Opinion ID: 1931729
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CUPL's Report

Text: Mr. Greenwald filed his application for admission on July 12, 1995. After receiving a character report from the National Conference of Bar Examiners, this Committee referred the application to CUPL for its consideration of whether Mr. Greenwald had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, noting his employment in private practice with District of Columbia law firms since 1981. R. 89. After exchanging correspondence with Mr. Greenwald, CUPL responded to this Committee on June 11, 1998. R. 90-93. It summarized its conclusions as follows: [W]e must conclude that, while some portion of [Mr. Greenwald's] practice may fall within one of the narrow exceptions to Rule 49, in the over fourteen and a half years that he has practiced in the District of Columbia before applying for admission to the Bar, he has engaged in legal work which is not specifically permitted by any of the exceptions to the Rule 49 requirement that an attorney practicing within this jurisdiction be admitted to the D.C. Bar. Thus, he has been engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. R. 90. CUPL noted that Mr. Greenwald had relied upon the federal practice exception to the requirement in D.C.App. R. 49 that all persons engaged in the practice of law be enrolled, active members of the District of Columbia Bar. That exception, contained in former D.C.App. R. 49(c)(4), provided: Nothing herein shall prohibit any attorney from practicing before any department, commission, or agency of the United States to the extent that such practice is authorized by any rule or regulation of any such department, commission or agency, provided the person is not otherwise regularly engaged in the practice of law in the District of Columbia or is not in any manner, except as permitted by the license granted by such department, commission, or agency, holding out as authorized or qualified to practice law in the District of Columbia without having become an enrolled active member of the Bar of this court. This rule shall not be construed to repeal, supersede or modify any law, rule or regulation which relates to practice before any department, commission or agency of the United States. [4] CUPL noted that Mr. Greenwald had asserted that rules of the International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce and of the United States International Trade Commission authorized his practice before those agencies. CUPL concluded that it was by no means clear to this Committee that [Mr. Greenwald's] practice before those agencies ... is authorized by such rules or that such rules support his assertion that his practice falls within this exception to Rule 49. R. 92. Although it believed that some portion of his practice may fall within one of the narrow exceptions to Rule 49, R. 90, CUPL ultimately did not decide whether his practice before federal agencies was eligible for the federal practice exception: The Committee need not commit its resources to resolve this question since other aspects of Mr. Greenwald's practice are clearly outside of the scope of Rule 49. Id. CUPL identified two other aspects of Mr. Greenwald's work that were not covered by any exceptions to former Rule 49: certain matters that Mr. Greenwald described as `non-trade work ... involving international economic issues of one sort or another' (which Mr. Greenwald had described as minimal) and his representation of clients before agencies of various foreign countries. R. 92. CUPL interpreted Mr. Greenwald's description of the non-trade work as an acknowledgment that it was not covered by the federal agency exception, a position with which it agreed. Id. It also concluded that his work before foreign tribunals was ineligible for the federal agency exception. Mr. Greenwald had described that work as trade work, arising under foreign laws that were similar in all relevant respects to the international trade laws of the United States. CUPL noted that during the course of such representations, he provided legal advice and performed other functions for clients operating from his office in Washington, D.C. R. 93. It concluded that the federal agency exception did not exempt entire subject matters from Rule 49. [T]he exception applies not to a particular subject matter, but to the forum. Id. Because the federal agency exception was limited to matters pending before agencies of the federal government, it was inapplicable to the giving of legal advice and providing representation in connection with foreign proceedings. Id. CUPL noted that Mr. Greenwald had described his practice in his application for admission as `limited to international trade law issues before agencies of the Federal government ... and the Court of International Trade (in New York) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.' R. 91, quoting R. 53. That statement appears in a portion of the application requiring the applicant to [s]tate the name and address of three references in every locality where you have practiced. R. 52-53. Mr. Greenwald answered the question by providing references from New York and the District of Columbia on separate pages, id., with the language quoted by CUPL appearing on the page with the District of Columbia references. R. 53. CUPL noted that Mr. Greenwald had provided more detailed descriptions of his practice in his correspondence with CUPL, and those descriptions included matters other than representing clients before federal agencies dealing with international trade matters. For example, Mr. Greenwald informed CUPL that he had represented clients before foreign government agencies, including the Commission of the European Communities, the Australian Customs Service and Antidumping Authority and the Korean International Trade Commission. R. 91. It also noted that he had described various counseling he had done for clients on certain international trade issues, which were not the subject of actual proceedings before any federal agency. Id. It also noted that he had informed CUPL that he had performed minimal non-trade work. R. 92. CUPL expressed concern that Mr. Greenwald's omission of those matters from the description of his practice in the application reflected an apparent lack of candor. R. 93. CUPL concluded that Mr. Greenwald's violation of Rule 49 was consciously indifferent and that his response to its inquiries was less than forthcoming. Id.