The State of Virginia answers with a resounding "yes" the question: Will there be consequences when a big law firm publicly dumps a client for craven, pandering, PC reasons?
Last week King & Spalding announced that it would not continue to represent the U.S. House of Representatives in supporting the Defense of Marriage Act against a constitutional challenge in federal court. (The Obama Administration had already announced it would decline to oppose the challenge.) Another King & Spalding client, the Attorney General for the State of Virginia, concluded that he should reconsider his retention of the law firm to prosecute the state's ongoing challenge of Obamacare in federal court:
King & Spalding’s willingness to drop a client, the U.S. House of Representatives, in connection with the lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was such an obsequious act of weakness that I feel compelled to end your legal association with Virginia so that there is no chance that one of my legal clients will be put in the embarrassing and difficult situation like the client you walked away from, the House of Representatives. . . . Virginia does not shy away from hiring outside counsel because they may have ongoing professional relationships with people or entities, or on behalf of causes that I, or my office, or Virginia as a whole may not support. But it is crucial for us to be able to trust and rely on the fact that our outside counsel will not desert Virginia due to pressure by an outside group or groups. . . . Virginia seeks firms of commitment, courage, strength and toughness, and unfortunately, what the world has learned of King & Spalding, is that your firm utterly lacks such qualities.
Ouch. I guess when a law firm plays politics, it works both ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment