Firm defending Defense of Marriage Act withdraws from case

I don't think anything DailyKos says is worth much, much like other forms of hate spouted on right-wing blogs.

 

So, I guess that since I didn't start a thread about that back in 2006, I've lost my right to be offended by this?

 

You have the right to be offended by whatever you like. What a country, huh?

But you not starting a thread about this back in 2006 paints a picture of yourself I'm not sure you want painted.

 

I see you've changed a lot.

BTW, Paul Clement was on a team of Lawyers that was nominated for Lawyer of the Year by the Public Justice Foundation.

What is the Public Justice Foundation?

From their website:

The case:

But, I suppose it's just easier to think of him as Bush's Solicitor General and a bigot.

 

I never said he was a bigot. I said Boehner was a bigot. Clement is just greedy. He's charging the U.S. government $500/hour for this.

 

Greedy? Yeah, that's it.

I wonder how much he charged in the case that garnered him the Lawyer of the Year Award nomination.

The guy is a former Solicitor General. He spent 7 years in the Solicitor General's office and argued over 50 cases in front of the SCOTUS. He can command $500 per hour based on his experience.

And, for a top lawyer, it's far from an outrageous fee.

 

I'd like to stay with the fee for a moment, if it's OK.

Do you think the U.S. government spends too much money?

 

Look, you want to be argumentative and that's fine. I'm not going to play.

Demonize him as a bigot or a greedy bastard all you want.

 

See, now you're putting words in my mouth. I never called him a bigot.

I don't think the word bastard ever came up until you used it, either.

But if you want to walk away, that's cool. Free country and all.

 

As one who has worked at some very big firms, a couple of points.

First, one hand often doesn't know what the other hand is doing in a law firm. My guess is that there is a small and powerful committee at that firm which reviews cases both for conflicts, retainer agreements and to weigh any publicity considerations. Most likely, something like this is not put to a vote of the partnership. I've worked at firms which have worked on Whitewater and the '94 baseball strike -- these were controversial matters which the powers that be decided to persue.

Second, the winds of protest move fast in large firms. Associates and potential associates are very well informed. An unpopular case have a big effect on retention and recruiting.

Third, there isn't much prejudice regarding withdrawing from the case. I believe the case was just filed and the lead lawyer is taking it with him. No harm done.

Fourth, everyone has the right to be represented and I am uncomfortable when firms won't take cases because of the publicity risks. We're not the moral arbiters, we are the legal counsel. Arguing a legal position does not mean that you have to believe in the politics of the client or ratify the objective correctness of the facts in the case. In my career as an outside lawyer (I'm now with a Wall Street company), I worked on cases with awful facts alleged. Large retail chains which are alleged to have locked their employees in their stores until the work was completed, claims that African-American workers were given terrible work assignments because of their race, horrible claims of sexual harassment bordering on sexual assault. I'm not that I was doing handstands, but it was my job and I did it to the best of my ability

 

Thanks for a very reasonable, very balanced post Webster.

 

Here's a good rundown.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/behind-a-major-law-firms-decision-to-ditch-its-defense-of-doma.php?ref=fpa

What I found most bothersome:

Complicating matters for King & Spalding, the firm's contract with the House of Representatives contained a curious provision that seemingly barred firm employees -- even those not involved with the case -- from advocating for gay equality in their private capacities outside the firm, so long as the firm was defending DOMA. Employees, the contract stated, "will not engage in lobbying or advocacy for or against any legislation [to] alter or amend in any way the Defense of Marriage Act."

According to the National Law Journal, "Gay-rights lawyers interpret that to be a gag order for firm employees."