How should big law firms decide whether to approve partners’ representation of controversial clients? This is the significant question raised by the dustup between King & Spalding and former solicitor general Paul Clement over Clement’s contract to represent the House of Representatives in defending the Defense of Marriage Act. (DOMA places the federal government firmly against recognition of same-sex marriage.) This question facing many general service firms will become increasingly important in our polarized culture: So many controversial cases raise divisive political, policy, and moral issues, and, increasingly, firms may be forced to say where they stand on the political spectrum in choosing clients.
In analyzing this question, however, it is important to indicate briefly what this selection decision (and this article) is not about.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
