Much has been written this week about the decision of the huge and hugely distinguished law firm King and Spalding backing out of its decision to represent the GOP members of the House of Representatives in defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the Federal Courts, after the Obama administration's decision to stop defending what they saw (rightly) as an inherently unconstitutional law.
Most of what I have read and heard among colleagues criticized the decision of King and Spalding to back out of their representation saying that they gave into political pressure and hung a client out to dry. Much also has been said of Paul Clement, the partner at King and Spalding who initially agreed to represent the GOP Representatives and who after King and Spalding's decision to drop the client, decided to resign the firm and continue to represent the GOP Republicans at a new firm.
Let me first say that I, too, applaud Mr. Clement's decision to resign based on his strong beliefs and continue his representation. There are few people who would have that kind of courage of their convictions. But, little has been said or written about all of those at King and Spalding, many of whom were not members of the firm, but associates or non-lawyers whose entire future in the legal profession depends on the good relationship with and approval of their superiors in their firm. It is about them, that I would like to write today.
According to a report by Jennifer Bendery and Amanda Terkel at Huffington Post, the decision by King and Spalding to take on the defense of DOMA through the Federal Appeals process sparked a mutiny at the law firm. According to the report, a source inside the firm stated that management was divided and many in the firm were threatening to quit. What is most remarkable is that at least one non-attorney, a litigation paralegal in the Atlanta office went on the record complaining to the leadership of the firm that their decision could harm the standing the firm had in the LGBT community in Atlanta and that many companies and clients could leave as a result of their decision. For someone who is not even an attorney, much less a member, of such an old-school law firm to stand up to management and tell them to their face, on the record, that they are wrong in making a decision about accepting a case is remarkable. The paralegal, Pam Rymin, must have known that she was placing her career, her salary (which is probably quite substantial) and her future not only with this firm but with many others on the line when she made her complaint.
Despite the criticism of the firm for bowing to external pressure in deciding to drop their representation of the House GOP members, it appears that most of the criticism was from within the firm.
King and Spalding does deserve a lot of criticism for how this was handled. These issues should have been vetted through the firm before the decision to accept the representation was made. However, I would posit that there was probably very little thought given to the fact that this decision might even be controversial. I would venture a guess that the older, more senior members of the firm, grew up in an era when gays and lesbians were known, but never heard and more often than not were relegated to their closets if they wanted to succeed. No one would be open about their sexuality, at least if they wanted to advance in their career, and if their sexual orientation was known, it was not something to be flaunted or talked about openly. Certainly no-one would dare consider getting married to a person of the same sex much less expect the State or Federal government to recognize such a thing.
When I was in law school at Wake Forest, not all that long ago, one of the issues that we dealt with within the school was the school's seemingly non-sensical refusal to honor the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday by canceling classes. Throughout my three years there, several of the students, mostly members of the fledgling National Lawyers' Guild chapter at the still very conservative Southern school and members of the Black Law Student Association ramped up our calls for the administration of the law school to take action. This culminated in a boycott of classes and a noon-time rally during my third year. At the rally, I spoke and asked my fellow students who attended the rally (many of whom boycotted classes that day, many of whom did not but still attended the rally) if they were willing to take the stand they were making that day and carry it into their professional careers. Would they have the courage to stand up to a colleague who made a racist joke, or to a partner in their firm who made decisions on employment or representation in a racially discriminatory way? It would not be easy, I warned. The pressure to conform in our profession is extreme and the risk to your career for standing up to someone who can easily destroy everything you ever worked for is great.
It is for that reason that I am proud of those in the King and Spalding firm who stood up to their superiors and took a stand against their representation of this case. The rights of lesbians, gays and transgendered people is the single most important civil rights issue of our time. The fact that so many inside one of the oldest and most powerful law firms in this nation decided to have the courage of their convictions and make a stand in this fashion is a powerful statement. The times, they are a'changin' and this story of these brave associates and paralegals shows that they are probably changing for the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment