THE AM LAW DAILY

SURVEYS AND RANKINGS

MAGAZINE

SPECIAL REPORTS

The Firms

May 11, 2011 5:19 PM

The Careerist: Another King & Spalding Partner Takes the Fall

Posted by Vivia Chen

King & Spalding's D.C. managing partner says the firm's mishandling of the DOMA matter was all his fault.

Remember crisis communications expert Bob Witeck's simple bit of advice to King & Spalding about its involvement with the Defense of Marriage Act? It was this: Stop talking about it.

It looks like the firm is taking the opposite route. Instead of letting chair Robert Hays's announcement on April 25--that the firm is withdrawing from the defense of DOMA--be the last word, King & Spalding's Washington, D.C., managing partner, J. Sedwick "Wick" Soller, insists on falling on his own sword. Soller's latest statement, reports sibling publication the Daily Report (subscription required), says:

Although our chairman Robert Hays has issued a short statement saying he assumed ultimate responsibility for any mistakes that were made, I want to make sure the record is clear that I was the member of firm management in primary contact with Paul Clement regarding this matter. As I have reflected on this, despite the fact that our standard client/matter review process was not followed, it was reasonable for him to believe that the firm would accept the matter. This was an unfortunate misunderstanding with a friend whom I personally recruited to the firm and strongly supported. I am deeply disappointed by Paul's departure and regret the breakdown in communications.

Soller's statement certainly sheds more light on how the firm came to accept, then reject, taking on the DOMA matter--and why Clement resigned from the firm in a huff. But the big question is this: Does it take the heat off King & Spalding's management, or does it make the firm look disorganized and defensive?

Click here to continue reading.

Make a comment

Comments (2)
Save & Share: Facebook | Del.ic.ious | | Email |

Reprints & Permissions

Comments

Report offensive comments to The Am Law Daily.

Talk about burying the lede: if you read the whole story, you'll learn that the firm never "accepted" the matter because Clement failed to submit the engagement to the vetting committee. Instead the partnership learned about the representation days after Clement had already executed the contract with the H.R., apparently with the rest of the public.

In short, the statement suggests that Clement went rogue. At the very least, it makes Clement's claim that he thought he had the firm's backing seem disingenuous: not submitting the matter for conflicts, etc seems like a salient detail conveniently omitted in his (now sanctimonious?) letter. Evidently he did not believe that the normal procedures applied to him (which may be K&S's fault).

Either way, you should read more than the first paragraph before sharing your thoughts.

Doesn't change the fact that K&S abandoned a client in the face of commercial pressure -- about the most damning thing you can say about any professional.

The comments to this entry are closed.

By: TwitterButtons.comhttp://www.facebookloginhut.com/facebook-login/


[email protected]




From the Law.com Newswire

Sign up to receive Legal Blog Watch by email
View a Sample

Advertisement