Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • Ford disciplinary counsel letter

Ford disciplinary counsel letter

Ford disciplinary counsel letter

Page 1: Ford disciplinary counsel letter

Category:

Number of Pages:4

Date Created:October 17, 2018

Date Uploaded to the Library:October 17, 2018

Tags:disciplinary, Ford, Fords, Grassley, banks, judiciary, hearing, Chairman, Columbia, senate, staff, letter, Counsel, California, September, judicialwatch, committee, thomas, Supreme Court, Washington, district


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Judicial
Watcfi
Because one above the law!
October 16, 2018
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Office Disciplinary Counsel
Board Professional Responsibility
District Columbia Court Appeals
515 5th Street
Building Suite 117
Washington, 20001
Re: Debra Kat.t, Lisa IlaDks, and Michael Bromwich Disciplinary Complaint the Office Disciplinary Counsel:
Judicial Watch hereby files disciplinary complaint against District Columbia bar
members Debra Katz, Lisa Banks, and Michael Bromwich connection with their
representation Dr. Christine Blasey Ford before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee [the
Committee]
Rule l.4(a) the District Columbia Rules Professional Conduct [DC Rules]
states: lawyer shall keep client reasonably informed about the status matter and
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Rule 1.4(b) provides: lawyer
shall explain matter the extent reasonably necessary permit the client make informed
decisions regarding the representation. this case, Dr. Ford made well-publicized allegations sexual misconduct involving
Judge Brett Kavanaugh the U.S. Court Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit, whose
nomination the U.S. Supreme Court was before the Committee. Her identity was first revealed connection with these allegations September 16, 2018. The next day, September 17, 2018,
Debra Katz, Lisa Banks, and Michael Bromwich were admitted the District Columbia bar October
14, 1987, August 2001, and December 19, 1980 respectively.
Courts the District Columbia have history enforcing Rule 1.4. See Breen Chao, 304 Supp. (D.D.C. 2018) (Attorneys have professional obligation explain matters their clients); Carranza Fraas,
763 Supp. 113, 125-126 (D.D.C. 2011) (Withholding such information precludes clients ability
participate any substantial way decisions that the core the attorney-client relationship.); Ukwu,
926 A.2d 1106, 1135-39 (D.C. 2007) (DC Rules are not mere aspirations. They set standards that the legal
profession obliged meet because lawyers often are entrusted with responsibility for some the most important
matters their clients lives ... Explaining legal matters their clients essential part the work oflawyers.)
425 Third St. SW, Suite 800, Washington, 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5172 1-888-593-8442
FAX: (202) 646-5199 Email: info@JudicialWatch.org www.JudicialWatch.org
Thomas Fitton
October 2018
Ms. Katz went several television shows asking that the Committee hold public hearing that
Dr. Ford could offer her testimony.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, honored that
request. letter sent September 19, 2018, informed Ms. Katz and Ms. Banks that the
Committee was scheduling hearing Judge Kavanaughs nomination for September 24, 2018, order give Dr. Ford opportunity tell her story the Senate and, she chooses, the
American people. Letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman, Judiciary Comm., Debra
Katz and Lisa Banks (Sep. 2018) (available https://goo.gl/ce3SVv). informed Ms.
Katz and Ms. Banks that the hearing could public private, and that Dr. Ford could also choose have public private staff interview with Committee staff, either phone in-person. Id. that end, Chairman Grassley continued, Committee staff has attempted contact you
directly phone and e-mail several times schedule call time convenient for you and your
client. thus far have not heard back from you with regard that request. Id. reiterated
that staff would still welcome the opportunity speak with Dr. Ford time and place
convenient her. Id. September 21, 2018, Chairman Grassley wrote another letter Ms. Katz, where
stated that [t]he Chairman has offered the ability for Dr. Ford testify open session,
closed session, public staff interview, and private staff interview. Press Release, Senate
Judiciary Committee, Ford Wasnt Clear Committee Offered California Interview lieu
Public Washington Hearing (Oct. 2018) (available https://goo.gl/6dmNJd). The Chairman even willing fly female staff investigators meet Dr. Ford and you California,
anywhere else, obtain Dr. Fords testimony. Id. (emphasis added).
When the hearing finally took place September 27, 2018, however, the following
exchange took place between Dr. Ford, under oath, and counsel for the Committee, Rachel
Mitchell:
MITCHELL: May ask, Dr. Ford, how did you get Washington?
FORD: airplane.
MITCHELL: OK. Its ask that, because its been reported the press that you
would not submit interview with the committee because your fear flying. that true?
FORD: Well, was willing was hoping that they would come me, but
then realized that was unrealistic request.
MITCHELL: wouldve been quicker trip for me.
Dr. Ford engaged her attorneys the summer 2018.
425 Third St. SW, Suite 800, Washington, 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5172 1-888-593-8442
FAX: (202) 646-5199 Email: info@JudicialWatch.org www.JudicialWatch.org
Thomas Fitton
October 16, 2018
FORD: Yes. that was certainly what was hoping, was avoid having
get airplane, but eventually was able get the gumption with the help some friends, and get the plane.
Nomination the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh Associate Justice the Supreme
Court the United States (Day 5): Hearings before the Comm. the Judiciary., 115th Cong.
(2018) (emphasis added).
Mitchells questioning the hearing continued:
MITCHELL: Was communicated you your counsel someone else, that
the committee had asked interview you and that that they offered come out California so?
BROMWICH: Were going object, Mr. Chairman, any call for privileged
conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford. Its privileged conversation ...
(CROSSTALK)
GRASSLEY: Would could could offer was made without her saying word?
could you validate the fact that the
BROMWICH: (OFF-MIKE)
GRASSLEY: possible for that question answered without violating any
counsel relationships?
FORD: Can say something you directly? you mind say something you
GRASSLEY: Yes.
FORD: just appreciate that you did offer that. wasnt clear what the offer
was. you were going come out see me, would have happily hosted you
and had you had been happy speak with you out there. just did not wasnt clear that that was the case.
Id. (emphasis added).
Thus, clear, Dr. Fords own testimony, that her attorneys did not communicate the
Committee multiple offers take her testimony California, despite the fact that this was
Dr. Fords preferred option. fact, Dr. Ford testified that she wasnt clear what the offer
was and regarded the possibility investigators taking her testimony California
unrealistic-when fact had been specifically offered. Id.
425 Third St. SW, Suite 800, Washington, 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5172 1-888-593-8442
FAX: (202) 646-5199 Email: info@JudicialWatch.org www.JudicialWatch.org
Thomas Fitton
October 16, 2018
Despite knowing Dr. Fords strong preference not travel Washington, D.C., was
inexcusable that Dr. Fords attorneys should have neglected inform her the fact that the
Committee investigators were willing meet her California. Dr. Ford was thus deprived the
ability participate intelligently decisions concerning the objectives the representation and
the means which they are pursued. D.C. Rules Prof Conduct 1.4(b) cmt.
The misconduct Ms. Katz, Ms. Banks, and Mr. Bromwich noted above has been widely
reported. appears likely that they knowingly subordinated their clients interest avoiding the
publicity Senate hearing and avoiding travel Washington, D.C. the desire Democratic
Senators the Committee have such hearing take place Washington, D.C. Their failure
inform their client the offer have Committee staff investigate Dr. Ford California was
dishonest worst and careless best. Either way, inexcusable, and raises substantial
questions about their character and fitness practice law. warrants full investigation
the Office Disciplinary Counsel.
Re~
ed,
Thomas Fitton
President, Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 Third St. SW, Suite 800, Washington, 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5172 1-888-593-8442
FAX: (202) 646-5199 Email: info@JudicialWatch.org www.JudicialWatch.org