Law firm drops Defense of Marriage Act case, prompts resignation of partner
Paul Clement, a high-profile partner at the law firm King & Spalding, resigned on Monday after the Atlanta law firm announced its decision to withdraw from its representation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on behalf of the House of Representatives.
Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, was hired by the House of Representatives as the lead attorney to defend the controversial law, which seeks to define marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman.
Robert D. Hays Jr., chairman of King & Spaulding, said on Monday that vetting for the case had been "inadequate" and that the firm would subsequently be dropping it.
"Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal," Hays said in a statement. "In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created."
Clement promptly issued his resignation, arguing that the firm had abdicated its responsibility to the legal system by withdrawing representation from a case "because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters."
He will head to Bancroft PLLC, a Washington-based firm that houses former Bush Justice Department official Viet Dinh, where he will apparently continue to work on the case.
"I take this step not because of strongly held views about this statute," Clement wrote in a letter to Hays. "My thoughts about the merits of DOMA are as irrelevant as my views about the dozens of federal statutes that I defended as Solicitor General."
"I resign out of the firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters," Clement continued. "Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do. The adversary system of justice depends on it, especially in cases where the passions run high."
Clement went on to argue that law firms should not attempt to delegitimize any particular perspective of a legal controversy in order to avoid being on "the wrong side of history," and that "the surest way to be on the wrong side of history is to abandon a client in the face of hostile criticism."
King & Spalding has in recent weeks faced harsh criticism for taking on the case, including from the Human Rights Campaign - which had been planning a press conference this week to "call attention to the hypocrisy of the law firm" for taking the case.
Clement, who was reportedly making $520 an hour for his representation, said he "would have never undertaken this matter unless I believed I had the full backing of the firm."
