Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Drug Maker Agrees to Divest Two Medicines to Win FTC Acquisition Approval | Main | D.C. Attorney General’s Office Fighting Sanctions Request Following Verdict »

April 27, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e201538e28ad9d970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Former King & Spalding Partners Claim Usual Vetting Process Is Very Thorough:

Comments

Frank Sudia

Suppose K&S had rejected the DOMA case ab initio. Would Clement have resigned anyway?

Arthur Spitzer

I'd be very interested to see this "anti-advocacy" clause, if you have a copy of the contract.

Art Spitzer

Robert

If the firm's vetting process for considering controversial clients does not include key inputs from Marketing, Communications, Sales and HR, then it is not a thorough vetting process.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements