FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
In re : C LIVEN D. B UNDY,

______________________________ C LIVEN D. B UNDY, AKA C live n B undy , Pe t i tione r,
v. UNITED STATES DISTRIC T C OUR T FOR THE DISTR IC T OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, R e sponde nt, UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

R e a l Party in Inte re st. No. 16-72275 D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00046-GM

N-PAL-1
OPINION

Pe tition for W

rit of M anda

m us Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 21, 2016
B e fore : W . FLETC HER , GOULD, a nd B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s. Opinion by

Judge B y be e B YB EE, C irc uit Judge : 

# F IL ED
OCT 28 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSAttorne y La rry Kla y m a n a pplie d to be a dm itte d pro hac v ic e in the highprofile c rim ina l tria l of C live n B undy . The distric t c ourt de nie d his a pplic a tion without pre

judic e . B undy ha s now a ske d this c ourt for a writ of m a

nda m us to forc e the distric t c ourt to a dm it Kla y m an. W e de c line to do so. Under our de c isions, the

distric t c ourt ha d m ore tha n am p l e c a use to turn down Kla

y m an’ s
a pplic a tion: he is involve d in a n e thic s proc e e ding be fore the Distric t of C olum

bia B ar, and he wa s not c andid with the c ourt a bout the sta

t us of those proc e e dings; he disc lose d tha t he wa s twic e ba

rre d in pe rpe tuity

from a ppe aring pro hac

v i c e be fore judge s in the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia and the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, but he fa ile d to list num

e rous c a se s— a ll a

va ila ble on W e stla

w or LEXIS— i n whic h he ha s be e n re prim ande d, de nie d pro hac v ic e sta tus, or othe rwise
sa nc tione d for viola

ting va rious loc a l rule s; a

n d he ha s a

re c ord of going a fte r judge s pe rsona lly , a

nd shortly a fte r C hie f Judge Gloria Nav arro de nie d his
a pplic a tion, B undy

file d a frivolous Biv e ns a c t ion a ga inst he r in he r own c ourt. This lita ny of re a sons for de ny ing Kla y m an pro hac v ic e sta

tus de m onstra

t e s tha t the d istric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion, m

uc h le s s c om

m it c le ar e rror. I. FAC TUAL B AC KGR OUND AND PR OC E EDINGS A. Fac tual Bac k

ground

2Ac c ording to the indic tm e nt, in e arly

April 2014, Pe t itione r B undy and his
c ode fe nda

nts we re involve d

in a n a rm e d sta nd-off a round B unke rville , Ne va da , with a ge n ts of the B ure a

u of La nd M ana ge m e nt (“ B LM ” ). Following a m ore tha n twe nty -y e ar le ga l ba

ttle ove r gra z ing fe e s on public la nds, the fe de ra l c ourts
a uthoriz e d the B LM to re m ove som e 400 he a d of B undy ’ s c attle from public la nds. Se e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Bundy , 2013 W L 3463610 (D. Ne v. July 9, 2013). In
re sponse to the B LM ’ s atte m pts to se ttle the dispute pe a c e fully , B undy sa id tha t he
wa s “ re a dy

to do ba ttle ” and “ d o wha

te ve r it ta ke s” to ke e p the c a ttle . Ove r the
c ourse of a

we e k, hundre ds of B undy ’ s supporte rs c o ngre ga te d ne ar B unke rville to pre v e n t the B LM from re m o ving B undy ’ s c a ttle . M any of B undy ’ s supporte rs
we re arm e d , a

nd the B LM a ge nts ultim a te ly withdre w from

the are a . The inc ide nt
a ttra c te d nationa l, a

nd e ve n inte rna tiona l, atte ntion. 1 On M arc h

2, 2016, a fe de ra l gra

nd jury in the Distric t of Ne va da re turne d a sixte e n-c ount supe rse ding indic tm e nt a ga inst B undy , four of his sons, a n d fourte e n othe rs. The indic tm e nt c ha rge d the m with C onspira c y

to C om m it a n Offe nse Aga inst the Unite d Stat e s, 18 U.S.C . § 371; C onspira c y to Im pe de or Injure a Fe de ra l Offic e r, 18 U.S.C . § 372; Useand C arry of a Fire a rm in R e lation to a

1 The inc ide nt ha s its own W ikipe dia pa g e . Bundy

Standoff , W i kipe dia

(Oc t. 27, 2016, 1:54 PM ), https://e n.wikipe dia .org/wiki/B undy

_ sta ndoff. 3C rim e of Viole nc e , 18 U.S.C . § 924(c ); Assa ult on a Fe de ra l Offic e r, 18 U.S.C
. § 111(a )(1), (b); Thre a t e ning a Fe de ra l La

w Enforc e m e nt Offic e r, 18 U.S.C
. § 115(a )(1)(B ); Obstruc t ion of the Due Adm inistra tion of Justic e , 18 U.S.C
. § 1503; Inte rfe re nc e with Inte rstate C om m e rc e by Extortion, 18 U.S.C . § 1951; a nd Inte rstate Trave l in Aid of Extortion, 18 U.S.C
. § 1952. B
. Proc e e dings Be

fore theDistric t C

ourt 1. Kla y m an ’ s Pe tition for Pro HacVic e Adm ission Following his indic

t m e nt, B undy se c ure d

loc a l c ounse l , Joe l Ha

n se n. 2 He
a lso se c ure d the se rvic e s of La rry Kla y m an, a m e m be r of the Distric t of C olum bia
and Florida

B ars. Unde r Loc a l R

ule s for the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt of Ne va da , a n attorne y who ha s be e n re ta ine d to a ppe ar in a pa rtic ula r c a se but is not
a m e m be r of the ba

r of the distric t c ourt “ m ay a ppe ar only

with the c ourt’ s pe rm ission . . . by

ve rifie d pe tition on the

form furnishe d by

the c le rk.” Ne v . Dist. C t. Loc a l R . IA 11-2(a ). The R ule furthe r state s tha

t “ [t] he c ourt m ay

grant or de ny a pe tition to pra c tic e unde r this rule .” Id. 11-2(h); se e also id. 11-2(i) (“ W he n

2 Due to he a l th c onc e rns, Ha nse n re que ste d pe rm ission to withdra w from the c a se . The distric t c ourt a

pprove d his re que st upon the c o ndition tha

t B undy find substitute loc a l c ounse l . On Oc tobe r 24, 2016, Ne va da a ttorne y B re t Whipple e nte re d his a

p pe a ra nc e on be ha lf of B undy
.

4a ll the provisions of this rule are satisfie d, the c o urt m ay e nte r an orde r a

pproving the v e rifie d pe tition for pe rm ission to pra c tic e in the pa rtic ula r c a se . ” ). On M arc h

22, 2016, Kla

y m an file d a

Ve rifie d Pe tition sta

ting tha t he ha d be e n re ta i ne d by

B undy in c onne c tion with the

Ne va da indic tm e nt a

nd re que sting pro hac v ic e a dm ission to pra c tic e be fore the distric t c ourt. Of re le v anc e to this pe tition for a

writ of m a

n dam u s is the fifth que stion on the distric t c ourt’ s form , whic h re a ds: That the re are or ha

ve b e e n no disc iplina

ry proc e e dings institute d a ga inst pe titione r, nor a

ny suspe nsion of a

ny lic e n se , c e rtific ate or privile ge to a ppe ar be fore any judic ia l, re gula tory or a d m inistra t ive body , or a

ny re signa tion or te rm ination in orde r to a void disc i plina

ry or disba rm e nt proc e e d ings, e xc e p t a s de sc ribe d in de ta il be low. Kla y m an wrote i n re sponse : “ The only disc iplina

ry c a se pe nding is in the

Distric t of C olum bia ” and tha

t he ha s “ re sponde d to a fe w c o m pla ints.” He e la

bora te d in
an atta c he d sta

te m e nt. W ith re spe c t to the disc iplina ry c a s e in the Distric t of C olum bia , Kla y m an sta te d tha t he ha d re pre se nte d c lie nts, pro bono, ag a inst his form e r e m ploy e r,

5Judic ia l W a tc h. 3 He re p re se nte d tha t “ [t] he m a tte r is like ly

to be re solve d in m

y fa vor a nd the re ha s be e n no disc iplina ry a c tion.” As to othe r c om

pla ints, he e xpla ine d tha

t he “ a gre e d

to a public re prim and be fore The Florida

B ar” for fa iling to tim

e ly pa y a m e diate d se ttle m e nt to a c lie nt, but tha t the re wa s “ no showing of dishone sty ” and he wa s ne ve r suspe nde d from the p ra c tic e of la

w. Se pa ra t e ly , Kla

y m a n re v e a le d tha

t, roughly twe nty y e ars a go,

“ two judge s vindic tive l y

sta te d tha t I c ould not pra c tic e be fore the m a fte r I
c ha lle nge d rulings the y

ha d m a de on the ba sis of bia s a nd pre judic e .” He
e xpla ine d tha

t those e xc lusions a

pplie d only

to the two judge s the m se lve s , Judge W illia m D. Ke l l e r of the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia
and Judge De nny

C hin of the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York. M ore o ve r, he a dvise d tha t the “ ba rs of the Distric t of C o lum bia and Florida
re vie we d the se rulings a

n d found tha

t I did not a c t une thic a lly ” and tha t he wa s
c urre ntly in good sta

nding in both jurisdic

tions. 2. The Distric t C ourt’ s M arc h 31 Orde r

3 Kla y m an wa s the C E O a

nd Ge ne ra l C ounse l of Judic ia l W at c h. Kla y m an founde d Judic ia l W a t c h in 1994 a nd le ft in 2003. Ac c ording to its c urre nt we bsite , Judic ia l W a tc h is a

“ c onse rva t ive , non-pa

rtisa n e d u c a tiona l founda

tion[] [that] prom ote s tra

nspa re nc y , a c c ounta

bility and inte grity

in gove rnm e nt, politic s a nd the la w.” About J

udic ial W atc h , Judic ia l W a tc h, http://www.judic ia lwatc h.org/a bout (la st visite d Oc t. 25, 2016). 6The distric t c ourt de nie d the Ve rifie d Pe tition “ for fa ilure to fully disc lose disc iplina ry a c t ions a nd re late d doc um e nts.” The distric t c ourt found tha t Kla y m an’ s sta

te m e nt tha

t the m a tte r re ga

rding Judic i a l W a tc h from the Distric t of C olum bia “ is like ly to be re s olve d in m

y fa v or an d the re ha s be e n no disc iplina ry
a c tion” wa s “ m isle a ding a nd inc om ple te .” R e fe rring to the e vide nc e it ha d found on its own initia

tive , the distric t c ourt pointe d out tha t the Distric t of C olum

bia C ourt of Appe a ls B oa

rd on Profe ssiona l R e sponsibility ha d re c e ive d a

n Affida vit of Ne gotia

te d Disc ipline from

Kla y m an a nd a Pe tition for Ne gotia

t e d Disc ipline , signe d by Kla y m an a nd c ounse l for the D.C . B ar, in whic h Kla y m an c onse nte d to public c e n sure . Ne ithe r of the se doc um e n ts ha d be e n disc lose d by Kla y m a n. B e c a use the se doc um e n t s we re “ a dm issions of thre e se pa ra te inc i de nts of stipula te d m isc onduc t

tha t we re not c le a

rly disc lose d in Kla

y m an’ s Ve rifie d Pe tition,”the distric t c ourt de n ie d the pe tition, but without pre judic e . The distric t
c ourt the n e xpla ine d: Should Kla

y m a n wish to file

a ne w Ve rifie d

Pe tition with the

C ourt, the following informa tion should be inc lude d : (1) the c a se num be rs for the c a se s be fore Judge W illia m D. Ke l le r and Judge De nny C h in that re sulte d in the se judge s pre c luding Kla y m an’ s pra c tic e be fore the m ; (2) ve rific at ion of the re vie w by the B ar Assoc iations of the Distric t of C olum

bia and Florida

finding tha

t Kla y m an did not a c t une thic a lly

be fore Judge s Ke lle r and C hin; (3) a n upda t e d C e rtific a te of Good Sta

nding from

the Supre m e C ourt of Florida ; (4) the Florida B ar Assoc iation’ s re prim and ve rify ing tha t the re wa s no showing of 7dishone sty in c onne c t ion with the ir disc iplina ry a c t ion; (5) the Exhibits a tta c he d to this Orde r; a

nd (6) ve rific a tion tha

t the m a tte r in the Distric t of C olum

bia disc iplina

ry c a se re fe re nc e d in the Ve rifie d Pe tition ha s be e n re solve d with no disc i plina ry a c tion. 3. Kla y m an ’ s Supple m e nta l Pe t ition Kla y m an file d a “ Supple m e nt to a

nd R e ne w e d Pe t ition” on April 7, 2016. 4 Kla y m an provide d e vide nc e and e xpla na tions for ite m s (1)–(5) of the distric t
c ourt’ s re quire m e nts a s follows: (1) he provide d the c a se nam e s a nd c ita tions for the a c tions re ga

rding Judge s W illia

m D. Ke lle r and De nny

C hin; (2) he provide d

a le tte r from

the D.C . B a

r finding no e thic a l viola

tion in the

Ke lle r an d C hin m a tte rs, but sa id tha

t the Florida

B ar’ s file s we re no longe r a c c e ssible ; (3) he provide d a n upda te d le tte r of good sta

nding from

the Supre m e C ourt of Florida ; (4) he provide d
a c opy of Florida ’ s re prim and; a nd (5) he provide d the e x hibits a tta c he d to the M arc h orde r. As to the distric t c ourt’ s sixth re quire m e nt, Kla y m a n dispute d the c onc lusion the d istric t c o urt dre w from the doc um e nts it ha d ide ntifie d. The c o urt, he sa id,

“ a p pe ars to ha

ve m isunde rstood thenature and c urre n t posture of the disc iplina ry proc e e ding unde rway ” in the Distric t of C olum bia
.

