Fresh Details on King & Spalding’s DOMA Withdrawal.

May 12, 2011, 11:45 AM ET.

For those whose curiosity is not yet sated, more details have emerged about why King & Spalding backed out of defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

To recap, the firm and its former star partner Paul Clement were hired by certain House members in April to defend the law, which denies benefits to same-sex couples. The firm dropped the case a week later, issuing only a brief statement that the matter was not properly vetted.

Clement (pictured) voiced his displeasure with the decision and left the firm; and much of the media has pummeled King & Spalding since for seemingly backing away from a cause that is unpopular in many circles.

Thanks to this article from the Fulton County Daily Report, we have a little more insight into what happened.

Clement has stated that he felt that he had the backing of the firm before he took on the DOMA case.

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.

in full: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/05/12/fresh-details-on-king-spaldings-doma-withdrawal/

worth a look imo:

King & Spalding partner J. Sedwick Sollers offered a statement to the Daily Report, which backs Clement’s earlier comments that he believed he had the all-clear before taking the assignment. Here’s Soller’s statement:

Although our chairman Robert Hays has issued a short statement saying he assumed ultimate responsibility for any mistakes that were made, I want to make sure the record is clear that I was the member of firm management in primary contact with Paul Clement regarding this matter. As I have reflected on this, despite the fact that our standard client/matter review process was not followed, it was reasonable for him to believe that the firm would accept the matter. This was an unfortunate misunderstanding with a friend whom I personally recruited to the firm and strongly supported. I am deeply disappointed by Paul’s departure and regret the breakdown in communications.”


The reasons given, in part:

snip* Sources with knowledge of the backlash confirm that one of King & Spalding's top clients, Coca Cola, also based in Atlanta, directly intervened to press the firm to extricate itself from the case.

A Coca Cola spokesman declined to comment on or off the record for this story, but pointed TPM to the company's long public history of support for equality and diversity.

snip* But it wasn't just private pressure. King & Spalding also faced escalating protests from gay rights groups. The LGBT community in Atlanta has significant political influence, and the firm quickly became a target for major gay rights organizations including the Human Rights Campaign and the group Georgia Equality -- the largest gay rights advocate in the state. The groups planned an aggressive ad campaign, direct communication with the firm's clients, and a diminution of its Corporate Equality Index ranking -- the metric HRC uses to track corporate support for gay rights.

snip* 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 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."

That includes one employee, Atlanta associate Brian Basinger, who is president of the Stonewall Bar Association of Georgia, a group that pushes for gay rights.

"It does appear to me to be a bit draconian, in that it could be interpreted to limit employees of the law firm from doing LGBT work in their private time," said Jeffery Cleghorn, the immediate past president of the Stonewall Bar Association and a name partner at Atlanta's Kitchens New Cleghorn.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/behind-a-major-law-firms-decision-to-ditch-its-defense-of-doma.php



I found this last reasoning to be the most interesting, and wondered if it was the tipping point for them.


* on edit for clarity.