July 3, 1995
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the District
555 4th Street, NW
Judiciary Center Building
Washington, DC 20001
RE: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld
Dear Mr. Holder:
This letter addresses an additional issue of possible interest to the Office of U.S. Attorney, with respect to the above referenced matter.
On January 13, 1993 I delivered to my then treating psychiatrist at the George Washington University Medical Center, Suzanne M. Pitts, M.D., a copy of Akin Gump's Response to Particulars, originally filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights, which details the employer's reasons for terminating my employment.
Akin Gump's Response to Particulars expressly characterizes my conduct as an employee as "volatile," "violent," "bizarre," and "frightening" to co-workers, and states that I engaged in "occasional outbursts." The pleading also states that the employer had consulted a psychiatrist who reportedly, identified my ideation as dominated by paranoid "ideas of reference" and who cautioned that I might engage in "violent behavior." According to the pleading the serious nature of my disruptive conduct and disturbed ideation indicated to the employer that immediate termination was the only advisable remediation.
In light of the serious nature of the employer's allegations, which I communicated to my psychiatrist under cover letter dated January 13, 1993, the failure by psychiatrists of the George Washington University Medical Center to contact my former employer seems suspect. It would seem that both the law and ethical precepts dictate that where a psychiatric patient has been determined by his former employer--in consultation with a psychiatrist, no less--to pose an immediate threat to persons in his environment as a result of a paranoid mental disturbance, the treating psychiatrist, upon being advised of the employer's appraisal of the patient's conduct, should immediately consult the employer to discuss facts relating to the patient's violent propensities and details of the employer's communications with its psychiatric consultant.
Dr. Pitts herself admits in writing that she viewed my mental status as "very aggressive and hostile," yet she took no action to contact the employer or law enforcement officials. 1/
One would certainly hope that in the case of Francisco Martin Duran that had a former employer filed a sworn statement that Mr. Duran's conduct was "volatile," "violent," "bizarre," and "frightening," that a treating psychiatrist, upon being advised of the employer's appraisal, would have contacted the employer or law enforcement.
In view of the above facts, the express and emphatic affirmation by Psychiatry Department Chairman, Jerry M. Wiener, M.D., that neither he nor any of the department's psychiatrists have had any contacts with any attorney managers of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld seems less a disavowal of improper communications and more an admission of GW's failure to take reasonably prudent actions in the management of a patient alleged by a former employer in sworn statements to be paranoid, potentially violent, and unemployable.
In sum, the question I would pose to Dr. Wiener is not "have you discussed my case with my former employer," but, rather, "how could you justify not discussing a case such as mine with my former employer."
1/ Compare the failure by my former direct supervisor, Christine Robertson, to contact law enforcement despite her concern that I might be armed and homicidal; and the apparent failure of former House Speaker Tom Foley--now an Akin Gump partner--to contact the U.S. Secret Service despite my letter to him, dated August 27, 1994, stating that I might be a "mass murderer;" and the apparent failure of the U.S. Social Security Administration consultant Paul Yessler, M.D., to alert law enforcement that I had submitted to him a writing stating that I had fantasies about building a bomb.