Model Rule 7.6: Political Contributions to Obtain Legal Engagements or Appointments by Judges

When it applies

This rule surfaces in questions about lawyers seeking bond counsel work, indigent defense contracts, or court appointments such as special master, receiver, referee, or guardian, where a lawyer or firm times contributions to coincide with seeking that business. On the MPRE it tests whether students can distinguish ordinary political participation from contributions made "for the purpose of obtaining or being considered for" government legal work or judicial appointments.

What the rule requires

• A lawyer or firm may not accept a government legal engagement if the lawyer or firm made or solicited political contributions for the purpose of obtaining or being considered for that type of engagement. A contribution is made for that purpose if it would not have been made but for the desire to be considered for the work.
• The prohibition also covers accepting an appointment by a judge, such as special master, receiver, referee, or guardian, when contributions were made or solicited for the purpose of obtaining or being considered for that appointment.
• The rule covers contributions made by the lawyer personally as well as contributions the lawyer solicits or coordinates from others on the firm's behalf.
• Firms cannot circumvent the rule by funneling contributions through associates, partners, or others as a way of currying favor for engagements.
• The key inquiry is the lawyer's purpose or motivation behind the contribution, not merely the timing or the fact that a contribution was made.

Exceptions

• The rule does not ban political contributions generally; lawyers remain free to support candidates and causes as private citizens.
• Contributions made for genuine political, ideological, or civic reasons unrelated to seeking government legal business are not barred, even if the lawyer later receives such work.
• Modest, customary contributions that are not tied to a quid pro quo purpose typically fall outside the rule's reach.

How the MPRE tests Model Rule 7.6

• Students often assume any contribution followed by receipt of government legal work violates the rule; the rule turns on purpose, not on subsequent outcome.
• MPRE questions may conflate Rule 7.6 with general political activity restrictions on judges under the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, testing whether students know this rule binds lawyers, not judges.
• Test-takers may overlook that coordinated or bundled contributions through firm members can violate the rule even if no single contribution seems large.