Well, this is rich: A once sole-practitioner attorney taking on one of the nation’s largest and most-respected law firms in an opinion piece.
But what is King & Spalding going to do? Not offer me a partnership?
This story may not be as big as that wedding across the pond yesterday, but if you believe that every cause, and every criminal, no matter how vile, is entitled to legal representation, it’s big enough.
If you’re not familiar with the controversy, here’s your briefing:
1) In 1996 the Congress passes and President Bill Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Needless to say, the law is not popular with gay-rights groups.
2) Obama orders the Justice Department to stop defending the DOMA from legal attacks by activist groups. Big surprise.
3) The Republican-controlled House of Representatives hires Atlanta-based King & Spalding to defend the DOMA against a legal challenge in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
4) Leftist activist groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, level harsh criticism on King & Spalding for taking the case.
5) King & Spalding suddenly announces this past week that it is dropping its defense of the DOMA.
6) The Human Rights Campaign brags that it has succeeded in depriving the House of Representatives of legal counsel in defending a statute with which the HRC disagrees in a court of law.
There’s one more element we might add to this scenario. There are also unconfirmed reports that another Atlanta-based giant, Coca-Cola, a King & Spalding client, pressured the law firm to dump the DOMA case. The theory is that Coca-Cola feared it would be targeted for being associated with efforts to fight gay marriage.
The issue is not whether the DOMA is good or bad law. For my part, I cannot fathom how a same-sex couple’s enjoying the legal rights of marriage would have any affect whatsoever on my life or marriage.
The issue is whether or not unpopular causes deserve the protections offered by our Constitution and our laws. This type of controversy most often arises when an attorney undertakes representation of a vile, widely despised and clearly guilty murderer, rapist or child molester. To their credit, criminal defense attorneys do not run from public opinion. They know that their ultimate function is to make the government — the only entity legally allowed to use force to deprive us of our property, our freedom or our lives — follow the letter of the law in prosecuting the criminal. Just as freedom of speech is not a concept designed to protect only popular speech, the concept of equal protection under the law was not designed to protect only popular causes. When a lawyer or law firm abandons a representation because of threats from clients, warnings of boycotts or a shift in public opinion, the fabric of our law is torn, and those who would tear down our legal system are emboldened. Expect more protest threats against other lawyers and firms representing unpopular causes or clients.
Hey! If it worked against King & Spalding, why not?
I have a bit of space left, so I’ll add one more ingredient to this story. Two King & Spalding partners, John Chandler and Beth Tanis, have represented some Guantanamo detainees since 2004. K & S says it dropped DOMA because its vetting process in that case was “inadequate.”
I would be most interested in learning more about a vetting process that deems representation of possible Islamic terrorists to be worthy, but representation of our House of Representatives to be unworthy.
Oh, the joys of being a sole practitioner.
Listen to Neal Boortz live from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. weekdays on AM 750 and 95.5FM News/Talk WSB.
His column appears every Saturday. For more Boortz, go to boortz.com
