Boehner hires $520 an hour lawyer to defend DOMA

[eion]

ThinkProgress has obtained a copy of the contract House Republicans signed with Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General who earns $5 million a year, to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. Although Clement’s firm is charging less than the $900 an hour they typically bill for their top attorneys’ work, Clement will still leave the American people with a massive legal bill:

2. The General Counsel agrees to pay Contractor for all contractual services a sum not to exceed $500,000.00. … Furthermore, it is understood and agreed that should the $500,000 cap be reached before the Litigation is complete, and if the cap has not then been raised by written agreement…contractor shall not be obligated to continue providing legal services under this Agreement.

3. The General Counsel agress to pay Contractor at a blended rate of $520.00 per hour for all reasonable attorney time expended in connection with the Litigation, and at 75 percent of the Contractor’s usual and customary rates for all reasonable non-attorney time…and to reimburse Contractor for all reasonable expenses incurred by the Contractor in connection with the Litigation[.]

The House GOP’s decision to stand by this unconstitutional assault on gay families is indefensible, and it is made all the worse by their fiscally reckless decision to hire one of the most expensive lawyers in America. Indeed, it wasn’t even necessary for the Republicans to hire a law firm at all to represent their anti-gay position. The U.S. House’s Office of General Counsel already employs a team of exceptionally competent lawyers who are all perfectly capable of drafting and filing a legal brief, and none of these lawyers earn more than a fraction of Clement’s multi-million dollar salary.

In a few months, the debt ceiling will need to be raised, and House Republicans will whine over and over again about how the United States is spending too much money. If they really care one bit about fiscal responsibility, they should show it by firing Paul Clement.

Well, at least one person is getting a job from Mr. Boehner.

[Mr. Coffee]

And now you know why I intentionally mispronounce his name as "Boner". The hilarious thing is Boner's $520/hr shyster is probably going to get his ass handed to him by an ACLU lawyer that doesn't get paid half as much if they try to push this and it goes to before the Supreme Court.

[The Kernel]

$520 an hour for a top attorney is actually pretty good, I'm impressed the Speaker was able to get such a rate. I've worked with lawyers that routinely charge $1200 an hour, although in fairness they have very niche skills.

[Simon_Jester]

And now you know why I intentionally mispronounce his name as "Boner". The hilarious thing is Boner's $520/hr shyster is probably going to get his ass handed to him by an ACLU lawyer that doesn't get paid half as much if they try to push this and it goes to before the Supreme Court.

Now now, rightfully it should be pronounced Böner. Which is pretty much the same thing, of course.

[eion]

$520 an hour for a top attorney is actually pretty good, I'm impressed the Speaker was able to get such a rate. I've worked with lawyers that routinely charge $1200 an hour, although in fairness they have very niche skills.

The law firm normally whores out their top attorneys at a rate of $900 an hour, so the Speaker is to be congratulated for getting the American taxpayers a substantial discount.

Of course, it's worth noting that Mr. Clement will make the General Counsel to the House of Representatives’ (The person who should be doing this job) annual salary with only 329 hours (about 8 weeks full time) of work. Hardly a great deal considering.

EDIT: misread a chart, numbers greatly changed, but point still stands.

[eion]

or not...

King & Spalding withdraws from defending DOMA in court
The private firm that U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) hired to help defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court on Monday withdrew from its agreement to litigate on behalf of the anti-gay statute.

Robert Hays, Jr., chair for King & Spalding, said in a statement provided to the Washington Blade and other media outlets that the firm decided that the vetting process for taking up defense of DOMA, the 1996 law that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, was inadequate.

“In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate,” Hays said. “Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.”

Hays added the firm “worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal” last week after media reports revealed Paul Clement, a attorney with King & Spalding and U.S. solicitor general for former President George W. Bush, was contracted to defend DOMA at a rate of $520 an hour and an initial cap of $500,000.

According to blogger Ben Smith at the Politico, the withdraw means that Clement will no longer be involved with defending DOMA in court.

Boehner’s office didn’t respond on short notice to the Blade’s request to comment the firm’s decision to withdraw or further plans to defend DOMA in court.

Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said the Democratic leader shares Hays’ concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the way the contract was executed.

“She also vigorously opposes using half a million taxpayer dollars or any taxpayer resources to defend discrimination, at a time when Republicans in Congress are cutting critical initiatives like education and infrastructure,” Hammill said. “It is now more critical than ever that Speaker Boehner fully account for his decision to sign this half million dollar contract to defend this indefensible statue.”

House general counsel Kerry Kircher contracted with King & Spalding for assistance with defending DOMA in court after the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group in March voted 3-2 along party lines to take up defense of the anti-gay law in court. On Feb. 23, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Obama had determined that DOMA was unconstitutional and that the Justice Department would no longer defend the law in court.

Praise for King & Spalding’s decision to drop defense of DOMA came from LGBT advocates on Monday.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the firm made the right the decision by discontinuing its agreement to litigation on behalf of the anti-gay law.

“King & Spalding has rightly chosen to put principle above politics in dropping its involvement in the defense of this discriminatory and patently unconstitutional law,” Solmonese said. “We are pleased to see the firm has decided to stand on the right side of history and remain true to its core values.”

On Friday, HRC announced its was launching a campaign to inform clients and potential recruits about King & Spalding’s decision to defend DOMA. Among the components of the planned campaign were ads in mainstream and legal publications, titled “Shame,” which would have featured stories of families affected by the anti-gay law.

Despite King & Spalding’s decision to drop defense of DOMA, Solmonese said he suspects that Boehner will find another law firm to take up legal defense of the statute.

“Speaker Boehner is likely to pursue continued defense of this odious law,” Solmonese said. “However, law firms that value LGBT equality should remain committed to those values.”

Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters, also praised King & Spalding for recognizing that its participation in the legal defense of DOMA was unacceptable.

“All Americans deserve access to an attorney, but attorneys need to be held accountable for the clients they voluntarily decide to represent,” Socarides said.

Socarides added that Boehner’s decision to hire King & Spalding was unnecessary because the speaker has “an army of in-house legal talent” that could represent his position in favor of DOMA in court.

“If he is serious about cutting the deficit he needs to look to his in-house counsel to represent him in these proceedings, instead of spending taxpayer dollars for a service already provided to his office,” Socarides said.

One would hope this decision was helped along by the threat of a boycott by equality advocates, but who knows. Maybe Mr. Hays just couldn't live with himself if he allowed his firm to waste taxpayer dollars defending the government's Jim Queer laws.

[Serafina]

I wonder if they'll find any competent lawfirm willing to defend DOMA now. Probably not, but i'm hardly knowledgeable on US-lawfirms.

[eion]

That will depend entirely on how much money Boehner is willing to throw at them. I don't think he'll find a good law firm for $520 an hour, not after one already turned him down. If all else fails he'll just use the House General Counsel, which is what he should have done in the first place if he wanted to mount a defense of this horrible law.

[Serafina]

That will depend entirely on how much money Boehner is willing to throw at them. I don't think he'll find a good law firm for $520 an hour, not after one already turned him down. If all else fails he'll just use the House General Counsel, which is what he should have done in the first place if he wanted to mount a defense of this horrible law.

Are they any good? I suppose they are obligated to work for him, is that correct?

And i'll really hope that the Democrats will rip him a few new holes with his "waste of taxpayer money".

[eion]

That will depend entirely on how much money Boehner is willing to throw at them. I don't think he'll find a good law firm for $520 an hour, not after one already turned him down. If all else fails he'll just use the House General Counsel, which is what he should have done in the first place if he wanted to mount a defense of this horrible law.

Are they any good? I suppose they are obligated to work for him, is that correct?

And i'll really hope that the Democrats will rip him a few new holes with his "waste of taxpayer money".

The first word I would use to describe the House General Counsel is "Cheap", comparatively. The GC makes about $160k a year and they have deputies making about the same. Since they work for an annual salary and not billable hours they can be worked 50, 60, 70 hours a week and it won't matter. And what they'll probably do is funnel some money through the GC's office to hire outside firms for research and brief-drafting. And lest we forget quite a few of the House members are attorneys, so they could funnel pro-bono hours through the GC if they needed to. There's lots of ways to obscure outside firms involvement if they want.

