DOMA | Gay Marriage | News | Paul Clement

BREAKING: Paul Clement Resigns from King & Spalding Law firm Over its Decision to Drop DOMA Case

Attorney Paul Clement has resigned from King & Spalding law firm following the firm's decision to drop the defense of DOMA case.

Clement has joined Bancroft PLLC as partner. Bancroft has two former  Bush administration officials as partners, Amanda Terkel reports.


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Time to make times rough for Bancroft PLLC, new home of bigotry
    1919 M Street, NW
    Suite 470
    Washington, D.C. 20036
    Tel: (202) 234-0090
    Fax: (202) 234-2806

    Posted by: bigolpoofter | Apr 25, 2011 11:50:57 AM

  2. In other words, in order to maintain my standing as John Boehner's dildo

    ...I'm outta here.

    Posted by: AllBeefPatty | Apr 25, 2011 11:53:31 AM

  3. aqh ha BS stunt

    as soon as he done with the case for Boehner then King & Spalding will "rehire" him

    keep the pressure on them till they make a public statement that they will never 100% EVER REHIRE HIM and hold them to it

    Posted by: | Apr 25, 2011 11:54:00 AM

  4. Don't let the door hit ya...

    Posted by: oneway | Apr 25, 2011 11:56:30 AM

  5. Please tell me that you're not now endorsing the position that public pressure should be permitted to deny representation to unpopular parties or causes. Perhaps you've never read *To Kill A Mockingbird* -- or, in fact, any history at all? You surely should.

    And please don't respond by suggesting that "this is different; this time the unpopular cause is *against* civil rights, not for it." That's just question begging: you're using your policy-based conclusion as your excuse for allowing public opinion and pressure to deny representation. But of course if that method is permitted, anyone can use it for any purpose.

    Posted by: Quite a Position | Apr 25, 2011 12:01:12 PM

  6. @ Quite

    The world is drowning in lawyers so there is no worry

    There will always be a snake lawyer to crawl out from a rock to take on any case

    Your boo hoo hooing is BS

    When there are far far far fewer lawyers in the world then you might have a point since they would be at a premium

    Posted by: | Apr 25, 2011 12:04:14 PM

  7. Good for him! It's nice to see a little integrity in the legal profession. It may be unpopular, but the justice is blind.

    Posted by: Charlie | Apr 25, 2011 12:04:51 PM

  8. I actually think that his stance is right; just because the defense of DOMA is unpopular (and bigoted, hurtful, and essentially immoral) doesn't mean that he should be demonized for defending it. Although I/we don't like DOMA, it *is* still the law.

    Posted by: Jacob | Apr 25, 2011 12:05:39 PM

  9. Individuals always deserve a defense. But the right to a defense, or any human rights at all do not apply to corporations, ideas or a heinous, discriminatory law that's killing people and breaking up families. The idea that abstract concepts somehow deserve human rights before people do is disgustingly stupid. It's the same kind of addled logic that gave corporations free speech rights.

    Posted by: LetSodomRing | Apr 25, 2011 12:06:57 PM

  10. Oh the drama. Seriously.

    Posted by: yonkersconquers | Apr 25, 2011 12:08:20 PM

  11. When did "unpopular" suddenly become the shorthand for "bigoted"?

    Posted by: Peter | Apr 25, 2011 12:10:01 PM

  12. jacob

    (here comes godwin's law)

    and it was the law to round up jews, gypsies, and homosexuals at one time and send them to death camps

    "The law" "Just following orders" was already ruled WRONG at Nuremberg trials

    Posted by: | Apr 25, 2011 12:10:24 PM

  13. GEE, Mr. President, it only took that law firm a few days to "evolve." It took you over TWO YEARS to decide not to defend DOMA in court, but you're STILL enforcing it, and STILL think God wants only Hets like you to be able to marry.

    Posted by: | Apr 25, 2011 12:12:42 PM

  14. K&S did what it had to do; Clement did what he had to do. For Clement, he's evidently up for the battle that he will lose. For K&S, it would have been pretty bad to be a firm that upholds LGBT equality and diversity and take this case.

    Posted by: JFE | Apr 25, 2011 12:13:29 PM

  15. @PETER. You're right. He should be demonized for wanting to defend a bigoted law.

    Posted by: JACOB | Apr 25, 2011 12:14:10 PM

  16. What a bold faced lie! Saying the client - a political rabble of heated politicians - is in need. And then waving some misrepresentation of the ethics of what it means to be a lawyer and stand by your client?

    This has nothing to do with ethics or how history will judge.

    As much as this sounds like some Atticus Finch fan applying for law school, one needs to be a decent man before being a lawyer. Taking the case was a mistake and it is time to admit it.

    Do not hide behind the flag of I'M A LAWYER

    Posted by: Tim | Apr 25, 2011 12:14:21 PM

  17. I can imagine his new colleagues at Bancroft PLLC simply can't wait to great him or welcome the civil rights case of the era. Cough.

    If they don't mind rather weighty albatrosses around their neck and growing public protests on the front steps.

    The thing about "unpopular" cases, where the majority attempt to further curtail and diminish the rights of a minority, is that they have every right to pursue them - but they have no right to whine about it when they are hooted and jeered in public for their decision to. It's not a fair fight. People hate unfair fights.

    Posted by: yonkersconquers | Apr 25, 2011 12:15:09 PM

  18. The main thrust of his letter is essentially that all ideas deserve representation. Therefore, lawyers shouldn't be the gatekeepers to justice; they should accept the cases that come to them without regard to their "unpopular" nature.

    This cab rank rule is often used as a shield by lawyers with unpopular clients. More power to him for that, but he would have made that point more effectively if he had read the Judge Griffin Bell quotation he used in his letter: "You are not required to take every client that comes before you..." Cab rank requires you to take every client.

    Posted by: Bryce | Apr 25, 2011 12:15:23 PM

  19. i'm with quite a position on this.

    what exactly was accomplished? doma will still be defended, and still by the excellent clement. and now what?

    Posted by: daftpunkydavid | Apr 25, 2011 12:17:57 PM

  20. Leave it Michael to make this into yet another dig at the President. LOL.

    Posted by: BMF | Apr 25, 2011 12:18:35 PM

  21. Wait. Wait! So the Bipartisan Whatever hired Clement, and not K&S? Clement owns this case?

    Posted by: Russell | Apr 25, 2011 12:19:20 PM

  22. Clement's an ass, but that's hardly a surprise.

    As to all the people who are interestingly flooding this board crying for lawyers (!) who fight against civil rights (!), LETSODOMRING nails it. We already know that just because something un-Constitutional is the law doesn't mean it has to be defended -- in fact, it must not be. This is an excellent example of that.

    There is no justice in defending injustice. You have to know that. So why all the ultra-concerned posts proclaiming the absolute necessity and the God-given right for this country to destroy its own citizens?

    Posted by: exsidleynycadmin | Apr 25, 2011 12:20:10 PM

  23. Just undertake this thought exercise with me: Imagine that it's 2018. There's a Republican in the White House. ENDA has passed (this is a thought-experiment hypo; don't get lost in bits like whether ENDA would have passed by then). The Republican Justice Department refuses to defend it. Opponents of ENDA have successfully convinced much of the public that ENDA is not a civil-rights measure, but a "special-rights" measure that violates the civil rights of employers, property owners and other parties. In other words, they are making the claim that opposition to ENDA is a civil-rights measure, and that support of ENDA violates important rights. A Democrat-controlled House seeks private counsel to defend ENDA. Those opposed to ENDA attempt to apply public pressure to keep big, respectable law firms from taking that representation -- and then try to keep any firms from taking the case.

    Are you OK with those developments? If you're OK with what's happening here, you can have no *principled* objection to those developments. Your position could only, at best, be: what's good for us isn't good for our opponents, because we're *right,* and they're *evil.* But of course the opponents can make the same characterization. Ascribing a label to positions you disagree with and then using the ascription of that label to apply different rules to your opponents than to yourselves is not a principled position. It's just the sheerest (and most embarrassing) of childish foot-stamping.

    Posted by: Quite a Position | Apr 25, 2011 12:28:29 PM

  24. "...and still by the excellent clement..."

    If this is your starting point, I can see why you're confused. It's not possible to be evil and excellent. It just isn't. Crafty, underhanded, criminal -- but not excellent.

    And it doesn't matter if The God of Attorneys defended DOMA because there is no case. Meanwhile, not only has Clement had his reputation ruined in the mainstream, he's now firmly relegated to the world of right-wing crazies, where he belongs. His resignation letter has forever separated him from the rest of the world. Any veneer of "excellence" that he was trying to establish is gone for good.

    Works for me. A good part of the legal game is psychological warfare. We've already won that. Now on to win the case and have this guy go in the trashbin of history.

    Posted by: exsidleynycadmin | Apr 25, 2011 12:30:35 PM

  25. This brings to mind the quote from "A Tale of Two Cities" (in reference to the then state of the french aristocracy). Which seems entirely appropriate to this circumstance of justifing support of the wrong side of history: " It is singular just how long the rotten can hold together, provided it is handled gently".

    Posted by: booka | Apr 25, 2011 12:39:05 PM

  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «BREAKING: 'King & Spalding' Law Firm Backing Out of DOMA Case« «