Opinion ID: 2312997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Administrative Law Judges

Text: Washington DC ................ 543-7870 24 Hours ..................... 863-2292 (Emphasis added.) 6. Respondent regularly distributes business cards that read as follows: SIMON BANKS, J.D. (202) 863-2292 Adm. Trial Advocate (202) 543-7870 JOB PROTECTORS  Hearing Examiners, Lobbyists, Mediators Consultant Representation at: EEOC, Human Rights, MSPB, OEA, SBA, DOL, Rent Control Grievance Proceedings, Unemployment Comp., U.S. Congress, Minority Business Lobbyist One Washington Square Bldg., P.O. Box 65486 Washington, D.C. 20035. (Emphasis added.) 7. Respondent's witnesses testified that he distributed a firm resume which reads as follows: This is to acquaint you with Job Protectors and inform you of the services we provide. Job Protectors consist of former Hearing Examiners and EEO officers before whom law firms have represented their respective employer/employee clients in connection with claims of discrimination, harassment, et cetera. Hearing Examiners have also been known as Administrative Law Judges. Each of our former Hearing Examiners, [ advocate-representatives ] possess law degrees and are skilled and experienced in representing aggrieved employees before EEOC, Offices of Civil Rights; MSPB, grievance proceedings and adverse action matters. Please feel free, to recommend to us any past or present employee who feels he/she has been treated unfairly and/or in a disparate manner. Our card is enclosed for your reference. Also, the enclosed circular may be posted at your discretion. We maintain strict confidentiality in connection with all matters. Further, we also represent aggrieved employees at unemployment compensation appeal hearings. (Emphasis added.) 8. Petitioner and Respondent presented evidence that Respondent used letterhead stationery which described Job Protectors as: administrative hearing advocates; hearing examiners; advocates; mediators; arbitrators; lobbyists; and personal consultants who have been consultant representatives at: EEOC; Human Rights; MSPB; OEA; SBA-Rent Control; grievance proceedings; unemployment compensation; United States Congress; and Minority Business Lobbyist. (Emphasis added.) 9. Petitioner presented evidence that respondent distributed to potential clients a copy of a Washington Post newspaper article identifying him as an attorney, and a letter introducing Job Protectors and identifying them as administrative law judges. 10. Petitioner and respondent presented evidence that respondent regularly presented to clients for their perusal and signature a disclosure statement, which reads as follows: DISCLOSURE OF REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY I, ____________, hereby acknowledge that I have been advised that Job Protectors/Administrative Hearing Advocates is not a law firm and is not licensed to practice law. I further acknowledge that I have been advised that Simon Banks, Juris Doctor, is not licensed to practice law, and that Simon Banks is a former chief Hearing Examiner authorized to hear, preside over and decide employment discrimination cases, grievance hearings, and rent control cases. I have been further advised that from 1975, Simon Banks, J.D., has been authorized to convene and conduct trial-type hearings over [EEO] employment cases as chief hearing examiner, before whom attorneys and major law firms have represented litigants, tried, and argued cases on behalf of their respective clients in matters involving discrimination in employment, on account of age, race, sex, sexual harrassment, handicapped status, seniority, housing, public accommodations, retaliation, promotion, evaluation, housing, and metriculation. I further acknowledge that I have been advised that Simon Banks, J.D. was also appointed Chief (Hearing Examiner) of Eviction Adjudication, in 1978 to hear and decide issues and cases in connection with D.C. Rent Control Law. I have been advised that Simon Banks, J.D. became a member of the National District Attorneys Association in 1973 and that in 1975 Simon Banks was appointed a Founding Member of the World Association of Lawyers. That Simon Banks received honors from the National Association of Black Manufacturers, Blacks in Government and the World Conference of Mayors, and the District of Columbia Government, et cetera, for his services. I am further advised, that Job Protectors/Administrative Hearing Advocates, is authorized to represent me before The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, The Office of Human Rights, the D.C. Office of Employee Appeals, and the Merit System Protection Board, and in any of the various state EEOC Office and Commissions, as a consultant representative. DATE _________ _____________ (Emphasis added.) 11. Petitioner presented evidence that respondent has represented persons other than himself before federal and District of Columbia administrative agencies, including: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); the United States Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); and the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights. 12. Three witnesses for respondent who are members of the lay public untutored in the law and whom respondent represented before federal or District of Columbia administrative agencies, testified that they received, read and signed the disclosure statement, supra, paragraph 10. They also testified that as a result of the disclosure statement, they knew that in employing respondent they were not thereby employing a licensed member of the District of Columbia Bar. 13. Several witnesses for petitioner who are members of the lay public untutored in the law and whom respondent represented before federal or District of Columbia administrative agencies, testified that their initial contacts with respondent regarding their employment problems were prompted by his advertisments in the Washington Post or on the radio. Each initially met with respondent assuming, from the nature of the services offered and the references to his qualifications in the advertisements, that he was a lawyer licensed to practice. Not only did he fail to dispel their misimpressions that he was qualified to practice law, but he encouraged the misimpressions by means of the firm resume, business cards, and verbal and written descriptions of his qualifications as demonstrated by his employment history and past and present organizational memberships. These witnesses acknowledged their ignorance of exactly what qualifies one to be an attorney entitled to practice law in the District of Columbia. Additionally, all but one admitted that the Disclosure of Representative Capacity forms presented by respondent bore their signatures, but either did not remember ever seeing or signing the statement, were confused by its content which did not convey to them that respondent was not qualified to practice law in the District of Columbia, or were not given the statements until after respondent had filed their respective complaints. 14. Dorothy Evans and Barbara Beverly, former receptionists for respondent, testified that he instructed them not to volunteer that he was not an attorney licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia, and if directly asked whether respondent was a lawyer or if Job Protectors was a law firm, to state that all members of the firm had law degrees and were former administrative hearing judges and that Job Protectors was a consulting firm. Beverly testified that when she was directly asked whether respondent was admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia, she would tell the truth. 15. Petitioner presented evidence that respondent represented to prospective clients: that he could handle cases in a court of law all the way to the Supreme Court; that he had never lost a case; that Job Protectors was his firm with a number of coworkers; that he had represented such people as John Erlichman and Jim Brown; that he had worked on the Watergate team; and that he was a former hearing examiner, also known as an administrative law judge, an administrative trial advocate, an in-house counsel, a founding member of the World Council (or Association) of Lawyers, and a member of the National District Attorneys Association. 16. On at least two occasions in May of 1987, in connection with his representation of Paul Slappy, respondent failed to state that he was not an attorney when it was obvious that others were under the impression that he was an attorney, and in one instance, by failing to do so, fostered the false impression that he was licensed to practice law in another jurisdiction. 17. A witness for respondent testified that the titles administrative law judge and hearing examiner are used synonymously and interchangeably at the Rental Accommodations Office in reference to hearing examiners.