Thursday, June 23, 2011

Akin Gump: What Was The D.C. Corporation Counsel's Ethical Duty to the D.C. Superior Court

March 19, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

William J. Earl, Esq.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Office of D.C. Corporation Counsel
441 4th Street, NW
Room 6S-077
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights - D.C. Superior Court Docket No. 95-MPA-0014

Dear Mr. Earl:

Enclosed for the information of the Office of D.C. Corporation Counsel with respect to the above-referenced matter is a collection of documents and tape recording comprising non-record evidence in my possession that either directly or indirectly controverts sworn statements made to the D.C. Department of Human Rights (DHR) by Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq. and Dennis M. Race, Esq., both attorney managers of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld 1/, respondent in the agency proceedings below.

The documents are forwarded to the Office of D.C. Corporation Council so that you, as an officer of the court, may take any action you deem appropriate, consistent with your professional responsibilities, to prevent a possible fraud on the court.

The enclosed documentation comprises:

1. Tape recording (and transcript) of telephone conversation between myself and Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., that occurred on July 2, 1993, in which Dr. Ticho expressly denies having made any representations of the nature alleged in DHR Finding of Fact no. 6, which adopts as fact sworn statements made by Messrs. Hoffman and Race. See Record at 17.

2. Tape recording (and transcript) of telephone conversation between myself and Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., that occurred in late October 1993 in which Dr. Ticho expressly denies having made any representations of the nature alleged in DHR Finding of Fact no. 6, which adopts as fact sworn statements made by Messrs. Hoffman and Race. See Record at 17.

3. Tape recording (and transcript) of telephone conversation that occurred on July 2, 1993 between myself and Alana Baptiste, an employee of Akin Gump's Employee Assistance Program Provider, Sheppard Pratt Preferred Resources. Statements made by Alana Baptiste controvert DHR Finding of Fact no. 6, which adopts as fact sworn statements made to DHR by Messrs. Hoffman and Race. See Record at 17.

4. Letter dated October 17, 1994 addressed to Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, relating to the possible filing by attorney managers of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld in Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, agency no. 92-087-P(CN), of willfully false sworn statements, which were adopted by DHR in its final determination as Finding of Fact no. 6, a possible felony under D.C. Code 22-2513 (false swearing) or a possible misdemeanor under D.C. Code 22-2514 (false statements).

5. Letter dated April 8, 1994 addressed to Deputy D.C. Corporation Counsel Charles L. Reischel regarding inconsistent material sworn statements made by attorney managers of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld in two unrelated job termination proceedings: McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, No. 93-0477 (D.C.D.C., filed Nov. 29, 1993) (memorandum opinion and order) (Green, Joyce Hens, J.) and Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, agency no. 92-087-P(CN).

The Office of D.C. Corporation Counsel is further respectfully advised that any unqualified reaffirmation of DHR Finding of Fact no. 6 by the Office of D.C. Corporation Counsel, notwithstanding the existence of reliable and persuasive non-record evidence of infirmities in said finding of fact, may constitute a knowing repetition by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel of unreliable or libelous statements relating to my mental fitness, and may therefore constitute an additional violation of my civil rights under the laws and constitution of the United States. Cf. generally Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 47 L.Ed.2d 405, 96 S.Ct. 1155 (1976); Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 48 L.Ed.2d 684, 96 S.Ct. 2074 (1976); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (1972).

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: [D.C. Superior Court Judge]
__________________________________________________________
1/ Both attorneys are admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and are, therefore, officers of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

6 comments:

Gary Freedman said...

DC Dept Human Rights Finding of Fact No. 6:

6. Respondent also sought outside professional guidance because of the emotional and psychological nature of Complainant’s allegations and his coworkers responses. Respondent contacted an unnamed counselor from its Employee Assistance Program and an outside psychiatrist. Dr. Gertrude Ticho identified Complainant’s behavior, putting a negative meaning to virtually every event as “ideas of reference” and cautioned that individuals in similar circumstances may become violent. After Respondent’s investigators consulted with Complainant’s supervisor and Respondent’s Management team, Respondent terminated Complainant’s employment.

Gary Freedman said...

D.C. Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 3.3 - Candor to Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) Make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer, unless correction would require disclosure of information that is prohibited by Rule 1.6;

(2) Counsel or assist a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good-faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law;

(3) Fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction not disclosed by opposing counsel and known to the lawyer to be dispositive of a question at issue and directly adverse to the position of the client; or

(4) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, except as provided in paragraph (b). A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b) When the witness who intends to give evidence that the lawyer knows to be false is the lawyer's client and is the accused in a criminal case, the lawyer shall first make a good-faith effort to dissuade the client from presenting the false evidence; if the lawyer is unable to dissuade the client, the lawyer shall seek leave of the tribunal to withdraw. If the lawyer is unable to dissuade the client or to withdraw without seriously harming the client, the lawyer may put the client on the stand to testify in a narrative fashion, but the lawyer shall not examine the client in such manner as to elicit testimony which the lawyer knows to be false, and shall not argue the probative value of the client's testimony in closing argument.

(c) The duties stated in paragraph (a) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding.

(d) A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the tribunal shall promptly take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure to the tribunal to the extent disclosure is permitted by Rule 1.6(d).

Gary Freedman said...

At the time of the D.C. Superior Court proceedings the D.C. Corporation Counsel was Charles F.C. Ruff, on leave from his private law practice at the firm of Covington & Burling.

Current U.S.A.G. Eric H. Holder, Jr. practiced at Covington & Burling from 2001 - 2009.

Gary Freedman said...

Throughout the period 1993 to Sept. 1, 1998 the late Charles L. Reischel served as Deputy D.C. Corporation Counsel (Appellate Division).

Gary Freedman said...

I sent a copy of the cover letter only to the D.C. Superior Court judge. I did not submit any of the supporting documentation to the court.

Gary Freedman said...

Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.
3120 Brandywine Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
_____

Telephone: 202-244-2113

July 4, 1993

Dear Mr. Freedman,

When you called me on the morning of July 2, 1993 you asked me two questions, which I promised to answer in writing.

1.) I never met, nor have I ever spoken to a Mr. Dennis R. Rice [sic].

2.) I do not know your identity, Mr. Gary Freedman nor have I ever seen you for a diagnostic evaluation.

Sincerely,

Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.

[Record on appeal at 62, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998)]