4 The distric t c ourt note d tha t, c ontra ry to its orde r, Kla

y m an did not file

a ne w Ve rifie d Pe t ition. Thus, it c onstrue d Kla y m an’ s R e ne we d

Pe tition a s a

re que st for re c onside ra tion of theorigina l Ve rifie d Pe tition. 8[T] he prior a tte m pte d ne g otia

te d disc ipline ne ve r e nte re d into e ffe c t . . . . B ar C ounse l a nd M r. Kla

y m an ha d atte m

pte d to re s olve the m a tte r by a g re e m e nt, but M r. Kla

y m a n la te r thought the

be tte r of ha

ving signe d the a ffidavit a nd a gre e ing to ne gotia

te d disc ipline it [sic ] sinc e he fe e l s strongly tha t he a c te d e thic a lly a t a ll tim e s. He a lso supplie d a

c opy of a le tte r opinion prepa

re d by Profe s sor R ona l d R otunda of C ha pm an Unive rsity

Sc hool of La

w. R otunda , who is we l l known in a c a de m ic
c irc le s for his e xpe rtise in le ga l e thic s a nd c onstitutiona

l la w, sta te d tha t it “ is [his]
e xpe rt opinion tha

t in the [D.C
. m atte r] M r. Kla y m an ha s not c om

m i tte d a ny offe nse tha

t m e rits disc ipline .” Kla

y m an atta c he d wha

t he c ha ra c te riz e d a s “ a

posthe aring brie f” tha

t he ha d file d

with the D.C . B ar. Kla

y m an, howe ve r, did not
e xpla in wha

t the “ he a ring” wa s to whic h he ha d a ppe nde d his “

p o st-he aring brie f,”
and the brie f itse lf did not e xpla in the proc e dura l posture of the proc e e dings be fore the D .C . B ar. Kla

y m an re pe a te d tha

t he wa s “ c onfide nt of ultim a te ly pre v a iling . . . . sinc e the ultim a te finding of the C om m itte e whic h he a

rd the e vide nc e is sim

ply
a re c om m e ndation.” Aga in, Kla

y m an did not iden tify

what the “ C om

m itte e ” wa s, what the “ e vide nc e ” wa s, or to wha t the “ ultim a te finding” or “ re c om m e ndation”
re fe rre d. 4. The Distric t C ourt’ s April 19 Orde r The distric t c ourt tre a te d Kla y m an’ s re ne we d filing a s a re que s t for
re c o nside ra tion a

nd de nie d it on April 19, 2016. The distric t c ourt sa id nothing 9a

bout five of the six c onditions it im pose d in the M arc h 31 Orde r. It only disc usse d the m a tte r be fore the D.C . B ar. The c ourt note d tha t Kla y m an “ a dm its that [the D.C
. m a tte r] is still pending,” and thus the re wa s “ no e rror with its prior ruling.” The c ourt orde re d tha t “ Kla y m a n’ s Ve rifie d

Pe tition shall re m a in de nie d without pre

judic e until suc h tim e a s Kla y m an c an provide proof tha t the e thic a l disc iplina ry proc e e d i ng in the Distric t of C olum bia ha s be e n re solve d

in his fa vor.” B
. Mandamus Proc e e dings On July 6, 2016, B undy

file d a n e m e rge n c y

pe tition with this c ourt for a writ of m anda m us re q u e sting tha

t the distric t c o urt be orde re d to a dm i t Kla y m anpro hac v ic e . B undy

argue d tha

t his Sixth Am e n dm e nt right to c ounse l would be viola te d if he we re forc e d to go to tria l without his a

ttorne y of c hoic e . He c la im e d that the distric t c ourt “ m e c ha n istic a lly ” re quire d tha

t Kla y m an c ould not be
a dm itte d until the outc om e o f the D.C . B ar proc e e d ing wa s known. B undy
re pre se nte d tha

t Kla y m an ha d “ c orre c tly

inform e d the judge that the proc e e d ing
wa s unde rway

and would not be

finishe d for anothe r fe w y e ars a

nd tha t M r. Kla y m an ha d not be e n found lia ble of a ny e thic s viola

tions by the Distric t of C olum bia B ar.” He furthe r re pre se nte d tha t the “ slow pa c e of the Distric t of C olum bia B ar should not c re a te any a ssum ption tha t tha t c a se is in a

n y wa y
se rious, c om

p le x, or diffic ult.” He re pe a te d tha t Kla y m an ha s “ c ontinuously

be e n 1 0a

m e m be r in good sta

nding of theDistric t of C olum bia B ar for ove r 36 y e a

rs a nd ha s ne v e r be e n disc ipline d ” and tha t e ve n if the D.C . B ar c om pla int we re de c ide d
a ga inst him , “ that would still not justify de nia l of Kla

y m a n ’ s a p plic a tion to a

ppe ar pro hac v ic e . ” W e orde re d e xpe d ite d re v ie w of the pe tition a nd dire c te d the Unite d State s,
a s the re a l pa

rty in inte re st, to filean a

nswe r; we invite d the distric t c ourt to
a ddre s s the pe tition “ i f it so de sire s.” W e re c e i ve d se p ara te re sponse s from the Unite d Sta te s a nd the distric t c ourt. The Unite d State s “ re spe c tfully de c l ine [d] to opine on the ultim a te que stion whe the r Kla

y m a n should bea llowe d to re pre se n t [B undy ] .” The gove rnm e nt
ne ve rthe le ss de fe nde d the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a s “ within its disc re t ion.” It
c a ta logue d othe r c a se s in whic h Kla y m an wa s re prim a

n de d by va rious c ourts for spe a king a fte r the judge re que ste d sile nc e , m a king m isre pre se ntations to the c ourt, ignoring c ourt-im

pose d p roc e dure s a

nd de a dline s, pursuing m e ritle ss c la im s,
m a king a c c usations re lat e d to a judge ’ s ra c e , a

nd re fusing to c om

ply with loc a l rule s. The distric t c ourt not only de fe nde d the grounds on whic h it ha d issue d its prior orde rs, it offe re d ne w e vide nc e and grounds for re fusing to gra nt Kla y m an pro hac v ic e sta tus. First, the

distric t c ourt re ite ra t e d tha t the still-pe n ding 1 1disc iplina

ry proc e e d i ngs in theDistric t of C o l um bia ra ise d e thic a l c onc e rns. The
c ourt the n c ha lle nge d the v e ra c ity of how Kla

y m an de sc ribe d the c urre nt sta

tus of the p roc e e dings. R a the r tha n “ withdra

w[ing] his a ffidavit be c a

use he fe l t strongly that he ha d a c te d e thic a lly ,” a s Kla y m an c la im e d, the distric t c ourt une arthe d
e vide nc e tha

t the Distric t of C olum

bia He aring C om

m itte e re vie we d Kla

y m an’ s Pe tition for Ne gotia

te d Disc ipline and re

je c te d it. The He aring C om m itte e re je c te d Kla y m an ’ s a ffidavit be c a

use it de te rm ine d tha

t the “ a g re e d-upon sa

nc tion of public c e nsure is unduly

le nie nt.” As suc h, Kla

y m an fa ile d

to disc lose the a c tua l c urre nt disposition of his pe nding Distric t

of C olum

b ia disc iplina

ry c a se , a nd inste a d provide d fa lse inform a tion to this C o urt by sta ting tha t he withdre w his a ffidav i t whe n, in fa c t, the He aring C om m itte e re j e c te d it. Se c ond, the distric t c ourt a lso fe lt tha t Kla y m an ha d file d a

n inc om ple t e an d ina c c ura te Ve rifie d Pe t ition be c a use he ha d fa ile d to m e ntion “ n um e rous othe r
c ourts’ findings tha

t he is unfit to pra c tic e ,” and the c o urt c i te d e ight c a se s in whic h
c ourts ha d c o m

m e nte d on his “ i na

ppropria te an d une thic a l be havior.” Third, the distric t c o urt pointe d to a

Se c ond C irc uit de c ision in whic h tha t c ourt dism isse d his
c ha lle nge to the distric t c ourt’ s im pa rtia lity be c a use it wa s “ insulting a

nd sm a c ke d of intim idation.” M

ac D raw , Inc . v . C IT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc
. , 138 F.3d 33, 38 (2d C ir. 1998). The distric t c ourt the n obse rve d tha t B undy re c e ntly file d a “ sim ila r[] ”
c ivil suit a

ga inst the distric t judge individua lly , Pre side nt Oba m a , a nd Se na t or Harry R e id, a lle ging a c o n spira c y . S e e Bundy v . Obama , No. 2:16-c v-1047-JC M
1 2GW F (D. Ne v . dism isse d with pre judic e Oc t. 12, 2016). The distric t c o urt thus
argue d tha t it did not a

b u se its disc re tion be c a

use Kla y m an’ s re c ord shows a

“ tota l disre ga rd for the judic ia l proc e ss” and his a dm ission pro hac v ic e would thus

“ im pe de the orde rly

a dm inistra

tion of justic e .” Kla y m an did not re spond to the

distric t c o urt’ s ne w e v ide nc e tha t he ha d
m isre pre se nte d the proc e e dings in the Distric t of C o lum

bia , nor did he a ddre ss the
c a se s c ite d by t

he distric t c o urt or the Unite d State s in whic h he ha d be e n
re prim ande d by

the c o urts for his c onduc t during thelitiga t ion. Inste a d, he c la im e d that this e vide nc e wa s “ not on there c ord be fore the Distric t C ourt” an d wa s

“ sim p ly an e x post fac to , non-m e ritorious a tte m pt to justify

the de n ia l now tha

t this C ourt ha s gra

nte d e xpe dite d re vie w of the m anda m us pe tition.” Kla

y m a n the n
re pe a te d his c la im

tha t the a ffidavit ha d be e n

withdra wn a nd tha t “ h e ha s a

strong
c a se for ultim a te ly

pre va iling on the

m e rits.” W e he ld ora l argum e nt on a n e xpe dite d ba sis a

n d he ard from

Kla y m an a nd the U nite d State s. II. STANDAR

DS FOR ISSUING A W R IT OF M ANDAM US M anda m us “ is a ‘ dra s tic and e xtra o rdina

ry ’ re m e dy

‘ re se rve d for re a lly
e xtra ordina

ry c a use s .’ ” C he n e y v . U.S. Dist. C

ourt , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (quoting Ex

parte Fahe y , 332 U.S. 258, 259–60 (1947)). “ As the writ is oneof 1 3‘ t

he m o st pote nt we a

pons in the

judic ia l arse na l,’ thre e c onditions m ust be satisfie d be fore it m ay issue .” Id. (c ita tion om itte d). “ First, ‘ the pa rty se e k ing issua

nc e of the w rit [m

ust] have no othe r a d e quate m e ans to a tta in the re lie f he de s ire s . . . .’ ” Id. (first a lte ra tion in origina l) (quoting K

e rr v . U.S. Dist. C

ourt , 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)). Se c o nd, the pe t itione r m ust show tha

t “ [his] right to issua

nc e of the writ is ‘ c l e ar and indisputa

ble .’ ” Id. a t 381 (a lte ra tion in origina l) (quoting K

e r r , 426 U.S. a t 403). “ Third, e v e n if the first two pre re quisite s ha ve be e n m e t, the issuing
c ourt, in thee xe rc ise of its disc re tion, m ust be satisfie d tha

t the writ is a

ppropria te unde r the c irc um sta

nc e s.” Id. To de te rm ine whe the r m anda m us re lie f is a

ppropria te , we we igh the five fa c t ors tha

t we origina lly

e num e ra te d in Bauman v
. U.S. Distric t C ourt , 557 F.2d 650 (9th C i r. 1977): (1) The pa

rty se e king the writ ha s no othe r a d e q ua t e m e ans, suc h a s a dire c t a ppe a l, to a

tta in the re lie f he or she de s ire s. (2) The pe titione r will be dam a g e d or pre

judic e d in a way

not c orre c ta

ble on a ppe a l
. (This guide line is c lose ly

re lat e d to the first.) (3) The distric t c ourt’ s orde r is c le a

rly e rrone ous a s a

m atte r of la

w. (4) The distric t c ourt’ s orde r is a n oft-re pe a te d e rror, or m a n ife sts a pe rsiste nt disre ga

rd of the fe de ra l rule s. (5) The distric t c ourt’ s orde r ra ise s ne w a nd im porta nt proble m s, or issue s of la

w of first im

pre ssion.

