At Long Last, A Hearing Date For Jeffrey Clark

District of Columbia Hearing Committee No. 12 has entered an order setting the Jeffrey Clark disciplinary hearing for January 9-10 and 24-25, 2024.

The Hearing Committee denied a number of discovery requests from Respondent seeking historical information about past deferrals

(1) A list of cases where a D.C. disciplinary hearing was held prior to related civil or criminal investigations or litigation elsewhere being concluded;
(2) The number and identity of the cases in (1) that went forward where a Rule 4.2 motion was denied; and
(3) A list of cases where Disciplinary Counsel sought a Rule 4.1 deferral and how many of those cases saw deferral granted versus denied.

Denied

even if we were to reject Disciplinary Counsel’s reading [of governing discovery rules], Mr. Clark’s request is not for documents that Disciplinary Counsel has available. They are interrogatories, seeking information and statistics. The Board Rules clearly do not provide for interrogatories. In In Re Artis, 883 A.2d 85 (D.C. 2005), the Court of Appeals ruled that “[g]iven the nature of the proceeding and the competing interests, we agree that interrogatories, as provided for under civil court rules, should not be incorporated into the disciplinary process without promulgation of rules governing their use.” 883 A.2d at 101. Although the case involved an instance in which Disciplinary Counsel was effectively seeking responses to interrogatories from the claimant, we can see no basis for adding an interrogatory process the Rules do not contemplate for a respondent. Indeed, if anything, the conclusion that Disciplinary Counsel could not promulgate interrogatories makes it even clearer than a respondent cannot. As the Court noted, subject to constitutional limitations, “attorneys under investigation” do have an obligation (that Bar Counsel does not) to respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries under Rule XI, § 8(a). Id.

Notably (or not), the committee relies on a case of mine in its ruling.

In re Herndon, 596 A.2d 592 (D.C. 1991) was an interesting case, involving an attorney who was (or at least claimed to be) a direct descendant of Abraham Lincoln’s law partner.  (Mike Frisch)