King & Spalding withdraws as counsel in gay-marriage case
Earlier this month, Paul Clement, a high-powered Washington partner in the Atlanta-based law firm King & Spalding, agreed to represent House Speaker John Boehner and the House of Representatives in their effort to defend the constitutionality of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.
But King & Spalding, it seems, has had second thoughts. The law firm’s chairman, Robert Hays, announced today that the firm had made a mistake in accepting the case, explaining that the decision had not been properly vetted before the announcement.
In response, Clement resigned, effective immediately. (His resignation letter can be found here.) He did so “out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in some quarters,” and said that he will continue to handle the case at another firm.
I can’t comment on the internal vetting process that occurred or didn’t occur at King & Spalding before Clement, who served as solicitor general under President Bush, agreed to take the case. But Clement is certainly right about the fundamental importance of even unpopular clients and causes being represented in court. Back in 2007 and 2010, you may recall, lawyers who volunteered to represent detainees at Guantanamo were attacked as unpatriotic in some quarters. So while I think Clement’s wrong and hope he loses, I’m glad he’s sticking with the case as a matter of principle.
That said, it’s stunning that blocking gay marriage is now considered such an unpopular cause that such a step was even necessary.
UPDATE at 6:20 p.m.: A commenter below points to a possible complicating factor. It appears that Clement, as a K&S partner, signed a contract with the House and Boehner in which he agreed to bar all firm employees, including those not in any way involved in the case, from publicly advocating the overturn of DOMA. It’s conceivable that those provisions of the contract stirred opposition among other K&S personnel, leading to the claim by its chairman that the engagement had not been properly vetted.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
409 comments Add your comment
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
April 25th, 2011
9:21 pm
“Where do YOU stand?”
If you don’t know where I STAND, then you haven’t been reading my posts.
@@
April 25th, 2011
9:23 pm
Dave R.:
Let’s just say I like to define myself in less than conventional ways. Leaving people to use their imagination is a wonderful thing. It’s how kids learn.
(ISH)
joseph
April 25th, 2011
9:24 pm
Jay,
thanks for showing that part of the conversation about the agreement. Folks will want to make it political. Hays said…”In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate,” he continued. “Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.”
You will see tons of stuff in the next few news cycles about how everyone should deserve representation and how dare a firm do this… but at the end of the day, read the agreement and anyone can see, it would cause the firm more damage than getting out would have… i see it as no choice but to get out… I think he says this in carefully worded lawyer speak, LOL…
Thanks again for bringing this part to light.
Dave R.
April 25th, 2011
9:24 pm
I think I do know where you stand, Recon.
I’d just like for you to admit in precise words that you believe in two versions of equality; one for straight men and women, and one for gays, and defend your stance on the basis of the definition of “equality”.
Jay
April 25th, 2011
9:27 pm
Joseph, if that gag agreement was truly the problem, K&S ought to come out and say that was the problem.
Midori
April 25th, 2011
9:34 pm
Remember that “exchange student” in the guest room?
one of the MANY reasons I exchanged you!!
maude
April 25th, 2011
9:39 pm
And understandably so, that when you’re in legal jeopardy, you really cannot put yourself in a position to open yourself up to the media.
Monica Lewinsky
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
April 25th, 2011
9:39 pm
“I’d just like for you to admit in precise words that you believe in two versions of equality; one for straight men and women, and one for gays, and defend your stance on the basis of the definition of “equality”.”
Well now you’re trying to have me confirm what it is that you want me to believe and then defend what you want me to believe, so you can pass judgement. Sorry, but a bit too stupid for me to continue. You have a nice evening.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 25th, 2011
9:40 pm
Jay, most attorneys will err on the side of vagueness in court or public statements regarding withdrawal or termination. When an attorney withdraws the firm may be obligated to keep confidential the facts that constitue an explanation and must take all reasonable steps to mitigate consequences. K&S would generally err on the side of being conservative. Note also:under the subsection (b) (3) and comment (7): The lawyer also may withdraw where the client insists on a repugnant or imprudent objective.
http://gabar.org/handbook/part_iv_after_january_1_2001_-_georgia_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_116_declining_or_terminating_representation/
BADA BING
April 25th, 2011
9:41 pm
Well this is topical and timely, I believe that Kate Middleton could turn some of you guys straight. She is hot, her accent is killer, she is smart, and seems to be completely interesting on all levels. If Charles slips up at all, I could move in. Well, if I were better looking, I would definitely have a chance. And richer, of course. And more interesting, but then I would be in like Flint. What I am saying is that I have a chance.
Redneck Convert (R---and proud of it)
April 25th, 2011
9:41 pm
Well, seems to me Scout changes names more often than WOW, Grand Forks, LA, etc.
Have a good night everybody.
Dave R.
April 25th, 2011
9:44 pm
No, Recon, I want you to defend what YOU believe, plain and simple.
“There is no try – only do”. – Master Yoda
“There is no mostly equal – only equal or not equal”. – Dave R.
maude
April 25th, 2011
9:47 pm
“he who smelt it, dealt it”- Dave R.
Dave R.
April 25th, 2011
9:48 pm
I find it amazing how many conservatives, who bellow about how much they cherish the U.S. Constitution, run away from it on this issue.
All the time.
You’d think some of them would develop a spine when it comes to matters of principle, but they fold like lawn chairs when confronted with gay issues.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 25th, 2011
9:50 pm
Bing… you might want to be sure about who you are waiting to stumble….if you are waiting for Charles to stumble, you may find yourself sleep with a horse.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
April 25th, 2011
9:50 pm
Well, I certainly did not change my handle today and Mr. Jay himself can attest to that. He sees the IP addresses.
Jay
April 25th, 2011
9:51 pm
I understand that, Good Fight. On the other hand, Clement was not exactly shy about justifying the move from his own point of view. Right now, that’s the only explanation on the record.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
April 25th, 2011
9:51 pm
I haven’t had time to read all of these posts but I guess it’s:
“Queen and Spalding” now ?
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
April 25th, 2011
9:51 pm
Dave R. why should I defend what I say. This is an opinion blog and I think you’re being a bit sanctimonious in your own beliefs. Why don’t you defend your own position? Thus far you haven’t.
BADA BING
April 25th, 2011
9:52 pm
What is this….Monday? The wedding is Friday, that gives me 3 days to get to England, get better looking, richer, get a personality, and somehow meet Kate. If she would only give me a chance, I know she would like me. I guess I better get a shower and pack, wish me luck!!
Jay
April 25th, 2011
9:52 pm
And yes, I can vouch that Scout has not been posting under any but his usual name.
Dave R.
April 25th, 2011
9:55 pm
“Why don’t you defend your own position? Thus far you haven’t.”
Let’s see . . .
Since I believe in equality in every sense of the word, my position would be that gays should have full marriage rights – no exceptions.
Clear enough for ya’ ?
Redneck Convert (R---and proud of it)
April 25th, 2011
9:56 pm
And yes, I can vouch that Scout has not been posting under any but his usual name.
Dang! Sure sounded like him. I guess I was wrong for the second or third time in my life. Dave R. has me beat bad. He’s never wrong. Just ask him.
Yippee
April 25th, 2011
9:56 pm
““Queen and Spalding” now ?”
Damn funny! Hey now, relax. On here all groups get fun poked at them. Don’t go there with poked either
RW-(the original)
April 25th, 2011
9:56 pm
BADA BING,
Take her some freaky hats. The girl loves her hats and if you can find a Kentucky Derby hat-shop that hasn’t sold out yet, you’ll sweep her away before William knows what hit him.
maude
April 25th, 2011
9:56 pm
I can vouch that Scout is a definite homophobe for whatever that’s worth….
BADA BING
April 25th, 2011
9:58 pm
I can’t wait for Kate to see my nice, paid for house. It is not a huge house, it will be easy for her to clean and dust. She should like that, what woman wouldn’t? And new appliances to boot, lucky her!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 25th, 2011
9:59 pm
Jay, agreed, K&S may have their hands tied as a response or it may have decided that no further comment was appropriate. Sometimes cooler heads must prevail ignoring “tit for tat”
Dave R.
April 25th, 2011
10:00 pm
“Dave R. has me beat bad. He’s never wrong.”
It’s a curse, Redneck . . .
. . . but I’ve learned to live with it.
BADA BING
April 25th, 2011
10:00 pm
RW, will those freaky hats be easy to clear Customs? I don’t have any time to waste at the airport. Do you think I could talk her into wearing just a hat when I meet her?
Yippee
April 25th, 2011
10:01 pm
maude
April 25th, 2011
9:56 pm
“homophobe”
I have always wondered why it isn’t gayphobe or lesbianphobe. Can only gays use “homo” like only blacks can use the ‘N” word? I don’t have a phobia against either group, but I just wondered. (for the record I have a homosexual brother and he is usually pretty gay, except when he is sad.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
April 25th, 2011
10:03 pm
Clear enough for ya’ ?
The only clarity is that it’s your opinion and doesn’t mean anything more than it’s your opinion. I disagree with your opinion.
maude
April 25th, 2011
10:05 pm
yippee,
whatever floats your boat, personally i’m a germaphobe……
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
April 25th, 2011
10:06 pm
maude:
What would you call someone who likes and respects homosexuals as human beings (i.e., josef or a loved one in their family) but despises and is repulsed by the physical acts of homsexuality and those who push that agenda on our children?
I would call them a nomal person who recognizes sexual perversion.
Kind of like the “Dog and Pony Show” down in Tiajuna.
RW-(the original)
April 25th, 2011
10:06 pm
will those freaky hats be easy to clear Customs?
SoCo,
Can you help BADA out on this one?
Dave R.
April 25th, 2011
10:10 pm
“The only clarity is that it’s your opinion and doesn’t mean anything more than it’s your opinion.”
Except that my “opinion” is based on the accepted definition of the word “equality”, and the very basis of the U.S. Constitution, Recon.
What have you got to back up yours?
@@
April 25th, 2011
10:10 pm
I’m a pomfretphobe.
Attacked by an organ grinder’s monkey. It was traumatic.
maude
April 25th, 2011
10:10 pm
scout,
i miss your quaint and humorless “don’t ask, don’t tail” blog spews….
USMC
April 25th, 2011
10:12 pm
“I can vouch that Scout is a definite homophobe for whatever that’s worth…”-Maude
What’s the matter Maude? Did Scout run when he noticed your manly adam’s apple:-)
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
April 25th, 2011
10:14 pm
“Kind of like the “Dog and Pony Show” down in Tiajuna.”
1811 beastality is a whole new different subject. We will need to get PETA rep’s involved.
Dave R.
April 25th, 2011
10:14 pm
“What would you call someone who likes and respects homosexuals as human beings (i.e., josef or a loved one in their family) but despises and is repulsed by the physical acts of homsexuality and those who push that agenda on our children?”
I would call them people who aren’t really comfortable in their own skin, and narrow-minded.
And extremely nosy in being interested in what goes on in the privacy of someone else’s bedroom.
Oh, and people who use the U.S. Constitution as a punch-line.
Dave R.
April 25th, 2011
10:17 pm
It’s even sadder that the very people who claim to have defended that same Constitution through their service in the Armed Forces, are the very ones who spit on it with their views on gay equality.
Yippee
April 25th, 2011
10:19 pm
If we’re talking about a narrow urethra, I would call that person Hank Hill
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
April 25th, 2011
10:20 pm
“Except that my “opinion” is based on the accepted definition of the word “equality”, and the very basis of the U.S. Constitution, Recon.”
Sorry, but the United States Constitution doesn’t guarantee you sexual gratification. You’re on your own and I hope you’re okay with it.
maude
April 25th, 2011
10:21 pm
USMC,
Ignorance is bliss. You must be one happy mofo.
Doggone/GA
April 25th, 2011
10:24 pm
“Sorry, but the United States Constitution doesn’t guarantee you sexual gratification”
and this has NOTHING to do with marriage
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
April 25th, 2011
10:28 pm
“and this has NOTHING to do with marriage”
Well perhaps not in your marriage but sexual gratification is important in most marriages.
USMC
April 25th, 2011
10:30 pm
“Ignorance is bliss. You must be one happy mofo.”
You sound angry, maude.
Doggone/GA
April 25th, 2011
10:30 pm
“Well perhaps not in your marriage but sexual gratification is important in most marriages”
there’s nothing in a legal marriage contract that guarantees ANYONE sexual gratification in their marriage. And you don’t need to be married to have sex
Dave R.
April 25th, 2011
10:30 pm
“Sorry, but the United States Constitution doesn’t guarantee you sexual gratification.”
Your knowledge of the Constitution is only exceeded by your knowledge of the word “equality”.
Neither of which you know.
maude
April 25th, 2011
10:32 pm
I mean, you want to know if I’m moral enough to join your army, to burn women, kids, houses, and villages, after bein’ a litterbug? — Arlo Guthrie, “Alice’s Restaurant”
Dave R.
April 25th, 2011
10:34 pm
Tell me Scout and Recon, what’s it feel like to spit on the very Constitution you each swore to uphold?
Someone of uncompromising principle when it comes to equality (and many other things) wants to know.
getalife
April 25th, 2011
10:35 pm
I am ihavenophobes.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
April 25th, 2011
10:36 pm
“Neither of which you know.”
I’m sadly certain that it’s very difficult for you Dave but try to have an enjoyable night.
Yippee
April 25th, 2011
10:36 pm
mofo?!? mofo?!? Pair that with a manly adam’s apple and I guess there’s no question.
Doggone/GA
April 25th, 2011
10:39 pm
Dave R. – I think it’s safe to say that Recon would label you – at best – a RINO, or – at worst – a liberal
Yippee
April 25th, 2011
10:39 pm
To be sure; I am a five-dollar-a-gallon-ophobe.
Smeat
April 25th, 2011
10:41 pm
For @@,
I am looking at a 1oz Silver Eagle Proof Coin made by The US Mint. It is legal tender for One Dollar but it worth about $45.92 just for the silver content as of closing today on the market.
Why?
My question is —- Why is The USA required to manufacture gold and silver coins as legal tender when they are obviously worth much more based on weight and content of precious metal?
Why not call a 1oz Silver Eagle a $45 bill instead of a worthless $1 Federal Reserve Note?
Gold and Silver have historical value and have been consistent for hundreds of years but our dollar is inflated and made made less valuable by The Fed.
Want proof? A quarter made before 1964 contained 90% silver and 10% copper. It weighs 6.5 grams. Do the math… at $46 per oz on today’s market price that metal is worth approx $2.75.
This is how our government, both right and left, created the mess we have now.
Fiat money sux!
Ron Paul 2012 !!
Someone earlier mentioned a wackojobbo who likes Dr. Paul…. Shall I mention the wackjobs who supported Bush and Obama?
Fix the monetary policy. Bring all our troops home from everywhere. Stay out of other countries affairs. Abolish The Patriot Act. Let the free market system work without guvmint interference. Keep the guvmint out of my personal life.
If you’re a loser dropout with 4 kids and struggling that’s your problem resulting from your poor choices.
My success has been earned the hard way.
Who is John Galt ??
getalife
April 25th, 2011
10:45 pm
smeat is a governmentphobe.
Yippee
April 25th, 2011
10:45 pm
Well, now I guess I am a papermoneyphobe.
maude
April 25th, 2011
10:49 pm
john galt is a fictional terd created by a old hag who lied in her dying days to suck on the govt. teet. her ugly motto: Reason is everything. Religion is a fraud. Selfishness is a virtue. Altruism is a crime against human excellence. Self-sacrifice is weakness. Weakness is contemptible.
Smeat
April 25th, 2011
10:49 pm
getalife and yippee are nursing the guvmint teet.
I’d wish y’all good luck but you wouldn’t know how to manage success ya twitz…..
Smeat
April 25th, 2011
10:52 pm
Let the hate spew —-
I recall these are the same folks who couldn’t get thru a Dr. Suess book without being perplexed…. LMAO
getalife
April 25th, 2011
10:53 pm
smeat,
I am retired.
