Opinion ID: 2202658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: L'Envoi

Text: There is a serious abdication by the court in this case in its review function. Though that is cause enough for concern, the court then rejects our Bar's effort to initiate a public interest oriented ethical standard relating to the revolving door between government employment and private practice. This Canon is especially important because it has a particular effect on the integrity of the executive branch in this seat of government. It is to me incomprehensible that an appellate court would decline an edifying standard of ethics which was urged upon the court by its own Bar. The court was assured by the Bar that there is nothing about its proposed interpretation that inhibits lawyer recruitment by the government; and that it would not unreasonably restrict private practitioners. Even this assurance was not enough for the court. One can only speculate whether the court somehow viewed the interest of law firms as being different from the interest of the Bar. I must say it does give one an uneasy feeling to read in the majority opinion that the court should not read our Canon of Ethics broadly enough to . . . require disqualification solely on the basis of unseemly appearances.  (Emphasis added.) I should have thought that if the appearance is unseemly, we would require the law firm to screen the attorney causing this undesirable consequence and substitute another attorney  a step that is moderate enough. As learned counsel for the Bar put it to the en banc court in oral argument while urging adoption of the appearance of impropriety test, what the rule should do is create an assurance of honest administration of the law. That surely is not too much to ask of the court. For those of us in dissent, it is an appeal by our Bar which we would not turn down. There is a certain irony in the whole affair. Ordinarily, the Bar is apt to be criticized for being overly protective of its members in matters of ethics. But here the Bar is urging on the court a reasonable and high-minded ethical standard and the court rejects it  almost as if it were necessary for the court to protect the Bar from itself on a matter grounded in economic considerations for local law firms. There is a bit of wry humor in this decision. There is always another day and another case. Decisions such as this have a way of living a short life. If the Bar does not grow indifferent, another opportunity will arise before long to once again urge its enlightened rule, and the next time perhaps judicial feet will not be in concrete. If so, the Bar may then be successful in coaxing the court to get abreast of the historical public interest tide which is flowing in the field of legal ethics. KERN, Associate Judge, Retired, dissenting: The majority's treatment of two attorneys switching from the employ of the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel's office to the law firm employed by a major legal antagonist of the District concerning the development of the Westbridge property necessarily brings to mind Eugene Field's charming lullaby, Wynken, Blynken and Nod. Specifically, the majority appears to wink at the specific ethical consideration here involved, that a lawyer leaving public employment should not accept employment in connection with any matter in which he had substantial responsibility prior to his leaving [government service], since to accept employment would give the appearance of impropriety even if none exists. The lawyers here represented the District at the time the developer had obtained a favorable judicial ruling on the height of the Westbridge and then subsequently represented the developer when he obtained a favorable ruling from the Board of Zoning Adjustment of the District of Columbia for additional parking spaces for the Westbridge. This obviously created the appearance of impropriety  even if none existed. The majority appears to blink at the straight-forward approach recommended to this court by the Bar's Committee on Legal Ethics in this case as amicus curiae that: Avoiding the appearance of impropriety goes to the very heart of the rule of law in our society: the people must have faith that justice can be obtained through our legal system.       Where transactions pertain to a single objective and involve the same property and the same party, public concerns about the fair administration of law will support a determination that the transactions are part of the same matter. Of course there is substantial public concern about the fair administration of law when lawyers in the matter of the Westbridge development switch during such development from representation of the District to representation of the Westbridge developer. Hence, the Bar Committee properly called upon this court to allay such public concern by enforcing the applicable canon and ethical consideration and this court did not heed the call. Finally, the majority appears to nod, as if dozing, while the Board on remand in this case first applied the wrong test in determining whether the law firm violated the Canons, viz., the Board considered whether the lawyers worked on the same or identical matter rather than whether they worked on substantially related matters, and then the Board, compounding its initial mistake, rendered crucial findings of fact concededly without any support in the evidence, viz., [T]he issues presented by the special exception proceeding [seeking more parking for the Westbridge] are in no way connected to the height litigation [seeking a higher building for Westbridge]. . . Neither the same facts, events, nor transactions were at issue in [these] . . . proceedings. [1] Surely, this court cannot dodge its statutory responsibility to review administrative agency rulings by limply deferring to an agency that applies the incorrect test and then makes findings which all agree are unsupportable. Poetry aside, the legal profession has continuously wondered and worried about the low opinion, measured by polls, in which it is held by the public. The majority by its decision here does nothing to enhance the public's low esteem of the profession. The court tells the citizens of the District of Columbia that the law is: There is no appearance of impropriety, and hence, no violation of ethical rules when lawyers of the Corporation Counsel's Office who opposed the developer's request to enlarge the Westbridge then turn around as members of the firm representing the developer and present his request to increase the parking for the Westbridge. The citizens of the District, under these circumstances, surely will echo Mr. Bumble's pungent characterization of the law: If the law supposes that, the law is a ass  a idiot . . . and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience  by experience. [2] I can only hope that experience and our ethically sensitive Bar will effect the necessary clarification to allay public concern over the fair administration of the law which the decision of this case necessarily raises.