Opinion ID: 2310847
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The seriousness of the misconduct.

Text: The Hearing Committee, after analyzing the extensive record in this case in painstaking detail, [2] unanimously concluded that Abrams' violations were extremely serious. The Committee found that on three separate occasions, Abrams violated the most basic professional obligation of a lawyerthe pledge to maintain honesty and integrity. The Committee further found that Abrams' conduct was knowing and willful and continued over a period of time. It was not an impulsive, isolated act. . . . [Abrams] . . . knowingly allowed outside pressures and personal ideologies to suppress his ethical obligation to be honest and forthright. The Committee described Abrams' conduct as a corruption of our governmental processes. After praising the Hearing Committee's Report, the Board essentially adopted the Committee's analysis. The Board concluded that a serious violation has been committed in this case and that a serious sanction is warranted. Abrams, according to the Board, was not telling `little white lies' in a social setting, nor was he exchanging quips in good-natured badinage. Rather, his false testimony related to urgent matters of vital public interest in an environment where his remarks were highly significant. The Board was of the opinion that lying to Congress does reflect on an attorney's fitness to practice law. (Emphasis in original). Abrams contended that his Congressional testimony was not practice-related. The Board, citing In re Shorter, 570 A.2d 760, 767-68 (D.C.1990), and In re Kent, 467 A.2d 982 (D.C.1983), rejected the contention that lack of practice-relatedness precluded or substantially mitigated the imposition of sanctions. The Board further indicated that Abrams' testimony was practice-related, in the sense that a lawyer's intentional and repeated lying in testimony before Congressional Committees is ... an adverse reflection on that lawyer's fitness to practice law. We agree with the Board. We also note that although Abrams did not formally appear before the committees in his capacity as an attorney, he was acting, in effect, as a representative of the government and defending its position. This activity, while often performed by non-attorneys, is not so very different, as a practical matter, from what lawyers do. Abrams has acknowledged, at least implicitly, that his violations were serious. He testified that the Senate Intelligence testimony was very bad testimony. (Emphasis added.) He described as a statement I should never have made his representation that we were not in the fund raising business. Abrams has thus effectively conceded that some of his testimony was untrue and that he ought not to have made false representations to Congress. [3]