Talking Points Memo has more background on King & Spalding's decision to drop the DOMA defense. This part jumped out at me:
Sources with knowledge of the backlash confirm that one of King & Spalding's top clients, Coca Cola, also based in Atlanta, directly intervened to press the firm to extricate itself from the case.
Are there other recent examples where one major client pressured a firm to withdraw from representing a morally controversial client? I do support lawyers making moral decisions about the cases they'll take -- or more accurately, acknowledging the moral dimension of those decisions, which is present whether or not they admit it -- and I suppose it's only natural that clients recognize a moral dimension to their choice of law firms. But law firms need to be careful here in how they respond. Coca-Cola's objective is to avoid offending anyone; a key professional trait of lawyers is their willingness to offend -- a trait that will be threatened if firms give in too easily to client demands on cases like this. If Coca-Cola did play a role in the decision, it also may become a self-fulfilling prophecy: when a corporate client behaves as if they are morally responsible for the other clients their lawyers choose to represent, the public begins to believe it. If the DOMA case is picked up by Kirkland & Ellis, GM employees and shareholders start to ask, "Hey, how come you're not making your law firm withdraw from this case like Coca-Cola did?" So if Coca-Cola played a role, does that change our analysis of the decision to withdraw?
UPDATE: I missed Brad Wendel's comment from earlier today in the thread below:
Coke probably doesn't want K&S representing Pepsi either, even in cases that don't technically create a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7. Powerful clients are free to bargain for rights not granted in the disciplinary rules. But is Coke abusing its power here? There is a long history of powerful clients pressuring their firms not to represent clients advocating for progressive causes. I'm sure there are plenty of law firms in the South who were told in no uncertain terms that their services should not be used in school desegregation cases. If that was wrong, is it wrong for clients on the "right" side of history to pressure law firms not to stand in the way of progress? I think I'm going to have to say yes, which is consistent with my general view that these are questions about which people disagree in good faith, and thus lawyers have a role in working out an orderly democratic solution.