAN YES WE CAN
Tell me more about his pimp cane, and what a poor feminist you'd make.
Best things about this are that the head of the firm is: (1) using firm-wide email to solicit for McCain; (2) has enlisted two other shareholders (Nancy Taylor, Geoff Berman) to do the dirty work; and (3) seems to assume that everyone if afraid of him.
What is a Listerv?
12:45 - you sound like the dems in 2004. Hope you're not putting money on this election as well.
"I judge you when you use [typos in ATL post titles]"
1:08 - Fair enough, but the odds are on a Democrat being the next prez: http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/control-of-presidency/
Picking on Greenberg is too easy. Justified and fun ... but too easy. They are the law firm that rides in the short school bus.
DLA Piper's management sent a similar email for Hillary -- not sure if to all lawyers or just partners.
The hilarious thing about Greenberg posts on ATL is that no one defends the firm. Apparently, they don't have a marketing/recruiting department person dedicated to writing propaganda ATL comments for them (unlike others).
"I want to further assure you that, going forward, Nancy, Geoff, Gus and the others will be solely involved in personal solicitations for the McCain campaign within the firm and I will be requiring that they not share with me the names of the particular individuals who choose to contribute."
he does realize political contributions are public information, right.
If Greenberg is for McCain, and DLA is for Clinton, who's coming out in favor of Obama? Didn't Lat play this game in the Observer already?
Can someone post the DLA solicitation? I wish to be suitably outraged by it too.
Notice the e-mail subject says support of presidential candidateS (emphasis added).
1.53, yeah but he's only soliciting for one. If he were neutrally encouraging everyone to get involved politically, that would be different. What he did was inappropriate, and its not partisan to point it out.
Most people at WLR&K, CS&M, S&C, STB, WG&M, K&E, SA, PW, DP, CMT, MB, SAM&F, W&S, W&C, A&P, L&W, and J&B support Obama. At least those with a future.
I don't get all the GT bashing on ATL. They're V100 with over $1 billion in revenue annually.
It seems like other large firms have just as many screw ups, but whenever GT has one it's considered part of its reputation on this site.
Can anyone explain this?
What is laughable is that someone thought this worthy of being a tipster to ATL, and that ATL thought this worthy of posting. I get internal solicitations for various Democratic candidates all the time, including from the managing partner at my firm. The only beef the tipster (and those who are clucking on this board) has is that the solicitation is for McCain, not Obama.
4:04, it's because whenever GT does anything attention-grabbing it's usually sleazy, suspect and/or amateur, and they often have the chutzpah to find a way to take pride in it publicly. It's a culture driven by opportunism. As a former employee I know I am just dragging down my own resume but it's just too much fun.
I love: 'Anyone who approaches me directly will be redirected to them." I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it's not a BAD thing to approach Richard first.
4:04(1) pm - Checkout the Greenberg tag and take a look back through some of the things that have happened there. They are definitely more numerous and weirder than average.
4:04(2) pm - I don't think it's weird at all that people would object to this/think it is noteworthy. I don't work at GT, but it looks like an abuse of power to have the head of the firm declaring his political views and using firm resources to further them. Moreover, I don't think it matters who the candidate is (I happen to like McCain); the problem is that people don't want to feel that their personal politics are something that they should be asked to share in the workplace.
5:15 - are you really saying these e-mails don't happen at other large law firms?
Well, now we know that a partner at DLA Piper posts here.
The head of my firm has never sent a firm wide email (bear in mind that Greenberg has 20+ offices in 6+ countries) asking people to contribute to any political cause. I have no idea what candidate he supports, and the partners I work for have no idea who I donate money to. I think that's how it should be, and how it is at most workplaces across the country.
In a WSJ article earlier this week, Blank Rome was pegged as being one of McCain's largest source of contributions. And head of GT is national co-chair?
The thing is the power dynamic because it's the President of the firm. Associates can date other associates. Associates can ask other associates for campaign contributions. But, the President of the firm shouldn't date an associate, nor ask an associate for a campaign contribution. There is an apprehension that the associate may not feel free in their response.
5:15 - Regarding your first point, the past posts with the GT tag number about ten and few of them seem to be within the firm's control.
One of them was talking about how GT scored well in a health inspection of its NYC office cafeteria. Another was about a disillusioned assistant complaining of biglaw writ large.
Honestly, the posts don't seem that out of line compared with other Vault firms that make headlines around here. I think the criticisms/jokes center on a few things:
1) Cesar is an "interesting" leader
2) The Jack Abramoff scandal
3) Because of its Miami roots, associate salary has lagged behind peer Vault firms and the market generally
4) GT's business model aims to have broad representation across the country with smaller offices in small markets (e.g., - Albany) that are considered backwaters to the East Coast crowd
Putting all of that together, how TTT are they compared to other firms in the V50-100 range?
