iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

'Mayhem' At Law Firm King & Spalding After Taking On Defense Of Marriage Act


First Posted: 04/26/11 09:02 PM ET Updated: 06/26/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- The law firm King & Spalding stunned many observers Monday by abruptly withdrawing from representing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- barely a week after coming under fire for signing on to defend the law on behalf of House Republicans. But the real shockwaves may have taken place within the firm, where, according to one insider, employees were at each other's throats over its decision to take on the case.

A source at the firm described the “mayhem” that ensued after employees learned King & Spalding agreed to defend DOMA.

“Management was divided, people were threatening to quit,” the source said. In addition, it was unclear if members of the firm’s Diversity Committee had been consulted ahead of time about taking on the case.

In King & Spalding's statement on why it was filing a motion to withdraw from the case, chairman Robert D. Hays said the "process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate," but he did not elaborate. Paul Clement, the partner at the firm who took on the case, has since resigned and taken DOMA with him to a new firm.

Les Zuke, a spokesman for King & Spalding, declined to comment further. "There is nothing I can add to your reporting beyond what is in that statement," he said.

The ripple effects of the firm taking on the case have extended beyond King & Spalding's Washington, D.C. offices. Pam Rymin, a litigation paralegal with another firm in Atlanta, made headlines last week for publicly complaining to King & Spalding's Atlanta leg, saying the gay community may be incensed enough to start holding rallies in protest of doing business with the company.

"They are a large presence in the city and there is a large gay population here,” Rymin told The Georgia Voice. “They need to be held more accountable."

LGBT rights organizations also exerted a significant amount of pressure on sensitive areas for the firm: its clients and recruits.

The Human Rights Campaign, for example, reached out to King & Spalding's clients and groups to which the firm had made charitable donations. It also targeted law schools and students who would be potential recruits for King & Spalding to make them aware of the DOMA case.

"[We wanted to] expose the hypocrisy of King & Spalding taking on this engagement while at the same time they were espousing to prospective clients and recruits that they were leaders in LGBT equality," said HRC spokesman Fred Sainz. "So we thought it was important to draw attention to that hypocrisy because you can't claim that you're good for LGBT people and at the same time, effectively be declaring war on gay and lesbian families."

A source in the LGBT community familiar with the advocacy efforts told The Huffington Post that several King & Spalding clients expressed concern over the DOMA case and had reached out to the firm for more information. Brian Beutler at Talking Points Memo also reported that top King & Spalding client Coca-Cola directly intervened, pressing the firm to separate itself from the case.

Particularly troublesome for companies, according to the source, was that many of them have contracts with King & Spalding that provide protections against non-discrimination for sexual orientation. The contract with the House General Counsel, however, did not include sexual orientation or gender identity protections.

One LGBT organization looked into filing a lawsuit against King & Spalding, arguing that the clause in the contract prohibiting the firm's employees from engaging in any advocacy to "alter or amend" DOMA broke certain states' laws.

The Stonewall Bar Association of Georgia also urged King & Spalding to terminate its representation of the DOMA case, saying in a statement that its vice president/president-elect Robert Lewis contacted the firm's chairman and diversity committee chairman. The group's president, Brian Basinger, also an associate at King & Spalding, did not return repeated requests for comment to The Huffington Post.

In the meantime, a spokesman for Clement’s new and significantly smaller firm, Bancroft PLLC, said their seven-member team of attorneys is more than prepared to defend DOMA.

“You have Viet Dinh, Paul Clement and Chris Bartolomucci, three of the most successful Supreme Court litigators,” said Mark Corallo, who heads up the media relations firm Corallo Comstock. “That’s an awful lot of legal fire power …. They are perfectly capable of handling [DOMA] and much more.”

Corallo, who has been friends with Dinh and Clement for more than 20 years, said it is “certainly a great benefit” to Bancroft to take on Clement. He touted Clement’s commitment to defending his cases, regardless of the subject matter.

“Paul made it clear” when he left King & Spalding, said Corallo, that “when a lawyer takes a case, they should stay with it to the end. Period.”

Bancroft wasted no time mounting a public relations offense in support of their newest hire. They created a Twitter account Monday and, as of Tuesday evening, had sent out 11 tweets boasting about Clement coming on as a partner.

"'Paul wins the biggest cases and Bancroft solves the most complex problems. This is a no brainer.'-- Viet Dinh, Bancroft Founder,” reads one of the firm’s first tweets.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The law firm King & Spalding stunned many observers Monday by abruptly withdrawing from representing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- barely a week after coming under fire f...
WASHINGTON -- The law firm King & Spalding stunned many observers Monday by abruptly withdrawing from representing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- barely a week after coming under fire f...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,391
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (24 total)
06:47 PM on 05/03/2011
"Mayhem?" REALLY? At a law firm? The legal definition of "mayhem" is: "Violently depriving another person of a body part to render less effective that person's defence of self. "

Yet another sensationalistic headline on Huff-Post.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joemondo
Smug.
07:19 PM on 04/28/2011
Amazing how threatened the anti-gay folks are when the free market works against them.