Good luck chasing success with that attitude.
Doggone/GA
April 25th, 2011
10:53 pm
Smeat – you’re overlooking the fact that neither gold nor silver, or paper money for that matter, have any intrinsic value in-and-of themselves. They have only the arbitrary value that we choose to give them. If we are valuing something intrinsically – water and salt would be the most valuable things on earth, since we can’t surive without them.
Kamchak
April 25th, 2011
10:55 pm
I recall these are the same folks who couldn’t get thru a Dr. Suess[sic] book without being perplexed….
That would be Dr. Seuss for those that can spell.
Smeat
April 25th, 2011
10:58 pm
Doggone –
You forgot wheat, corn, oil and other commodities. Supply and demand works.
Government price controls and distribution according to needs FAIL !!
Capitalism works for those who work. Marxism is only for those who spend their days looking in others pockets and complaining about why they deserve more without putting in any effort.
maude
April 25th, 2011
10:58 pm
kamchak in the hizzle 4 shizzle
Smeat
April 25th, 2011
10:59 pm
Kamchak from Gor — Nice to see ya.
Howz your comic book fantasy utopia wurkin’ for ya?
Smeat
April 25th, 2011
11:00 pm
Have at kiddies — my wife just walked by with no top on and a new black thong.
BYE !!!!!!
maude
April 25th, 2011
11:01 pm
So, all pickpockets are marxists?
md
April 25th, 2011
11:01 pm
Oh goddy…time for the “everything is worth nothing” argument. Buyers determine the value of everything…………
Kamchak
April 25th, 2011
11:01 pm
Howz your comic book fantasy utopia wurkin’ for ya?
Much better than that fantasy by a chain smoking meth head sociopath.
Fer sure.
Hillbilly Deluxe
April 25th, 2011
11:01 pm
Just send all that unwanted paper money to “Hillbilly Deluxe”. I’ll be glad to dispose of it for ya.
Doggone/GA
April 25th, 2011
11:02 pm
“You forgot wheat, corn, oil and other commodities”
No, I didn’t. But a healthy human can live for quite a long time without food…and for a time without salt, but water in particular is absolutely critical. You can’t survive long enough to procure and make use of anything else – like food – if you don’t have water.
Yippee
April 25th, 2011
11:04 pm
@Smeat
April 25th, 2011
10:49 pm
“…a Dr. Suess book…”
The author of the Seuss books, Theodor Seuss Geisel, once wrote this: “Those that mind don’t matter, and those that matter don’t mind”
take a WAG at which category you fall into as far as I am concerned Bless your heart.
Doggone/GA
April 25th, 2011
11:04 pm
“time for the “everything is worth nothing” argument”
I don’t see anyone saying anything like that…are you sure you posted that in the correct place?
Yippee
April 25th, 2011
11:07 pm
The image of Smeat’s wife without a top and wearing a thong has made me sick. Gotta hit the head.
Good night, and God bless. (Red Skelton)
md
April 25th, 2011
11:12 pm
“I don’t see anyone saying anything like that…are you sure you posted that in the correct place?”
Absolutely…….as everything is worth nothing……….until a buyer is found.
Including gold, silver, commodities, etc……..
RW-(the original)
April 25th, 2011
11:13 pm
Glad to see Spellchak is on the overnight beat.
G’night y’all
getalife
April 25th, 2011
11:13 pm
“my wife just walked by with no top on and a new black thong.”
A first for this blog.
Pretending to have a naked wife to cut and run.
Weird.
TGT
April 25th, 2011
11:14 pm
“it’s stunning that blocking gay marriage is now considered such an unpopular cause that such a step was even necessary.
Unpopular with liberals in law fims and the White House, but not with every electorate that has ever voted on it.
Hillbilly Deluxe
April 25th, 2011
11:15 pm
Absolutely…….as everything is worth nothing……….until a buyer is found.
I agree with that, which is why I have a problem with “Fair Market Value” to determine property taxes but that’s another story for another day.
Doggone/GA
April 25th, 2011
11:17 pm
“until a buyer is found”
Nope. Anything that someone treasures has value to that person. The only “value” a buyer gives something is the value of what they have that they will exchange for it.
