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

By: DN

DN — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:14:23 +0000

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.

By: customartist

customartist — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 02:10:13 +0000

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

By: CPT_Doom

CPT_Doom — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:47:37 +0000

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.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:54:33 +0000

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.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:03:46 +0000

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.

By: tavdy79

tavdy79 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:48:35 +0000

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?

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:43:12 +0000

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

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:33:52 +0000

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.

By: tavdy79

tavdy79 — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:01:02 +0000

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.

By: customartist

customartist — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:51:32 +0000

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