Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

litigationattorneylawyerhearingtrustantitrust

lawyerhearingrespondent

Related Cases

District of Columbia Bar v. Kleindienst, 345 A.2d 146

Facts

The Disciplinary Board concluded that Richard G. Kleindienst violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) and (5) due to misrepresentations and dishonest conduct that were prejudicial to the administration of justice. Specifically, during his Senate confirmation hearings for Attorney General, he asserted that there was no White House influence on the Department of Justice regarding antitrust litigation against ITT, despite evidence to the contrary from a recorded conversation with then-President Nixon. The Board recommended a one-year suspension, but the court ultimately decided on a 30-day suspension.

The Disciplinary Board concluded, consistent with a report of a Hearing Committee, that respondent violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) and (5) by virtue of misrepresentations and dishonest conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Issue

Did Richard G. Kleindienst's conduct during Senate confirmation hearings constitute a violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) and (5), and what is the appropriate disciplinary action?

Rule

Disciplinary Rules 1-102(a)(4) and (5) state that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, nor conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Disciplinary Rules 1-102(a)(4) and (5) provide: A lawyer shall not: (4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. (5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Analysis

The court applied the Disciplinary Rules to Kleindienst's actions, determining that his misrepresentations during the Senate hearings were direct violations of the rules. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the misconduct but also considered the context and the potential punitive nature of a longer suspension. Ultimately, the court found that a 30-day suspension was appropriate, allowing for reflection without being excessively punitive.

The court applied the Disciplinary Rules to Kleindienst's actions, determining that his misrepresentations during the Senate hearings were direct violations of the rules.

Conclusion

The court concluded that Richard G. Kleindienst should be suspended from the practice of law for 30 days, effective August 15, 1975, after which he would be reinstated.

Accordingly, the view of the Hearing Committee that respondent should have a lapse period for reflection and self-examination lacks real significance, and the recommended suspension loses all but its punitive consequences.

Who won?

The Disciplinary Board prevailed in establishing that Kleindienst violated the Disciplinary Rules, but the court modified the recommended punishment from one year to 30 days, reflecting a compromise between the severity of the misconduct and the context of the case.

The court is unanimous in its concurrence with the Disciplinary Board's finding that respondent Kleindienst violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) by virtue of misrepresentations and dishonest conduct.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Greenfield v. Villager Industries, Inc., 483 F.2d 824, 32 A.L.R. Fed. 83, 17 Fed.R.Serv.2d 577, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,037

Hasan v. CleveTrust Realty Investors, 729 F.2d 372, 38 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1180, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,704

Herrera-Corral v. Hyman, 408 Ill.App.3d 672, 948 N.E.2d 242, 350 Ill.Dec. 173

Lucas v. Ludwig, 313 So.2d 12

State ex rel. Sowers v. Olwell, 64 Wash.2d 828, 394 P.2d 681, 16 A.L.R.3d 1021