Leave a Comment Johan
NRA terminates agreement with King and Spalding
May 2, 2011
By Adam Bink
Following on the Virginia Attorney General deciding to do the same, NRA General Counsel David Lehman wrote to King & Spalding, deciding to drop their legal services:
We are writing to notify you of our decision to terminate our legal services agreement with King & Spalding, effective immediately, due to the firm’s decision to bow to political pressure and abandon a client in the midst of a legal representation. Specifically, our decision is motivated by your withdrawal as counsel for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives in defense of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act.
We believe King & Spalding’s decision is indefensible and raises serious concerns about its ability to be a reliable and effective advocate for any client facing potentially controversial litigation.
To be clear, our decision is not motivated by any position on the statute itself. As you know, the National Rifle Association is a single-issue organization dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We are, however, often involved in controversial issues on which emotions can run high. This is as true in the legal arena as it is in the legislative. It goes without saying that in situations in which we retain outside counsel, we expect them to zealously advocate for our interests and not abandon the representation due to pressure from those who may disagree with us.
The representation we have received to date from King & Spalding, specifically by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, has been outstanding. Given your firm’s recent conduct, we cannot continue to rely on King & Spalding to represent the NRA. Indeed, your decision only serves to embolden ideological organizations to protest the legal representation of other organizations with which they disagree, with the goal of freezing their opponents out of legal representation entirely. That, in turn, threatens the very principles on which our legal system is based.
Therefore, we hereby terminate our legal services agreement with King & Spalding.
Noting the second-last paragraph… for many, it depends on the cause. As many have noted in the comments, people are different from laws, and rights under, for example, the Bill of Rights (such as the freedom of speech) are also a separate piece and often worth defending. In this case, many including myself believe DOMA is unconstitutional, is wrong to defend and does not protect anyone whose rights would be violated if same-sex couples were given federal rights. But many also believe the Supreme Court decision defending the right to free speech of the Westboro Baptist Church was correctly decided, however horrible their aims may be. So while the NRA has a point on what may come in the future, I don’t believe everyone who believes DOMA doesn’t deserve a defense also believes that their most despised organization or individual or group of people are not worth defending.
Filed under: DOMA trials
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
28 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Alan E. | May 2, 2011 at 6:23 am
But the fact hat most of your supporters also support the defense of DOMA isn't lost in your argument, and of course this will in no way affect the number of people who will give you money in the coming weeks…
2.
Phillip R | May 2, 2011 at 6:30 am
Honestly, I could see why the NRA would terminate their contract with them. Gun rights can be a hot button issue as well. If I supported DOMA, I would think that our side has done a little bullying in this case and wouldn't look highly among K&S as a result. I don't support DOMA obviously, but I can easily see the argument.
It's unfortunate that K&S didn't vet the case like they should have originally. I'm sure a lot of this bad PR could have been avoided.
3.
Maggie4NoH8 | May 2, 2011 at 6:31 am
Riiighhhhtt….. The NRA's members, I suspect, are in lock-step with the anti marriage equality crowd.
4.
Rhie | May 2, 2011 at 6:34 am
Interesting…
5.
Kathleen | May 2, 2011 at 6:43 am
√
6.
AnonyGrl | May 2, 2011 at 6:47 am
Frankly, if King & Spalding had dumped the NRA as a client mid case, THAT would have been much more worrisome to me. While I think that people owning guns is, in general, a VERY BAD THING (and no, I don't want to start a fight here, I am just making a point) it is, in fact, a Constitutionally guaranteed right that the NRA should be allowed to defend.
DOMA, not so much. As stated over and over, DOMA does not grant anyone rights, it restricts the rights of a portion of our population and THAT is the problem with it. The Westboro Baptist Church had the right to a defense, because the law being questioned was one that guaranteed rights. The NRA, same deal. DOMA, no.
A mass murderer? Yes, should get a lawyer, and a rigorous defense, and the lawyer should not drop the case. A bad law? No.
I don't really understand what is so difficult to grasp about this, does anyone?
7.
Ann S. | May 2, 2011 at 6:51 am
It sounds as though Clement was their lawyer and they're taking his side in the Clement vs. K&S dispute. They'll probably go right on over to Clement's new firm if they haven't already.
8.
AnonyGrl | May 2, 2011 at 6:54 am
I am guessing Clement was their star lawyer in Washington, so he may take a couple of big clients with him. But good for K & S for sticking to their guns on this, even if only because of the gag order problem. They MIGHT have tried to negotiate with the Congress on it, and figured out a way to make it work… but they didn't, so I am ok with that.
9.
Ronnie | May 2, 2011 at 7:06 am
(rolls eyes) ….. 8 / ….Ronnie
10.
LCH | May 2, 2011 at 7:14 am
♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡
11.
Sagesse | May 2, 2011 at 7:20 am
K&S built their appellate practice around Paul Clement. It wouldn't surprise me that both the state of Virginia and the NRA left to follow Clement (and that other clients of that practice will follow). The letters then would just be rhetoric and spin.
12.
Straight for Equalit | May 2, 2011 at 7:25 am
❀
13.