The Office of the General Counsel's stated purpose is "The OGC provides legal advice and assistance to Members, committees, officers and employees of the House, without regard to political affiliation, on matters related to their official duties. The OGC represents Members, committees, officers and employees, both as parties and witnesses, in litigation arising from or relating to the performance of their official duties and responsibilities. The OGC also represents the House itself in litigation, both as a party and as amicus curiae in cases in which the House has an institutional interest.”

[Psychic_Sandwich]

One would hope this decision was helped along by the threat of a boycott by equality advocates, but who knows. Maybe Mr. Hays just couldn't live with himself if he allowed his firm to waste taxpayer dollars defending the government's Jim Queer laws.

Or he concluded that DOMA would go down in flames and wanted no part of it.

[Mr Bean]

One would hope this decision was helped along by the threat of a boycott by equality advocates, but who knows. Maybe Mr. Hays just couldn't live with himself if he allowed his firm to waste taxpayer dollars defending the government's Jim Queer laws.

Or he concluded that DOMA would go down in flames and wanted no part of it.

They would not have taken the case to begin with if they believed that, or at least demanded more money.
Make no mistake this law firm has gay members and employees and the LGBT community was able to put pressure on them via the law firms traditional partners and the people inside the law firm itself.

This is because the LGBT community is using the same model pioneered by the Anti-Defamation League, give next to nothing to politicians but save your money if some politico crosses you promise him/her that they have become the solo target of your organizations funds and will do everything to remove you from power and pressure you from all sides.

[Simon_Jester]

When you're not sitting on a small mountain of cash, and when your political goals boil down to "make them stop kicking our minority group in the head," that sounds like a pretty smart plan.

[Patrick Degan]

Make no mistake this law firm has gay members and employees and the LGBT community was able to put pressure on them via the law firms traditional partners and the people inside the law firm itself.

This is because the LGBT community is using the same model pioneered by the Anti-Defamation League, give next to nothing to politicians but save your money if some politico crosses you promise him/her that they have become the solo target of your organizations funds and will do everything to remove you from power and pressure you from all sides.

NPR reported this morning that the law firm did indeed receive protests from LGBT advocacy groups and subseqently resigned the case.

[Dalton]

Like I said elsewhere, these asswipe cons want to cut spending, but they'll spend half a million on a law firm to defend their ridiculously pointless anti-gay legislation that does nothing but restrict the freedoms of the LGBT community.

Yeah, all things considered it's small potatoes, but so are their spending cuts to measly million-dollar problems. I expect no less from Congress™.

[eion]

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have an ideologue.

Clement to defend DOMA with different firm

The private attorney that U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) hired to help defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court is set to litigate in favor of the anti-gay law at a different firm after his earlier employer withdrew from participation in defending the statute.

According to a resignation letter obtained by the Washington Blade and other media outlets, Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general for former President George W. Bush, will take up defense of DOMA at Bancroft LLC now that he left his previous employment at King & Spalding.

“I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides,” Clement writes. “But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me to complete it. If there were problems with the firm’s vetting process, we should fix the vetting process, not drop the representation.”

Robert Hays, Jr., chair for King & Spalding, said in a statement earlier in the day that the firm decided to drop facilitation of legal defense of DOMA on Monday after determining the vetting process for taking up defense of the 1996 law, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, was inadequate.

“In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate,” Hays said. “Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.”

Brendan Buck, a Boehner spokesperson, said the speaker is disappointed that King & Spalding decided to drop defense of DOMA, but is happy Clement is set to continue to work to defend the statute at a different firm.

“The speaker is disappointed in the firm’s decision and its careless disregard for its responsibilities to the House in this constitutional matter,” Buck said. “At the same time, Mr. Clement has demonstrated legal integrity, and we are grateful for his decision to continue representing the House. This move will ensure the constitutionality of this law is appropriately determined by the courts, rather than by the president unilaterally.”

Buck said the House will execute a new contract with Clement to keep him on retainer, but the terms of the contract will be the same as they were when Clement was employed at King & Spalding: a blended rate of $520 an hour and an initial total sum that could reach $500,000.

Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said the Democratic leader shares King & Spalding’s concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the way the contract was executed.

“She also vigorously opposes using half a million taxpayer dollars or any taxpayer resources to defend discrimination, at a time when Republicans in Congress are cutting critical initiatives like education and infrastructure,” Hammill said. “It is now more critical than ever that Speaker Boehner fully account for his decision to sign this half million dollar contract to defend this indefensible statue.”

