Last Hope For Justice

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals will face a formidable task in reviewing the execrable Worst Report in its disciplinary history when it hears oral argument on June 3, 2015 in the case of In re Szymkovicz et al.

My review of the report of the Board on Professional Responsibility is linked here.

In sum

Regardless of the eventual outcome (and I have no optimism at this point) , the story of this case is Exhibit One to prove the failure of the volunteer disciplinary system in the District of Columbia.

In particular, this outcome serves as a warning to victims –don’t bother to bring your concerns to the D.C.Bar, as you will only get attacked for your trouble.

To be fair, the hearing committee’s gross and inexcusable failure to deal with the evidence put the BPR in a difficult position. One approach would have been to apply due diligence to study and learn the record; the other is the approach taken here –blow the whole thing off as a credibility contest and simply fail to deal with the evidence in a meaningful way.

These so-called guardians of the public trust should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. In a just world, what happened to Fran Abbott (the complaining daughter) would happen to them.

I view this case as one of the most significant in the court’s disciplinary history.  The case provides a last hope for justice for the victims of what I believe was proven attorney misconduct of a most heinous nature.

It tests whether the court – responsible for setting standards of ethics for its Bar – has the fortitude to reject this lawyer-protecting, evidence-ignoring whitewash and impose an appropriate sanction.

If attorneys “representing” an elderly “client” while serving the true interests of their real client, who wished to plunder her assets (while taking a heaping helping for themselves), can get away with the abuse that this record demonstrates, then it is a shameful thing to be a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

I am particularly disheartened by the fact that, although a large number of D.C. probate attorneys have expressed revulsion over this case to me, no one stepped up and told the court so with an amicus brief.

This case deserves far more widespread publicity than it has gotten so far. As someone once said, I’ve broken my pick trying to get that attention.

Bars get away with self-regulation in their own parochial interest because of an apathetic public and an uninterested press.

The only safeguard is a court that takes seriously its obligation to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the legal profession.

Three judges of the Court of Appeals can prevent this travesty of justice. There is no other hope. (Mike Frisch)