Justia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The appellant was represented by an attorney in a criminal contempt proceeding after allegedly violating a civil protective order. During the course of representation, the appellant twice made statements to his attorney threatening to kill the Assistant Attorney General prosecuting his case, including specific language and gestures indicating an intent to cause harm. The attorney, disturbed by these threats, initially sought to withdraw from representation and later disclosed the threats to the court after being ordered to do so. The attorney subsequently testified before a grand jury and at trial regarding the threats, which led to the appellant being charged and convicted by a jury of threatening a public official and obstruction of justice.Following conviction in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the appellant challenged the admissibility of his attorney’s testimony, arguing that the statements were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The trial court rejected this argument, finding that the threats were not made for the purpose of seeking legal advice and thus were not privileged. On appeal, a division of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals initially vacated the convictions, holding that the statements were privileged and their admission was not harmless error. The United States successfully petitioned for en banc review, and the full court vacated the division’s decision, limiting the scope of review to the attorney-client privilege issue.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications that themselves constitute criminal threats to cause death or serious bodily harm. The court reasoned that such threats are an abuse of the attorney-client relationship and fall outside the privilege, regardless of whether the technical elements of the privilege are otherwise met. The court affirmed the Superior Court’s admission of the attorney’s testimony and remanded the case for consideration of the appellant’s remaining arguments. View "Moore v. United States" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant hired the appellee, an attorney, in 2017 to represent her in a federal disability discrimination lawsuit against her former employer. The federal district court granted summary judgment to the employer on some claims and dismissed the remaining claim at the appellant’s request in May 2019, closing the case. Over three years later, in June 2022, the appellant filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging legal malpractice and breach of contract, claiming that the attorney’s deficient representation caused her to lose her federal case.The appellee moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The Superior Court initially denied the motion, suggesting that COVID-19 tolling orders might have paused the limitations period. However, after the appellant filed an amended complaint and the appellee renewed the motion to dismiss—which the appellant did not oppose—the court reconsidered and dismissed the complaint as untimely. The court found that the COVID-19 tolling orders did not apply because the limitations period did not expire during the relevant emergency period, and that the claims were time-barred under any possible accrual date. The appellant’s motion for reconsideration, based on excusable neglect due to personal issues, was denied.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The court held that the appellant’s claims were untimely under the applicable statute of limitations, that neither the COVID-19 tolling orders nor claims of excusable neglect, non compos mentis status, or the discovery rule justified tolling the limitations period, and that no extraordinary circumstances warranted relief under Rule 60(b)(1). The judgment of dismissal was affirmed. View "Baskin v. Pitre" on Justia Law

Matthew A. LeFande, a suspended member of the District of Columbia Bar, was found by the Board on Professional Responsibility to have committed seven violations of the District of Columbia and Maryland Rules of Professional Responsibility. These violations stemmed from his involvement in several legal matters, including the District Title litigation, the Warren bankruptcy matter, the Carvalho bankruptcy matter, and his own personal bankruptcy. LeFande's misconduct included orchestrating a transfer of funds to conceal assets, filing frivolous bankruptcy petitions, making false statements to tribunals, and failing to comply with court orders.In the District Title litigation, LeFande represented Anita Warren and her son, Timothy Day, after District Title erroneously wired funds to Warren. LeFande directed the transfer of $82,051.81 to a New Zealand bank account, which was seen as an attempt to conceal assets. He later refused to comply with court orders to sit for a deposition, resulting in criminal and civil contempt findings. In the Warren bankruptcy matter, LeFande filed a petition to avoid deposition, which was deemed frivolous, leading to sanctions. In the Carvalho bankruptcy matter, LeFande's actions were found to be in bad faith, resulting in sanctions for frivolous filings and misrepresentations.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and agreed with the Board's findings of misconduct. The court noted that LeFande's actions were part of a prolonged pattern of dishonesty and interference with the administration of justice. Given the severity and persistence of his misconduct, along with his lack of remorse and failure to participate in the disciplinary process, the court concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction. The court ordered that Matthew A. LeFande be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. View "In re LeFande" on Justia Law

The respondent, a member of the District of Columbia Bar, was indefinitely suspended from practicing law in Maryland by consent. The suspension was contingent on several conditions, including a satisfactory report from a mental health or substance abuse professional addressing the respondent's alcohol and drug issues. Subsequently, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued an order suspending the respondent and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed. The respondent did not file a response or the required affidavit.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The Disciplinary Counsel recommended that the respondent's reinstatement be conditioned on his reinstatement in Maryland and a demonstration of fitness. The court noted that the respondent had not participated in the proceedings and had not filed the necessary affidavit.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ordered that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from practicing law in the District of Columbia, with a fitness requirement. The respondent must comply with all conditions imposed by Maryland and demonstrate that he has addressed his mental health and substance abuse issues. The respondent may seek reinstatement after five years or after being reinstated by Maryland, whichever occurs first. The suspension will not begin until the respondent files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). View "In re Sayadian" on Justia Law