DONATING: Easier than ice climbing
Give what you can
Or donate monthly, and a sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
Save our poor Lazamataz!
Posted on 4/25/2011, 5:48:11 PM by madprof98
The Atlanta law firm King & Spalding on Monday filed a motion to withdraw from its participation in defending the Defense of Marriage Act, prompting the immediate resignation of high-profile partner Paul Clement.
The law firm had come under fire from gay rights groups when partner Clement agreed to defend the law for Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives. The act defines marriage as only a union between a man and a woman.
"Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal," Robert D. Hays Jr., the firm's chairman said. “In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.”
Clement, the head of King & Spalding's national appellate practice, was to be paid $520 an hour for his representation. He once served as U.S. solicitor general for President George W. Bush. The Obama administration has said it will no longer defend the law in court.
In a letter to Hays, Clement said he was resigning "out of the firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do. The adversary system of justice depends on it, especially in cases where the passions run high."
Clement said he "would have never undertaken this matter unless I believed I had the full backing of the firm." Clement said he has "immense fondness" for his colleagues and the law firm, "but in this instance, my loyalty to the client and respect for the profession must come first."
In a statement released Saturday, the Human Rights Campaign said it was planning to be joined by Georgia Equality and other groups at a Tuesday news conference one block from King & Spalding's headquarters in Midtown. The groups had planned to protest King & Spalding's involvement in defending the law.
Utterly despicable. This firm should be boycotted by all right thinking people.
Separating the sheep from the goats. More to come.
gay activists sure spend a lot of energy on bullying others.
They, like the rest of the liberal crowd, do what they protest against. What you see is not what you're gonna get.
They better hope that their leftist friends throw them a lot of business — this move would cost most lawyers a lot of future business because no client wants to think it would just waste its time and money only to be thrown over because it’s unpopular.
Sodom on the march.
Damn, this could be huge.
If one major law firm backs down from defending DOMA as a result of protests from gay groups, I other major firms will do so also.
In the end, that will mean that DOMA will have to be defended Christian Pro Family organizations and will have to be done with private funding as opposed to public funding as was the case with King & Spalding.
Just my guess here, but I would imagine that the pressure to drop the case came from attorneys and staff of King & Spalding and not from gay rights groups.
What is marriage? I have no difficulty defining traditional marriage as it’s been understood in the Christian West for two millennia. I have never heard the opposition define what they believe to be “marriage.” Because that’s their point. It’s anomalous. It’s amorphous. It’s must be nebulous and vague so it can always be re-defined in order to better suit the purpose for which it was always intended: the destruction of the family.
Nope! The gay rights groups were planning to "march" a block from the law firm... they have been planning an all out "assault" according to local media. Just so sad ...this used to be one of the most respected law firms in Atlanta - now they have offices in D.C. with predictable results :(
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/04/20/gay-rights-group-targets-king-spalding-in-atlanta/
Just keep in mind that all of trumandogz’s posts are his own wishful thinking, and you’ll see him as the troll that he is.
Just because gay-rights groups were planning to “target” King & Spalding, that doesn’t mean that the firm caved in response to their pressure. If A and B coexist, that doesn’t mean A caused B.
I’m inclined to agree with trumandogz. Clement’s agreement with the House committee included a “gag provision” prohibiting any employee of the firm advocating for DOMA’s repeal. That is a standard provision in these types of agreements, but I’m sure K&S’s managing partners got hell from employees because of it.
Moreover, as someone else in this thread said, the legal profession has largely “signed on” to a pro-gay agenda. Firms actively recruit LGBT candidates and even exercise a kind of affirmative action to increase their percentage. Even in this job market, top firms are competing for top graduates. Most engage in on-campus recruiting processes in which students “bid” for an interview. If the top students don’t bid, they won’t be coming to work for the firm. And many students use statistics such as the LGBT % (which is published) as a proxy for other desirable factors, such as work-life balance, support for working mothers, being hip as opposed to stodgy, etc. Moreover, firms can’t afford to jeopardize their relationships with the law schools. Hiring partners were probably worried about effects on recruitment.
THAT SAID, K&S should have decided this before they accepted the case. It is very unprofessional that they agreed to take the case and then abandoned it in the face of pressure. Paul Clement is a class act, and obviously K&S could have learned much more from him in terms of professional responsibility. Mr. Clement’s resignation letter is a great read, and so I post it here in its entirety. (Note Mr. Clement’s reference to “some quarters.” I think he probably means the large-firm legal world):
Please accept my resignation from the firm effective immediately.
My resignation is, of course, prompted by the firm’s decision to withdraw as counsel for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in defense of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act. To be clear, I take this step not because of strongly held views about this statute. My thoughts about the merits of DOMA are as irrelevant as my views about the dozens of federal statutes that I defended as Solicitor General.
Instead, I resign out of the firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do. The adversary system of justice depends on it, especially in cases where the passions run high. Efforts to delegitimize any representation for one side of a legal controversy are a profound threat to the rule of law. Much has been said about being on the wrong side of history. But being on the right or wrong side of history on the merits is a question for the clients. When it comes to the lawyers, the surest way to be on the wrong side of history is to abandon a client in the face of hostile criticism.
I would have never undertaken this matter unless I believed I had the full backing of the firm. I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it. If there were problems with the firm’s vetting process, we should fix the vetting process, not drop the representation.
I reached this decision with great reluctance. I have immense fondness for my colleagues and the law firm. But in this instance, my loyalty to the client and respect for the profession must come first.
As I searched for professional guidance on how to proceed, I found wisdom in the place you and I both would have expected to find it: from our former partner, Judge Griffin Bell, in a 2002 commencement speech to his alma mater, Mercer Law School. “You are not required to take every matter that is presented to you, but having assumed a representation, it becomes your duty to finish the representation. Sometimes you will make a bad bargain, but as professionals, you are still obligated to carry out the representation.” I have every good wish for the firm, but I intend to follow Judge Bell’s guidance and see this representation through with my new colleagues at Bancroft PLLC.
Yours sincerely,
Paul D. Clement
Here is the Bancroft press release on Clement’s arrival:
http://www.bancroftassociates.net/clement_pressrelease.pdf
And the home page:
http://www.bancroftassociates.net/index.html
It sounds like he’ll be much happier there. It’s a boutique firm, but it sounds like it shares his commitment to professional responsibility.
As a long-time ATL resident, it is disappointing to see K&S heading down the politically correct path.
No, the evidence bears out that there was, in fact, incredible pressure by homosexual activist exerted against King & Spalding as a result of their accepting the defense of DOMA, which they should have reasonably anticipated, but probably underestimated. Homosexual activists are ruthless and shocking in their vindictiveness, and most people have no idea what they are capable of (the Prop 8 reaction is Exhibit A.)
But as you state in your last paragraph before Clement’s letter of resignation, it was King & Spalding’s duty and responsibility to fully understand the nature of the case before accepting; to do otherwise and then abandon the case is highly unprofessional and unethical. The level of the seriousness of this ethical failure is demonstrated by Clement’s resignation, a powerful rebuke of the firm. His letter makes crystal clear why he could not remain.
I applaud Mr. Clement for these words.
I've taken up this same argument here in CA. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama didn't get the idea for not defending DOMA from the governors and attorneys general in CA refusing to defend the marriage amendment passed by voters.
You would think the opponents would have learned from the civil rights movement the importance of a vital defense. Clearly they fear the high court may uphold these laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.