Klayman gave false testimony before the Hearing Committee. Klayman’s representation of Paul violated Rule 8.4(d), which prohibits lawyers from “ngag in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice.” Lastly, it found that Mr. The Hearing Committee also found that Mr. Klayman violated Rule 1.9 (or its Florida equivalent) in all three” representations.
Watch judicial consent professional#
Klayman’s disqualification, Judge Lamberth explained that he “simply condone such a flagrant violation of a Rule of Professional Conduct essential to the proper functioning of our system of justice.” Id. at 27.įollowing a hearing, Hearing Committee Number Nine found that “Mr. And although “not unsympathetic” to the prejudice that Paul might suffer due to Mr. The representation, Judge Lamberth explained, was “the very type of `changing of sides in the matter’ forbidden by Rule 1.9.” Id. (quoting D.C. Paul” was an “unambiguous violation” of Rule 1.9. He first concluded that “it s clear that Mr. Klayman, and the district court, then-Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, granted the motion. Klayman later entered an appearance-again without seeking Judicial Watch’s consent. Although Paul was initially represented by other counsel, Mr. Paul then sued Judicial Watch in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the organization’s lawyers had breached the representation agreement. Klayman left Judicial Watch, the organization’s lawyers withdrew from the representation. Judicial Watch lawyers later represented Paul in a civil lawsuit in California state court. Klayman prepared the representation agreement and authorized its signing as well as a subsequent modification. Judicial Watch represented Paul with respect to several legal issues, including an investigation and potential litigation arising from Paul’s fundraising activities during his campaign for the New York State Senate. Klayman failed to withdraw, Judicial Watch moved to disqualify him, but the motion was never resolved because the parties agreed to dismiss the case. Klayman to withdraw, pointing out that he had “organized the fundraising effort” and that “Benson had identified him as a fact witness.” Id. When Mr. Klayman later entered an appearance as co-counsel, again without seeking consent from Judicial Watch. She was initially represented by another attorney, but Mr. Klayman had left Judicial Watch, Benson sued the organization, seeking the return of her donation. She made an initial payment of $15,000, but Judicial Watch ultimately did not purchase a building. Klayman, while serving as Judicial Watch’s chairman and general counsel, solicited a commitment to donate $50,000 for a fund to purchase a building. The second client was Louise Benson, from whom Mr.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal. Klayman left Judicial Watch and without seeking its consent, he entered an appearance on Cobas’s behalf and filed a motion asking the court to vacate its order of dismissal. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Florida court dismissed her complaint, calling it “silly and vindictive.” In re Klayman, 228 A.3d 713, 716 (D.C. After ending her employment with Judicial Watch, Cobas filed suit against the organization in Florida state court. Klayman, as general counsel, advised Judicial Watch about her complaints. While there, Cobas alleged that she faced a hostile work environment, and Mr. The first client, Sandra Cobas, served as director of Judicial Watch’s Miami Regional Office. Klayman focused on his representation of three clients in suits against his former employer, Judicial Watch. According to the comments to Rule 1.9, the relevant “matter” is not limited to litigation: “hen a lawyer has been directly involved in a specific transaction, subsequent representation of other clients with materially adverse interests clearly is prohibited.” Id. The D.C.
Rule 1.9 provides that “ lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent.” D.C. See Report and Recommendation, In re Klayman, No. Klayman violated Rules 8.4(d) and 1.9 of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. 13.įollowing the filing of a complaint with the District of Columbia Bar in 2013, the Bar’s Hearing Committee Number Nine concluded that Mr. Since then, he has worked as “a public interest attorney and advocate.” Br. “Larry Klayman founded Judicial Watch in 1994 and served as its general counsel until he left in 2003. The opinion sets forth the facts in this fashion: Klayman, who at one time worked at Judicial Watch, represented clients who were adverse to Judicial Watch.
The District of Columbia Circuit has imposed reciprocal discipline on Larry Klayman for violations of Rule 1.9.