More amazing that they can pretend the US House, popularly elected and with all the might of the federal government, is somehow the victim of the megapowerful gays, who don't have even full civil rights in this country.

HA!
03:37 AM on 04/29/2011
GOP = Do as I say and not as I do, otherwise I be confused!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bob Wood
A.T.C.G...(sigh)
06:47 PM on 04/28/2011
It's nice to think that a law firm would do what's right...just because it's right. Millions of people will benefit from gay marriage...not one will be harmed. What's right about defending DOMA ? What the hell is the Defense of Marriage Act defending marriage from ? My wife and I have been happily married for over 30 years...if any other people determine that they'd like to join their lives together in marriage...how will that impact my marriage in any way ? There's no rational reason to deny gay people this basic right. This is a no-brainer. If any homo sapien wishes to marry any other homo sapien...let them. It's the right thing to do...(sigh)
04:29 PM on 04/28/2011
I do not think "no-brainer" means what you think it means.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StopCensoringMe
Aghast at the stupidity and bigotry
07:16 PM on 04/28/2011
Perfect! Mark me #12.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bradenton
01:56 PM on 04/28/2011
What law firm or attorney in their right mind would be for discrimination and the deprivation of civil rights? It would be bad for business and their karma.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andman0121
01:30 PM on 04/28/2011
They withdrew because no law firm in their right mind would defend DOMA being that it is 1.) unconstitutional to begin with, 2.) their diverse client base would inevitably lead to desertions based on their pro-LGBT stances and 3.) bad PR.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:02 PM on 04/28/2011
I very much doubt that #1 has much to do with it, as arguing for the losing side at an hourly rate can be very lucrative. Lawyers take cases every day knowing that they have virtually zero chance of winning, because they'll be paid or because they believe in the principle that everybody deserves a fair trial.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a law firm taking this case and arguing on behalf of their client simply because of the merits (or lack thereof) of the case. If I were a prospective client I wouldn't fault them for "supporting" an anti-gay position, because what they're really doing is supporting their client.

The real problem is that their true client, the one footing the bill, is the American public. What I would fault them for is feeding at the public trough for this particular case. An honest lawyer will make sure their client knows what chances they have before bleeding them dry by the hour, and in this case the real clients haven't been given a chance to consent to paying the bill. Additionally, polls are showing more and more that they would actually be arguing against the position of the real clients.

Of course I'm pretty sure that it's their own interests that determined their decision. The asked if they'd be better off long term by taking the case for the immediate payoff or not taking the case, and the answer was clear.
12:07 PM on 04/28/2011
Okay, let's try this another way. The issue here is not about King & Spalding and whether it could drop this client while remaining true to its ethical responsibilities. The issue here is whether the tactic of trying to intimidate or otherwise influence lawyers to not represent certain clients conflicts with the strong public policy to assure that legal services are available to all. It plainly does. Indeed, the very aim of the tactic is contrary to that policy--a policy manifested in many ways, including the ethical responsibilities of lawyers not to decline representation simply because a client or cause is unpopular, the provision of public defenders to indigent criminal defendants, the ethical duty of lawyers to provide some measure of pro bono services, etc.

Lawyers represent clients on all sides of many controversial issues, e.g., abortion, separation of church and state, freedom of speech. These important issues should be handled by the best lawyers available--and not just by those able to withstand the intimidation of the mob.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joemondo
Smug.
12:24 PM on 04/28/2011
Your startong point is still in error.

K&S made their own business decision, based on conflict with existing clients and internal dissent. Those elements create a conflict of interest that would prevent them from providing best counsel, so they ditched the case AS IS THEIR RIGHT.

The US House has many options, this was just one.
01:01 PM on 04/28/2011
Perhaps so, but immaterial. As I said, the issue here is not whether King & Spalding could ethically justify dropping its client, but rather whether the efforts of some to force King & Spalding to do that are consistent with the public policy to assure that legal representation is available to all. Telling the client that it has the option of hiring other lawyers is not answer, since those lawyers too may be subjected to intimidation--and, indeed, some on this website have spoken of doing just that.
photo
LintLass
"When you can balance a tackhammer on your head...
01:29 PM on 04/28/2011
Again, you ignore the material points that the lawyer and Boehner tried to *gag all the other employees and override *their* rights both to proper counsel and the nondiscrimination policies the firm and their clients promised.*

