Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:24 AM
Original message
REPORT: 'King & Spalding' Law Firm Backing Out of DOMA Case
Amanda Terkel at the Huff Post is reporting that King & Spalding, the law firm hired to defend DOMA, is backing out of the case, having determined the "process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate."

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/04/report-king-spalding-l... (Towleroad+Daily++%23gay+news)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. heh
I'm thinking the defense will be as anemic as it deserves
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
2. Glad to hear it.
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. Clement firm drops DOMA case
Clement firm drops DOMA case

In a real victory for supporters of same-sex marriage -- and marking what seems like real marginalization for its foes -- a major law firm has reversed course and will refuse to represent the House of Representatives in defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

King and Spalding Chairman Robert D. Hays, Jr., whose partner Paul Clement was to lead the defense, said in a statement through a spokesman, Les Zuke:

Today the firm filed a motion to withdraw from its engagement to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal.

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.

The statement is silent on the reasons for the decision, but the firm faced protests at its Atlanta office and a national campaign against it. And now the House majority is looking for a new lawyer.

More:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0411/Clement_fir...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 15th 2014, 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC