Kudos to Paul Clement, a brave man.

Excellent outcome! Paul Clement can continue with a representation that clearly means a lot to him. And the LGBT and equality-minded attorneys and staff at King & Spalding no longer have to support, directly or indirectly, a defense of discrimination that many find repugnant. Remember, the Contract for Legal Services Paul Clement negotiated with the House of Representatives contained a provision prevent all King & Spalding partners and employees - whether involved in the case or not - from personally engaging in lobbying or advocacy for or against legislation that would alter or amend in any way DOMA. This kind of gag rule is overly-broad, unconscionable and actually illegal in many jurisdictions. Now King & Spalding personnel can personally speak out on one of the key civil rights issues of our time. Way to go King & Spalding for doing the right thing.

Sometimes the lawyers do the right thing. Even the unpopular deserve representation - and able representation at that. The actions against King & Spalding are just another front in what amounts to a war by activists to win by default. If they threaten and pressure businesses and individuals they feel like they can scare away the financial and other support for those who resist their demands, leaving them unable to truly defend themselves - thus the activists win by default as nobody is willing to stand up to them and mount a defense.

Kudos to Mr. Clement. It is so rare, and yet extremely heartening, to see a modern-day professional exhibit a true profile in courage. Too often our professionals - especially our top attorneys - give lip service to the concept of "courage" while in fact shying away from anything controversial, risky, or unpopular with their fellows. That is why corporations too often surrender to "lawmail," and why top law firms avoid matters that might upset their clients or members of their social class.

Mr. Clement is an extraordinary attorney by any measure, but by today's act he demonstrates that he is also an extraordinary man.

Lawyers defend their representation of terrorists, child molesters and murderers by claiming the Constitution provides even the lowliest of the low with the right to effective legal counsel. Apparently, such devotion to the Constitution, at least for Mr. Clement's former law firm, has its limits and defending the Defense of Marriage Act extends beyond those limits. I'm sure the law firm will have a different view on why Mr. Clement resigned, but the truth is the truth and political expediency is political expediency.

From what I have read, I don't think that the law firm withdrew because of intimidation or because they were gagged by activists. It seems that the contract agreement would have put them in an awkward position, as it contained a provision that prohibited all King & Spalding attorneys and non-attorney employees from any advocacy to "alter or amend" DOMA. And while this seems like common sense, because you don't want a law firm to be publicly divided about one of their own cases, that would amount to breaking labor laws in California for example, where King & Spalding also have offices. So this was a badly drawn contract, and Paul Clement found himself in an untenable position.

@LinUSA, you do raise a very good point when you say "I wonder how we will resolve the issue of when and whether people have a right to refuse to do jobs based on "conscience"?"

From what I have seen, it all depends on which conscience we are talking about. I have seen some of the social conservatives here at NRO speaking approvingly of the couple that was disqualified to serve as foster parents because they couldn't allow a child 'to choose' homosexuality, and of the mother who kidnapped her own daughter because, now that she has become a born again ex-lesbian, she wouldn't allow visitation rights to her former female partner who is a legal co-parent of the child.

Personally, I do not believe in compelling people to do business with one another, but laws should apply to everybody equally.

@ Kevin
"At least the Constiatution specifically addresses rights in criminal proceedings; it says absolutely nothing about marriage"

Glad you see this. Does this mean you support the defenders of Proposition 8? As the Supreme Court ruled, there is no federal question of states deciding marriage law.

There's also nothing in the Constitution about giving terrorists rights as if they were American citizens. So I take it you condemn AG Holder's firm's work in Gitmo?

I disagree with this whole course of action, getting a law firm to drop the case simply because it took a legal position unpopular in some quarters, even though that position is backed up by over a century of court precedent.

For another example, Holloday and Chilton, an Oklahoma City law firm, is representing two couples in a lawsuit against Oklahoma’s Question 711 and the federal DOMA. Their legal position is certainly unpopular in Oklahoma, and, unlike the legal position Paul Clement is taking, their legal position requires them to ask courts to defy Supreme Court precedent in order to win their case. But, as much as I disagree with them on the law, I do not begrudge them that assignment.

It is a shame that the HRC could not show that same deference to King and Spaulding.