People have a right to protest against people removing their rights. Even from law firms. What the anti-LBGT Republicans did wrong was to try and impose that agenda *on the whole firm and all their clients.* They were in the wrong, period, harming others, period, and to acquiesce to that would to take public money Boehner would have diverted to prolong such discrimination and advertise such hatred for political purposes would be wrong, too.
01:49 PM on 04/28/2011
Well, yes, I ignore it because my interest here is not King & Spalding and whether its actions were justified or not, but rather I am concerned about the efforts of some, applauded by many here, to intimidate lawyers to drop clients who champion causes they oppose. K&S's contract provision is simply a different issue, one I will leave to others.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
eyecon
Retired CEO & Quality-Mgmt Consultant
11:40 AM on 04/28/2011
People seem to be confusing the right to counsel of a criminal defendant with a civil litigant's search for legal representation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
practiceempathy
Tolerance need not yield to willful ignorance.
02:35 PM on 04/28/2011
Yes, and it's stupid beyond comprehension.
03:10 PM on 04/28/2011
No confusion. Legal ethics calls for lawyers to be available to all who need them--in both civil and criminal matters
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
practiceempathy
Tolerance need not yield to willful ignorance.
03:51 PM on 04/28/2011
You are so wrong.

"And your zeal has blinded you to the obvious. Those among an oppressed minority should readily see that there is just something wrong about trying to deprive someone of legal representa­tion."

This is a POLICY, not a person.

So ENOUGH of your false accusations of hypocrisy.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joemondo
Smug.
04:12 PM on 04/28/2011
Bull. In civil cases there is no such expectation or requirement.

Firms regularly refuse to work with clients for a variety of reasons.
photo
gaydood
HAPPY PRIDE !!!!!!!!
11:22 AM on 04/28/2011
i think GLBT should be able to marry:)
01:54 PM on 04/29/2011
As a heterosexual husband & father happily married for 22 years, I concur completely. What is so threatening, folks? If my gay friends want to get married, I hope they invite me to the wedding. I'll make a champagne toast to them and dance. Unless there are too many Celine Dion cover songs, I draw the line there. (joke)
photo
FalstaffsMind
"This isn't right, this isn't even wrong." - Pauli
09:55 AM on 04/28/2011
I am trying to imagine what mayhem looks like at a law firm? Was Brooks Brothers called in afterwards to deal with any damages?
photo
LintLass
"When you can balance a tackhammer on your head...
01:32 PM on 04/28/2011
Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX61PUZ3xkI

The Crimson Permanent Assurance! :)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
practiceempathy
Tolerance need not yield to willful ignorance.
02:01 PM on 04/28/2011
Well, after the dust settled, there was tidying gayhem to clean up the mayhem.
08:30 AM on 04/28/2011
The "partner" resigns and takes the DOMA with him.

Love these same - sex divorces.
08:00 AM on 04/28/2011
so you hypocrites deny a firm the right to practice law yet want the law to represent you.
You are fools indeed.
and you will bring down your own cause because of arrogance.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joemondo
Smug.
08:42 AM on 04/28/2011
No firm's right was denied.

The firm made its own choice.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
practiceempathy
Tolerance need not yield to willful ignorance.
09:09 AM on 04/28/2011
Nonsense.

Nobody denied anyone anything.

It's called exercising your First Amendment rights in a free market.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:32 PM on 04/28/2011
Right! It was one of those "free market decisions" that are so sacred to the righties. Someone in the firm made a bad business decision, and they were shown the door.
07:54 AM on 04/28/2011
Coca-Cola intervened haha Coke is homophobic
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David01
texan Badges, I don't got no badges. I don't need
04:49 AM on 04/28/2011
Right now people are not going to want to see the GOP House take on expensive litigation on this issue when they're claiming to be fiscally responsible.
That's the bottom line.
03:06 AM on 04/28/2011
"Paul Clement, the partner at the firm who took on the case, has since resigned and taken DOMA with him to a new firm."

What is the name of the new firm?

Who are its other clients?

Let's start the ball rolling on them as what happened to King & Spalding!
03:15 AM on 04/28/2011
Remember Atticus Finch: "One of the highest services the lawyer can render to society is to appear in court on behalf of clients whose causes are in disfavor with the general public." Professional Responsibility: Report of the Joint Conference, 44 A.B.A.J. 1159, 1216 (1958). "History is replete with instances of distinguished and sacrificial services by lawyers who have represented unpopular clients and causes. Regardless of his personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation because a client or a cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse." ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1983), Canon 2, Ethical Consideration 2-27.
03:33 AM on 04/28/2011
Interesting. Some have also characterized his leaving the firm and taking on this case as his jump at his own retirement plan. So, if it is about money, then I say attack the source of the money. Or, do the financial supporters want to “hide” behind their money—just like some did in CA?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joemondo
Smug.
09:10 AM on 04/28/2011
I must have missed the part of To Kill a Mockingbird in which Atticus represented the Government for half a million $ against a minority group.

Which edition was that?
08:12 AM on 04/28/2011
sure tear down the law that you want to defend you ..
you haven't learned your leaders are leading you off of a cliff ... and making money on your bones.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joemondo
Smug.
08:42 AM on 04/28/2011
What law was torn down?

You seem very foolish.
02:04 PM on 04/29/2011
What are you saying? That DOMA defends us? That makes no sense.