Former SG Paul Clement on Leaving Kirkland & Ellis After It Decided to Withdraw from Second Amendment Cases

"We could not abandon ongoing representations just because a client's position is unpopular in some circles."

From Politico (Josh Gerstein); Clement won the right-to-carry case this morning, and Erin Murphy was on the briefs with him:

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, a regular Supreme Court litigator, said they were launching their own firm after Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis decided to step back from gun-related litigation.

"We were given a stark choice: either withdraw from ongoing representations or withdraw from the firm," Clement said in a statement. "Anyone who knows us and our views regarding professional responsibility and client loyalty knows there was only one course open to us: We could not abandon ongoing representations just because a client's position is unpopular in some circles."

Through a firm spokesperson, Kirkland confirmed its decision but did not explain its rationale for dropping gun cases.

Comments

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

If the firm really did tell them to drop existing clients, that seems pretty unethical under any circumstances, but especially so for a law firm. After all, courts can assign lawyers to defend somebody they'd rather not, and prohibit lawyers from withdrawing from a case because their clients are repulsive, can't they?

[David Nieporent]

If a case is ongoing in the courts, then yes, a court can prohibit a lawyer from withdrawing. And obviously if the court says no, then the firm can't force him to drop the client. But the firm can require him to seek leave to withdraw.

Also, courts rarely force lawyers to continue representation, unless it's something like the eve of trial and withdrawal will cause significant delay or prejudice the client.

[SimonP]

Lawyers have an ethical duty to drop clients when their personal beliefs or feelings about what their clients are doing are so strongly negative as to make them an ineffective, or conflicted, counsel.

[Kazinski]

That doesn't seem to be the case for Clement.

In any case I think they need him more than he needs them.

[Hanoch]

The lawyer has to make that kind of decision up front before he takes the client. Once the commitment is made, however, the lawyer has an ethical duty to do his job professionally. It can be extremely damaging for a client to be dropped during pending matters.

[Michael Ejercito]

I guess Kirkland and Ellis will be dropping representation for people accused of being gangbangers who did drive-bys.

[Bob from Ohio]

They can't afford the fees. Now rich child rapists with a private island, that is different.

[Curle]

You should have characterized him as an spy associate of the daughter of a disgraced spy engaging in honeypot operations to obtain state and/or tech secrets for various state and/or industrial actors. Then everyone would have got the reference.

[Bored Lawyer]

If that becomes politically unpopular. Don't assume principles or consistency, when at bottom you have naked pandering and opportunism.

[not guilty]

I doubt that Kirkland and Ellis represents many gangbangers.

[Jim]

If you defend a kiddie rapist, you'll still be invited to Democrat parties. But, if you defend the January 6th rioters or the second amendment, you are banished! Democrats have no souls!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Thank you for your contribution.

The exit is the little X on the upper-right part of the window.

[Bob from Ohio]

John Adams, oh John Adams.

[Ed Grinberg]

Indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Counsel_for_the_British:_Boston_Massacre

[Mark Leen]

Hmm...Kirkland & Ellis added attorney Allison Wein in May of this year. Her representative transactions include "British American Tobacco in its $97 billion merger with Reynolds American". So Kirkland & Ellis is cool with tobacco (which kills people), but not guns. https://www.kirkland.com/lawyers/w/wein-allison-m Wow.

[CindyF]

Kirkland & Ellis must have been worried about the summer cocktail party invites being withdrawn due to being associated with those who support the 2nd Amendment. You can totally understand their reasoning. Much better to represent Molotov cocktail throwing pro-abortion defendants, or other upstanding criminals instead.

[SimonP]

K&E already has the stain of being home to Bill Barr and a number of Trump administration appointees. In a legal hiring market where law students can really pick where they want to go, K&E probably was starting to feel some pressure.

Jones Day might start to feel the same way, if they're smart.

[Curle]

Sure. Nobody you want working for you more than the guy/gal whose first love isn’t law but politics.

[great Unknown]

any relation to Rev Kirkland?

[Brett Bellmore]

The ethics seem to match.

[Bored Lawyer]

No. Names of big firms are almost always of lawyers who have been long dead. Why that is not misleading to clients, you can ask the ABA.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess the rationale is "The 2nd amendment is yucky, and he didn't take a dive."

[David Nieporent]

Nobody takes a dive, Brett; you're being your usual combination of ignorant and paranoid.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's always "Diversity" this and "Diversity" that, but when you get to a case where diversity hurts your point, suddenly it doesn't exist. Pretty much every time!

Of course sometimes lawyers take a dive. Just like sometimes accountants embezzle. You picked a pretty funny profession to claim is 100% ethical. I suppose you're going to claim they never over-bill, either?

[Sarcastr0]

From 'in this case, the firm wanted to take a dive' to 'some lawyer, somewhere has at least once taken a dive.'

That's a helluva backtrack.

And I still shudder to think how professional you manage to be, given how you assume other people act.

[tkamenick]

Um, Sarc, David went from the specific to the general, not Brett. Brett was just responding.

[Brett Bellmore]

David is defending the ethics of a firm that forced Clement out because he wouldn't drop clients in mid-litigation. Let that soak in, before you defend the proposition that, of course Kirkland wouldn't do anything unethical. We already KNOW they'll do something unethical, we're just discussing how far that goes.

[dwb68]

Tell me Kirkland & Ellis wants to kill its appellate practice without telling me Kirkland & Ellis wants to kill its appellate practice.

Because Paul Clement only wins gun cases LMAO. It's not as if he represents other conservative cases in front of this conservative court. Oh, wait, Paul Clement has appeared the most times in front of the Supreme Court since 2015 https://abovethelaw.com/2021/11/the-last-six-years-of-oral-arguments-in-the-supreme-court/

Talk about a law firm shooting itself in the foot. Idiots.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When better Americans enlarge the Supreme Court -- which is down to a 25 percent confidence rating among all Americans, 13% among Democrats -- firms interested in relevance at the Supreme Court might be far less interested in Paul Clement than they are during this peak clinger period.

If seven of eight Democrats have lost confidence in the Supreme Court as currently constituted, what should we expect to occur when Democrats have the votes to do something about that?

Carry on, clingers. So far and so long as better Americans permit, that is.

[juris imprudent]

"when Democrats have the votes"

Well that won't be anytime soon, will it?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

America is becoming less rural, less religious, less bigoted, less backward, and more diverse essentially daily. Republicans will soon enough no longer be able to rely on voter suppression, gerrymandering, and systemic amplification of hayseed voices to keep them competitive electorally, especially in national elections.

Bigoted clingers are being replaced at a nice pace in America. The political, cultural, and electoral consequences -- reflected in the half-century trajectory of the culture war -- are relatively predictable.

I am content.

[Curle]

“less bigoted”. Hardly. The bigots of today share your fallacy-based worldview against people who don’t draw conclusions from self-interest metaphysics bolstered by imaginary forces.

It’s the Clingers vs the Fantasists. Guess which one you are?

[You're not smart]

Two big wins for the clingers.

[Bored Lawyer]

What exactly are "better Americans" planning to do to "permit" or not "permit" others to do. Sounds like a lot of hot air.

I am getting echoes of a certain Soviet premier banging his show and yelling, "We will bury you." And where is the Soviet Union today. On a certain ashheap.

[Ogmios]

You're just mad because you leftwing extremist homosexuals lost the big 2nd Amendment case today.

I think I'll celebrate this weekend by going to the gun range.

Meanwhile, Artie, you're still welcome to suck my Glock (sic).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are perhaps the only person on this planet who thinks your comment is appropriate.

If you're actually old enough to own a firearm, then you're old enough to grow the fuck up.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe you should be talking to somebody else about their continual autism sneers, too? Spread the love!

[Ogmios]

Well Jason, if you ever make the list of persons whose opinions I care about, I will be sure to let you know.

Isn't looking very likely at the moment, I must say.

[Eric VonSalzen]

I spent most of my legal career with a big "white shoe" law firm. We were proud that we were big enough that we could take unpopular cases, some paying, some pro bono. Isn't Kirkland big enough to do that? If a client asked me to recommend a law firm, I'd have to consider whether the firm was big enough not to be scared. I wouldn't recommend a law firm that was scared of being unpopular. Lucky for Kirkland I haven't heard from Elon lately (or ever).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did you firm accept the employee side of employer-employee work, or did it stick to the employer side of that aisle?

How does avoiding the gun nuts' side of gun litigation differ?

[Curle]

Why don’t you tell us citing to your vast experience as an practicing attorney? Something characteristically missing from your many posts.

[SimonP]

I don't know what firms Elon has engaged, but from the outside I'd be concerned about the "Trump effect." You'd have a client who might tend to disregard your advice but still blame you when things go bottoms-up. His Twitter offer, for instance. You think some poor partner didn't have to listen to Elon yell for an hour about that?

If he's paying the bills, that'd at least be something. But personally I think you'd have to be a bit reckless to take on Elon as a client. Same with Jared Kushner and his money laundering fund.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It is K&E that is taking the principled stand here. Clement and Murphy, by leaving and by publicizing the reason for it, are the ones likely heading for big bucks. In fact all along pro-2A advocacy has been successful only because it has been so well funded.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So... we should be judging lawyers for representing unsavory clients?

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL! Yeah, had nothing to do with having the actual text of the Constitution and history on our side, we just bought the judges or some such.

[Ed Grinberg]

In fact all along pro-2A advocacy has been successful only because it has been so well funded.

Yeah, sure, Otis McDonald is a secret millionaire.

[Ed Grinberg]

It is K&E that is taking the principled stand here.

And that principle is ... what exactly?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Error has no rights", I'd assume. The Catholic church gave up on that doctrine a long while back, but I believe the left picked it up and ran with it.

[Drewski]

In this topic, commenters who have been losing their damn minds for years over whether a baker may have to make a cake for a gay couple are now fiercely in favor of the government forcing attorneys to spend thousands of hours over the course of years to support a cause they oppose personally.

[virginia]

??? I don't think the government forced Clement or Murphy to take this case.

[Currentsitguy]

It's always all about the billable hours.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Paul Clement was billing $1,745 an hour in 2019: I don't think he was exactly a loss leader.

[Bored Lawyer]

Correct. Keeping the billing machine running is the No. 1 through No. 10 goals.

At the beginning of my second year of law school, firms came to our school to interview and recruit. I interviewed with one of the oldest and most prestigious firms in a particular state. The person interviewing me went to Harvard Law, was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, and then joined that firm, where he later became a partner.

He told me that he was the head of the products liability department, and he and another partner had recently written a book on the subject.

He also told me that, recently, eleven asbestos companies had hired the firm to do a joint defense in a large class action suit. They had worked out a sweetheart billing rate that was very lucrative for the firm, but saved each client some money. He said, and I quote, "when a client like that walks in the door, we view that as the cow walking into the barn to be milked."

That's Biglaw. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[Krayt]

Supreme Court cases are good for appearances' sake, like universities hiring Nobel Prize winners.