RECENT  POSTS:  » Negligent anti-LGBT voices determined to eliminate *all* nondiscrimination laws » Video: To Focus on the Family's Citizenlink, a simple business request = 'home invasion' » Audio: Former senior NOM official says we'll have 50 state equality by 2015 » Video: Florida AG Pam Bondi advocates for delayed (and denied, if she had her way) justice » Audio: Michelle Duggar robocalls against LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance in Fayetteville, AK » AFA commentator equates homosexuality with blindness, paralysis » AFA's senior issues analyst (again) equates homosexuality with necrophilia, bestiality, incest, pedophilia » 'The nation's attic' to get some rainbow-hued light » Marriage equality's main legal opponents now outsourcing fearful visions to Hollowood » GLAAD: BarbWire.com: Making the anti-LGBT movement look more extreme by the day  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/12/2011

Report: Conservative was quite liberal with King & Spalding protocol

by Jeremy Hooper

The Fulton County Daily Report has some new intel regarding what really went down at King & Spalding -- Fresh deets that seem to call into question who, exactly, acted in discord with firm policy. Wall Street Journal's Nathan Koppel breaks down the pertinent claims:

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

But the [Fulton County 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.

Fresh Details on King & Spalding’s DOMA Withdrawal [WSJ]

So NOM and FRC and whoever else can harp on and on about how out-of-line King & Spalding was in dropping DOMA defense (and, by extension, losing Clement). But they cannot do so without overlooking some very pertinent, very understandable points regarding the law firm's most basic of operations. Because if these three sources are to believed, there was an intra-firm misunderstanding that led to understandable departure (at best), or deliberate procedural carelessness (at worst).

***

*In case you missed it (since interest seems completely lacking): NOM has launched an entire fundraiser around the idea that King & Spalding acted inappropriately.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails