Court Opinion

ID: 9736105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:44:03.269566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:04.403769
License: Public Domain

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 pri- or 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 West-bridge 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 *77determining 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.

. But, counsel for petitioner conceded to this court during oral argument of this case:
[I]s there a relationship between an increase in height of a building and more parking!?] ... the answer is obviously yes ... I don’t think there is any doubt about that.

. Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, ch. 51.