Boehner Prohibits Law Firm Employees From Advocating for DOMA’s Repeal

Jim Burroway

April 21st, 2011

Chris Geidner, the Metro Weekly’s legal eagle, has been pouring through the contract signed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and the law firm of King & Spalding, who he contracted to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Federal court. Geidner found a clause which appears to prohibit all of King & Spalding’s employees, including non-lawyers, from advocating for the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill which would repeal DOMA:

The paragraph in question states that “partners and employees who do not perform services pursuant to this Agreement will not engage in lobbying or advocacy for or against any legislation … that would alter or amend in any way the Defense of Marriage Act and is pending before either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate or any committee of either body during the term of the Agreement.”

Moreover, the preceding paragraph, 4(f), contains a similar prohibition on the partners and employees who are participating in the litigation. Paragraph 4(g), thus, clearly is intended to apply to those who do not participate in the litigation.

Jon Davidson, the legal director for Lambda Legal, told Metro Weekly that the provision might be illegal in California and other states, and would expose King & Spalding to civil liability. This provision appears to bar people from legitimate activities unrelated to their work at the law firm.

King & Spalding is headquartered in Atlanta. Local LGBT advocates express disappointment over King & Spalding’s contract with Boehner. They note that King & Spalding have donated money to the Stonewall Bar Association, promotes its support for the ACLU’s LGBT and AIDS project, and has provided some pro bono work in unspecified cases in support of LGBT issues.

customartist

April 21st, 2011

Hmmm? Boehner contracts the House without consulting Democrats, using Un-Budgeted Federal Funds to forward a biased agenda.

tavdy79

April 21st, 2011

Jon Davidson, the legal director for Lambda Legal, told Metro Weekly that the provision might be illegal in California and other states, and would expose King & Spalding to civil liability.

I’d have thought there were more obvious issues with Federal law – the First Amendment, for starters.

Chris

April 21st, 2011

That’s a common misconception about the First Amendment. The First Amendment only applies to government intrusions on speech — it doesn’t forbid private entities from placing speech requirements upon their employees or members.

Priya Lynn

April 21st, 2011

But Chris, isn’t the government’s drafting of that contract government intrusion on speech?

tavdy79

April 21st, 2011

So when the House of Representatives requires that a contractor’s staff be denied free speech on a specific issue, is it acting as a section of the federal government or as a private entity?

Timothy Kincaid

April 21st, 2011

This is not exactly surprising. The primary value in the advocacy of partners and employees of King and Spaulding would be in direct relation to the case. In other words, no one would care what they had to say if Clement weren’t on the case.

So, while I am not familiar with whether this is a common clause, it’s not one that I would find unreasonable. Any advocacy – either for or against – reflects on the official representatives of the case and distracts from their duties.

In fact, I would suspect that law firm policies generally prohibit employees/associates/partners from any advocacy on ANY case in which they are engaged. (Can you imagine your reaction if you hired a lawfirm to represent you in a suit against your neighbor and then found that one of the employees was working pro-bono against you?)

I would not be shocked to find that Boies, Schiller & Flexner has a policy, contract, etc. prohibiting employees from advocacy in favor of Prop 8.

Priya Lynn

April 21st, 2011

Yes, I don’t think its surprising for a law firm to require its employees not to advocate, but the government in letting a contract is acting as employer and I would think it would be illegal for them to prohibit advocacy even though the law firm might.

CPT_Doom

April 21st, 2011

There was a legal expert on Michaelangelo Signorile’s show on OutQ who stated the prohibition was so broad that it could conceivable prohibit a staff member from serving on the board of an entity like Lambda Legal, for instance, which I do find a problem.

I have no problem with professional bans on advocating for the repeal of DOMA, or even gift-in-kind time/assistance on legal matters, but to limit the off-hours free speech of non-lawyers (does anyone really care that the law firm’s HR manager has to say about DOMA?) is especially egregious.

customartist

April 21st, 2011

The clause is there for a specific reason and with great consideration I would presume.

DN

April 26th, 2011

What I found interesting is that the clause says that employees, spouses, and *partners* can’t advocate. So this is the one time Boehner wants to acknowledge that gay people have loving partners? What a douche.

The good news is that King & Spaulding have bid him adieu on this one.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 2006: NARTH Official Recommends Peer Shaming for Gender-Variant Elementary School Children

Today In History, 2007: Sen. Larry Craig's Airport Mens Room Bust Revealed

Born On This Day, 1961: Tom Ford

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Emphasis Mine

Today In History, 1954: Miami Mayor Calls for Anti-Gay Crackdown

Today In History, 1995: GOP Presidential Candidate Sen. Bob Dole Returns Donation from Log Cabin Republicans

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.