Principled, I see.

@1
Yes, they would tell you so. It is a badge of honor in the legal profession to argue any side of any issue.

They do have a "Contact Us" form - I just sent in a "how the hell do you reconcile the two?" question. Maybe a carpet-bomb of similar questions would make the point.

@3, how about just carpet bomb their offices?

@5 is correct.

And that was what the Nazi leadership said during Nuremberg.

"I vas chust followink orders."

I wonder how many of those bright diverse lawyers will be actively working THIS case?

Eh, maybe they'll defend DOMA poorly...

Seriously kids, it's like debate club: sometimes you get the "pro" argument and sometimes you get the "con" argument, but you still have to rigorously defend either position, regardless of your personal beliefs on the matter.

Plus, there's the money. Big, giant Olympic-sized swimming pools of cold, hard cash-ola...

Nobody was funding a lavish lifestyle via their participation in my debate club. (No one was getting laid, either.)

Lawyers' profession does require them to argue any side of an argument regardless of personal beliefs; but it also affords them the right to choose their clients.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVMd39Nhx…

A Youtube clip we made for a class project to real DOMA :) Entitled "Let There Be Love"

@5: Bullshit. That rule applies only to jurisdictions where lawyers are appointed by courts (for example, where there is no publicly financed public defender, and each lawyer has an obligation to represent the accused). Even then, the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct provide as follows:

A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person except for good cause, such as . . . the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer’s ability to represent the client.

Defending the right of the federal government to discriminate is pretty much the definition of "repugnant."

So even if this were a case of lawyers being dragooned into service (and not a case of Republican lawmakers being forced by the Obama Administration to shovel millions of dollars into the hands of Republican lawyers, who would never think about kicking back half of it as campaign contributions), the lawyers involved would have a clear reason for refusing.

As someone in a different (opposite?) sex domestic relationship, I'm offended they discriminate against me. The company I work for doesn't. I suppose its the best (only?) example of the gays destroying marriage by bringing such benefits to unwed couples. (that said we're getting married in a few months)

Anyways I'm glad the president let Congress defend the law. First off it puts congress in an awkward position of put-up or shut-up. But more importantly the constitutional mandate to defend the laws of the nation are fulfilled I think. It is an important principal, even if presidents are haphazard about doing it.

@14

**A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment**

Yes, and this also says that while you have an excuse to not defend a person (or organization), it doesn't mean that you can't accept such appointment in spite of a clear conflict of interest, and then let that conflict of interest impair the lawyer's ability to represent the client well.

I think that in prison, they call this the "My lawyer fucked me" defence.

(And this also applies to @8)

@8 What other kind of defense exists? It's a fucked up law, passed by fucked up legislators for no fucking legitimate purpose at all. It's contrary to the letter and spirit of any number of things. If Clarence Thomas isn't taking money from proponents, even that corrupt scumbag won't uphold it.

I think it's awesome that people who are in our corner in their principles are the ones representing our enemies. Dontcha all see how we screw them from the inside now???

I get that folks are upset about defending DOMA-- I am too-- but blaming the law firm somewhat misses the mark.

Lawyers defend murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. That doesn't mean that the lawyer is pro-murder, pro-rape, or pro-molestation. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, you go to trial with the client you have, not the client you want.

@20: Or, you decline to represent clients who are scumbags. That is perfectly legal, you know.

@20: The obligation to defend the accused stems from the Constitution, specifically the Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

Since lawyers have a monopoly on appearing in court on behalf of others, they are obligated to represent the accused if appointed by a court, unless the representation would be so repugnant to them that they would be incapable of providing effective assistance.

Criminal defense lawyers ensure that a defendant enjoys all of the rights provided under the Constitution.

This is more like representing a slum lord evicting tenants, or a tobacco company, or Enron. Sure, you can do it, and make lots of money, but the representation is not by any stretch of the imagination required to be undertaken, and as a consequence, deciding to take on this kind of representation does in fact reflect on the lawyer.

Hm...I have a close friend who works for K&S (most definitely *not* in their Constitutional Law division, though). I'll have to ask about this at happy hour later this week.

I'd have to agree with the commenters who think this is (a) a money thing, and (b) a chance to pursue a high-profile case. Since this will probably end up with the Supremes, only the bravest lawyer would decline the offer, no matter their feelings about the topic. A partner could probably boot the case to someone else, but an associate would salavate over the chance to head up to 1st & E. Capitol, even as a back-bencher.

