Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Clement Decides
November 20, 2008 10:06 AM
It’s been the most buzzed about question in Washington legal circles all summer and fall: What law firm will land former Solicitor General Paul Clement, widely seen as one of the nation’s top Supreme Court advocates?
Today, we get the answer, and it’s something of a surprise: He’s rejoining his old firm, King & Spalding.
The battle for Clement was long and it was furious. He was the youngest solicitor general confirmed by the Senate in more than 100 years, since William Howard Taft way back in 1890. At 42, he has argued 49 cases before the Supreme Court and, as is obvious during his arguments, commands deep respect from the justices. (He clerked for Justice Scalia and, before that, Judge Silberman.)
He’s the real deal, and his kind doesn’t come around all that often. The one big strike against him? As a Wisconsin native, he’s a fan of the Green Bay Packers.
The other leading contenders for Clement’s talents were top-tier firms Kirkland & Ellis, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Latham & Watkins. Kirkland, the former home of Kenneth Starr, was seen as the odds-on favorite, even though it already has the highly respected Christopher Landau heading its appellate practice.
But Clement could bring some star power, and Kirkland was believed to be one of the few firms that could actually pay the kind of money someone like Clement could command. It aggressively pursued him, as you’d expect from a sharp-elbowed place like Kirkland, and it was going to show him the money. The word in Washington—and whether exaggerated or not, I heard this repeatedly from several different sources--was somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 million.
Skadden’s pitch was the opportunity to actually create from scratch a prominent Supreme Court practice. Latham, which has a first-rate practice already, was after him to complement and, eventually succeed, its star appellate advocate, Maureen Mahoney.
But after looking at all those options, Clement decided to go back home. Some say he left some serious money on the table to do it.
He said today he was “delighted” to be returning to his old firm and that he knows firsthand it’s a “wonderful place to practice law.”
Here’s wishing him the best---and a quick return to the podium at the Supreme Court.
November 20, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (5)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"He’s the real deal, and his kind doesn’t come around all that often. The one big strike against him? As a Wisconsin native, he’s a fan of the Green Bay Packers."
Chicagoans, make that Bears fans, never miss an opportunity to poke fun at their NFL neighbors to the north. Da Bears! What do your Chicago friends say about your affection for the Crimson tide, hmmm?
In the legal community, is Ken Starr's reputation in tact or is he seen as having abused the legal authority of special prosecutor for political purposes in an eight year open-ended unproductive pursuit of Bill Clinton?
Compare Fitzgerald's disciplined no-leak investigation of the outing of covert CIA agent Plame as special counsel with Starr's political witchhunt which made front page news from the day 1 to lying about sex in a civil suit six years later.
Regarding Clement's choice, there's more to consider in professional life than a marginal $1 million on top of a $3 or $4 million dollar salary.
Look at the firm's published per partner income numbers to get an idea of whether that $5 million offer is in the ballpark.
Posted by: Neil | Nov 20, 2008 11:57:58 AM
The Starr investigation was very similar to the Fitzgerald investigation; the difference was in the behavior of the targets.
There's no way that Clement is getting $3 or $4 million at K&S. I'm guessing $1.5, tops. So, yes, he left serious money on the table--millions per.
Posted by: Thomas | Nov 21, 2008 1:06:21 AM
Fitzgerald's investigation was one potential crime coducted at a reasonable cost to taxpayers? Who was involved in leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent identity and was it a criminal act. Fitzgerald's office was ethical and did not leak grand jury or investigation news?
Starr ran multiple investigations over many years at great cost to the taxpayers. His office was unethical in leaking investigation details to the press.
Clinton was found guilty of lying about fellatio, Libby was gound guilty of lying and obstructing justice to conceal the truth about his bosses invovlment. Cheney walked. Then Bush objstucted justice by obsolving Libby of his 2 year prison sentence.
Posted by: Neil | Nov 21, 2008 11:11:51 AM
Should have gone with Skaddem imo.
Posted by: kjkhg | Nov 22, 2008 2:01:34 AM
Skadden.
Posted by: kjkhg | Nov 22, 2008 2:02:20 AM
Post a comment