1 4Id. a t 654–55 (c i tations omitte d). 5 The se fa c tors a re not e xha

ustive , se e In re C e me n t Antitrust Litig. , 688 F.2d 1297, 1301 (9th C ir. 1982), a n d “ should not be
m e c ha nic a lly a pplie d,” C

olev . U.S. Dist. C

ourt , 366 F.3d 813, 817 (9th C ir. 2004). Howe ve r, “ the a

bse n c e of fa c tor thre e
— c le a r e rror a s a

m a tte r of la

w
— will a lwa y s de fe a t a pe tition for m a

nda m u s.” In re Unite d State

s , 791 F.3d 945, 955 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting

De Ge orgev . U.S. Dist. C ourt , 219 F.3d 930, 934 (9th C ir. 2000)). B e c a use our c onc lusion tha

t the distric t c ourt did not c om m it “ c le ar e rror a s a
m a tte r of la

w” pre c lude s issua

nc e of the writ, we a ddre ss only tha t B auman fa c tor. 6

“ The c le ar e rror sta

nda rd is signific antly

de fe re ntia l a

nd is not m e t unle ss the
re vie wing c ourt is le ft with a ‘ de finite and firm c onvic tion tha

t a m ista k e ha s be e n
c om m itte d.’ ” In re Unite d State s , 791 F.3d a

t 955 (quoting C

ohe n v . U.S. Dist. C ourt , 586 F.3d 703, 708 (9th C ir. 2009)). B e c a use , on dire c t

a p pe a l, we

5 Eve n though Bauman wa s de c ide d be fore the Supre m e C ourt’ s m ost re c e nt disc ussion of m anda

m us in C he ne y , 542 U.S. 367, wec ontinue to a pply the Bauman fa c tors without se pa ra te ly c onside ring the thre e c onditions de sc ribe d a bove in C he ne y . In re Unite d

State s , 791 F.3d 945, 955 n.7 (9th C ir. 2015). 6 “ C le arly e rrone ous a s a

m a tte r of la

w” is a sta nda rd tha t is not fa m ilia r to us in a ny othe r c onte xt. “ C le arly

e rrone ous” is the sta

nda rd we a ssoc iate with re vie wing findings of fa c t. Se e Fe d . R . C iv. P. 52(a )(6) (“ Findings of fa c t . . . m ust not be se t a side unle ss c l e arly e rrone ous . . . .” ). W e a s sum e tha t by “ c l e ar e rror” in la w, we m e an som e thing like “ pla in e rror,” the sta

nda rd we use to ide ntify

whe n a distric t c o urt ha s c om

m itte d a n obvious e rror of la

w, but one that wa s not pre s e rve d for a

ppe a l by a tim e l y obje c tion. Se e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 52(b); Puc k e tt v
. Unite d State s , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). 1 5“ norm a l ly

re vie w a de nia l of a m otion to a

ppe a r pro hac v ic e for a buse of disc re tion,” U

nite d State

s v . W a lte r s , 309 F.3d 589, 591 (9th C ir. 2002), our re vie w in m anda m us proc e e dings is “ e spe c ia l ly de fe re ntia l,” In re Unite d State s , 791 F.3d
a t 955. On pe tition for a

writ of m anda

m us, we look to se e if the distric t c ourt
a buse d its disc re tion in a

m anne r so obvious tha

t the e rror is “ c le a

r” to a ll. III. ANALYSIS A. The Standards for Granting Pro Ha c Vic e Status A c rim ina l “ de fe nda

nt’ s [Sixth Am e ndm e nt] right to the c ounse l of his
c hoic e inc lude s the right to ha v e an out-of-sta

te la wy e r a dm itte d pro hac

v ic e .” Unite d State s v . W alte r s , 309 F.3d 589, 591 (9th C ir. 2002) (c ita tion om itte d). B ut be c a use c ounse l from

othe r jurisdic tions “ m ay

be signific antly m ore diffic ult to
re a c h or disc ipline tha

n loc a l c ounse l,” Unite d State s v . Rie s , 100 F.3d 1469, 1471 (9th C ir. 1996), this right is “ c i rc um sc ribe d in se ve ra l im p o rtant re s pe c ts.” W

he at
v . Unite d State s , 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988). Im porta ntly , “ [t] he re is no right of fe de ra l origin tha

t pe rm its [out-of-sta

te ] la w y e rs to a

ppe ar in sta

t e c ourts without
m e e ting tha

t Sta te ’ s ba r a dm ission re quire m e nts.” Le is v . Fly nt , 439 U.S. 438, 443 (1979) (pe r c uriam ). Fe de ra l c o urts ha

ve long ha d the a

uthority to “ e sta b l ish c rite ria

for a d m itting la wy e rs to a

rgue be fore the m .” Unite d State s v . Gonzale

z -Lope z , 548 U.S. 140, 1 6151 (2006). The y have “ an inde pe nde nt inte re st in e nsuring tha t c rim ina l tria ls a

re
c onduc te d within the

e thic a l sta

nda rds of the profe ssion.” W h e at , 486 U.S. a

t 160;
se e R ie s , 100 F.3d a

t 1471 (c ourts m ay

re gula te a ttorne y s a

p pe aring be fore the m

to

“ [e ] nsur[e ] the e thic a l a

nd orde rly

a dm inistra

tion of justic e ” ); se e also In re Unite d State s , 791 F.3d 945, 957 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ [A] c ourt’ s de c ision to de ny pro ha c vic e a dm ission m

u s t be ba se d on c rite ria

re a sona b l y re late d to prom oting the orde rly a d m inistra tion of justic e or som e othe r le gitim a te polic y of the c ourts.” (c ita tion om itte d)). W he re an out-of-sta te a ttorne y

sugge sts through his be

havior that he will not “ a

bide by the c ourt’ s rule s a

nd pra c t ic e s,” the distric t c ourt m ay
re je c t his pro hac

v ic e a pplic a tion. Rie

s , 100 F.3d a

t 1471. The Loc a l R

ule s for the Unite d State s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne va da provide tha

t a n attorne y who ha s be e n re ta ine d to a ppe ar in a pa rtic ula r
c a se but is not a

m e m be r of the ba

r of the distric t c ourt “ m ay a ppe a r only with the
c ourt’ s pe rm ission . . . by ve rifie d pe tition on the

form furnishe d by

the c le rk.” Ne v. Dist. C t. Loc a l R . IA 11-2. Am ong othe r things, tha t pe tition m

ust sta te (4) [t] ha t t

he a ttorne y

is not c urre ntly

suspe nde d or disba

rre d in a ny c ourt; (5) [w] he the r the a ttorne y is c urre ntly

subje c t to a ny disc iplina

ry proc e e d ings by

an orga niz a t ion with a

uthority to disc i pline a ttorne y s at la w; [a nd] (6) [w] he the r the a ttorne y ha s e ve r re c e ive d public disc i pline inc luding, but not lim ite d to, suspe nsion or disba rm e nt, by any orga niz a tion with a

uthority to disc ipline a ttorne y s at la w. 1 7Id. 11-2(b)(4)–(6). Afte r re c e iving this inform a tion on a ve rifie d pe tition, “ [t] he
c ourt m ay grant or de ny

a pe tition to pra c tic e .” Id. 1 1-2(h). B
. K lay man’s Pro Ha c Vic e Status The distric t c ourt he re did not a buse its disc re tion—

m uc h le ss c om

m it c le ar
e rror— whe n it de nie d Kla

y m a n’ s pro hac

v ic e a pplic a tion. In its a

nswe r to B undy ’ s pe tition for a

writ, the distric t c o urt la id out a c o m pe lling c a se for doubting Kla

y m an’ s a bility to a bide by loc a l rule s of c om

portm e nt or e thic s. It pointe d to thre e se pa

ra te c a t e gorie s of a c tivitie s tha t m a de it doubt Kla

y m an’ s willingne ss to a dva

nc e the e thic a l a

nd orde rly

a dm inistra

tion of justic e in B undy ’ s
c a se : (1) the pe n d ing D.C
. disc iplina ry proc e e dings involving thre e se p ara te c a se s of c onflic t of inte re st, inc luding theom issions a nd m isre pre se n t a tions he m a de in the v e rifie d pe tition re ga

rding those

proc e e dings; (2) num e rous othe r c a se s in whic h fe de ra l distric t c ourts ha v e c ite d him for ina

ppropria te and une thic a l be havior; a

nd (3) his pa

tte rn of pe rve rting the judic ia l proc e ss with insults a nd intim idation a ga i nst judge s pe rsona lly . The distric t c ourt c onc lude d , ba s e d on the s e thre e c ate gorie s, tha t Kla y m an ’ s re c ord shows a

“ tota l disre ga

rd for judic ia l proc e s s” and his a dm ission pro hac v ic e would thus “ im

pe d e the orde rly
a dm inistra

tion of justic e .” W e will a ddre ss the e v ide nc e for e a c h of the s e grounds.

1 8B e fore we do so, we m ust a ddre ss B undy ’ s a

rgum e nt a bout the sc ope of the
re c o rd. B undy

points out tha

t a distric t c ourt “ m

ust a rtic ulate som e re a sona

ble ba sis for [e thic a l ] doubts be fore de ny ing the a ttorne y ’ s a d m issions for pro ha c vic e
a dm ission.” In re Unite d State s , 791 F.3d a

t 957; se e also Rie

s , 100 F.3d a

t 1472 (“ In de ny ing a

pro ha c vic e a

pplic a tion, the judge m

u st a rtic ulate his re a son for the be ne fit of the de fe nda

nt a n d the re vie wing c ourt.” ). B undy ta ke s this to m e an tha

t
any re a son not a

rtic u late d by the distric t c ourt in its order c annot be c onside re d by
a re v ie wing c ourt. In this c a se , B undy argue s tha

t we m ay not c onside r any
re a s ons or e vide nc e not found in the distric t c ourt’ s M arc h 31 or April 19 Orders. Howe ve r, we have n e ve r gone tha t fa r, and B undy fa ils to point to a ny c a se in whic h we have e xc lude d a distric t c ourt’ s justific a tions tha t we re provide d a fte r the fa c t a s, for e xam

ple , in a re sponse to a

m anda m us pe tition. A rule ba rring a fte r-a c q

uire d e vide n c e or la

te r-supplie d ra tiona le s m ight we ll
m a ke se nse in the ordina

ry a ppe a l a fte r tria l, whe re the distric t c ourt ha s issue d its orde r de ny ing pro hac v ic e sta tus a n d is not he ard from

a ga in on the m a tte r. The re , we do not wa

nt to a llow the opposing pa rty , se ve ra l m onths or y e ars down the line , to c o njure up re a sons tha

t the distric t c ourt c ould ha ve give n for de ny i ng pro hac
v ic e sta tus, but fa i le d to a c tua lly

give

— or e ve n know of. B ut m anda m us proc e e dings in whic h the distric t c ourt c hoose s to submit a n a n swe r de ta iling the 1 9distric t c o urt’ s c o n c e rns a bout the a ttorne y ’ s e thic a l tra nsgre ssions a

re quite diffe re nt. W e no longe r ne e d to spe c ulate a s to the distric t c ourt’ s possible
m otiva t ions or la m e nt ove r whe the r to give de fe re nc e to re a sons the distric t c ourt
m ight not ha

v e found pe rsua sive in the first insta nc e . Inste a d, we know e xa c tly why the distric t c ourt would de ny pro hac v ic e sta tus. M ore ove r, a llowing B undy to forc e us to lim

i t our re vie w only

to the m a tte rs Kla

y m an re ve a le d in his pe tition would givea ttorne y s a

n inc e ntive to m isle a d the c ourts— e xa c tly the ty pe of
c onduc t in whic h

Kla y m an e nga ge d

in this c a se . C o nfirm ing our c onc lusion tha t
we m ay c onside r m a te ria l supplie d a fte r the de nia l of pro hac v ic e sta tus is the fa c t that if we thought wewe re lim ite d to c onside ring only the distric t c ourt’ s sta

te d
re a s ons, we would va c a te and re m and to pe rm it the distric t c ourt to put its
a dditiona l findings on the re c ord a nd a m e nd its orde r. This ha s be e n a

fluid a n d fa st-m oving proc e e ding. W e c onc lude tha t the
e ntire t y of the distric t c ourt’ s re a soning— both from its orde rs de ny ing pro hac v ic e sta tus a s we ll a s its re sponse to the pe tition for a writ— should be ta

ke n into
a c c ount. 1. Disc iplina

ry Proc e e dings B e fore the D.C . B ar The distric t c ourt de nie d Kla y m an’ s re que st “ until suc h tim e a s Kla

y m an c an provide proof tha

t the e thic a l disc iplina

ry proc e e ding in the

Distric t of C olum

bia 2 0ha s be e n re solve d in his fa vor.” Kla y m a n c onc e de s tha

t he is still the

subje c t of ongoing disc iplina

ry proc e e dings by

the D.C . B ar, but he stre nuously argue s tha

t the y will be re s olve d

in his fa vor. The c onte ste d proc e e dings in the Distric t of C o lum

bia m ay or m a y not turn out to be se rious. Eve n if we ha d the full re c ord be fore us, tha t que stion would not be for us to a

nswe r. It is e nough for us to know tha t the proc e e dings ha

ve be e n going on for se ve ra l y e ars a nd a re c urre nt. A c om

m itte e he ld he arings in Kla y m an’ s c a se in Ja

n u ary 2016, a nd Kla y m an subm itte d a dditiona l brie fing to the B ar in M arc h

