Gays 1 GOP 0

[Serapth]

A prominent law firm hired by Republican lawmakers to defend the federal ban on gay marriage ban said Monday it was withdrawing from the case amid criticism by advocacy groups, prompting the partner leading the work to quit his job there.

King & Spalding chairman Robert Hays Jr. said in a statement that he decided to withdraw the Atlanta-based firm from work representing the Defense of Marriage Act after determining the decision to take the case wasn't vetted properly.

The decision was quickly followed by the resignation of Paul Clement, an attorney with the firm who was retained by House Republican leaders after President Barack Obama's administration directed the Justice Department to stop defending the law in court.

... snip ...

he law firm's decision to drop the case came a day before advocacy groups planned a rally at the firm's Atlanta headquarters to protest its involvement. Those groups said they were particularly stung that the firm, known for supporting gay rights and recruiting gay employees, was involved in defending the ban.

"Many of us were stunned, shocked and angered when it became known that King & Spalding had taken on this case, and we are gratefully relieved to find out they had withdrawn," said Jeff Graham, the executive director of the gay rights group Georgia Equality. "The legal case is something that is really a thinly veiled political attack on gay and lesbian couples and families."
Jon Davidson, the legal director of the gay-rights group Lambda Legal, said King & Spalding's "sense of justice got the better of them — and that's good news for all of us."

In a nod to Clement's statement, he said: "We welcome the firm back to the right side of history."

Source


Interesting development. Kinda a dick move by the law firm, you made your bed so to speak... Law firms of all institutions should never buckle to public pressure and frankly I would go so far as to say, public pressure should never be applied against law firms. If so, finding representation for unpopular acts becomes next to impossible.

[Voodoo]

I believe that marriage shouldn't be recognized by any government at all. Instead, in its place, an individual should be able to make a binding contract with another individual regardless if they are in a relationship, having any sex or otherwise.

[Serapth]

Originally Posted by Voodoo

I believe that marriage shouldn't be recognized by any government at all. Instead, in its place, an individual should be able to make a binding contract with another individual regardless if they are in a relationship, having any sex or otherwise.

In this regard, I mostly agree with you.

I more believe that there should be no incentivising of marriage. It is an outdated construct and should not have any beneficial or detrimental effects on your life.

[Serapth]

Originally Posted by Krispy

You make a good point, Serapth.

I don't know if I am reading this correctly, but it sounds like their decision to leave the case had less to do with public pressure and more to do with internal politics. Certainly any firm has an image they want to uphold and I don't think this was the image the powers that be wanted. I know that personally I'd like to know where the ethics of my law firms stand and if a firm is jumping the fence on an issue consistently then I might wonder why they are taking the cases. I don't think cases should be fought devoid of ethical commitment.

I think bailing on a client is about the worse thing a firm could to for their image. If they wanted to protect their public image, they shouldnt have taken the case in the first place.

[Ox]

I think this is bad on the substantive side -- regardless of the rights or wrongs of the gay marriage debate, I'd like to see DOMA defended by the best counsel out there. If gay marriage is to be the law of the land, let the case be made by two of the best advocates of their generation. If nothing else, it was going to be a dream to watch Olson and Clement go at it hammer and tongs -- like a Yankees-Red Sox series for those of us who follow the sport.*

I am deeply perplexed by King and Spalding's decision, although I'm not sure whether I agree with Serapth or Krispy. Let's face it, any major law firm often represents clients with decidedly questionable goals. Nobody, least of all KS, makes their bread exclusively by righteous indignation. Of all the injustices for which we lawyers argue on a regular basis, I don't think marriage discrimination makes my top five -- and I practice a pretty clean corner of the law. But of all the issues on which to take a public stand, KS has chosen this one.

* Ah, it appears Clement will continue to represent the House of Representatives, just at a different firm. Marvelous.

[destoo]

Originally Posted by Voodoo

I believe that marriage shouldn't be recognized by any government at all. Instead, in its place, an individual should be able to make a binding contract with another individual regardless if they are in a relationship, having any sex or otherwise.

And the Canadian legislation agrees with you, which is why it's just a pointless battle of semantics over here.

[ShivaX]

I don't think taking the "wrong" side in a case ever really hurts lawyers.

People think of lawyers as scum anyway. If you can win being on the "wrong" side if anything it would help you. I mean its not like people watch the OJ trials and said "I don't want Johnny Cochran and friends representing me!" Its more likely they said "Christ he even got OJ off, my case will be nothing for him."

[Ox]

Well, you'd be surprised. Civilians are unbelievably retarded. Lawyers are more so, of course.

