Firm defending Defense of Marriage Act withdraws from case

I have no idea, but is that highly unusual in a case like this, standard practice, or something in between?

 

Because it's not the right thing to do.

Clement's statement is the best answer I can give to your question:

Actually, his whole letter is worth reading. He makes the points I've been trying to make much better than I've been making them.

 

Ok, what about an attorney who represents a bad mom/dad when the state tries to take a child away? That's a civil case. Are those lawyers pro-child neglect?

 

Again, I never called the lawyer a bigot. Markos Moulitsas did. Though I'd love his paycheck, I am not Markos Moulitsas.

 

I added it after you quoted this post, but read the whole letter. He makes the case far better than I could.

And, I think every employee who's ever had their employer fail to "have their back" would sympathize.

 

Humbly, I suggest K&S's cost-benefit decision to withdraw from a case representing republican Congressmens' effort to preserve legal discrimination against gays is somewhat low on the list of things that "threaten our entire legal system."

 

And yet you'd rather mock my statements than respond to anything I said or comment on Clement's resignation letter.

You don't even defend their actions which makes me think that you know it's the wrong thing to do.

 

I don't agree with the DOMA, but am a bit troubled by the firm dropping the case after agreeing to work on it. It's one thing to reject a case (although, of course, by representing a client you are in no way endorsing his views*). It's another, though, to take a case and then drop it because of political pressure. It's their job to stand up to that pressure; not necessarily others responsibility not to put it on them. Luckily, as Webster pointed out, it shouldn't be a huge issue because it won't disrupt the client's case.

* Model Rule 1.2(b) reads: "A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities."

 

Exactly.

 

They might be concerned about other potential conflicts of interest. Such as, if a secretary is protesting for gay rights, and the firm that was hired to defend DOMA loses, the pro-DOMA people might complain that the law firm wasn't doing their best to represent them. It's a reach, but I'd imagine they want to protect themselves.

Similiar to newspapers that don't want their employees going to political rallies. They feel people would question their objectivity, even though the circumstances could be a reach. (Like a sportswriter attending a rally). Similiar to how it's OK for political reporters to attend baseball games, but not OK for sports reporters to go to political rallies.

Basically, it's a corporation trying to clamp down on their employees by trying to claim that they are covering their own asses with their clients/readers by avoiding a conflict of interest.