2016— c onte m

pora ne ous with his a

pplic a tion for pro hac

v i c e sta tus in this c a se . W e do know tha

t the c h a rge s— c onflic ts of inte re st— are se rious e nough tha t in 2015 Kla

y m an wa s willing to stipula te to “p u blic c e nsure .” M ore re c e ntly , on Ja nua ry 13, 2016, a D.C . B a

r He aring C om

m itte e re je c t e d the stipula

te d c e nsure a s

“ unduly le nie nt” and, following he arings he ld tha t sa m e m onth, a

diffe re nt He aring C om m itte e m a de a

pre l im ina

ry , nonbinding finding tha t Kla y m a n ha d viola

te d D.C . R ule s 1.9 (c onflic t of inte re st) a nd 8.4(d) (c onduc t tha

t se riously

inte rfe re s with the a dm i nistra

tion of justic e ) by

“ c le ar and c onvinc ing e vide nc e .” It is this pre l im ina ry finding tha

t Kla y m an ha s dispute d in his M arc h 2016 brie fing. Although hec onte sts whe the r the B a r C ounse l ha s shown by

c le ar and c onvinc ing 2 1e vide nc e tha t he ha s viola

te d the rule s of profe ssiona l re sponsibility , he ha s argue d to the D.C . B ar that e ve n if the re wa s a “ t e c hnic a l viola tion,” the only

a ppropria te
sa nc tion should be

an “ inform a l a dm onition.” If the only

re a s on the distric t c ourt ha d offe re d wa s the ba

re fa c t of a

n ope n disc iplina ry proc e e d i ng in D.C
. , the distric t c ourt m ight ha ve a buse d its disc re tion in de ny ing pro hac v i c e sta tus to Kla y m an. At a

m i nim um , the distric t c ourt would have ha d to m a ke furthe r inquiry

— som e thing be y ond re quiring Kla y m an to show that the proc e e dings ha

ve be e n fina lly

re solve d in his fa

vor. B ut the distric t c ourt la id out a se c ond, ve ry

good re a son for its de c ision:
a lthough heha d se ve ra l opportunitie s to c le a r the re c ord, Kla

y m an wa s not forthc om ing a

b out the nature an d sta

tus of thoseproc e e dings. In his a pplic ation, Kla y m an— prope rly

— d isc lose d tha

t the re wa s a

“ disc iplina

ry c a se pe nding . . . in the D istric t of C olum

bia ,” tha t the c ha rge wa s c o nflic t of inte re st, a nd tha t he
e xpe c te d the m a tte r to be “ re solve d in his fa vor.” The distric t c ourt de nie d his pe tition “ for fa ilure to fully disc lose disc i plina

ry a c tions a nd re late d doc um e nts,”
and the distric t c ourt supplie d doc um e nts file d in the proc e e ding tha t showe d tha

t Kla y m an ha d a gre e d to “public c e nsure .” Eve n the n, the distric t c ourt only de nie d the a pplic a t ion without pre

judic e to Kla

y m an re filing. At tha

t point Kla y m a n wa s fully on notic e tha

t he ne e d e d to be tra

nspa re nt a bout the D.C . B ar proc e e dings. 2 2Kla

y m an wa s not forthc o m ing with the distric t c ourt. In his “

re ne we d
a pplic a tion,” Kla

y m an c orre c te d the re c o rd— but only in pa rt. He told the distric t
c ourt tha t the stipula

tion wa s of no e ffe c t

be c a u se he ha d “ t

hought the be tte r of having signe d the a ffida

vit a nd a gre e ing to ne gotia

te d disc ipline .” Kla

y m a n m ay have ha d se c ond thoughts a bout stipula

ting to his “

public c e n sure ,” but his sta te m e nt wa s woe fully m i s le a d ing. In fa c t , a He aring C om

m itte e for the D.C . B ar ha d re je c t e d tha t stipula tion on be ha lf of the B ar be c a use it wa s “ unduly

le nie nt.” That prom

pte d the he arings in Ja

nua ry 2016, a He aring C om

m itte e
re c o m m e ndation, a

n d Kla y m an’ s M arc h 2016 brie f to the D.C . B ar. Kla y m an thus wa s on notic e in the M a rc h 31 Orde r that his initia l disc losure of the fa c ts wa s “ m isle a d ing a nd inc om ple te ,” y e t Kla

y m an offe re d only a

pa rtia l
c orre c tion of the re c ord. As the distric t c ourt told us, he wa s not forthc om ing
a bout the sta

t us of the D
. C . proc e e dings: “ Kla y m an fa ile d to disc l ose the a c tua l
c orre c t disposition of his pe nding Distric t of C olum

bia disc iplina

ry c a s e , a nd inste a d provide d fa lse i nform a tion to this C ourt by sta ting tha t he withdre w his
a ffidav it whe n, in fa c t , the He aring C om m itte e re je c t e d it.” That

finding is not
c le arly e rrone ous. Inde e d, Kla

y m an ha d a

full a nd fa ir opportunity

to c orre c t the re c ord whe n
we a llowe d him

to re s pond to thedistric t c ourt’ s filing a nd whe n we he ld ora l 2 3argum e nt. He offe re d no e xpla na tion wha

tsoe v e r for his fa i lure to disc lose the
c urre nt sta

tus of his c a se . He ne ve r a dvise d the distric t c o urt tha t the He aring C om m itte e re je c te d the stipula

tion, tha t the re wa s a

re c e n t he aring in Ja

nua ry 2016,
and tha t the He aring C om

m i tte e m a de a re c om

m e ndat ion to theD.C . B ar. In fa c t,
we still do not ha

ve the m o s t re c e nt doc um e nts file d in Kla y m an’ s disc i plina

ry
c a se . 7 The se re a s ons m ore tha n justify the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to de ny Kla y m an pro hac

v ic e a d m ission to pra c tic e in the distric t c ourt in Ne va d a . W e have pre v iously

he ld on dire c t re vie w tha t it wa s not a

n a buse of disc re tion to de ny pro hac v ic e sta tus be c a use of “ pe nding disc iplina ry proc e e dings,” a

“ fa ilure to sta te in his pro hac

v ic e a pplic a tion tha

t [the a ttorne y ] wa s subje c t to pe nding disc iplina ry proc e e d i ngs a

nd . . . his fa ilure to dire c tly a ddre ss those proc e e dings whe n so re q

ue s te d.” Unite d State

s v . Ensign , 491 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th C ir. 2007). W he n the distric t c ourt follows our c a se s, it c annot a buse its disc re tion. 2. Sa nc tiona

ble C onduc t in Othe r Proc e e dings

7 Kla y m an did submit his M arc h 2016 brie f to the distric t c o urt, a nd som e of the s e fa c t s m ay

be gle ane d from

his brie f. B ut to da

te , we have not se e n a

ny re c o m m e ndation or brie fing pa

pe rs file d by the He aring C om m i tte e following the thre e da y s of he arings in Ja

nua ry 2016. Subm i tting thepa pe rs from one side in a c onte ste d m a tte r is not full disc losure
. 2 4Kla

y m an fa ile d to m e ntion, but the distric t c ourt found quite re le va n t,

“ num e rous othe r c ourts’ findings tha t he is unfit to pra c tic e ” ba se d on his

“ ina ppropria t e and une thic a l b e havior.” The distric t c ourt supplie d us with a 2007 orde r of the Supre m e C ourt of Ne w York, whic h de nie d Kla y m an’ s pe tition to proc e e d p ro hacv ic e be c a use “ Kla y m an’ s re c ord de m onstra

te s m ore tha

n an
oc c a siona l la

pse of judgm e nt, it e vinc e s a tota l disre ga

rd for the judic ia l proc e ss.” Orde r De ny ing Pro Ha c Vic e Applic a tion a t 4, Ste rn v . Burk

le , 867 N.Y.S.2d 20 (Sup. C t. 2008). The Ne w York c ourt c olle c te d e xam ple s from othe r c ourts, a

nd the d istric t c o urt re fe rre d to the se insta nc e s of Kla

y m an’ s sa nc tione d, sa

nc tiona ble , or que stiona

ble be hav i or:

• The Fe de ra l C irc uit a ffirm e d the distric t c ourt’ s re voc a tion of Kla y m an’ s a bility to a ppe ar be fore the distric t

c ourt p ro hacv ic e in pe rpe tuity and its sa nc tioning of Kla

y m an for a c c using thetria l judge of a nti-Asia n bia s a nd “ unre a sona

b l y an d ve xa t iously

m ultiply ing the proc e e dings.” Baldw in Hardw areC

o r p. v . Frank

Su Ente r. C

o r p. , 78 F.3d 550, 555 (Fe d. C ir. 1996).

• The Se c o n d C irc uit a ffirm e d the distric t c ourt’ s re voc a tion of Kla y m an’ s a bility to a ppe ar be fore the distric t

c ourt p ro hacv ic e in pe rpe tuity and its sa nc tioning of Kla

y m an for “ undignifie d

and disc ourte ous c onduc t tha t wa s de gra ding to the

[distric t c ourt] and pre

judic ia l to the a dm inistra

tion of justic e ” by , am ong othe r things, m a king a c c usations of ra c ia l an d politic a l bia s a nd a c ting “ a

busive [ly ] and obnoxious[ly ] .” M ac Draw , Inc
. v . C IT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc
. , 994 F. Supp. 447, 455 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d , 138 F.3d 33 (2d C ir. 1998).

• Kla y m an wa s sa nc t ione d for filing a

n untim e ly c o m p la int a nd opposing the gove rnm e nt’ s m o tion with “ frivolous filings” tha t “ wa ste d tim e and 2 5re sourc e s of de fe nda nts a s we ll a s of the c ourt.” W i re Rope Importe rs’ Ass’n v . Unite d State

s , 18 C .I.T. 478, 485 (C t. Int’ l Tra d e 1994).

• Kla y m an e x hibite d “ ofte n

highly ina ppropria te be havior” and his pe rform anc e “ wa s e pisodic a lly blighte d by

rude and unprofe ssiona l be havior whic h wa s dire c te d towa

rd the pre s iding judge

and opposing c ounse l.” Mate rial Supply

Int’l, Inc . v . Sunmatc h Indus., C o. , No. C iv. A. 94-1184, 1997 W L 243223 a

t *8, *10 n.7 (D.D.C . M a y 7, 1997), aff’d in part and re v e rse d in part , 146 F.3d 983 (D.C . C i r. 1998).

• Kla y m an “ a ppa re n tly m isre a d (or ne ve r re a d ) the loc a l rule s” and the distric t c ourt thre a te ne d

sa nc tions for a

ny future fa ilure s to c om

ply with loc a l rule s. Ale x ande r v . FBI

, 186 F.R .D. 197, 199 (D.D.C . 1999). The distric t c ourt “ gr[e w] we ary

of [Kla y m an’ s] use
— and a

buse

— of the disc o ve ry

proc e ss” and “ ha [d] a lre a dy

sa n c tione d [Kla

y m an] for m a king m isre pre se n tations to the c ourt, a llowing the

c o urt to re ly

upon thosere pre se ntations in a fa vora ble ruling, a nd the n la te r c o n trave ning thoseve ry (m is)re p re se ntat ions.” Ale x ande r v . FBI

, 186 F.R .D. 188, 190 (D.D.C . 1999).

• Kla y m an re sponde d to the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs with a “ forke d tongue ” and m a de argum e nts with “m a lic ious gle e .” J udic i al W atc h of Fla., Inc . v . U.S. De p’t of J ustic e , 159 F. Supp. 2d 763, 764 (D.D.C . 2001).

• Kla y m an m a de argum e nts re ga

rding the c onduc t of the distric t c ourt tha t we re “ biz arre ” and “ be y ond the far-fe tc he d.” De ly v . Far E. Shipping C o. , 238 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1241 (W .D. W a sh. 2003). Of the se e ight insta

n c e s of re voc a tions or de nia l of pro hac v i c e sta tus,
sa nc tions for ignoring loc a l a nd fe de ra l rule s, a

nd c om pla ints of m isre p re se ntations
and om issions, Kla

y m an m e ntione d only

two to thedistric t c ourt. And in doing so, the d istric t c o urt note d, Kla y m an still fa ile d to a c c e pt a ny re sponsibility

for his
a c tions. Inste a d , he c la im e d tha t the judge s we re be ing “ v i ndic tive ” in the ir orde rs
2 6fore ve r barring him from a ppe aring pro hac

v ic e in the ir c ourtroom s. He fa ile d, howe v e r, to m e ntion tha

t the se two “ vindic t ive ” distric t c ourt judge s’ orde rs we re
a ffirm e d by

the ir re spe c t ive fe de ra l a ppe l late c ourts, both of whic h c om m e n te d on Kla y m an’ s ina

ppropria te be havior. Se e Mac

Draw , 138 F.3d a

t 37–38; Baldw in Hardw are , 78 F.3d a

t 555. The distric t c ourt we nt on to highlight spe c ific a lly a m ore re c e n t c a se , whic h Kla y m an fa ile d to m e ntion, in whic h the distric t c ourt’ s sum m a ry judgm e nt orde r note d how Kla

y m a n “ ha s routine ly

shown a disre ga rd for [the distric t

c o urt’ s] Loc a l R ule s.” K lay man v . C

ity Page s , No. 5:13-c v-143-Oc -22PR L, 2015 W L 1546173, a

t *8 n.7 (M .D. Fla . Apr. 3, 2015), aff’d , 650 F. App’ x 744 (11th C ir. 2016). The Florida

distric t c o urt ha d “ be c om e quite frustrate d with [Kla y m an’ s]
va rious ta c tic s to a

void C ourt rule s throughout the c ourse of this litiga

tion. Unfortuna

te ly , the C ourt le arne d e arly on in this c a se tha

t this a pproa c h to litiga tion is the norm an d not the e xc e ption for [Kla y m an] .” Id. M ore ove r, a

quic k W e stla

w se arc h ha s found thre e additional c a s e s, bringing the

grand tota l t o twe lve , in whic h Kla y m an’ s a bility to pra c tic e la

w in a n
e thic a l a nd orde rly

m anne r wa s c a lle d into que stion:

• Kla y m an ’ s “ fa il[ure ] to c om

ply with e ve n the m ost ba sic of disc o ve ry re quire m e nts” wa s “ not sim ply an une xpla ine d

hic c up in a

n othe rwise dilige ntly prose c ute d c a se ” and thus wa rra nte d sa nc tions. K

lay man v . 2 7Barmac k , No. 08-1005 (JDB ), 2009 W L 4722803, a t *1 (D.D.C . De c . 4, 2009).

• Afte r “ the pa t e nt fa ilure of the C ourt’ s use of le sse r sa n c tions in the pa st to have any disc e rnible e ffe c t on Kla y m an’ c o n duc t ,” Kla

y m a n ’ s “ c onsiste nt pa tte rn of e nga ging in dila tory ta c tic s, his disobe die nc e of C ourt-orde re d de a dline s, a

nd his disre ga

rd for the Fe de ra l R

u le s of C ivil Proc e dure and the Loc a l R u l e s of this C o urt” ne c e ssita t e d furthe r, m ore se ve re , sa nc tions. K lay man v . J

udic ial W a tc h, Inc

. , 802 F. Supp. 2d 137, 138–39 (D.D.C
. 2011).

