How Bancroft Became Conservatives' Law Firm of Choice for Hot-Button Cases

Paul Clement and the tiny firm he joined in 2011 have already taken on gay marriage, immigration, health care, voting rights, and redistricting. What's next?

, The American Lawyer

   |0 Comments

TAL Dec 2012 Bancroft Paul Clement
Paul Clement

With the presidential election settled, and the unlikely prospect that Clement or Dinh will be leaving for the bench or the government in the near future, Bancroft should be well positioned for more success.

The firm this fall expanded its Washington, D.C., offices, nearly doubling its space. But Dinh avoids specifics about Bancroft's long-term strategy, including whether it will bring in more lateral partners or grow much more. "We have never had the aim to be the next big law firm," he says. "Greatness comes with excellence."

Adds Clement: "We're very happy to be doing what we're doing, and to make our current practice as interesting as possible."

 

BANCROFT’S POLITICAL DOCKET

Bancroft has represented Republican interests in litigation over some of the most hot-button political issues of our times. In most cases, it’s handled these matters for a fixed fee. The following is a list of the fees charged in five cases in which the firm represented governments.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
U.S. Supreme Court
Challenge to Obama health care law
Client: 26 states, led by Florida
Fee: Fixed fee of $250,000

ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Department of Justice challenge to Arizona immigration law
Client: Arizona, but fee paid by privately funded legal defense fund
Fee: $400,000 ($150,000 for cert petition;
additional $250,000 for merits phase)

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT LITIGATION
Various federal district and appellate courts
Defending the Defense of Marriage Act,
which prevents the federal government
from recognizing same-sex mar­riages.
More than a dozen cases have been
brought by individuals affected by the act.
Client: Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of
the House of Representatives
Fee: In April 2011, when he was at King
& Spalding, Clement agreed to take this
assignment for $500,000. In September 2011,
at Bancroft, he renegotiated the cap to $1.5 million.

PERRY v. PEREZ
U.S. Supreme Court
Dispute over Texas redistricting
Client: Texas
Fee: $376,829.91 (rates capped at $520 an hour)

SOUTH CAROLINA v. UNITED STATES
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
South Carolina suit to get court approval for new voter identification law
Client: South Carolina
Fee: $2,834,550 (rates capped at $520 an hour).

 

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202578839987

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.