But that is why I used “intrinsic value” – the only things that have an absolute intrinsic value are those things which are essential to survival. Everything else has only the value we give it.
TGT
April 25th, 2011
11:17 pm
excuse me: law firms
md
April 25th, 2011
11:18 pm
“I agree with that, which is why I have a problem with “Fair Market Value” to determine property taxes but that’s another story for another day.”
And I agree with that…….let them pay me what they think it is worth, and I’ll gladly pay taxes with the leftovers.
maude
April 25th, 2011
11:18 pm
Well, I’m outa here. My old man just walked by in his best pair of tighty whities and a handful of bon bons. It’s on like donkey kong.
Doggone/GA
April 25th, 2011
11:18 pm
“but not with every electorate that has ever voted on it.”
No matter how hard we try, we can’t vote away someone’s rights. At “best” we can only postpone ensuring they enjoy those rights.
md
April 25th, 2011
11:21 pm
“Nope. Anything that someone treasures has value to that person. The only “value” a buyer gives something is the value of what they have that they will exchange for it.”
Getting into definitions again huh? For the purpose of my comment, I’m using monetary value……
Doggone/GA
April 25th, 2011
11:24 pm
“For the purpose of my comment, I’m using monetary value……”
but even if you bring it down to money, a buyer only gives something the value they will pay for it. It might be more valuable to the owner than that, and will not be sold. So it has the monetary value – not from the buyer, but from the owner.
Gandalf, the White
April 25th, 2011
11:49 pm
Saying that DOMA is anti-gay is gay!
Gandalf, the White
April 25th, 2011
11:49 pm
Liberals are just plain silly. Why don’t you folks think every now and then?
md
April 25th, 2011
11:58 pm
“It might be more valuable to the owner than that, and will not be sold. So it has the monetary value – not from the buyer, but from the owner.”
The owner can value an item at any denomination his heart desires, but the item will never be worth more than what it sells for………….
Bob
April 26th, 2011
1:57 am
So let me get this straight. Progressives believe that anything that is considered immoral or illegal now should be allowed in the future? That includes incest, sex with animals, or child molestation. We have to see the big picture and not deny rights based on morals. Liberals are idiots.
Good little liberal
April 26th, 2011
2:16 am
Lawyers aren’t afraid to represent serial killers and are usually proud of it, but the intimidation of politically incorrect trumps killers.
Freedom is only freedom if it doesn’t hurt any liberals feelings. If it does, better not do it.
So much for our country.
TnGelding
April 26th, 2011
3:52 am
Sounds like a little authority exercised that was not approved.
Stunning and deplorable in this land of the free and tolerant. Same-sex marriage? They should be happy with domestic partnerships. Why turn a solemn occasion into a circus, especially when cross-dressing is involved?
Dave R.
April 26th, 2011
5:05 am
“So let me get this straight. Progressives believe that anything that is considered immoral or illegal now should be allowed in the future? That includes incest, sex with animals, or child molestation.”
Not even remotely true, Bob.
What people who believe in EQUALITY believe that anything between two CONSENTING ADULTS is:
a. None of your damned business, and
b.worthy of having the same rights as anyone else.
What part of “equality” do you NOT gets?
Dave R.
April 26th, 2011
5:24 am
And what is this fixation by conservatives with sex with animals, anyway?
Something going on behind closed barn doors us non-conservatives need to know about?
@@
April 26th, 2011
6:50 am
Smeat:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to Ron Paul. I agree with a great deal of what he says. I do think his solutions are only applicable to a bygone era. Unfortunately we’ve moved well beyond that.
Last night, I listened to him naively say, when asked, how would he accomplish what he proposes. His answer?
A president can’t force decisions lest he be a dictator. He can only suggest the changes.
HECK! I always liked Jesse Ventura before his cheese slipped of the cracker.
stands for decibels
April 26th, 2011
7:33 am
mornin’.
another sign of progress–a year ago, a post on this topic from Jay would have drawn a lot more “defenders” of traditional hetero marriage.
Now? pretty half-hearted efforts, from what I scanned.