Summary
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals adopted the Board on Professional Responsibility’s findings that Larry E. Klayman violated multiple District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct while representing former client E.S. The court rejected Klayman’s arguments concerning delay, alleged bias, proceedings in other jurisdictions, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The court imposed an eighteen-month suspension with a requirement that Klayman demonstrate fitness before reinstatement.
Holdings
- Delay in the disciplinary process does not require dismissal absent undue delay coupled with actual prejudice that substantially impaired the attorney's ability to defend against the charges.
- The court accepted the Board's findings and concluded that substantial evidence supported violations of D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(c), 1.6(a)(1), 1.6(a)(3), 1.7(b)(4), and 1.16(a)(3).
- Even if a client consents to a potential conflict, the lawyer may not proceed unless the lawyer reasonably believes that competent and diligent representation remains possible.
- An eighteen-month suspension with reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating fitness to practice law was warranted by Klayman's multiple serious disciplinary violations.
- An attorney temporarily suspended pending final action by the court must comply with the requirements of D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14, including filing the required affidavit.
Questions Presented
- Whether the seven-year delay between the disciplinary complaint and the filing of charges substantially prejudiced Klayman's defense so as to require dismissal.
- Whether the record supported the Board's findings that Klayman violated the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Whether the eighteen-month suspension and fitness requirement recommended by the Board were warranted.
- Whether an attorney temporarily suspended pending final disciplinary action must comply with the affidavit and other obligations in D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (17)
- In re Morrell, 684 A.2d 361, 368 (D.C. 1996)(followed)
- In re Pearson, 228 A.3d 417, 427 n.13 (D.C. 2020) (per curiam)(followed)
- In re Fay, 111 A.3d 1025, 1032 (D.C. 2015) (per curiam)(followed)
- Steele v. D.C. Tiger Mkt., 854 A.2d 175, 181 (D.C. 2004)(followed)
- In re Ekekwe-Kauffman, 210 A.3d 775, 786 (D.C. 2019) (per curiam)(followed)
- In re Ekekwe-Kauffman, 210 A.3d 775, 785 n.12 (D.C. 2019) (per curiam)(followed)
- In re Krapacs, 245 A.3d 959, 959 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam)(distinguished)
- In re Robbins, 192 A.3d 558, 565-66 & n.7 (D.C. 2018) (per curiam)(followed)
- PHCDC1, LLC v. Evans & Joyce Willoughby Trust, 257 A.3d 1039, 1043 (D.C. 2021)(followed)
- In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 892 A.2d 396, 401-02 (D.C. 2006)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 17.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…