Judicial Watch Founder Larry Klayman Suspended For 90 Days Following Previous 33-Month Suspension Recommendation
We previously reported that radio show host and the longest-held journalist in US history, Pete Santilli, filed a complaint against Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman to the DC Bar Disciplinary Counsel. However, it appears that many others have been waiting their turn to be heard in complaining against Klayman and now a 90-day suspension has been handed down to Klayman.
- Longest Held Political Prisoner Journalist Files Complaint Against Attorney Larry Klayman To DC Bar Disciplinary Counsel
According to ABAJournal:
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended Klayman in a June 11 opinion. The court cited three instances of alleged misconduct in which Klayman switched sides in Judicial Watch matters after leaving the conservative watchdog group, in which he was general counsel.
Klayman is frequently in the news. He filed a $20 trillion lawsuit in March against China that alleged that the novel coronavirus was a bioweapon that was recklessly or accidentally released.
He also represents former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in three lawsuits, AL.com reports. Two of the suits relate to Moore’s Senate campaign, and the third is a defamation suit against comedian and actor Sacha Baron Cohen.
The lawsuit that Judge Moore is involved in is worth $95 million.
That’s not all, Klayman is also representing journalist Laura Loomer.
- Google, Twitter, Facebook, & Apple Get Loomered: DC Circuit Court Of Appeals To Hear Laura Loomer Censorship Case
- Whoa! Rep. Rashida Tlaib Slapped With $2 Million Assault & Battery Lawsuit
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals cited these factual findings:
• While at Judicial Watch, Klayman provided legal advice to the organization when an employee complained that she was subject to a hostile work environment for several weeks in 2003. After Klayman and the woman both left Judicial Watch, the woman sued in Florida state court over the alleged hostile environment. After a trial court tossed the case, Klayman entered an appearance for the woman, filed a motion to vacate, and filed an appellate brief after the motion was denied.
• While employed at Judicial Watch, in 2002, Klayman solicited a donation as part of a campaign to raise funds to purchase a building for Judicial Watch. A woman paid $15,000 out of a $50,000 pledge. Judicial Watch did not buy a building. After Klayman left Judicial Watch, he and the donor sued Judicial Watch. The woman’s suit was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, and she refiled in Washington, D.C., superior court. Klayman entered an appearance as co-counsel for the donor. The parties eventually stipulated to dismissal of the case.
• While at Judicial Watch, in 2001, the group agreed to represent a person to evaluate legal issues stemming from his fundraising activities during an election campaign for the New York state Senate in 2000. Klayman drafted the representation agreement and a later modification. Judicial Watch withdrew from the representation after Klayman’s departure. The person later sued Judicial Watch for allegedly breaching the representation agreement, and Klayman entered an appearance on his behalf.
The federal judge presiding in the breach of representation litigation disqualified Klayman but said the plaintiff was a “a needy client who could not otherwise have afforded legal services,” and there was “a legitimate debate” about Klayman’s conduct.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals said the disciplinary counsel had proven that Klayman “flagrantly violated” the ethics rule on duties to former clients on three occasions.
“His misconduct was not isolated, and, it appears, he acted vindictively and ‘motivated by animus toward Judicial Watch’ (with which he had developed an acrimonious relationship),” the court said.
The court said it agreed that Klayman’s misconduct, which involved switching sides, was intentional, and it deserved “the serious sanction” of a 90-day suspension.
“The order is not final, and I am petitioning for rehearing before the three-judge panel and en banc, if necessary,” Klayman told ABAJournal. “I have 14 and 30 days from the date of the order to do so.”
“Thus, the three-month suspension is not currently in effect and will not affect my ongoing cases at this time,” he added.
“As the three-month suspension is relatively short, it will not affect my ongoing cases, if and when the order or a modified order becomes final,” Klayman continued. “In any event, there was no showing of dishonesty, and I was only trying to protect a former client, my surrogate mother who had her donation misappropriated to buy a building to house Judicial Watch, but which 17 years later, it still has not bought despite raising $1.4 million, and a Miami office manager who was harassed by Judicial Watch after I left. I thought I was doing the right thing at the time.”
In July of last year, the Washington, D.C., attorney discipline system recommended a multiyear law license suspension for Klayman over allegations Klayman breached professional ethics rules while making romantic advances toward a woman he represented.
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media