House general counsel Kerry Kircher contracted with Clement for assistance with defending DOMA in court after the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group in March voted 3-2 along party lines to take up defense of the anti-gay law in court. On Feb. 23, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Obama had determined that DOMA was unconstitutional and that the Justice Department would no longer defend the law in court.

Praise for King & Spalding’s decision to drop defense of DOMA came from LGBT advocates on Monday.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the firm made the right the decision by discontinuing its agreement to litigation on behalf of the anti-gay law.

“King & Spalding has rightly chosen to put principle above politics in dropping its involvement in the defense of this discriminatory and patently unconstitutional law,” Solmonese said. “We are pleased to see the firm has decided to stand on the right side of history and remain true to its core values.”

On Friday, HRC announced its was launching a campaign to inform clients and potential recruits about King & Spalding’s decision to defend DOMA. Among the components of the planned campaign were ads in mainstream and legal publications, titled “Shame,” which would have featured stories of families affected by the anti-gay law.

Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters, also praised King & Spalding for recognizing that its participation in the legal defense of DOMA was unacceptable.

“All Americans deserve access to an attorney, but attorneys need to be held accountable for the clients they voluntarily decide to represent,” Socarides said.

Socarides added that Boehner’s decision to hire King & Spalding was unnecessary because the speaker has “an army of in-house legal talent” that could represent his position in favor of DOMA in court.

“If he is serious about cutting the deficit he needs to look to his in-house counsel to represent him in these proceedings, instead of spending taxpayer dollars for a service already provided to his office,” Socarides said.

So Clement is so committed to defending DOMA he not only gave Boehner a huge discount on his normal rate, he quit his fucking job (not a painless task at a law firm, he probablly lost a good deal of clients in the process) to continue to do so. Clearly this isn't about the money for him, he's just a raving homophobe. That should make the arguments and briefs far more predictable and entertaining, and hopefully more easily defeated.

[Phantasee]

Clement has an obligation to see it through since he took them on as a client. It doesn't matter about the moral or legal position of the client, he has a professional duty. You can't just drop a client like that. It's extremely unprofessional.

[eion]

And your explanation for why he decided to voluntary take them on as a client in the first place would be?

[AMT]

And your explanation for why he decided to voluntary take them on as a client in the first place would be?

He's a lawyer? His job isn't to put his morals and ethics into his work, but to accept cases presented and defend/prosecute them to the best of his ability.

[Simon_Jester]

Are lawyers normally seen as having a professional obligation to quit their job in order to continue supporting a client after the firm drops the case? To do so even before formal hearings have opened? To accept highly discounted rates to do so?

And what about this lawyer's other clients?

I don't think "professional ethics" is an adequate explanation here.

[Serafina]

Are lawyers normally seen as having a professional obligation to quit their job in order to continue supporting a client after the firm drops the case? To do so even before formal hearings have opened? To accept highly discounted rates to do so?

And what about this lawyer's other clients?

I don't think "professional ethics" is an adequate explanation here.

I agree. All these things don't really fit with "professional ethics".
Now i do NOT despise lawyers who defend unpopular clients. Even if you'd defend Hitler, you're not necessarily a bad person.
However, Clement clearly has a personal interest in defending DOMA and is NOT doing it out of professional obligation or a sense of duty. Else he would not accept drastically lowered rates - you really can't explain that with "professional obligation". Quitting his job and the other stuff, maybe - i'm not sure about that. But not working for significantly less money.

[Crossroads Inc.]

There is a big differance between someone deffending somethign that is seen as unpopular or inherently immoral. Terrorists, Murders, People or things that are already guilty of something reprehensible. But there is a differance between doing this and going aginst the law firm you work at. If a Law firm says 'Don't defend this person/law" usually you are going to listen.

After all, when was the last time there was a lawfirm that balked at defending someone or something for moral reasons?

Personally the reaction on the right is what has me ammused, one story I read listed the situation as "A major law firm has caved to pressure from militant homosexual activists," Because after all, we all know how militant the " Human Rights Campaign " is

[AMT]

...Bleh. I didn't see the second article. That's what I get for skimming. I guess his excuse is he's for it.