tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19360670.post9119998224086773170..comments2024-03-25T03:20:57.659-04:00Comments on My Daily Struggles: D.C. Corporation Counsel -- Questionable Ethical ConductMy Daily Struggleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12785498459884222234noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19360670.post-40937347897437860082011-07-27T10:53:28.322-04:002011-07-27T10:53:28.322-04:00Oral argument before the D.C. Court of Appeals in ...Oral argument before the D.C. Court of Appeals in <i>Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights</i> was held on December 16, 1997.My Daily Struggleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12785498459884222234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19360670.post-43044945833373244072011-07-27T10:48:55.191-04:002011-07-27T10:48:55.191-04:00July 31, 1997
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Was...July 31, 1997<br />3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW<br />#136<br />Washington, DC 20008-4530<br /><br />Robert S. Bennett, Esq.<br />Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom<br />1440 New York Avenue, NW<br />Washington, DC 20005-2107<br /><br />RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, D.C. Court of Appeals no. 96-CV-961<br /><br />Dear Mr. Bennett:<br /><br />Enclosed for your information is a copy of my reply to the District's opposition to my petition for review that I filed in 1996 in the D.C. Superior Court in Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, now on appeal as D.C. Court of Appeals no. 96-CV-961.<br /><br />The pleadings show unequivocally that the District (Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq.), in its opposition, made extensive use of so-called "after-acquired evidence" that was deemed legally irrelevant by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1995 opinion, McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 115 S.Ct. 879 (1995).<br /><br />One might, generously, attribute the District's position, in the Superior Court proceedings below, to inadvertence. Unfortunately, the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel (Charles L. Reischel, Esq.) in the reply brief filed by the District on July 25, 1997 in the appeal of this matter before the D.C. Court of Appeals has once again--now, without any doubt, intentionally--resorted to extensive use of legally-irrelevant after-acquired evidence.<br /><br />While it is true that in determining the scope of advocacy, account must be taken of the law's ambiguities and potential for change, the law relating to the use of after-acquired evidence in Title VII actions is clear. The District's knowing reliance on legally-irrelevant evidence exceeds the limits within which the Office of Corporation Counsel may proceed, and may constitute unprofessional conduct.<br /><br />Incidentally, it would take little ingenuity for certain segments of the media to draw a possible parallel between Mr. Ruff's apparent desperation to conceal Title VII violations committed by a law firm managed by one of the President's friends, and Mr. Bennett's conduct of his defense of the President in the Title VII matter instituted by Paula Corbin Jones.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Gary Freedman<br /><br />cc: Charles L. Reishel, Esq.<br />Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. (The White House)<br />bcc: L. Patrick Swygert (President, Howard University) (8/2/97)My Daily Struggleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12785498459884222234noreply@blogger.com