The lawyers who helped craft the city’s soon-to-be implemented campaign finance law may also be the ones who have the most to gain financially from it.

While several City Council members say the new legislation will crack down on influence peddling in politics, they also said the law will also mean more time consulting with lawyers.

“These rules are considerably more complicated than what we had in the past and there is just a much greater risk of violating rules without meaning to,” Council Member David Yassky, a Democrat of Brooklyn, said. “I think you’ll see candidates deciding that they need to pay someone to make sure they’re in compliance.”

Council Member Simcha Felder, also a Brooklyn Democrat, echoed Mr. Yassky: The changes made to the law a few years ago prompted the first round of lawyer hiring, but the latest legislation — backed by Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Christine Quinn — would likely “compound” that, he said.

“Whereas in the old days people maybe hired an accountant or an auditor, and that was sufficient, that is no longer the case,” Mr. Felder said.

Messrs. Felder and Yassky said they did not think consulting with election lawyers to craft the bill created a conflict.

Mr. Yassky said the lawyers have valuable knowledge about how the system works and can help anticipate unwanted problems. He said the council “should and did” take their advice with “a grain of salt.”

Mr. Felder said: “If you’re asking me whether they are responsible for making a new law that would make them more money, I don’t think so.” He said the election lawyers he knows all have “plenty of business.”

An election lawyer who has represented some of the biggest names in city politics, Laurence Laufer, said his suggestions to the council focused on making the process easier for the candidates, not spurring business.

“I don’t believe anything that I’ve personally advocated, either myself or among a group of attorneys, has been geared toward our self interest,” he said. “I think it’s been geared toward the candidate’s interest. Why would the City Council’s goal be to put money in the pockets of lawyers? That wouldn’t be popular.”

In separate interviews yesterday, Mr. Laufer and another election lawyer, Leo Glickman, pointed to new provisions that sweep legal compliance costs into the spending cap candidates must observe. That, they say, will mean less business for them.

“I think I was a far more attractive expenditure to a campaign when all the money was exempt,” Mr. Glickman said, explaining that candidates will be more cost-conscious with legal expenses if paying for a lawyer means they’ll have less to spend on other things for the campaign.

Still, candidates say there are a lot of question marks about how simple or complex the Campaign Finance Board is going make complying with the new rules, particularly when it comes to the limits on donations from those who do business with the city.

An attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group, Gene Russianoff, said there is an argument that lawyers benefit from “anything you reform or you add to.” But he said the lawyers were not in a position to vote on measures that they could financially benefit from.

“They have the power to kibitz and kvetch, but ultimately they don’t have the power to decide,” he said.

“All stakeholders … were a part of the process,” a spokeswoman for the City Council, Maria Alvarado, said. “This collaboration allowed us to create historic legislation that further improves the strongest campaign finance system in the country,” she said.