@16, it's illegal to discriminate against someone based on their marital status in DC. Most places won't provide benefits to non-legally-recognized partners because, well, THAT'S where abuse of the system would happen (I can only imagine that I would have had a roommate at some point ask to be on my insurance if companies regularly extended benefits to "partners" without some kind of legal recognition...especially when I worked for the feds, what with that belief that we had fantastic, free benefits). But DC also allowed opposite-sex partners to become "domestic partners" instead of getting married, before gay marriage was legalized, and denying benefits to these partners would have also been considered discriminatory under the Human Rights Act. But I have heard of other situations where unmarried/domestic-partnered partners were able to exert their rights in DC (see: employers regularly allow employees their anniversary off, then that also goes for unmarried/domestically-partnered people; partner - legally recognized or not - gets sick, that's a valid reason to call off, etc.).

@22, 23: So you're saying that the lawyers representing Boehner should quit their jobs and hope for the best in an uncertain legal market? Or that the partner who accepted the case should alienate the Speaker of the House, potentially throwing away all of their government business (not just litigation)?

And maybe they should. But I get the strong impression that everyone here thinks cases are like flowers: a lawyer who does not want to pick one flower (case) can just pick the next flower (case). Most lawyers work for other lawyers, and those lawyers in turn cultivate relationships with clients. There are real and severe costs to disengaging from a case, and it is not reasonable to demand that lawyers endure (potentially) severe economic hardship for ideology.

I'm not especially impressed either way. Haven't we all seen enough fictional examples of the male CEO being sued by a female employee getting the best woman lawyer he can find to play lead counsel on the defence team?

And the firm seems large enough that they ought to be able to field a team of true believers if that's the perceived best strategy. That would seem the safe option. It's hard for me to visualize them putting anyone openly non-straight in a main role; even if the House Rs decide they like the idea. If they expect to lose the case, they may not want it to appear to be sabotage.

Even Rumpole calls himself a taxi on hire to the most unappealing of customers. But a Rumpole comparison makes me uncomfortable; even when he gets a result the client least wants, it usually means he wins the case in the process.

Boehner hired the one lawyer Paul Clement - he could give a fuck what firm Clement's with at the moment. The guy was a former Bush-era solicitor general, as was Ted Olsen for that matter.

Look, anyone who's just sure a huge law firm can force a big-time partner to refuse a case needs to ring up Mike McGinn or Mike O'Brien and ask them for juicy examples from the relatively tiny Stokes Lawrence about how that just ain't always so.

@25:

So you're saying that the lawyers representing Boehner should quit their jobs and hope for the best in an uncertain legal market? Or that the partner who accepted the case should alienate the Speaker of the House, potentially throwing away all of their government business (not just litigation)?

Apparently you didn't read my comments. No problem. What I said was that no lawyer is required to take on this representation. Several commenters seemed to imply that a lawyer would be, or that this is similar to defending the accused.

A lawyer is certainly entitled to make a living defending slumlords or repugnant legislation or an advertising executive can write ads for sugary cereals. But no one is required to do so. Free choice means just that: the lawyer who takes on this representation has chosen to do so, and his or her reputation should be affected accordingly.

Apparently you didn't read my comments. No problem. What I said was that no lawyer is required to take on this representation. Several commenters seemed to imply that a lawyer would be, or that this is similar to defending the accused.

My point is that a lawyer would be required to take on the representation, just not through the mechanism you're citing. Just like everyone else, lawyers have bosses, whether that boss be a client or a more senior lawyer. Just like everyone else, lawyers are hired to do a job. And just like everyone else, lawyers who refuse to do that job may find themselves unemployed.

@ 28 & 29: I think you're talking about two different things. 28 is talking about being *ethically* required to take such a case, which no lawyer or firm is required to do. This is often true in criminal cases, except when the defense attorney is court-appointed. Once a lawyer has taken a criminal defense case, she cannot drop it even if the client is guilty UNLESS she can do so without pointing to his guilt. 'Coming down with the flu' might work. In civil cases, a lawyer can ALWAYS choose her clients, by ethics.

29 is arguing more pragmatics. If your job is at the mercy of others' decisions (as it is for most of us), then you have to decide how much you can swallow. Some people can swallow more than others. Just like everything else in life.

@30: Yes, that's it exactly.

FWIW, I have refused cases due to ethical concerns, and I've never been fired. But every time I did, I knew that I had to be willing to quit if it came down to it. Of course, I have neither children nor a mortgage nor crushing student loans, so I can be unemployed for a bit if necessary. Many other lawyers do not have that luxury.

Needless to say, there is no way in hell I can prevent my entire firm from taking a case. So it's entirely possible that I might be heading up a diversity initiative while one of my co-workers is representing a bigoted client. I know it's shocking to non-lawyers, but firms don't exactly have a groupmind when it comes to things like that. :)

I wouldn't take this case, and I would allow no one else in my firm to take it.

Yes, it would be worse for me, the married-under-Canadian-law-to-another-guy senior partner, and my firm to undertake to defend a law which adversely affects me in my personal life and which is clearly unconstitutional under mainstream jurisprudential analysis, than it would be for our firm to defend a random criminal. A better comparison would be whether my firm would defend the guy who murdered my mother.