[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Face number 20-7110, Ing-Rae Larry Elliot-Clayman.

[00:00:05] Speaker 03:
Mr. Clayman for the respondent.

[00:00:08] Speaker 01:
Larry Clayman.

[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
Please proceed.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
For myself, thank you and may it please the court, Judge Henderson, Judge Tatel.

[00:00:16] Speaker 01:
Congratulations on your senior status and also Judge Edwards.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
I wanna pose this question to the court.

[00:00:23] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
I left Judicial Watch back in 2003

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
I left it in the hands of a non-lawyer.

[00:00:33] Speaker 01:
And there were three particular clients and individuals that were seriously affected when I left.

[00:00:39] Speaker 01:
One of them was Louise Benson.

[00:00:41] Speaker 01:
It was like my surrogate mom.

[00:00:43] Speaker 01:
And she had donated $15,000 and pledged 50 to buy an office at Judicial Watch.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
Judicial Watch misappropriated that money.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
There was another client, Peter Paul, who we had agreed

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
we would try to help came forward with information as a whistleblower.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
Judicial Watch abandoned that client as well.

[00:01:08] Speaker 01:
And then, of course, there was Sandy Cobus, office manager in Miami, and she was harassed.

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
All of these three individuals had lawyers, but they could not afford to continue on.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
As the head of a public interest group,

[00:01:22] Speaker 01:
I felt I had an ethical duty, notwithstanding all the legal and factual arguments that we've made in the brief, and I'm sure you've read them, so I don't need to belabor that unless you want me to.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
But Professor Ronald Rotunda, a renowned ethics expert, took a look at the situation.

[00:01:37] Speaker 01:
He issued an opinion.

[00:01:38] Speaker 01:
It was admitted into the record of this case before the DC Disciplinary Council and then, of course, the Board of Professional Responsibility.

[00:01:47] Speaker 01:
And he said that I did not commit an ethics violation.

[00:01:50] Speaker 01:
This case is now 13 years old.

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
There's probably not another bar in the country that would have a case that would last so long.

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
Most of them have either precedent on latches, Texas statute of limitations.

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
It's a very, very old case.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
I have also served the 90 days.

[00:02:09] Speaker 01:
In fact, I withdrew from this court out of respect for that at the time.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
when I also withdrew from other courts, so it's over.

[00:02:17] Speaker 02:
Mr. Clement, let me ask you a couple of questions.

[00:02:24] Speaker 02:
You don't deny that, okay, let's start with the Benson case.

[00:02:31] Speaker 02:
You don't deny, right, that while at judicial watch you solicited that contribution and worked with her on it, right?

[00:02:38] Speaker 01:
I feel, yes, no, I don't deny that I solicited.

[00:02:42] Speaker 02:
And also, and that you, and that you, I just want to get, make sure I understand the facts and that without any consent from judicial watch, right?

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
You represented, uh, Benson in litigation to recover that same money, right?

[00:02:56] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:02:58] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
And also, also, and also with, with respect to the, uh, Paul case,

[00:03:06] Speaker 02:
While at Judicial Watch, you represented Judicial Watch in negotiations with him, and then again without consent from Judicial Watch, you entered appearances in a case against Judicial Watch regarding that same one, right?

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:03:23] Speaker 02:
So, okay.

[00:03:26] Speaker 02:
So, as Judge Alenover says, this is just a classic violation of DC ethics rule 1.9.

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
I mean, 1.9 is crystal clear.

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
It says that a lawyer has formally represented a client in a manner, that's you, shall not represent.

[00:03:48] Speaker 02:
There's no exception to this at all.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
There's no exception for

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
for the client being unable to find a lawyer.

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
There's no exceptions for public interest lawyers.

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
I guess like Judge Lamberth, I guess I don't see any way in which you've satisfied your burden under our rule to show that this decision by the TC Court of Appeals is somehow not supported by evidence.

[00:04:17] Speaker 01:
And you don't see it.

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
You raised a good question, which I wanted to raise.

[00:04:21] Speaker 01:
Number one, as Lambert said, there was some ambiguity.

[00:04:24] Speaker 01:
He understood why I stepped in to help these people.

[00:04:26] Speaker 02:
He said, excuse me, Mr. Clement, he said there was some ambiguity with respect to the question of what would happen to the client if you withdrew.

[00:04:35] Speaker 02:
He was no ambiguity in his mind about your violation of the DC rule.

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
Let me get to the major point.

[00:04:41] Speaker 02:
Let's just finish this.

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
Do you see my point about that?

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
Let me find what he said.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
I'm not disputing what he wrote.

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
He wrote what he wrote.

[00:04:52] Speaker 02:
Do you understand my point?

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
He was troubled by the fact that allowing you to withdraw would leave someone unrepresented.

[00:05:02] Speaker 02:
But he wasn't at all ambiguous about your violation of the DC rule, right?

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
You agree with that, right?

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
He was not ambiguous about that, but let me also raise this.

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
He also showed up without a subpoena to testify on my behalf.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
Who showed up?

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
Who showed up?

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
Because Lambert testified on my behalf.

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
You can go back into the record and see that.

[00:05:24] Speaker 01:
He showed up what?

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
He came voluntarily to testify on my behalf.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
And here's what he said.

[00:05:29] Speaker 02:
The question before us is whether you have satisfied your burden under our rule

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
to show that this sanction is not supported by substantial evidence.

[00:05:43] Speaker 01:
If I may respond.

[00:05:44] Speaker 01:
Sure, please.

[00:05:45] Speaker 01:
Go ahead.

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
Judge Lamberth testified at the disciplinary hearing that he did not refer the matter to bar counsel because he didn't think it rose to that level.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
He's actually referred many lawyers to that level.

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
He did not sanction me.

[00:05:58] Speaker 01:
And when I was disqualified and I'd actually had advice of counsel, that's in the opinion of the DC Court of Appeals,

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
that I was not in fact committing an ethical violation.

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
I ceased representing the other two clients as well immediately.

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
So I did my obligation.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
I respected Judge Lambert's order and I moved on.

[00:06:18] Speaker 01:
But I posed that question.

[00:06:20] Speaker 02:
Here's what Judge Lambert said in his written order.

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
Quote, the court can simply not condone such a flagrant violation of professional responsibility

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
essential to the proper functioning of our system of justice.

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
That's what Judge Lambert said.

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
And he did not sanction me because he understood there were stimulating circumstances.

[00:06:43] Speaker 02:
The only question before Judge Lambert at that point was whether to permit you to withdraw.

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
Here's the question before you, Your Honor.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
Yeah, go ahead.

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
The question before you is, these individuals were unrepresented.

[00:06:56] Speaker 01:
They were being harmed by judicial watch was being run by non-lawyer Tom Fitton at the time.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
I felt as someone who started an ethics organization, Judicial Watch, I had a duty as a matter of last resort to try to help them pro bono.

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
But more importantly than that, I hope that you will read the opinion of Ronald Rotunda, which is attached to part of- We've all read that opinion.

[00:07:19] Speaker 02:
In fact, I knew Ronald Rotunda.

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
Yeah, he was a great man.

[00:07:23] Speaker 02:
I knew him when he was a young lawyer at Wilma.

[00:07:25] Speaker 02:
We worked together on some civil rights matters.

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
Yes, and I've already served my time here, Your Honor.

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
I was outside of the court for 90 days.

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
Let's talk about that for a minute.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
You served your time because you voluntarily

[00:07:40] Speaker 02:
didn't handle cases in the DC in the federal courts for 90 days, right?

[00:07:45] Speaker 01:
Is that your point?

[00:07:46] Speaker 01:
I actually filed pleadings withdrawing during that period of time.

[00:07:49] Speaker 02:
Am I right also, Mr. Klayman, that you didn't do that until after we were notified by the DC Court of Appeals

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
that you had been sanctioned.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
I don't remember the timing specifically, but I do know this.

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
I was challenging that.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
I was asking for that order to be reconsidered.

[00:08:09] Speaker 02:
But you know our disciplinary rule 10 requires lawyers to notify this court when they've been sanctioned by another court, right?

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
I understand that.

[00:08:20] Speaker 01:
I understand that.

[00:08:20] Speaker 01:
No, your honor.

[00:08:21] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:08:21] Speaker 02:
Did you do that?

[00:08:22] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
No, I did it ultimately.

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
I did ultimately.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
Look, your honor, here's the thing.

[00:08:26] Speaker 02:
Did you do it, Mr. Clement?

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
Did you do it before we issued, before we were notified by the court of appeals?

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
I don't know that you were notified.

[00:08:33] Speaker 01:
I don't recollect whether you were notified by the court of appeals.

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
I know that what we have here, you weren't notified by the court of appeals.

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
Did you do it?

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
You were notified.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
I did it ultimately.

[00:08:43] Speaker 01:
Yes, I did, your honor.

[00:08:44] Speaker 02:
You did it in response to our order to show co-ops.

[00:08:49] Speaker 01:
I don't remember the specific timing.

[00:08:51] Speaker 02:
Okay, so let me ask you, let me just ask you a fact question.