Actually, K&S's decision makes sense in the context of lawyer recruitment -- most talented young lawyers are pro-gay-marriage, and if representing the House makes recruitment more difficult, that's sufficient reason to dump the case. But the legal job market is unspeakably awful right now, and like I said working for a big firm means your firm will represent a lot of causes you don't like. It's possible K&S has correctly deduced what it needs to do to hire good lawyers, but I think this demonstrates one of the reasons why I think lawyers are idiots.

[Ox]

After giving this some more thought, something else occurred to me: the thread title is backwards. The score should read "Gays 0 GOP 1", because this actually helps the pro-DOMA efforts.

I do a lot of appellate work. A LOT. And one thing I've noticed is that judges don't like an unfair fight. If one side doesn't have a lawyer, or one side's lawyer is dramatically better or has far more resources than his counterpart, judges tend to act as advocates for the underdog party. They will raise new issues and make new arguments for a party whom they think is poorly represented. And as you might imagine, when a judge suggests a new argument to himself he finds himself a remarkably persuasive advocate.

There's a general prohibition on courts raising new issues sua sponte (trans.: on its own), but the Supreme Court doesn't have that prohibition. Clement is undoubtedly one of the finest advocates of his generation, and he'll continue to represent the House of Representatives, so it's debatable whether the judges will feel like he's an underdog just because he's at a small law firm now. But to the extent that this little drama affects the quality of his advocacy, the odds of eventual victory for gay marriage decline.

[Widgetcraft]

Originally Posted by Voodoo

I believe that marriage shouldn't be recognized by any government at all. Instead, in its place, an individual should be able to make a binding contract with another individual regardless if they are in a relationship, having any sex or otherwise.

I agree, but if you actually bring this up to someone on the other side, they just start rambling about how you want to "outlaw marriage." Keep in mind that the opposition to Gay marriage opposes it only on the basis that they don't like Gay sex.

[MagGnome]

Originally Posted by Ox

I think this is bad on the substantive side -- regardless of the rights or wrongs of the gay marriage debate, I'd like to see DOMA defended by the best counsel out there. If gay marriage is to be the law of the land, let the case be made by two of the best advocates of their generation. If nothing else, it was going to be a dream to watch Olson and Clement go at it hammer and tongs -- like a Yankees-Red Sox series for those of us who follow the sport.*

Yes, because the rights of minorities are just like a fucking baseball game. -_-

Kudos to this law firm for realizing that they were on the wrong side of an important ethical issue.

Also, before I'm buried in legalese, this will be my last post in the thread. Toodles!

[Ox]

I'll point out that the Supreme Court has said that government-sanctioned marriage is a constitutional right, and I'm skeptical that such an antiseptic contract would pass muster regardless of what you called it. So I think those anti-SSM people have a point that you are effectively seeking to ban marriage as it's currently understood in US law, something that would require a constitutional amendment.

Whether the Supremes were correct in their analysis of the Constitution, of course, is a separate question.

[Ox]

Is it just me, or is it incredibly obnoxious to do a hit-and-run attack on another poster and then say you won't be participating in the thread anymore? Mags might as well leave a flaming bag of dog poop on my doorstep.

Toodles!

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by Ox

Is it just me, or is it incredibly obnoxious to do a hit-and-run attack on another poster and then say you won't be participating in the thread anymore? Mags might as well leave a flaming bag of dog poop on my doorstep.

Toodles!

Actually, the closest analogue I can think at is a redneck in a big pickup truck yelling "queer" out the window as he drives by a gay couple.

As I find myself saying with irritating frequency: Mags, you're better than that.

[roboninja]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

Actually, the closest analogue I can think at is a redneck in a big pickup truck yelling "queer" out the window as he drives by a gay couple.

As I find myself saying with irritating frequency: Mags, you're better than that.

I think you have it backwards. It's more like a gay guy yelling "REDNECK!!" out his window.

[Serapth]

Originally Posted by roboninja

I think you have it backwards. It's more like a gay guy yelling "REDNECK!!" out his window.

But said that way has less irony.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by Serapth

But said that way has less irony.

And less people getting up in arms about it.

[Deadend]

Well, the firm said that the case was probably not vetted properly, and it contained stipulations that no one else in the firm do any work regarding gay marriage. So maybe that played a bit of influence, and not just the anger/disappointment.

[Voodoo]

Originally Posted by Heretic Machine

I agree, but if you actually bring this up to someone on the other side, they just start rambling about how you want to "outlaw marriage." Keep in mind that the opposition to Gay marriage opposes it only on the basis that they don't like Gay sex.

? the other side ?

[Widgetcraft]

Originally Posted by Voodoo

? the other side ?

The wrong side.