Re: DOMA

>This struck me as sudden and wierd.  Just last week I was reading that this firm 
>would not allow any employee to speak out against DOMA-even in a personal and 
>private capacity (as the defenders of DOMA, it makes sense that they would not 
>want employees making official statements for the opposite side)... this about 
>face surprised me when I read about it earlier.<

Has no one ever heard of the attorney client privilege?  It would unethical and 
lawyers could theoretically get disbarred or at least disciplined if people in 
the firm, whether lawyers or not, were talking about the case.  



>Why would it undermine the legitimacy if DOMA is struck down?  They are still 
>getting their Vigorous Defense.<

Even if Clement is still on the case, (which I'm not sure about), the difference 
between the resources of a firm and a single lawyer are vast.  


<Sigh>  This kind of thing depresses me - lawyers are supposed to take pride in 
defending even the indefensible instead of caving into political pressure.  And 
you have to wonder why this firm caved on DOMA but hasn't on defending GITMO 
detainees.  It shouldn't matter what side the political pressure come from.  As 
Clement said if they found the cause to be repugnant to their personal feelings 
they should have never undertaken it in the first place.  


Mike F.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot