A spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has confirmed earlier reports today that his office has ended its relationship with Washington law firm King & Spalding.
No additional details were immediately available from Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein. The Washington Examiner has reported that Cuccinelli made the decision following the firm’s
decision earlier this week to withdraw its representation on behalf of U.S. House Republicans defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Les Zuke, a spokesman for King & Spalding, said the firm does not comment on client representations.
According to the Examiner, King & Spalding was retained by the Attorney General’s office starting in September 2009 to assist with legal work on behalf of the state. The extent of the firm’s work with the state wasn’t immediately clear this afternoon.
Cuccinelli’s decision is the latest fallout from the firm’s decision to withdraw as counsel from the same-sex marriage litigation. Shortly after the firm announced its decision, former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement, who had been leading the litigation, resigned in protest. He has since joined Bancroft, a small Washington litigation firm, and will continue representing House Republicans.
Read more on the King & Spalding decision and its aftermath from the National Law Journal’s David Ingram and Tony Mauro.
A lawyer or solicitor is not supposed to act like this for their profession is quite different than others.
Posted by: Ciminal Solicitors | August 17, 2011 at 09:22 AM
Transparently unconstitutional? No basis to defend DOMA? One can easily imagine a 5-4 decision along traditional lines and write a majority opinion. No matter if it makes sense, it's the law. Better to have defended with a straight face and settled the matter openly and finally.
Posted by: Jeff Spangler | May 02, 2011 at 04:24 PM
There is definitely a duty to represent the client. However, lawyers ROUTINELY request the Court to allow their removal from the case.
Instead of one case citation, see http://tinyurl.com/69n5bco.
Like normal cases, King & Spalding did not specify a reason for their removal.
It is Paul Clement who chose to provide this alleged reason. Whether true or not, it is not King & Spalding who violated any laws. It is questionable whether providing such a "reason" for his former employer's removal from the case is something for which a professional with a regard for privilege is to be commended or vilified.
I wouldn't hire Paul Clement. I'd hire King & Spalding.
E
Posted by: Ehud Gavron | April 30, 2011 at 10:38 PM
Perhaps the law firm of King & Spalding simply came to the realization that there was no point in defending something as transparently unconstitutional as the Defense of Marriage Act.
WHY is DOMA unconstitutional? Consider: A Straight couple legally married in Iowa is automatically entitled to 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Many of those benefits have to do with tax law, Social Security, inheritance rights, child custody, and so on. But because of DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa is still unrecognized by the federal government for those benefits.
Consider, also, the “Full Faith & Credit” clause of the Constitution. Because of this, any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for drunken weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states, and at all levels of government. But thanks to DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa becomes UN-married if they relocate south to Missouri.
The ONLY real difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the gender of the two people who have made the commitment. It has nothing to do with procreation, since couples do not need a marriage license to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. So there is really no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married Straight couples have always taken for granted. This cannot be accomplished in a piecemeal, state-by-state fashion; it is the FEDERAL government which, through its own actions, has made this a FEDERAL issue.
Posted by: Chuck Anziulewicz | April 30, 2011 at 06:54 AM
If I were a K&S associate, I'd be overjoyed at this news. What an unsavory client to have.
Posted by: Abc | April 29, 2011 at 07:06 PM
clement said he is defending an unpopular postion, which is not true.
First of all, same sex marriage is not supported by majority of the citizens, according to pill and vote result in almost every state.
Second, the law of most states does not support same sex marriage.
Third, his client is powerful government officials back up by public fund.
Posted by: xyz | April 29, 2011 at 06:09 PM