Something or nothing

Daniel Gross in Newsweek recently attacked a Chow for Charity program that some big New York law firms have developed. Under the program, some lawyers and associates can choose not to have the fancy $60 per person lunch that is standard in such circles, and instead eat at an ordinary place where meals cost less than $15. The law firms will then donate the $45 per person difference to nonprofit legal groups that provide representation to the poor.

Gross called the program "an ornament, like a wall sconce, that makes consumers or employees feel good about themselves and the company." He noted that the amounts generated are small compared to law firm profits and the sacrifice is small as well: plenty of New Yorkers would be thrilled to have $15 a day to spend on food." He listed some lucrative lawyer gigs and condemned the whole thing as an exercise in hypocrisy.

Well, one cheer for hypocrisy, sometimes called the tribute that vice pays to virtue. And two cheers for this program: Sure, $45 is one tiny step for wealthy law firms, but such contributions can add up to a large leap in legal help for the poor. It's easy to be snide about such a program, but real world choices are rarely something or everything: they're usually something or nothing. The Gross slam is like telling a hungry person not to eat unless he's offering filet mignon. Here's one rule of life: Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.