• Kla y m an re pe a te dly

did not “ a tte m

pt to c om p ly ” with loc a l rule s, a

n d the distric t c ourt thre a te ne d sa nc tions for a

n y furthe r viola

tions. Montgome ry

v . Rise n , No. 15-c v-02035-AJB -JLB , 2015 W L 12672703, a t *1 (S.D. C a l. Oc t. 2, 2015). Kla y m an ha s a re puta tion a s a vigorous litiga

tor, but this is not a

fla tte ring
re c o rd, a nd not one that the distric t c ourt should ignore . Whe n a distric t c ourt
a dm its a n attorne y pro hac

v ic e , the a ttorne y

is e xpe c te d to follow loc a l rule s. Se e In re U nite d State

s , 791 F.3d a

t 957 n.8 (“ A distric t c o urt would c le arly a c t within its disc re t ion in de ny ing pro hac v i c e a dm ission if, for e xam ple , a n attorne y ’ s
a c tions le d the c ourt to c o nc lude the a ttorne y would not ‘ a

bide by the c ourt’ s rule s
and pra c t ic e s’ . . . .” (quoting Rie s , 100 F.3d a

t 1471)). Kla

y m an ha s shown a

n unwillingne ss or ina

bility to do tha

t. The dile m

m a for a distric t c ourt pre se nte d with suc h a

re c ord is tha

t , onc e an out-of-sta

t e a ttorne y

is a d m itte d, the distric t
c ourt ha s lim i te d tools in its a rse na l for m a inta ining orde r in the c ourtroom . R e pe a te d a

n d willful viola

tions of c ourt rule s m

ust be de a lt with by the distric t 2 8c ourt a lone . The distric t c ourt c an re fe r the a ttorne y to a ba r, but ha s no m e ans to follow up its re fe rra l. Inste a d, the distric t c ourt is lim i te d to its own powe

rs. Those powe rs a

re not insubsta

n tia l, se e , e .g. , 18 U.S.C . § 401; 28 U.S.C . § 1927; C hambe rs v . N

ASC O, Inc
. , 501 U.S. 32, 43–46 (1991) (disc ussing theinhe re nt powe rs of the c ourts), but the e xe rc ise of those powe rs c an be disruptiveto tria l proc e e dings a

nd, in a n e x tre m e c a se , m ay

c a l l into que stion thefa irne s s of the tria l itse lf. W e fully

a c knowle dge that “ a ttorne y [s] m ay with im punity ta ke full
a dva nta ge of the range of c onduc t tha t our a dve rsa

ry sy s te m a llows”

—

the y have “ a right to bepe rsiste nt, voc ife rous, c o nte ntious, a nd im posing, e v e n

to the point of
a ppe aring obnoxious whe

n a c ting in the ir c lie nt’ s be ha lf.” In re De llinge r , 461 F.2d 389, 400 (7th C ir. 1972). Howe ve r, the distric t c ourts m ust c are fully

ba la nc e that vigorous a dvoc a c y

a ga inst the ne e d for orde r an d de c orum in the proc e e dings. Se e In re Mc C onne ll , 370 U.S. 230, 236 (1962). W h e re ve r that line lie s, Kla

y m an ha s c rosse d it m ore tha

n onc e , a nd the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion— and c e rta inly did not c om e c lose to c om m i tting c l e ar e rror— in ta

king
a c c ount of Kla

y m an’ s pa st be havior a

nd de ny ing him pro hac

v ic e sta t us. 3. Atte m

pts to Intim

i da te the Distric t C ourt

2 9Fina lly , the distric t c ourt e xpre sse d c onc e rn tha t Kla y m an ha s shown disre ga rd for distric t judge s in the pa st by c onfronting the m

pe rsona lly
. The distric t c o urt pointe d to the Se c ond C irc uit’ s finding tha t Kla y m a n ha d c ha lle nge d U.S. Distric t Judge De n ny C hin’ s im

pa rtia lity be c a use he wa s Asia

n -Am e ric an 8
and ha d be e n a

p pointe d by

Pre side nt C l inton. Thec ourt found thec ha l le nge to the judge ’ s ra c ia l a

nd e t hnic he rita ge “ e xtre m e ly

se rious.” Mac

Draw , 138 F.3d a

t 37.

“Nor should one c ha

rge that a judge is not im

pa rtia l,” the c ourt e m

pha siz e d,

“ sole ly be c a u se an attorne y is e m

broile d in a

c ontrove rsy with the a dm inistra tion that a ppointe d the judge
. ” Id. a t 38. The Se c ond C i rc uit found tha t the se c ha

rge s
we re “ d isc o urte ous” a

nd “ d e gra ding” to the c ourt, “pre judic ia l to the
a dm inistra

tion of justic e ,” an d “ insulting a nd sm a c ke d

of intim idation.” Id. a t 37–38. The c ourt “ [did] not he sita te to hold tha

t the sugge stions re ga

rding Judge C hin’ s im pa rtia lity viola te d the C ode of Profe ssiona l R e s ponsibility
. ” Id. a t 38. The se le ssons ha

ve not be e n le arne d. Afte r the distric t c ourt de nie d Kla y m an’ s pro hac

v i c e pe tition, but be fore B undy a ske d this c ourt for m anda

m us
re lie f, B undy

file d a Biv e n s suit a ga inst C hie f Judge Gloria Nava rro, Pre side nt

8 The Se c ond C irc uit note d tha t in proc e e dings in the

C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , “ [d] isturbingly , Kla y m an . . . a c c use d the distric t judge of be ing antiAsia n.” Mac Draw , 138 F.3d a

t 38 n.3 (c iting Baldw in Hardw are , 78 F.3d a t 555, 562). 3 0B ara c k Oba

m a , U.S. Se na t o r Harry

R e i d, a nd othe rs, in the ir pe rsona l c a pa c itie s,
a lle ging a c onspira c y

to viola te his c ivil rights. Se e Bundy v . Obama , No. 2:16-c v1047-JC M -GW F (D. Ne v. dism isse d with pre judic e Oc t. 12, 2016). 9 He dism isse d the s uit on Oc tobe r 12, 2016, only a fte r we a ske d for brie fing in this m anda m us pe tition. Re a sona

bly , the distric t c ourt found the se two c a se s “ sim i la r[] .” As in the c a se involving Judge C hin, Kla y m an ’ s pa

rtic ipation in the

suit a ga inst C hie f Judge Nava

rro pe rsona lly “ sm a c k[s] of intim idation” and re ta l iation. C
. The Disse nt’s Re asons for Granting the W rit of Mandamus The disse nt offe rs two re a sons for why B undy ’ s re q ue st for Kla

y m an to be
a dm itte d pro hac

v ic e outwe i gh the distric t c ourt’ s c onc e rns: (1) “ the c om ple xity of the proc e e ding a ga inst [B undy ] and his c ontrove rsia l politic a l vie ws ra ise
c onc e rns a

bout his a bility to re ta in c om

pe te nt c ounse l,” Disse n ting Op. a t 10, a nd (2) “ de ny ing Kla

y m an a dm ission ra ise s troubling c onc e rns a bout the fa irne ss of B undy ’ s c om ing tria l,” i d. a t 13. W e do not think tha t e ithe r of the se re a sons withsta nds sc rutiny
.

9 The suit wa s file d by a ttorne y Ha n se n. It doe s not list Kla

y m an a s c ounse l. In re s ponse to que stions a t ora l a rgum e nt a bout the suit, Kla

y m an displa

y e d knowle dge of the c o nte nt of the la wsuit a nd at first a dm itte d

to be ing a

pla intiff be fore c la rify ing tha

t he wa s n’ t . It is a

ppa re nt tha t Kla y m an pla y e d som e role in the p re pa ra tion a nd filing of tha

t suit. 3 1First, the re is nothing in the re c ord a bout B undy ’ s e fforts to se c ure
c om pe te nt c ounse l. The disse nt de c la re s tha t “ o nly a fra c tion of theba

r
na tionwide

— le t alone

in N e v a da

— ha s the e xpe rie n c e and re sourc e s ne c e ssa ry to give B undy

a vigorous de fe nse . ” Id. a t 10 (e m pha sis a dde d). Additionally , the disse nt c l a i m s tha

t “ [o] ut of tha

t fra c t ion of qua lifie d pra c titione rs, the re is like ly
an e v e n sm a lle r proportion tha

t would a c tua lly

a c c e pt B undy ’ s re pre se ntat ion. B undy ’ s a

nti-gove rnm e nt vie ws a

nd high-profilesta

tus a m ong those who oppose fe de ra l he ge m o n y

m a ke the prospe c t

of re pre s e nting him

da unting for m any
se a s one d de fe nse a ttorne y s.” Id. a t 10–11. 1 0 Nothing in the re c ord re m ote l y supports the se sta

te m e nts. For e x a m

ple , we do not ha ve an a ffida

vit from an y one
— B undy , Kla y m an, Ha nse n, or a ny one
e lse

— te lling us of unsuc c e ssful e fforts to find c ounse l. The disse nt c an only sta te

1 0 The disse nt a lso foc use s on the fa c t tha t the tria l is sc h e d

ule d for Fe brua

ry , “ a little ove r thre e m onths from now.” Disse nting Op. a

t 6–7. Tha

t is not the distric t c o urt’ s fa

u lt. Kla y m an file d

his pro hac

v ic e a pplic a tion in M arc h; the distric t c o urt de nie d it without pre judic e nine da

y s la te r. He file d a re ne we d a pplic a tion in April; the

distric t c ourt de n ie d it without pre judic e twe l ve da

y s la t e r. B undy the n wa ite d thre e m onths be fore filing his pe tition for a writ of m anda

m us. Our C le rk’ s Offic e , a fte r disc ussions with B undy ’ s c ounse l , he ld the pe tition until Se pte m be r and pre se nte d it to us in Oc tobe r. The six-m onth de l ay in se e king e xtra ordina

ry re lie f from

the distric t c ourt’ s M arc h and April Orde rs m

ust be la id a t the fe e t of B undy

and this c o urt, not thedistric t c ourt. If B undy t

hinks he c annot be pre pa

re d for his Fe brua

ry 2017 tria l, he m ay a sk the c ourt to de la

y the tria l. Se e 18 U.S.C
. § 3161(h)(8)(B )(iv).

3 2that

sinc e the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l in M arc h 2016, “ B undy se e ms to ha ve fa ile d at finding suita

ble re pla c e m e nt tria l c ounse l .” Id. a t 11 (e m p ha sis a dde d). Tha

t is not
e vide nc e . And if e v e n the re we re some e v ide nc e to sugge st this, the distric t c ourt
c ould not ha

ve antic ipate d the proble m . The re is no c le ar e rror in the distric t
c ourt’ s orde rs. Se c ond, the disse nt ha s que stione d the fa irne ss of the tria l be fore it e ve n be gins: but for Kla

y m an’ s “ c a pa ble re pre se ntation, the re will be se rious doubts
a bout the fa irne ss of the proc e e ding.” Id. a t 13. Aga in, with a ll due re spe c t, the re is nothing in the

re c ord but the disse n t’ s spe c u lation a bout “ this risk of funda m e nta l unfa irne ss” in a forthc om ing tria l
. Id. a t 13–14. The re is no a b use of disc re tion or c le ar e rror in the distric t c ourt’ s orde r. The disse nt a c knowle dge s tha t Kla y m an m ight ha

v e “ b e e n se le c t ive in his disc losure s” to the distric t c ourt a nd the re m ight ha

ve be e n a “ re l e va nt om ission”
re sulting in Kla

y m an “ c om [ing] ne ar the line .” Id. a t 14, 15. For the re a sons we have de sc ribe d in som e de ta il, supra a t 20–31, Kla

y m an e nga ge d

in se le c t ive disc losure s, m a de re l e va

nt om issions, a

nd c rosse d

the line , but if e ve n the disse nt thinks Kla

y m an c a m e “ ne ar the line , ” tha

t is not c le ar e rror justify ing a writ of
m anda m us.

3 3Fina lly , the disse nt dism isse s the rulings by Judge s Ke lle r and C hin be c a use the y we re “ issue d 22 a

nd 18 y e ars a go” an d m a

y be “ poor pre dic tors of Kla y m an’ s like ly be hav ior toda

y .” Disse nting Op. a

t 16–17. If Kla

y m an ha d a c te d
re sponsibly

in the tim e sinc e the n, we m ight be inc line d to a gre e with the disse nt that c onduc t twe nty -y e a

rs in the pa st is outda

te d. B ut, a s the distric t c ourt prope rly
a dvise d us in he r filing, Kla y m an ha s not c ha

nge d. Judge s ha

v e sa nc tione d,
c ha stise d, a

nd re buke d Kla

y m an re pe a te d ly

ove r the pa st twe nty

y e ars: in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2009, 2011, a nd tw ic e in 2015. As the M iddle Distric t of Florida obse rve d la s t y e ar: “ [T] his a pproa c h to litiga

tion is the norm an d not the
e xc e ption for [Kla

y m an ] .” C

ity Page s , 2015 W L 1546173, a

t *8 n.7. The Ele v e n th C irc uit a ffirm e d tha t j udgm e nt in 2016. 650 F. App’ x 744. V. C ONC LUSION Kla y m an ha s m a de m isre pre se ntat ions a nd om issions to the

distric t c ourt
re ga rding the e thic s proc e e dings be fore the Distric t of C o lum bia B ar; he ha s shown
a patte rn of disre ga

rd for loc a l rule s, e t

hic s, a nd de c orum ; a

nd he ha s de m onstra

te d
a la c k of re spe c t for the judic ia l proc e ss by suing thedistric t judge pe rsona lly . B y
any sta nda rd, the distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d his pe t ition to be a dm itte d pro hac
v ic e . B undy

is e ntitle d to a

fa ir tria l, de fe nde d by

c om p e t e nt, vigorous c ounse l of his c hoosing. B u t his right to suc h c ounse l doe s not e xte nd to c ounse l from outside 3 4the d istric t who ha s m a de it a patte rn or pra c tic e of im

pe ding the e thic a l a

nd orde rly a d m inistra tion of justic e . The writ of m a

nda m us is DE NIE D.

3 5In re C

liv e n D. Bundy , No. 16-72275 G O UL D , C irc uit Judge , disse nting: W e c onfront in this c a se an unusua l c o nflue n c e of c irc um sta nc e s. A highly
c ontrove rsia l c rim ina l de fe nda nt is a fe w m onths a

way from an e norm ous tria l
e ffort in whic h he and e ighte e n othe r individua ls a re de fe nda

n ts. The de fe nda

nt’ s
c hose n a ttorne y ha s be e n de nie d a dm ission pro ha c vic e to the distric t c o urt, ra ising in m y m ind se rious c onc e rns a

bout the de fe nda

nt’ s a bility to m ount a

vigorous de fe nse and re c e ive a

fa ir tria l. De s pite the m a jority ’ s e xpre sse d a

ppre he nsions
a bout the c hose n attorne y ’ s willingne ss to follow the rule s of profe ssiona l c onduc t
and the orde rs of the distric t c ourt, while re c o gniz ing the high sta nda rds for
m anda m us re lie f, I would hold tha t the writ should issue . M y c onc e rns a bout the de fe nda n t’ s a bility to pre se nt a

strong de fe nse an d re c e i ve a funda m e nta lly fa ir tria l
are s im ply too gre a t, le a ding to m

y disse nt. I On M arc h

2, 2016, C live n D. B undy and e ighte e n othe rs we re indic te d on
va rious fe de ra l c ha

rge s for the ir a lle ge d involve m e nt in a “ m a ssive arm e d a s sa

ult” on fe de ra l offic ia ls ne ar B unke rville , Ne va d a ne arly two y e ars prior. The nowunse a l e d Supe rse ding Indic tm e nt a lle g e s tha t on April 12, 2014, B undy le d

“ hundre d s of pe o ple , inc luding gunm e n a rm e d with a ssa

ult rifle s” in a

c oordina te d
a ssa ult a ga i nst the gove rnm e nt offic ia ls. 

# F IL ED
OCT 28 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSThe e ve n t s tha t da y gre w out of a

dispute be twe e n B undy

an d the fe de ra l B ure a u of La nd M ana ge m e nt. Ac c ording to the Supe rse ding Indic tm e n t, for ove r 20 y e ars B undy , a

ranc he r, ha d re fuse d to obta in pe rm its or pa y the re q uire d fe e s for his c a ttle to gra z e on fe d e ra l public la nds. As a re s ult, sinc e 1998 B undy ha d be e n unde r a

fe de ra l c ourt orde r to re m ove his tre spa ssing c attle . He ne ve r
c om plie d with theorde r, and in 2013 fe de ra l offic ia ls re c e i ve d a uthoriz a tion to
se iz e and re m ove B undy ’ s c a ttle from the la nd. The y be g an the proc e ss of se iz ure
and re m ova l on April 5, 2014. W hile the re m ova l proc e ss wa s ongoing, it is a lle ge d tha t B undy and his c ode fe nda n ts use d the inte rne t a

nd othe r m e ans of inte rstate c om m unic a tion to re c ruit gunm e n a nd “ Followe rs” to tra

ve l to Ne va da

to he l p B undy

m a k e a show of forc e
a ga inst the fe de ra l gove rnm e nt. The de fe nda nts’ online c om

m unic a tions a l le ge dly inc l ude d re que sts for he l p from m e m be rs of a nti-gove rnm e nt m i litia groups. The
c onte nt of the c om

m unic a tions re fe rre d to the fe de ra l gove rnm e nt a s c orrupt a nd to gove rnm e nt offic ia ls a s thie ve s. B undy wa s portra

y e d a s a vic tim of gove rnm e nt
a buse w hose sove re ign rights ha d be e n viola te d. Othe r state m e nts a lle ge d in the Supe rse d ing Indic t

m e nt show tha

t B undy vie we d him se lf a s involve d in a “ ra nge
war” with fe de ra l offic i a ls. B y the m orning of April 12, 2014, m ore tha n 400 pe ople ha d a lle ge dly 2shown up to he lp B un dy , m any of the m a lle ge dly

arm e d with a s sa

ult rifle s or othe r
we a pons. Approa c hing from two diffe re nt va nta ge points, B undy

an d the s e Followe rs a lle g e dly use d fire a rm s to thre a te n fe de ra l offic e rs into giving up B undy ’ s c a ttle
. The Gove rnm e nt a lso c la im s tha t a fte r ge tting his c a ttle ba c k, B undy orga niz e d his Followe rs into a rm e d se c urity patrols a nd c he c kpoints for the purpose of prote c ting his c a ttle a ga inst future gove rnm e nt se iz ure s. I I A writ of m anda

m us is a n e xtra ordina

ry writ use d “ to c o nfine an infe rior
c ourt to a la wful e xe rc ise of its pre sc ribe d jurisdic tion or to c om pe l it to e x e rc ise its a u thority whe n it is its duty

to do so.” W

ill v . Unite d State

s , 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). W e hav e jurisdic tion to gra nt suc h writs unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1651. For a writ of m an dam

us to issue , the pa

rty se e king the writ m

u st sa tisfy thre e
re quire m e nts. First, the pe t itione r m ust ha ve no othe r m e a

n s of atta ining the de sire d re lie f. In re Unite d State s , 791 F.3d 945, 954 (9th C ir. 2015). Se c ond, the right to issua

nc e of the writ m

ust be “ c le ar and indisputa b le .” Id. (quota

t ions
om i tte d). Third, e ve n if the first two pre re quisite s a re m e t, we m

ust be satisfie d in the e xe rc i se of our disc re tion tha t the writ is a

ppropria te unde r the c irc um s ta

nc e s. Id. a t 955. In a sse ssing whe the r the writ is a ppropria te , we e xam i ne five fa c tors: 3(1) whe the r the pa rty se e king the writ ha s no othe r a de quate m e ans, suc h a s a dire c t
a ppe a l, to a

tta in the re lie f he o r she de sire s; (2) whe the r the pe titione r will be dam a ge d or pre

judic e d in a

wa y not c orre c ta

ble on a ppe a l ; (3) whe the r the distric t
c ourt’ s orde r is c le arly

e rrone ous a s a

m a tte r of la

w; (4) whe the r the distric t c ourt’ s orde r is a n oft-re pe a te d e rror, or m anife sts a pe rsiste nt disre ga

rd of the fe de ra l rule s; a nd (5) whe t

he r the distric t c ourt’ s orde r ra ise s ne w a nd im porta nt proble m s, or issue s of la

w of first im

pre ssion. Bauman v . U.S. Dist. C ourt , 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th C ir. 1977). The se fa c tors should be vie we d a s guide line s, not
re quire m e nts, a

nd should be

we ighe d toge the r, a s a

ppropria te to the fa c t s of the
c a se . De G e orgev . U.S. Dist. C ourt. , 219 F.3d 930, 934 (9th C ir. 2000). Ty pic a lly , the a bse nc e of the third fa c tor, c le ar e rror a s a m atte r of la

w, will de fe at the pe tition. Id. In m y vie w, both thefirst a

nd se c ond Bauman fa c tors we igh solidly in fa vor of gra nting re lie f. W e have pre viously re c o gniz e d tha

t pa rtie s de nie d pro ha c vic e
a dm ission a

re una ble to obta in im

m e diat e re lie f through a

n a ppe a l be c a

use the de nia l of a dm ission is ne ithe r a fina l a ppe a l a ble orde r unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 nor
an inte rloc utory

orde r a ppe a la b le unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1292. Se e In reUnite d State s , 791 F.3d a

t 958. Losing c ounse l of c hoic e through a de nia l of pro ha c vic e
a dm ission a lso produc e s a ha rm tha t is not c o rre c t a

ble on a late r dire c t a

ppe a l. Id. 4a t 959. I vie w the fourth Bauman fa c tor a s we i ghing a ga inst gra nting thewrit. As I disc uss be low, this c a se is unusua l in tha t B undy fa c e s a n im m ine nt, m a s sive and
c om ple x tria l, a s we ll a s diffic ultie s in re ta ining qua lifie d c ounse l. The se
c irc um s ta nc e s m a ke any e rror by

the distric t

c ourt of a ty

pe not like ly to be
re pe a te d ofte n. And I vie w the fifth fa c tor a s we ighing slightly in fa vor of gra nting
re lie f. The c e ntra l issue in this c a se
— whe the r de ny ing Kla

y m an’ s a dm ission signific antly im

p a irs B undy ’ s a

bility to pre se nt a

strong de fe n se
— is va stly im porta nt, but is only

an issue of first im

pre ssion in the

se nse tha t the
c irc um s ta nc e s B undy finds him se lf in a re re lative ly

a ty pic a l. I m o re fully

disc uss the s e c irc um sta

nc e s be low. The outc om e of this c a se turns not on the first, se c ond, fourth, or fifth Bauman fa c tors, but on the third: whe t he r the distric t c ourt c le arly e rre d in de ny ing Kla y m an’ s pro ha c vic e a

pplic a tion. In a s se ssing this fa c tor, I m a inta in a ke e n
aware ne ss of the de fe re nc e we give to the distric t c ourt. W e grant m a n d a m us pe titions only

spa ringly , a s writs of m anda

m us a re an “ e xtra ordina

ry or dra stic
re m e dy
. ” C

alde ron v . U.S. Dist. C

ourt for C e n t. Dist. of C

alifornia , 163 F.3d 530, 534 (9th C i r. 1998) (e n

ba nc ) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d ), abrogate d on othe r grounds by

W oodford v . Garc e au , 538 U.S. 202 (2003). The ta sk of looking for c l e ar e rror is a

m anife sta

tion of this de fe re nc e : “ c le ar e rror” re quire s a m ore 5signific ant m ista ke tha n “ m e re e rror.” In a ddition, a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to
a c c e pt or de ny

a pro ha c vic e a

pplic a tion is itse lf re vie we d only for a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State

s v . W alte rs , 309 F.3d 589, 591 (9th C ir. 2002). W e do not find a n a buse of disc re tion unle ss the distric t c ourt c om m itte d le ga l e rror, or m a d e
a fa c tua l de te rm inat ion tha t wa s illogic a l, im

pla usible , or without support in infe re n c e s tha

t m ay be drawn from

the re c ord. Unite d

State s v . Hink s on , 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). W e fa c e the n a

dose of double de fe re nc e : we re vie w the distric t c ourt orde r unde r the a

buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd; a nd we gran t m anda

m u s re lie f in only
e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s, looking for e vide nc e of c le ar e rror. Se e In reUnite d State s , 791 F.3d a

t 955. The re are a lso pra gm a tic re a sons for de fe rring to a distric t
c ourt de c ision de n y ing pro ha c vic e a dm ission. Afte r a l l, it is the distric t c ourt judge , not a

n a ppe lla te pa n e l, tha t is on the front line s in the c ourtroom , de a ling
c lose ly with la

wy e rs a nd ha v ing to do so in a

wa y tha t e nsure s the orde rly
a dm inistra

tion of justic e . Ye t, e ve n in this highly

de fe re ntia l se tting, the re are lim its on tria l c ourt disc re tion, a

n d the re are tim e s whe n we should a c t. III An ove rriding c o nside ra t ion, in m y vie w, is tha

t a little ove r thre e m onths 6from

now, B undy

is sc h e dule d to go to tria l on sixte e n se rious fe d e ra l c ha rge s, a nd
m ay do so without a

la wy e r of his c hoic e ; e ithe r without repre se ntation a t a ll, or with a diffe re nt la

w y e r, not of B undy ’ s first c h o ic e , who c om e s into thec a se so late tha t the re should bec o nc e rn tha t the qua lity

of re pre s e ntation m ay

be substa ntia lly im pa ire d . The c ha

rge s a ga inst B undy inc lude c onspira c y to c om m it
an offe nse a g a inst the Unite d State s, 18 U.S.C . § 371, c onspira c y to im pe de and injure a fe de ra l offic e r, id. § 372, a ssa ult on a fe de ra l offic e r, id. § 111 (a )(1) a nd (b), thre a te ning a

fe de ra l la w e nforc e m e nt offic e r, id. § 115(a )(1)(B ), use and c arry of a fire a rm in re lation to a

c rim e of viole nc e , id. § 924(c ), obstruc tion of thedue
a dm inistra

tion of justic e , id. § 1503, inte rfe re nc e with inte rstate c om m e rc e by
e xtortion, id. § 1951, a

nd inte rstate trave l in a id of e xtortion, id. § 1952. If
c onvic te d on som e or a ll of the c ha rge s, B undy , who is 70 y e ars old, c ould spe nd the re st of his life

in prison. The tria l prom ise s to be e spe c ia lly long a nd c om ple x. The Supe rse ding Indic tm e nt a lle ge s tha

t B undy le d “ hundre ds of pe ople ” in “ a m a ssive arm e d
a ssa ult.” 1 Along with B undy , the gove rnm e nt se e ks to prose c ute 18 othe r