Mouse | May 2, 2011 at 7:44 am
It sounds as if they are saying:
You're lawyers, for God's sake. You aren't supposed to have ethics or standards of your own. You use your fancy education and argue for your clients because they pay you to do so, regardless of what's right and what's wrong.
I call bullshit.
Even lawyers can stand by what's right and refuse to defend something that is indefensible. There are always other lawyers with different standards who might be willing to sell their soul for the cause.
14.
Martin the Brit | May 2, 2011 at 8:15 am
I'm absolutely agreed with you about the fact that DOMA is not entitled to the same defence as a person and doesn’t protect anyone’s rights. I think the issue in this instance is that King and Spalding took on a case and then proceeded to drop it. Regardless of my feelings about DOMA, I think K&S did have a duty to stick with their client. Their biggest mistake was taking on the case in the first place.
15.
Ann S. | May 2, 2011 at 8:26 am
It is not unethical just to terminate a client relationship. Under some circumstances it may be unethical to terminate a client relationship in the middle of a case.
Since they could not comply with both the gag provision and the California law prohibiting such provisions, terminating early was probably their best choice.
Of course, it would have been even better if they'd figured it out before signing the contract in the first place.
16.
DaveP | May 2, 2011 at 8:29 am
This is one of two things:
1. The NRA completely misses the point and does not understand that there is no 'right to defense' issue involved in this case, or
2. The NRA understands that this is BS and they just wanted to stay with Clement, and they are using the opportunity to spew a little NOM-style 'spin'.
17.
Michelle Evans | May 2, 2011 at 8:41 am
It is not uncommon for clients to follow a lawyer if they leave a firm. That's how many new practices start.
I firmly agree with your statement: "There are always other lawyers with different standards who might be willing to sell their soul for the cause" Seen that enough times on the anti-equality side, same as happened for Jim Crow laws, etc. Follow the money, as they say.
18.
JonT | May 2, 2011 at 9:05 am
☮
19.
Carpool Cookie | May 2, 2011 at 9:11 am
Yes, especially since when they write "due to the firm’s decision to bow to political pressure and abandon a client in the midst of a legal representation" they're not taking into account that they had this "client" for only what, One week?
20.
AnonyGrl | May 2, 2011 at 9:35 am
Or maybe 3) The NRA knows that by and large their membership IS behind NOM on this issue despite their "single issue" claims, and decided to cut and run from K&S before it became a divisive issue for them, and will run from Clement if he changes HIS mind as well.
21.
Jon | May 2, 2011 at 9:47 am
Total hypocrisy. For the NRA to criticize others for what it alleges is responding to pressure is to pretend it's not in the pressure business. Of course there's no principle; it's just whose ox is getting gored. Transparent self-serving hypocrisy: an NRA tradition.
22.
be4marriage | May 2, 2011 at 11:22 am
I doubt any of their members actually care one way or the other about gay marriage, and certainly not enough to go find out who King and Spalding are. It's probably one single person at the NRA that decided they wanted to make this an issue.
23.
kagato23 | May 3, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Doesn't matter. They committed to legal representation, and they didn't provide it.
They deserve the flak they are getting, frankly. That's a breech of ethics, and I'm sorry, but takes precedence over my personal views as to what they are defending.
Doesn't matter how shaky the case is, or how reprehensible and/or stupid the side you work for. You don't leave after you've been hired. You see it through, you never work with these people again, but you don't leave once the paperwork's signed.
I wouldn't trust these guys at this point either.
24.
kagato23 | May 3, 2011 at 11:24 pm
No. Because if all of this is how you feel, you NEVER ACCEPT THE CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
They aren't public defenders. They aren't handed a docket of somebody requesting legal representation and told "this is yours now, defend it."
There was a period when they were approached and they had time to decide if they wanted this case or not. They said they did.
Their ethics and standards DEMAND they put aside what's right and what's wrong at this point and do the job they said they would do.
This isn't "I'm not selling my soul!" that already happened. Then they said "Wait, takeback! Takeback!"
And that's bullshit.
25.
Ann S. | May 4, 2011 at 1:11 am
How are they supposed to reconcile their duties under the gag provision of their contract and California law that prohibits such provisions, when they have two offices in California?
26.
Martin the Brit | May 4, 2011 at 2:06 am
I hadn't read too much about the gag order until you mentioned it but it definitely sounds like it would have created a huge conflict of interest for K&S. I also didn't know it conflicted with California law. I learn so many things here lol. Thanks for your input.
27.
Ann S. | May 4, 2011 at 2:15 am
The contract prohibited all K&S employees everywhere from advocating with respect to DOMA. One of the Atlanta partners is President (or another high officer) in an Atlanta organization for LGBT attorneys. Two of the K&S offices are in California, as I mentioned, and California law does not permit such clauses.
I really think a lot of the coverage has missed the boat on this one, but that's often the case with legal matters, IMO.
28.
kagato23 | May 4, 2011 at 10:46 pm
It is tough. They would have had to make some arrangement to compensate for that.
But this is exactly the sort of homework they should have done beforehand.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.