The agreement between the House Administration Committee and King & Spalding under which the firm, via Paul Clement (principally) and named others, will take on the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act on appeal (which DOJ refused to do) provides certain limitations on the lawyers representing the House in the matter but then goes on to address restrictions on others at the firm.
Specifically, K&S agrees "that all of of its partners and employees who do not perform services pursuant to this agreement will not engage in lobbying or advocacy for or against any legislation (i) that is pending before the Committee during the term of this Agreement or (ii) that would alter or amend in any way the Defense of Marriage Act and is pending before the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate or any committee of either body during the term of the Agreement."
Obviously, this goes beyond restrictions that ethics rules would require of those not working on the matter, whether the word "advocacy" is defined broadly or narrowly.
Does the firm's promise raise (a) no issues; (b) employment issues only; (c) first amendment issues only; (d) ethics issues only because it is purporting to silence lawyers and employees not involved in the case, with adverse job consequences for disobedience implicit; (e) some combination of these?
I wonder, too, how long and hard K&S thought before taking this on given the likely effect on recruitment. Of course, everyone is entitled to a lawyer but not everyone is entitled to every lawyer.