Loose Talk Ends Up On Wikileaks And Leads To Suspension

An Ad Hoc District of Columbia Hearing Committee has recommended approval of a negotiated discipline agreement that would suspend the attorney for 18 months and require proof of fitness prior to reinstatement.

CNN had earlier reported on the underlying controversy in which the respondent was surreptitiously recorded talking about her entity client

2) In or about October 1999 Respondent began providing legal services as outside General Counsel to SourceAmerica (then known as National Institute for the Severely Handicapped). SourceAmerica is a nonprofit agency established by the U.S. Government to support other nonprofit agencies participating in the Ability One Program.

3) The Ability One program provides employment opportunities for people who are blind or have other significant disabilities. SourceAmerica allocated contract opportunities to Ability One participants.

4) SourceAmerica is headquartered in Virginia.

5) In 2007 or 2008, Respondent obtained a Corporate Counsel Certificate from the Virginia State Bar, entitling her to practice as in-house counsel in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

6) Respondent was serving as SourceAmerica’s Vice President and General Counsel and Corporate Compliance Officer from 2010 until June 2014 (the time described in ¶¶ 7 through 11, infra).

7) In 2010, Bona Fide Conglomerate, Inc. (“BFCI”), an Ability One program participant, filed a Bid Protest with the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that SourceAmerica, inter alia, violated procurement laws and regulations in denying BFCI contract opportunities.

8) In July 2012, SourceAmerica entered into a settlement agreement with BFCI. The agreement was signed by E. Robert Chamberlin, the then-CEO of SourceAmerica, and by the CEO of BFCI, Ruben Lopez. The agreement provided that SourceAmerica’s Office of General Counsel would reasonably monitor BFCI’s participation in the Ability One Program and use best efforts to provide that BFCI was treated objectively, fairly, and equitably in its dealings with SourceAmerica, with specific attention to contract allocation.

9) Respondent had multiple conversations, by telephone and in person, with Mr. Lopez after the Settlement Agreement was signed. During these conversations, Respondent disclosed information embarrassing and/or detrimental to her client SourceAmerica, and/or information SourceAmerica expected be held inviolate, and/or information protected by the attorney client privilege. This information included her description of conversations with SourceAmerica executives about terminating an employee, government investigations, legal issues related to the Board of Directors, litigation brought against SourceAmerica and its responses to subpoenas.

10) Respondent also insulted and/or disparaged SourceAmerica representatives in her conversations with Mr. Lopez

11) During her representation of SourceAmerica, Respondent became aware that Mr. Lopez was working with agents from the Office of Inspector General of the General Services Administration, who were investigating allegations against SourceAmerica. Upon learning that fact, Respondent provided Mr. Lopez with information designed to assist the government agents in their investigation, including questions they should ask SourceAmerica representatives. Respondent continued to serve as counsel to SourceAmerica in connection with the same investigation and concealed her assistance to the agents (through Mr. Lopez) from SourceAmerica.

12) In or around June 2014, SourceAmerica terminated Respondent’s employment.

13) Unbeknownst to Respondent, Mr. Lopez had taped some or all of the conversations discussed in ¶¶ 9-11 above. In total, Mr. Lopez recorded more than 20 hours of his communications with Respondent.

14) Following Respondent’s termination, some of the information she disclosed to Mr. Lopez in those conversations was later disclosed publicly in news reports and in litigation involving SourceAmerica filed in California, Virginia, and the Court of Federal Claims.

15) In or around November 2015, some of the audio recordings and transcriptions of Respondent’s conversations with Mr. Lopez were made publicly available when they were posted by an unknown source on the Wikileaks website (www.wikileaks.org).

The committee found that the sanction was appropriate

Those disclosures appear to have occurred over an extended period of time and were substantial; Mr. Lopez recorded 20 hours of his conversations with Respondent. Worse yet, Respondent intended (or at the least had reason to expect) that some of what she conveyed to Mr. Lopez would be repeated to federal investigators who were investigating SourceAmerica in a matter in which she represented SourceAmerica’s interests. And while there is no evidence suggesting that Respondent was responsible for the subsequent public disclosure of her recorded conversations with Mr. Lopez, the fact remains that they were publicly disclosed but never would have been had Respondent not engaged in those prohibited conversations in the first instance. In sum, it is difficult to imagine a more egregious breach of the obligations of confidentiality Respondent owed to her client. 

Mitigation

The Petition recites that Respondent did not engage in the prohibited conduct out of any pecuniary or other personal interest. Rather, she believed that SourceAmerica was engaged in various improper practices and that by disclosing the information in the circumstances in which she disclosed it, SourceAmerica would correct its conduct and act in what she believed would be a more responsible manner.

The case is In re Jean Robinson and can be accessed here. (Mike Frisch)