1 W hile I m e n t ion the subje c t m a tte r of the a lle ga tions a ga inst B undy be c a use the y are re le v ant to his a

bility to re ta in c a

pa ble c o unse l, I e xpre ss no vie w on the m e rits of the unde rly ing c a se . The m e rits of thec rim ina l c h arge s a re not be fore us, a

nd I ha ve not re v ie we d a

ny e vide nc e re lating to the m . 7individua ls involve d in tha t a lle ge d a ssa

ult, a ll in one proc e e ding. This e norm ous tria l e ffort is the produc t of a longe r-tha

n -two-y e ar inve s tiga

tion tha t involve d gove rnm e nt inte rvie ws with m ore tha n 150 witne sse s. The Gove rnm e nt ultim a te ly
e xpe c ts to produc e a

bout 1.4 te ra

by te s of digita l disc ove ry to the de fe n da

nts. The litiga tion is suffic ie ntly

c om plic a te d tha

t the distric t c ourt de signa te d the proc e e ding a

c om p le x c a se unde r the Spe e dy Tria l Ac t. Se e 1 8 U.S.C . § 3161(h)(7)(B )(ii). In a ddition to its siz e and c om p le xity , the tria l e ffort a ga i nst B undy and his
c ohorts is unusua

l in tha t B undy ’ s politic a l vie ws, hostile to the Unite d State s fe de ra l gove rnm e nt, will like ly be c e nte r-sta ge . The a lle ga tions in the indic tm e nt portra y B undy a s be ing strongly

oppose d to the fe d e ra l gove rnm e nt a nd a s
c onside ring him se lf involve d in a “ ra nge wa

r” with fe de ra l offic ia ls. The Gove rnm e nt a lle ge s tha

t B undy and his Followe rs c om

m unic a te d with m e m

be rs of
anti-gove rnm e nt m i litia s, re c ruiting the m to B undy ’ s c a use . B undy

a lso a lle ge dly
m a de sta te m e nts re fe rring to the gove rnm e n t’ s se iz ure a s “ a b use ,” and to gove rnm e nt a ge nts a s “ thie ve s,” am ong othe r sim ila r re fra ins. W

hile B undy ’ s tria l
and a ny pote ntia l c onvic tion will not, a nd m u st not, beba se d on politic s, it is like ly that the e vide nc e a t tria l will put his c ontrove rsia l politic a l vie ws in the c o urtroom with him
. 8The unique c irc um sta nc e s surrounding B undy ’ s prose c ution bring with the m
a like lihood of c onstitutiona l proble m s. Like any

de fe n da nt, B undy ’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt “ right to the

c ounse l of his c hoic e inc lude s the right to ha ve an out-of-sta te la wy e r a d m itte d pro hac

v ic e .” W a lte rs , 309 F.3d a

t 592 (quota

tions
om i tte d). While tha

t right is not a

bsolute , it m ay only

be a bridge d to se rve a

“ c o m pe lling purpose .” Id. (quota tions omi tte d ). W e have not spe c i fie d the fa c tors that a distric t c o urt m

ust c o nside r in de te rm ining wha t sa tisfie s a c om pe lling purpose for pro ha c vic e de n ia l. In re Unite d State s , 791 F.3d a

t 957. Howe ve r,
c a se la w on pro ha c vic e a dm ission indic a te s tha t we should e va luate the distric t
c ourt’ s e x e rc ise of disc re tion in pa rt ba s e d on the pa

rtic u la r ne e ds of the pa

rty
se e k ing re pre se ntation. In re Unite d State

s is instruc tive . The re , we he ld tha t a distric t c ourt’ s ge ne ra l rule prohibiting the pro ha c vic e a dm ission of Justic e De pa rtm e nt a ttorne y s
a m ounte d to c le ar e rror. Id. a t 958. In re a c hing tha t c onc lusion, wee m

pha siz e d the s pe c ia l ne e ds of the pa rty be fore the c ourt—

the Unite d State s. Se e id. (“ [A] distric t c o urt should c onside r the unique position of the gove rnm e nt a s a

litiga nt in de te rm i ning whe the r to e xe rc i s e its disc re tion.” (inte rna l quota tion m arks

9om i tte d)). 2 In U nite d State

s v . Ensign , a c a se in whic h we ultim a te ly

a ffirm e d the distric t c o urt’ s pro ha c vic e de nia l, we like wise ba se d our de c ision in pa rt on the pa rtic u la r ne e ds of the pa

rty

— a c rim ina l de fe n d ant who wa s a l re a d y we ll into trial with diffe re nt c ounse l at the tim e of the pro ha c vic e a pplic a tion. 491 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th C ir. 2007). Tha t we would givec onside ra ble we ight to the

ne e ds of the pa rty m a ke s se nse : whe the r a purpose for de ny i ng pro ha c vic e a dm ission is

“ c o m pe lling” de p e nds both on the im porta n c e of the purpose and the e ffe c t of the de nia l. Looking to B undy ’ s ne e d s a n d c irc um sta

nc e s, both thec om

p le xity of the proc e e ding a ga inst him

and his c ontrove rsia l politic a l vie ws ra ise c o nc e rns a bout his a bility to re ta in c om

pe te nt c ounse l in a

tim e ly fa shion. W ith so m any de fe nda n ts, doc um e nts, a

nd pote ntia l witne s se s in the c a se , only a fra c tion of the ba r na tionwide

— l e t a lone in Ne va da

— ha s the e xpe rie nc e and re sourc e s ne c e ssa ry to give B undy

a vigorous de fe nse . Out of tha t fra c tion of qua l ifie d pra c titione rs, the re is like ly

an e ve n sm a lle r proportion tha t would a c c e p t B undy ’ s
re pre se ntation. B un dy ’ s a nti-gove rnm e nt vie ws a

nd high-profilesta

tus a m ong

2 Though theUnite d State s wa s not a c rim ina l de fe nda

nt in In re Unite d State s , a nd so the Sixth Am e ndm e nt did not a pply , the c a se still supports c onside ring the ne e ds of the pa rty whe n de c iding on pro ha c vic e a dm ission ge ne ra lly
. 1 0those who opposefe de ra l he ge m ony m a ke the prospe c t of re pre se nting him da unting for m an y

se a sone d de fe nse a ttorne y s. It is unsurprising, the n, tha t not only ha s B undy

sought out-of-sta

t e c ounse l, but tha

t he ha s found him se lf re ta ining
an attorne y

with a c ontrove rsia l re puta

tion of his own. It m

ay be the c a se he re tha

t
a c ontrove rsia l a dvoc a te is the be st c ha nc e a t a c om pe t e nt de fe nse for a
c ontrove rsia l de fe nda

nt. This point is m

a de sta rk by the fa c t tha

t sinc e Kla

y m an’ s initia l pro ha c vic e de nia l on M a

rc h 31, 2016, B undy

se e m s to ha

ve fa i le d to find suita

ble re pla c e m e nt tria l c ounse l. This is so de spite B undy ’ s im pe nding tria l da

te and Kla

y m an’ s
se c o nd pro ha c vic e de n ia l . Inste a d, B undy is c urre ntly re pre se nte d be fore the distric t c o urt by his loc a l c ounse l, Ne va da a ttorne y Joe l Ha nse n, who is by Hanse n’ s own a d

m ission una

ble to provide B undy

with a n a de quate de fe nse . Hanse n is pa

rt of a sm a ll Ne va d a

firm la c king the re sourc e s to try this m a ssive
c a se . M ore ove r, Hanse n ha s atte m pte d to withdra

w from B undy ’ s de fe nse on the ground tha

t he suffe rs from

a spine and ne c k injury
. Ac c ording to the Gove rnm e nt’ s re pre se ntat ions a t ora l argum e nt be fore us, Ha nse n’ s m otion ha s be e n gra n te d on the c ondition tha

t Ha nse n find re pla c e m e nt c ounse l. Shortly prior to a rgum e nt, Ne va da

a ttorne y B re t O. W

h ipple file d a notic e of a

ppe ara n c e on B undy ’ s be ha lf, but only

for the lim ite d purpose of filing c e rta in pre tria l m otions.

1 1Gove rnm e nt c ounse l sta te d at a rgum e nt tha

t Whipple wa s c urre ntly

in ne gotia

tions with B undy

ove r his re pre se ntation. Afte r our ora l a rgum e nt on the m anda

m us pe tition, the

Gove rnm e nt a dvise d us tha t W h ipple e nte re d

anothe r a ppe ara nc e on be ha lf of B undy , this tim e “ for the purpose of full re pre se ntation throughout the dura tion of thetria l .” B ut Kla y m an re sponde d tha

t de spite this ne w la

ngua ge from W hipple , B undy

is still c onside ring whe t

he r to hire W hipple and ha s not pa id W hipple any

re ta ine r, and tha

t re ga rdle ss of the a dditiona l a

p pe ara nc e of Whipple , Kla y m an’ s a ssista

nc e is still ne e de d by

B undy on the de fe nse te a m . At this point, I
a m not c onfide nt tha

t B undy pre se ntly ha s re ta ine d c ounse l a de quate to re pre se nt him vigorously

through tria l
. Kla y m an a p pe a rs re a dy and qua lifie d to re pre se nt B undy a t tria l. He is a form e r fe de ra l prose c utor with e xpe rie nc e litiga ting high-profile

c a se s . He ha s worke d, in pa

rt during his tim

e a t Judic ia l W a tc h, in bringing la wsuits ove r signific ant public polic ie s. Se e , e .g. , K lay m an v . Obama , 957 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C . 2013) (c h a lle nge to gove rnm e nt te l e phone m e t a da ta c olle c tion), v ac ate d and re mande d , 800 F.3d 559 (D.C . C ir. 2015). He ha s a lm o st 40 y e a rs of le ga l
e xpe rie nc e and is a m e m

b e r in good sta

nding of both the

Florida and W a shington, D.C . B ars. Though not curre ntly a dm itte d be fore the distric t c ourt, Kla y m an ha s be e n in c onta c t with B undy a b o ut this c a se sinc e around the tim e of B undy ’ s

1 2indic tm e nt. Kla y m an pre sum a

bly fa c e s a m uc h shorte r le arning c urve tha n othe r pote ntia l c o unse l, inc luding, for e xam ple , W hipple
. Give n Kla

y m an ’ s pre se n t fam ilia

rity with this c a se and the diffic ultie s B undy like ly fa c e s in re ta ining othe r c a pa ble c ounse l, de ny ing Kla

y m an a dm ission
ra ise s troubling c onc e rns a bout the fa irne ss of B undy ’ s c om ing tria l. The right to
c ounse l c la

use of the Sixth Am e ndm e nt “ w a s de signe d to a ssure fa irne ss in the
a dve rsary c rim ina l proc e ss.” W

he at v . Unite d State

s , 486 U.S. 153, 158 (1988). In the t y pic a l c hoic e of c ounse l c a se , c onc e rns a bout fa irne ss a

re pre s e nt, but the y

do not pre dom inat e , be c a

use m issing out on the

de fe nda nt’ s pre fe rre d la

wy e r doe s not
m e an m i ssing out on qua

lifie d c ounse l a ltoge t

he r; the norm a l a ssum

ption is tha

t the d e fe nda

nt will bea

b le to re ta in som e othe r qua lifie d attorne y . Se e id. a t 159. B ut be c a u se of B undy ’ s pra c tic a l a nd pre dic ta

b le proble m s finding c a

pa ble
re pre se ntation in the

tim e re m a ining be fore tria l, the de nia l of his c hose n c ounse l risks le a ving him

without fully qua lifie d c ounse l. The powe rful c o nc e rns a bout funda m e nta l fa irne ss tha

t a nim a te d la

ndm ark right-to-c ounse l (not m e re ly c hoic e of-c ounse l) c a s e s like Pow e ll v . Alabama , 287 U.S. 45 (1932), a nd Gide on v . W ainw right , 372 U.S. 335 (1963), c arry pa rtic u la r we ight he re . If Kla

y m an’ s de nia l of a dm ission re sults in B undy going to trial without c a

pa ble re pre se ntation, the re will be doubts a

bout the fa irne ss of the proc e e ding. This risk of funda m e nta l 1 3unfa irne ss supports c o nc luding tha t the distric t c ourt a c te d outsidethe range of its pe rm issible disc re tion. I re c o gniz e tha

t the e t hic a l c onc e rns of the m a

j ority and the distric t c ourt, pa rtic u la rly the ir c onc e rn whe t

he r Kla y m an ha s be e n c andid a

nd forthc om ing in his re pre se ntations se e king pro ha c vic e a dm ission, ha v e som e we ight. Kla

y m an prope rly disc lose d the ongoing disc iplina ry proc e e d ing in his initia

l a pplic a tion for pro ha c vic e a dm ission, sa y ing tha t the proc e e d ing ha d not y e t be e n re solve d. This disc losure wa s a c c ura te . B ut the n, a fte r the distric t c o urt disc ove re d his Pe tition for Ne gotia

te d Disposition, he m ay

have c o m e ne ar the line of la c k of c a ndor in
e xpla ining it a

way . He sta

te d tha t the disposition ne

ve r we nt into e ffe c t be c a

use he

“ late r thought the

be tte r of having signe d

the a ffidavit . . . sinc e he fe e ls strongly that he a c te d e thic a lly

a t a ll tim e s.” Ye t, wha

t ha d ha ppe n e d wa s a

D.C
. B oa rd on Profe ssiona l R e sponsibility He a ring C om m i tte e ha d re

je c te d the disposition a s too le nie nt for the ba

r’ s ta ste s. 3

3 This ba

r c om m itte e re je c tion for unduele nie nc y doe s not indic a te how the m e rits of the proc e e ding will c om e out. The de c ision re je c ting the ne gotia

te d disposition sa

id tha t it did not c onside r c e rta in “ pote ntia l m itiga tion” fa c t ors tha

t would be c onside re d in de t e rm i ning whe the r a ny ultim a te viola

t ion wa s “ justifie d.” The se pote ntia l m itiga

t ion fa c tors inc lude d tha

t Kla y m an m ight not ha

ve a c t ua lly ha d a c onflic t in two of the

thre e re pre se ntations, tha t he re pre se n te d two of the individua ls be c a

use he be l ie ve d tha

t “ the y would ha v e no othe r re c ourse in the ir la wsuits,” and tha

t the re pre se n tations we re a ll pe rform e d pro bono . M o re ove r, a (c ontinue d...) 1 4At ora l a rgum e nt be fore us, Kla

y m a n e xpla ine d his vie w of the diffe re nc e by
sa y ing tha t a fte r the re

je c tion, he a t first c ontinue d to ne gotia te with c o unse l for the D.C . B ar, but the n de c ide d to withdra w from those ne gotia

tions. W hile this shows that Kla y m an wa s not ly i ng in his initia l e xpla na tion, he still se e m s to ha ve be e n, at the l e a s t, se le c t ive in his disc losure s to the distric t c ourt. I a g re e with Kla y m an that he wa s not obliga

t e d to re -litiga

te the D.C . proc e e ding be fore the distric t c ourt
and tha t he did not ha

ve to provide the distric t c ourt with the e ntire re c o rd from D.C . And if his disc losure s we re se le c tive , still heis a n a dvoc a te , a

n a dvoc a te
re pre se nting de fe nda

nt C live n B undy , a

nd a fte r subm itting a

c o m plia nt re sponse to the q ue stions in the pro ha c vic e a pplic a tion, he ha d no gre a te r duty to disc lose any possible ble m ish on his c are e r or re puta tion be y ond re s ponding to the distric t
c ourt’ s furthe r dire c t re que sts. Ye t, for him to te ll the distric t

c o urt tha t it wa s wrong a bout the ne gotia

te d disc ipline be ing in e ffe c t an d to not a lso te ll the c ourt why the disposition la

c ke d e ffe c t— its re

je c tion by the ba

r c om m itte e
— m ay have be e n a re le va

nt om ission.

