Saturday, March 24, 2012

A Lawyer Who Can Simplify the Complex Draws a Big One: Obama's Health Overhaul - New York Times

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Less than a year after becoming solicitor general, Mr. Verrilli will go before the Supreme Court for three days next week to defend the Obama administration’s health care overhaul law, one of the president’s signature and most controversial accomplishments.

Mr. Verrilli, a veteran of 17 cases before the Supreme Court, five of them since taking over as solicitor general, has been an advocate for the rights of death row inmates and has successfully argued fine points of telecommunications law. He has also had at least 30 cases before federal appeals courts and state supreme courts.

But this will be the first time he has argued the health care law in public.

Former colleagues and court opponents say he is ready. “He will be able to make the best case for the legislation,” said Theodore B. Olson, a Washington lawyer who has argued 58 cases before the justices and served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush.

Mr. Verrilli’s strength, Mr. Olson said, is that he “marshals his positions in clear and understandable terms” rooted in law and common sense.

Neal K. Katyal, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who defended the health care overhaul as one of Mr. Verrilli’s predecessors, recalled watching Mr. Verrilli argue a case before the Supreme Court in 2006. He called him “poised, confident, concise and brilliant.”

“I came out of the courtroom thinking, ‘There’s no way in heck I can ever do this,’?” Mr. Katyal said.

A tall man with a baritone voice and a salt-and-pepper mustache, Mr. Verrilli, 54, is described by friends as exceedingly polite and disarmingly self-effacing. During trials, he makes a habit of graciously acknowledging opponents when he thinks they make a fair point.

For all his gentility, Mr. Verrilli is also known for being passionate.

“Don can get a little intense right before a major Supreme Court argument,” Paul Smith, a longtime friend who worked with Mr. Verrilli for about two decades in private practice in Washington, said as he described Mr. Verrilli’s salmon-eating ritual.

Before the bench, Mr. Verrilli is serious and methodical, his voice getting deeper the more impassioned he becomes.

His demeanor strikes a stark contrast with that of Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under Mr. Bush, who will also appear before the justices next week — to argue against the health care law.

Mr. Clement, who was a clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia and has argued more Supreme Court cases than any other lawyer since 2002, comes across as more relaxed in court appearances. Mr. Clement argues without notes, citing, from memory, the specific page numbers of legal documents. He has also been known to crack jokes.

Both men are known for distilling complex issues into straightforward arguments.

Even when Mr. Verrilli was not the highest-ranking official at a meeting, his thoughtfulness, preparation and civility gave him a gravitas that commanded the respect of others, said Joseph Guerra, a Washington lawyer who has known him for more than 20 years and served with him in the Justice Department.

“His openness to other points of view ultimately makes him a better lawyer,” Mr. Guerra said.

Mr. Verrilli has at times broken ground by raising new legal theories. In the 2005 case MGM v. Grokster, his best-known Supreme Court victory, he successfully argued that companies could be liable for inducing piracy if their business plans encouraged illegal downloading.

In 2009, while working in the Justice Department, he developed limits on the state secrets privilege, intended to make sure that it is invoked only when there are legitimate national security concerns.

In 2003, Mr. Verrilli successfully argued before the Supreme Court that if defense lawyers failed to investigate their clients’ background and inform a jury of mitigating evidence during a capital sentencing hearing, they denied their client effective assistance of counsel. This argument helped overturn the death penalty for a pro bono client of Mr. Verrilli’s, Kevin Wiggins.

Kitty Bennett contributed research.


View the original article here

No comments:

Post a Comment