Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Two Christian law firms that want a judge to declare San Francisco’s gay and lesbian marriages illegal have so far fought the city independently in superior court. Now that the two cases have been consolidated, the Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Counsel will have to work together. Attorneys joined under the same case number usually need to coordinate efforts such as oral arguments to meet time limits and avoid irritating a judge with repetition, lawyers said. But clearly, neither Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel nor the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz., wants to play second fiddle. “We’ll resist as much as possible having our case subsumed to any case,” said Alliance Defense Fund Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull. Liberty Counsel’s complaint has been designated the lead case, notes President Mathew Staver, adding that the attorneys in a lead case generally present arguments. If there is going to be a fight over control of the case, it won’t surprise trial attorneys. “Many, if not most, litigators and trial attorneys are competitive by nature, and consequently would rather be driving the car than sitting in the back seat,” said Otis McGee Jr., a partner at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton in San Francisco and a member of the executive committee for the State Bar’s litigation section. Both parties challenging San Francisco’s gay marriage licenses are quick to say they will avoid friction. “We all understand that a harmonious relationship will produce potential better results,” Bull said in an e-mail to the Recorder. “Our battle is with the city, not with each other.” The two groups each filed a legal challenge in superior court Feb. 13, the day after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at Mayor Gavin Newsom’s behest. Despite similar missions and a shared goal, lawyers working on the Alliance Defense Fund’s Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. San Francisco, 503943, have steered a separate course from Liberty Counsel lawyers on Thomasson v. Newsom, 428794. “Except for seeing each other in court, there hasn’t been — we’re not working in tandem, let’s put it that way,” Bull said. “We’re not affiliated at all,” Staver said. “We have separate strategies.” Both are nonprofit firms dedicated to advancing and defending religious freedom, traditional family values and the sanctity of human life. Staver, who founded Liberty Counsel, had been a pastor for three years when a video on abortion and a reading of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, drew him to law school. The 1987 University of Kentucky College of Law graduate started Liberty Counsel in 1989, along with two other Florida-based businesses that have since shut down: Staver and Associates, a law firm that handled primarily insurance defense work, and the Staver Group, a lobbying firm. Staver said his clients included Marriott hotels and the Orlando Magic basketball team. In 1999 Staver turned his full attention to Liberty Counsel, where he’s one of six litigators on staff in Florida and Virginia. Another 600 to 700 affiliate lawyers pitch in as local counsel on out-of-state cases. In addition to litigation, Liberty Counsel dabbles in higher education, radio and television. The firm plans to open a law school this summer in Lynchburg, Va., in partnership with Liberty University, a private Christian college, said Staver. He also hosts two weekday radio programs and a weekly television show produced by Liberty Counsel, according to the firm’s Web site. In contrast to Staver, Bull, the Alliance Defense Fund’s lead lawyer on the San Francisco cases, began his career as a prosecutor. After graduating from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1975, Bull spent six years in Virginia as a criminal prosecutor, then three years in civil litigation as a deputy county attorney. About 20 years ago, his prosecutions of obscenity cases brought him into contact with Christian organizations that needed legal help, Bull said, prompting him to move on to a string of posts with religion- and family-oriented legal groups. Most recently, he spent about three years as executive director of the European Centre for Law and Justice in Strasbourg, France. When he returned to the United States in 2001, Bull joined the Alliance Defense Fund, where he supervises more than 20 staff lawyers in the organization’s headquarters in Arizona and its regional offices in Southern California, Louisiana and Kansas. He also oversees 740 allied attorneys. In addition to getting directly involved in litigation, the Alliance Defense Fund strategizes with like-minded groups about which cases to try and which to pass on, trains Christian lawyers at five-day “litigation academies” and offers grants to attorneys to try cases in line with the fund’s mission. In the San Francisco cases, the two groups started by picking slightly different opponents in their original actions — only Liberty Counsel named Mayor Newsom in his individual capacity and only the Alliance Defense Fund named the city. And though both firms share cornerstone arguments based on sections of the California Constitution and state family laws, there has been some divergence — such as Liberty Counsel’s assertion that city officials violated open meeting laws. Judge Ronald Quidachay consolidated the two cases late last month. Citing a state court rule, he designated Liberty Counsel’s Thomasson the “lead” case because it was filed before the Alliance Defense Fund’s Prop 22. Attorneys from both groups said they haven’t discussed how the consolidated cases will be tried, but expect to do that soon. They may signal how they will merge their strategies on March 29, when Quidachay is scheduled to preside over a show-cause hearing. The two groups may divide oral arguments or file separate briefs, Staver said. For now, Bull says he expects each firm to file their own briefs and present oral arguments on different points of law, “so as not to irritate the judge.” Some civil litigators say time limits can provide another incentive to work together, particularly at the appellate level. In the superior court’s law and motion departments, where Quidachay presides, attorneys aren’t typically given firm time limits, but can usually sense when a judge doesn’t want to hear any more, said San Francisco solo Herbert Yanowitz, who sits on the litigation section’s executive committee. But appellate court justices typically impose strict time limits, Yanowitz said. “Very often, they’ll just cut you off.” The thought has crossed Bull’s mind. “A court of appeal may say one lawyer may argue per side, but we have separate plaintiffs who may not agree on strategy,” Bull said. “We’ll agree maybe on 80 percent of the things, but you know, 20 percent we may disagree.” Staver says it doesn’t make much sense to split up oral argument if an appellate court only gives each side 15 minutes or so, unless the lawyers can easily divvy up the issues. Still, he’s confident the two firms will be able to iron out any wrinkles as they come up. “I wouldn’t anticipate any significant disagreements.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.