[00:08:56] Speaker 02:
Are you now representing anybody in the federal court, DC federal court or in our court at this point.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
Yes, I have a case with Laurie Loom, who is in front of you right now.

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
It's right for a decision in front of the DC Circuit right now.

[00:09:14] Speaker 01:
And there was an oral argument set for another client, two clients by the name of Lebellion, and also

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
Stewart with regard to a matter involving the Bundy standoff.

[00:09:27] Speaker 01:
Okay, so that is in court, but I've taken no action in those cases.

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
But the point is, your counsel record in which cases?

[00:09:37] Speaker 02:
Just repeat them for me, please.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
Laura Loon versus Fox News and Suzanne Scott.

[00:09:45] Speaker ?:
Okay.

[00:09:45] Speaker 01:
And that's in our court.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
Lavellian and Stewart versus FBI, I believe it is.

[00:09:51] Speaker 01:
I don't remember who the lead defendant is.

[00:09:53] Speaker 01:
And if your honor suspends me for 90 days, I will obviously withdraw from those cases.

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
So I respect that.

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
But if I may add one other thing.

[00:10:02] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
I had asked.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
DC Bar Council, like everything else, unfortunately, in a city that we all love, has become very, very partisan.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
We know what's happening.

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
13 years.

[00:10:17] Speaker 02:
Mr. Kleinman, I mean, that's a pretty serious accusation.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
You can read the newspaper and see it.

[00:10:28] Speaker 01:
All the former Bar Presidents, not until I finish, all the former Bar Presidents of DC Bar filed a complaint against Attorney General Bill Barr for withdrawing the indictment against General Flynn and remarks he made on Fox News.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
Kellyanne Conway got a bar complaint.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
As far as I know, it's still going on for what she said on MSN, NBC.

[00:10:49] Speaker 02:
What is that got to do?

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
What I'm saying is this case was resurrected.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
This case was resurrected.

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
Let me stop this.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
I've heard enough.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
Judge Edwards, do you have any questions?

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
No, I have no questions.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
Judge Tatel, unless you have something you want to follow up on.

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
Yeah, hold on just one second.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
Point I'm making.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
Can I say one thing, Judge?

[00:11:15] Speaker 02:
No, you cannot.

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
No, okay.

[00:11:32] Speaker 02:
Judge Henderson, I'm through.

[00:11:33] Speaker 02:
I'm finished.

[00:11:34] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
Can I say one last thing, your honor?

[00:11:37] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:11:38] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
The case wasn't started for eight years.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
Any other jurisdiction in this country would not have started a case eight years into it.

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
And now it's 13 years, just on the basis of latches alone.

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
And the fact that I do respect this court and I do respect the bar, I started Judicial Watch because I believe in ethics in government.

[00:11:59] Speaker 01:
respectful request that I not be given an additional 90 days, much like the Ninth Circuit decided not to do, because they also entertained a order to show cause such as the one in front of this court.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
But his case is now 13 years old.

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
And I hope, Your Honor, that you will write something to give advice to the District of Columbia Bar disciplinary apparatus, the cases

[00:12:23] Speaker 01:
You know, should not linger for 13 years and be resurrected after eight years.

[00:12:26] Speaker 01:
And that's what I meant.

[00:12:27] Speaker 01:
And everybody knows who I am.

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
Everybody knows I'm a strong advocate.

[00:12:30] Speaker 01:
Everybody knows, you know, I've taken strong positions.

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:12:34] Speaker 01:
I must like attorney.

[00:12:35] Speaker 02:
Let me, let me just ask you one question.

[00:12:37] Speaker 02:
I know we need to move on here, but

[00:12:40] Speaker 02:
You did argue latches, you argued due process, but I didn't see any evidence at all, any citations to anything to suggest that whatever the delay was, it in any way prejudiced you.

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
It was, Your Honor.

[00:12:56] Speaker 02:
You said you couldn't introduce documents.

[00:12:59] Speaker 02:
You said you couldn't introduce witnesses, but you agreed with me at the beginning of your argument this morning that you represented three clients in litigation against judicial watch on matters that you had consulted, that you would advise judicial watch on without your consent.

[00:13:18] Speaker 02:
There doesn't need to be any more evidence.

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
That's it.

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
Well, you know, I respectfully disagree.

[00:13:27] Speaker 01:
There's a matter of equity here, too.

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
And there's always a matter of equity.

[00:13:30] Speaker 01:
And judges have to consider that as well.

[00:13:34] Speaker 02:
I have no further questions.

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:13:36] Speaker 03:
We have your argument, Mr. Klayman.

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:13:39] Speaker 03:
Madam Clerk, would you call the next case?