Akin Gump: Circumstantial Evidence of False Sworn Statements

September 26, 1994
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC  20008-4530

Charles L. Reischel, Esq.
Deputy Corporation Counsel
Government of the District of
  Columbia
6th Floor
441 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC  20001

RE:  Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights
       D.C. Court of Appeals Docket No. 93-AA-1342

Dear Mr. Reischel:

Enclosed with respect to the above-referenced matter is a copy of a tape recording of a telephone conversation I had with a co-worker, Mrs. Patricia A. McNeil, formerly employed by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (“Akin Gump”), Respondent below.  The telephone conversation took place on the evening of July  1, 1993 during the pendency of D.C. Department of Human Rights’ investigation of Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, currently before the D.C. Court of Appeals and set for regular calendar on October 13, 1994 as Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights.

You will observe that I had previously transcribed selected material statements of Mrs. McNeil, contained on the enclosed tape recording, which statements are part of the record on appeal as “Attachment A” of “Complainant’s Application for Reconsideration of No Probable Cause Finding,” submitted to the D.C. Department of Human Rights on July 27, 1993.  The enclosed tape recording is therefore, in a strict legal sense, not new evidence but rather the best evidence of statements already part of the record on appeal.  Cf.  Forrester v. State, 224 Md. 337, 167 A.2d 878 (1961) (the best evidence rule applied to exclude testimony concerning conversation which had been recorded, but which witness had not overheard; recording in such a case treated like writing).

Inconsistencies between Mrs. McNeil’s statements and sworn material statements contained in Akin Gump’s Response to Interrogatories and Document Request 1/, dated May 22, 1992, raise serious questions about the veracity of Akin Gump’s attorney managers.  The enclosed tape recording constitutes further persuasive evidence that Akin Gump’s attorney managers may have willfully violated th District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, D.C. Code section 1-2529, by filing knowingly false statements with the D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, a criminal act.  Accordingly, in view of the possible serious misconduct of Akin Gump’s attorney managers during the pendency of the proceedings below I will be forwarding a copy of the enclosed tape recording to the Hon. Annice M. Wagner, Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals so that she may, at her discretion, take whatever steps she deems necessary to safeguard the integrity of the Court in the face of a record on appeal that appears to be overwhelmingly polluted with, speaking optimistically, statements of doubtful reliability.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman


cc: Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney for D.C.


____________________________
1/ The Response is signed by Mr. Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq., the firm’s managing partner, and Mr. Dennis M. Race, Esq.  Both attorneys are admitted to practice in the District of Columbia.