The professional Christian set which loves to portray intolerant, hate peddling Christians as constantly persecuted by those mean, intolerant gays. Meanwhile, it is they themselves who are the ones actually doing the bullying and persecuting of others. When the story broke that King & Spaulding was withdrawing from the defense of DOMA, the professional Christians raised the typical hue an cry about gays bullying the firm into violating its ethical duties to a client - ignoring the fact that no law firm ever has a duty to represent any given litigant. Even the Washington Post fell for this line of bullshit in an editorial that criticized HRC laying into King & Spaulding.*
But then comes the rest of the story to quote the late Paul Harvey's line. First, every law firm has the option of saying "no thank you" to a case for any number of reasons. Moreover, most large firms have a procedure for taking on large cases - especially those that involve high levels of controversial issues. I was once a member of a large firm where a single partner (with a large ego) took on a very controversial case and all hell broke out amongst the partners who were blinded sided and learned of the situation from the newspaper. The reality is that King & Spaulding could always have said "No" from the outset. And if it did want to take the case, as in my former firm, an internal policy existed for making that decision. Now we learn that Paul Clement - either in a moment of unbridled egotism or compelled by his own homophobia - committed King & Spaulding to the case without following the firm's mandated procedures. Hence the likely real reason for the firm's about face on the case and Clement's possibly forced resignation from the firm. Timothy Kincaid has a piece at Box Turtle Bulletin that looks at the rest of the story if you will. Will the Washington Post do a retraction? What about the whining Christianists? Here are highlights from Tim's piece:
*
King & Spaulding dropped the DOMA defense because Paul Clement never had it approved in the first place. He signed the case without following procedures or giving the firm an opportunity to measure the benefits or detriments of such a course of action.
*
The Fulton County Daily Report decided to look into things and found an entirely different chain of events than that which the big papers just assumed had happened. (Via WSJ)
*
But the Daily Report spoke to two firm lawyers and a third source anonymously who said that the DOMA matter was not fully submitted to King & Spalding”s business review committee, a firm requirement, before Clement signed a contract obligating the firm. They said the committee immediately began reviewing the case the day after the firm learned of the contract—and rejected it the next day, according to the Daily Report.
*
The sources said the firm’s partners were taken by surprise when news broke that Clement had taken the case. “Any matter that is controversial in any way or where there is a discounted rate goes through the business review committee,” one of the sources told the Daily Report, noting that the DOMA engagement was both controversial and had a discounted rate.
*
The King & Spalding sources, according to the Daily Report, said that there was widespread, adamant opposition to the DOMA case within the firm. “”It sticks a finger in the eye of people,” said one source, referring to the firm’s gay lawyers and staff.
*
And, a source said, the case did not fit the firm’s business mission. “King & Spalding is a corporate law firm—not a constitutional firm.”
But then comes the rest of the story to quote the late Paul Harvey's line. First, every law firm has the option of saying "no thank you" to a case for any number of reasons. Moreover, most large firms have a procedure for taking on large cases - especially those that involve high levels of controversial issues. I was once a member of a large firm where a single partner (with a large ego) took on a very controversial case and all hell broke out amongst the partners who were blinded sided and learned of the situation from the newspaper. The reality is that King & Spaulding could always have said "No" from the outset. And if it did want to take the case, as in my former firm, an internal policy existed for making that decision. Now we learn that Paul Clement - either in a moment of unbridled egotism or compelled by his own homophobia - committed King & Spaulding to the case without following the firm's mandated procedures. Hence the likely real reason for the firm's about face on the case and Clement's possibly forced resignation from the firm. Timothy Kincaid has a piece at Box Turtle Bulletin that looks at the rest of the story if you will. Will the Washington Post do a retraction? What about the whining Christianists? Here are highlights from Tim's piece:
*
King & Spaulding dropped the DOMA defense because Paul Clement never had it approved in the first place. He signed the case without following procedures or giving the firm an opportunity to measure the benefits or detriments of such a course of action.
*
The Fulton County Daily Report decided to look into things and found an entirely different chain of events than that which the big papers just assumed had happened. (Via WSJ)
*
But the Daily Report spoke to two firm lawyers and a third source anonymously who said that the DOMA matter was not fully submitted to King & Spalding”s business review committee, a firm requirement, before Clement signed a contract obligating the firm. They said the committee immediately began reviewing the case the day after the firm learned of the contract—and rejected it the next day, according to the Daily Report.
*
The sources said the firm’s partners were taken by surprise when news broke that Clement had taken the case. “Any matter that is controversial in any way or where there is a discounted rate goes through the business review committee,” one of the sources told the Daily Report, noting that the DOMA engagement was both controversial and had a discounted rate.
*
The King & Spalding sources, according to the Daily Report, said that there was widespread, adamant opposition to the DOMA case within the firm. “”It sticks a finger in the eye of people,” said one source, referring to the firm’s gay lawyers and staff.
*
And, a source said, the case did not fit the firm’s business mission. “King & Spalding is a corporate law firm—not a constitutional firm.”
No comments:
Post a Comment