The American Lawyer - Sample Issue

however, and the GOP is be-
ing pretty transparent about its
fears. Senator Lee, a former clerk
to Justice Samuel Alito, worried
aloud at the hearing about the
president’s “controversial execu-
tive agenda,” and Cruz said, “I be-
lieve there is an activist base that
is pressuring the president, that is
pressuring senior Senate Demo-
crats, to get judicial nominees on
the D.C. Circuit to protect the
regulations coming from this ad-
ministration.”
Given that Obama’s health
care plan is still being implement-
ed (and challenged) and that the
president recently vowed to use
his executive authority to reduce
emissions from coal-fired power
plants to combat climate change,
Republicans worry that friendly
judges on the circuit will rubber-
stamp his plans. As an example
of a check that is needed on the
president’s power, they point to a
D.C. Circuit ruling this year that
declared Obama’s recess appoint-
ments to the National Labor Re-
lations Board unconstitutional.
(That case, which will be heard
by the Supreme Court in the up-
coming term, was decided by—
you guessed it—three Republican
appointees, including Griffith.)

Oliphant is a Washington, D.C.– based journalist who writes on the intersection of law and politics.

MEMBERS OF THE WEDDING
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Mar-
riage Act and effectively voided California’s same-sex marriage
ban on June 26, gay marriage supporters had lawyers from Am
Law 100 firms and nonprofit groups to thank. Below are some
of the key players. —Grace Tatter and Rebekah Mintzer

James Esseks,
American Civil Liberties Union
Cocounsel with Roberta Kaplan in Edith
Windsor’s suit to recover $363,053 in estate
taxes assessed after her wife’s death. Under
DOMA, which blocked federal agencies from
recognizing same-sex marriages, Windsor
could not take advantage of the spousal
exemption from the estate tax.

Roberta Kaplan Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Argued Windsor’s case in the Supreme Court in March. Kaplan had previously unsuccess- fully argued in favor of same-sex marriage to the New York Court of Appeals in 2006.

Pamela Karlan
Stanford Law School
Lead author of Windsor’s jurisdiction brief,
which gave the case precedential effect.

PAUL DILAKIAN (ILLUSTRATIONS); DIEGO M. RADZINSCHI (KAPLAN)

occasional failure to pay
sufficiently close atten-
tion to detail.”
In his response, Smo-
len says he has repaid Si-
dley the approximately
$120,000 at issue. He de-
nies the discipline board’s
accusations of conver-
sion, breach of fiduciary
duty, and conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or mis-
representation, and says that his
“conduct was not the result of any
intent to profit personally.” His at-
torney, Robert Merrick, declined
to comment on a pending case.

William Conlon, a partner in Sidley’s Chicago office, says the firm has no comment.

Smolen, a former member of
Sidley’s executive committee and
former global coordinator of its
real estate practice, left Sidley last
fall after 18 years there and joined
DLA Piper in February.
In a statement, a DLA
spokesman said the
firm knew of Smolen’s
actions at Sidley when
it hired him. [Disclo-
sure: Roger Meltzer,
DLA Piper’s Ameri-
cas cochair, sits on the
board of directors of
ALM Media.] “After our
own due diligence and a thor-
ough review of the facts, the firm
decided to give great weight to
the total body of Lee’s work over
his 25-plus years as a lawyer and
to extend to him the opportunity
to continue his career at DLA
Piper,” the DLA statement says.
“Lee is a well-respected attorney
who has learned from his experi-
ence and taken all the necessary
steps to move forward as a pro-
ductive member of our team.”
—SARA RANDAzzO

OFF DUTY
TAXI
FOR
HIRE

$69,000

$50,000

David Boies, Boies, Schiller & Flexner

Co–lead counsel with Theodore Olson in the California case. In 2010 they convinced a U.S. district court that the California constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Theodore Olson,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Handled the oral arguments that persuaded
the Supreme Court that the anti–gay mar-
riage coalition ProtectMarriage had no
standing to appeal.