5:42 - maybe that's what prompted Rosenbaum to do this. His campaign co-chairs must have been asking why his firm wasn't ponying up.
4:04 - I have friends who work at Greenberg who tell me the stories that make it to ATL are indicative of what the atmosphere there is like - unprofessional.
Moreover, the impression that they are a little weird isn't something I made up. For example, Lat labeled an ATL post in September "Always Something Crazy Going On". And, he used Greenberg as his punchline for his February Observer article comparing presidential candidates to law firms: "'Ron Paul is Greenberg Traurig,' said a current law student and future Big Law summer associate. 'Both are completely crazy.'"
Also, you might be being charitable in your summary of the stories that have come out of Greenberg. There have previously been occasions covered on ATL in which people took offense to management's politics being broadcast by email, and solicitation of employees for money. And, aren't you forgetting the sexual harassment claim by a secretary against a partner? The threat of freezing associate pay? An associate being so happy to be getting out that he wrote a long letter about it? The tax partner who took kick-backs on tax shelters?
Maybe we differ on what was under the firm's control (surely they are responsible for partner conduct, especially management), but there is definitely a lot worth talking about. And, personally, I am just glad not to work at a place where things are so ... eventful.
I find it inappropriate to make any type of personal solicitation (especially firm-wide) during normal business hours. How many thousands of dollars did his email COST the firm? Not just from people reading about it, talking about it, but also blogging about it here on ATL.
Another thing I find to be very annoying is that pressure that firms place on associates to contribute to United Way. I prefer not to as I like to make direct contributions without going through a middle man. But the pressure is un-seamly and in my view, inappropriate. If the firm wants to give money fine, do it. But they shouldn't force others to do it.
4:04 - A few people have responded to your question, but they invariable rely on circular logic. Why does GT get a bad rap on ATL? Because the stories on ATL contain embarrassing anecdotes. Why are the stories embarrassing? Because that's what GT is really like everyday? No, it's because ATL is in the business of posting embarrassing anecdotes for comedic effect. If you rely on what you hear on ATL, you'll think any firm mentioned therein is bad.
Anyone who bases their impression of such a large law firm on a handful of stories hand selected for their unusually bizarre nature is making an unfair generalization. Remember that such stories are selected because they're unusual, meaning that they are outside the normal course of business. 1,600+ GT attorneys; but it only takes a couple for some people to decide that the entirety of GT is "completely crazy."
I have to admit, this story is humorous. Add it to the pile. But what large firm can boast that nothing "weird" has every happened therein?
I don't think his email is forcing anyone to give to McCain.
And LAT - you didn't include the email between the two you posted listing the info on other candidates, or the "blah, blah" disclaimers - giving a very biased view of this email. It may have been inappropriate, and there are people that thought so, and others who didn't. But that doesn't mean that GT is a "crazy" place to work. And just because Lat, who's never worked there, thinks so, doesn't make it a crazy place to work. Frankly, I didn't pay the email much mind, and it didn't affect my life one way or the other, so I find it amusing that all these people that don't work there feel the need to comment on it.
Most of GT NY's labor practice left this past week. The group went to Seyfarth Shaw.
"In terms of the current presidential race, we have a number of people at all levels of our firm who support each of the candidates engaged in the primaries at this time."
I wonder who at Greenberg is pulling for Gravel?
At our firm, we are really careful about soliciting for Obama. We were told that we weren't even supposed to use the firm's e-mail to solicit anyone unless they had told us that they were an Obama supporter. They said that using the firm's resources to solicit contributions violated election law...
Re 11.48 - In addition, could there be a problem that the GT guy is soliciting from "All Attorneys" and "All Staff", i.e. people in offices in offices outside the U.S.?
Foreigners aren't allowed to contribute to U.S. political campaigns (i.e. influence domestic politics); is it illegal to ask them to do so?
8:06 -- most of GT's NY labor practice left a long time ago
Happens all the time @ GT. Rosenbaum previously shilled regularly for Spitzer via e-mail.
"The only beef the tipster (and those who are clucking on this board) has is that the solicitation is for McCain, not Obama."
I completely agree. I really don't see the big deal with the e-mail. I think it's good that the partner explained what his position was rather than let it out via the rumor mill. Sure, he's in a position of power, but the e-mail made it very clear that the firm is taking an apolitical stance.
That comment is just complete BS. No one criticizing the comment has mentioned Obama, and several have made the point that the objection is one of principle.
P.S. Why do Republicans ignore Clinton? She may be back in the race in a big way depending on what happens tomorrow.