Law Firm Won’t Defend Marriage Act

Gay rights groups had fiercely criticized the law firm, the 126-year-old King & Spalding of Atlanta, saying that its agreement to defend the law, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages, would hurt its ability to recruit and retain lawyers. The firm’s chairman, Robert D. Hays Jr., said in a statement Monday morning that the firm would no longer defend the law.

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

The firm’s abrupt reversal highlights the continuing potency of same-sex marriage as a complicated issue that has scrambled traditional political calculations in Washington. President Obama has often called the marriage act “abhorrent,” but his Justice Department defended it for more than a year before declaring it unconstitutional. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced in February that the administration would no longer defend the act in court.

Theodore B. Olson, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush, has joined gay rights groups and Democrats as a leading advocate for same-sex marriage. And several high-profile Republicans, including Mr. Bush’s wife and his daughter Barbara, have said publicly that they support gay people’s right to marry. But House Republicans, led by Speaker John A. Boehner, have vowed to defend the law in court.

Paul D. Clement, another solicitor general under Mr. Bush and the King & Spalding lawyer hired to lead the Republican case, resigned after his firm’s decision to withdraw. In a letter, Mr. Clement said the firm had a duty to resist pressure and complete the job for which it was hired.

“I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters,” he wrote. “Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do. I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it.”

Mr. Clement wrote that his personal opinions about the marriage act were irrelevant — and he did not indicate what they were. But he said he intended to represent the House in its defense of the law as a partner at Bancroft P.L.L.C., his new employer.

King & Spalding, founded in 1885, is one of the nation’s largest and most successful law firms, with offices around the world. American Lawyer magazine ranks it as the nation’s 34th-largest, measured by gross revenue.

Griffin B. Bell, who was attorney general in the Carter administration, was managing partner at the firm. Its partners have included Senator Dan Coats, Republican of Indiana, and two former senators, ?Sam Nunn,? a Georgia Democrat, and Connie Mack, a?Florida Republican.?The firm? represents the top ranks of corporate America, including General Motors, Google and? Wal-Mart, and it has had a long relationship with the Coca-Cola Company.

The firm has been the subject of criticism before. A sex discrimination case against it in the 1980s went to the Supreme Court before eventually being settled. ?

It remains unclear why the leadership of King & Spalding chose to withdraw from the contract to defend the constitutionality of the marriage act, which would have paid the firm up to $500,000 for its services, at a rate of $520 per hour.

The statement from Mr. Hays did not cite pressure from gay advocacy groups as a reason for the change. His stated reason — that the approval process for taking on the assignment was inadequate — could refer to a clause in the contract with House Republicans that prohibited the firm’s lawyers from any advocacy for or against bills that would change or repeal the marriage act.

Legal experts said that clause is broader than most restrictions in contracts and could have severely limited the activities of the firm’s partners and employees.

“It would be one thing for the lawyers to agree not to pursue litigation on the other side of the matter,” said Andrew M. Perlman, a law professor at Suffolk University in Boston and an expert on legal ethics. “But this would have prohibited any lawyer in the firm from even writing a letter criticizing the Defense of Marriage Act.”

Gay rights groups claimed victory, saying their criticism of the firm had its intended effect.

Richard Socarides, the president of Equality Matters, an advocacy group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, said Monday: “Mr. Clement’s statement misses the point entirely. While it is sometimes appropriate for lawyers to represent unpopular clients when a important principle is at issue, here the only principle he wishes to defend is discrimination and second-class citizenship for gay Americans.”

But Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at the New York University law school, said the firm caved in, adding that the “firm’s timidity here will hurt weak clients, poor clients and despised clients.”

In a statement, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, Brendan Buck, said: “The speaker is disappointed in the firm’s decision and its careless disregard for its responsibilities to the House in this constitutional matter. At the same time, Mr. Clement has demonstrated legal integrity, and we are grateful for his decision to continue representing the House.”

Democrats, including Representative Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader, have criticized Mr. Boehner for seeking public funds to defend the law. A spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said in a statement that she “vigorously opposes” using “any taxpayer resources to defend discrimination, at a time when Republicans in Congress are cutting critical initiatives like education and infrastructure.”

Michael D. Shear reported from Washington, and John Schwartz from New York.