3 (...c ontinue d) sta te m e nt of a

ba r c om m i tte e in this c onte xt is not, in m y vie w, of c ontrolling we ight be c a

use it is not a fina l de te rm ination of e thic a l viola tions. Inste a d, the c om m itte e ’ s vie ws re m a i n subje c t to othe r inform a tion it c o uld c o nside r, an d the whole m atte r re m a i ns subje c t to re vie w by the fe d e ra l C o urt of Appe a ls for the D.C . C irc uit if a

fina l re s olution by

the ba r a ssoc i a tion wa s re a c he d tha t Kla y m an a ppe a le d. 1 5The othe r c onc e rns ra ise d by the distric t c ourt in its brie fing in this c ourt a nd its two orde rs de ny i ng Kla y m an a dm ission, in m

y vie w, c arry le s s we ight. First, the a lle ga tions unde rly ing the D.C . proc e e d i ng a re unprove n, a

nd we c annot know what the i r re solution will be . The distric t c ourt he l d this unc e rta inty a g a inst Kla y m an, sta t i ng in its two orde

rs de ny ing his a dm ission tha t Kla y m an would ne e d to show tha

t the proc e e ding wa s re solve d in his fa vor be fore the c ourt would a dm it him . This a

pproa c h is c ontra

ry to the our le g a l tra dition’ s instinc t to pre sum e innoc e nc e until finding guilt. Of c o urse , the D.C . proc e e ding involve s attorne y disc ipline and not c rim ina l prose c ution, but funda m e n ta l princ iple s still ha

ve
we ight— a t le a st in te rm s of e va luating the distric t c ourt’ s e xe rc ise of disc re tion. At this time , Kla

y m an is still a

m e m be r of the D.C . B ar, an d ha s not be e n disc ipline d by

its B oa rd on Profe ssiona l R e sponsibility . M ore ove r, Kla y m an ha s subm itte d a

le tte r from

Profe ssor R ona ld R otunda , a n e xpe rt on le ga l e thic s,
e xpre s sing the opinion tha t Kla y m a n ’ s a c tions a

t issue we re e thic a l. This is all the
m ore re a s on not unc ritic a lly to c re dit unprove n ba

r a lle ga tions. The distric t c ourt a

n d the m a jority a lso point to the

two insta nc e s of fe de ra l judge s ba nning Kla y m a n from the ir c o urtroom s. W h ile se rious punishme nts, the se orde rs we re issue d 22 a

nd 18 y e ars a go. Two de c a de s— ha lf of Kla

y m an’ s
c are e r— is e nough tim e for the inc ide nts to be re lative l y poor pre dic tors of 1 6Kla

y m an’ s like ly

be havior toda

y . The distric t c ourt, a s we ll a s the Ne w York sta te
c ourt tha t de n ie d Kla

y m a n pro ha c vic e a dm ission, note d tha t othe r judge s, e ve n
re c e ntly , ha

ve in the ir writte n orde rs e xpre sse d irrita tion or disa

pprova l of Kla y m an’ s a c tions. It m ay

be tha t Kla y m an is not a

n attorne y whom a ll distric t
c ourt judge s would fa

vor m a king a

n a ppe ara nc e in the ir c ourtroom . It se e m s he ha s be e n, a

nd m a y c ontinue to be , a

thorn in the

side . Still, c onc e rns a

bout tria l judge irrita

tion pa le in c om

pa rison to a c rim ina l de fe n da

nt’ s ne e d for robust de fe nse . In providing a

full a nd fa ir de fe nse to e ve ry

c rim ina l de fe nda

nt, the re will by ne c e ssity be oc c a sions whe n the diffic ult na ture of the c a se e v oke s sha rply
c onfronta tiona l la w y e ring. In tough c a s e s with skille d prose c utors, a ggre ssive positions by

de fe n se la

wy e rs a re som e tim e s a

n una voida ble pa rt of strong
a dvoc a c y , a

nd c ontribute to m a king the proc e e ding a n ultim a te ly

fa ir one for the de fe nda n t. I do not dism

iss lightly the distric t c o urt’ s e thic a l c onc e rns re ga rding Kla y m an, e spe c ia l ly t

he issue of c andor. The distric t c ourt ha d good grounds to be worrie d a bout Kla y m an a ppe aring be fore it. B ut the ne e d to providea vigorous de fe nse for B undy

is a supe rordina

te c onc e rn. B undy

fa c e s a ve ry c om ple x tria l on
se rious c rim ina l c h arge s a n d a pote ntia l la c k of qua lifie d re pre se ntation. If
c onvic te d, he m a

y spe nd the re st of his life in prison. W e c annot e va luate e thic a l

1 7c onc e rns without c onside ring this c onte xt. The distric t c ourt did not fully c o nside r this bigge r pic ture , a

nd did not e nsure tha

t B undy ’ s ne e d for a vigorous de fe nse
wa s give n due we i ght. In m y vie w, the se c irc um sta

nc e s should bec o ntrolling in
our a sse ssm e nt of whe t

he r the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to de ny Kla y m an pro ha c vic e a dm ission wa s a

n a buse of disc re tion a

nd c le ar e rror. I a lso do not sugge st tha

t distric t c ourts ge ne ra l ly

m u st blink over e thic a l
c onc e rns. At le a st two othe r c irc uits ha v e he ld tha

t the only thing a distric t c ourt
m ay c onside r in pro ha c vic e a dm ission is whe the r the out-of-sta te a ttorne y

is guilty of c onduc t s o une thic a l a s to justify disba rm e nt. Se e In reEv ans , 524 F.2d 1004, 1007 (5th C ir. 1975); Sc h lumbe rge r Te c hs., Inc . v . W ile y , 113 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th C ir. 1997). Our c irc uit, by c ontra st, pe rm i ts de nia l of pro ha c vic e
a dm ission ba se d on a

broa de r sta

nda rd— o ne tha

t grants distric t c o urts le e way to
c onside r the fa c t s pe rtine nt to the pa rtic u la r c a se . Se e In reUnite d State s , 791 F.3d
a t 956 (“ W e ne e d

not a nnounc e spe c ific fa c tors tha t should inform

a distric t c ourt’ s
e xe rc ise of its disc re tion to de ny pro ha c vic e a dm ission.” ). In holding the vie w that the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion a

n d c le arly e rre d he re , I ne e d not sugge st that our c irc u it’ s la

w should bedisre ga

rde d a nd should c onform

with tha t of the Fifth a nd Ele ve nth C irc u its. I c an a gre e with the princ iple re a ffirm e d in In re Unite d State s tha t in a ppropria t e c a se s, e thic a l c o nc e rns not m e riting disba rm e nt 1 8m ay

be suffic ie nt to justify

pro ha c vic e de nia l. 791 F.3d a t 956. B u t the m a tte r be fore us is not suc h an a ppropria te c a se . C onc e rns a

b out B undy

re c e i ving a prope r de fe nse to e n sure a fa i r c rim ina l tria l in m y vie w should bec onside re d
c ontrolling by our pa

ne l. I a lso e m pha siz e tha

t distric t c ourts ha

ve a va ila ble to the m

m any tools short of de ny ing a d

m ission tha

t a llow the m to ke e p unruly la wy e rs in c he c k. Through the p owe r of sa

nc tions, a nd in e xtre m e c a se s e ve n c o nte m pt proc e e dings, distric t
c ourts c an

e xpe c t to be a

ble to c ontrol a

la wy e r who is c onside re d by the c o urt to be re c a lc i trant, tric ky , or de c e ptive , subje c t to the norm a l le ga l sta nda rds gove rning
sa nc tions. At ora l a

rgum e nt, Kla

y m an a d vise d us tha

t he would follow all orde rs issue d by the distric t c ourt re g arding the orde rly a dm i nistra

tion of justic e , a

nd tha t he would a

bide by any othe r orde rs of the distric t c ourt. I a c c e pt his re pre se ntation
and e xpe c t tha

t if he we re a d

m itte d a nd the n de viate d from

it, the distric t c ourt would be we ll-e q

uippe d through its sa

nc t ion powe r to ta

ke c orre c tive a c tion. 4 I a c knowle dge that we grant m anda m us re lie f spa

ringly , pa rtic ula rly in c a se s
c ha lle nging the de nia l of pro ha c vic e a dm ission. Ye t give n the num be r of se rious

4 The Gove rnm e nt m a de c le ar a t ora l a rgum e nt tha

t it doe s not c ha lle nge Kla

y m an’ s re pre se n tation, doe s not urge tha t Kla y m an not be a dm itte d, and ge ne ra lly

sugge sts tha

t B undy is e ntitle d to a

vigorous de fe nse . 1 9c ha

rge s B undy fa c e s, the c om ple xity of his tria l, his like ly

diffic ulty in finding othe r qua lifie d c o unse l, a nd Kla y m an’ s own qua lific at ions, I c onc lude tha t the distric t c o urt’ s c o n c e rns ove r Kla y m an’ s pra c tic e history

and c andor a

re outwe ighe d by

B undy ’ s ne e d for a de quate re pre se ntation in this im p orta nt a nd
c om ple x c a se . B a se d on the unusua l fa c t s of this c a se and the c onside ra tions tha t I have voic e d, I would hold tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion, re s ulting in
c le ar e rror. If, a s the m a

jority holds, our c irc uit’ s la

w on a buse of disc re tion a

nd
c le ar e rror for m anda

m us re lie f re quire s its c onc lusion to deny the m anda

m us pe tition, then in m

y vie w tha t la w sta nds a s a ba rrie r to justic e and should be
a lte re d. In a

n unusua l c a se suc h a s this, involving a m a ssive fe de ra l prose c ution of
m any pe rsons a nd a lle ga tions tha

t the ir se ntim e nts a

nd a lle ge d

c rim ina l c onduc t
we re sha rply oppose d to our fe de ra l gove rnm e n t, it is pa rtic u la rly im porta nt to
e nsure tha

t ta rge t de fe nda

nts a re a ble to be re pre se nte d a

nd de fe nde d vigorously
. The re is doubtle ss som e m e rit to the bright-linevie ws of the Fifth a nd Ele ve nth C irc uits tha

t a c ounse l of c hoic e should not be e lim inate d through the pro ha c vic e
a dm ission proc e ss a

bse nt a n e thic a l viola

tion tha t c o uld m e rit disba

rm e nt. B ut
e ve n a c c e pting our c irc uit’ s broa de r vie w tha t e thic a l proble m s short of those m ay be pe rtine nt to a

distric t c ourt’ s de c ision on whe the r a la wy e r should be a dm itte d pro ha c vic e , the re are none t he l e ss lim its on a

distric t c o urt’ s e xe rc ise of disc re tion, 2 0and I think the y are tra nsgre sse d he re . To give a m e ta phoric a l e xam

ple , we would not ne e d a

fine ly -tune d

judic ia l
sc a l e to de te rm ine tha

t a distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion if it found tha t a m ouse outwe ighe d a

n e l e pha nt. Tha t would be an a

buse of disc re tion, a

nd c le ar e rror. And he re , e ve n if the purporte d e thic a l fla ws m arsha le d by

the m a jority and the distric t c o urt a

re be y ond “ m ouse ” proportions, they are still re lative ly sm a l l in this spe c ia l c onte xt, whe re the e le pha nt is B undy ’ s ge ne ra l e ntitle m e nt to the c ounse l of his c hoic e and to a

vigorous de fe nse a t tria l. In m y vie w, c onc e rns a

b out whe the r
a t this stage B undy will ha ve a de quate and vigorous re pre se ntation, a

bse nt Kla y m an, outwe igh the e thic a l c onc e rns tha t have be e n e xpre sse d by

the distric t
c ourt a nd the m a jority
. I re spe c tfully

disse nt.

2 1