*1 C, Murphy, R. Washington, D. James respondent. for In the Matter of Claude C. a Mem- WILD, Jr., ber of the Bar of the District of Co- KELLY, MACK, Before KERN and Court lumbia Appeals. Judges. Associate No. M-9-74. Appeals. District of Columbia Court of KELLY, Judge: Associate Submitted March 1976. Wild, Jr., former Claude C. July 13, Decided 1976. Relations Vice-President for Government Corporation, pled guilty be- Oil Hart, Judge George Jr., of
fore L. Dis- States Court United District Columbia, trict of a of 18 U. 610,1 misdemeanor, a fined and was S.C. § $1,000. Upon receipt certificate respondent’s conviction, this referred Disciplinary pursu- the matter to its XI, 15(5). Disciplinary ant to Rule Section disciplinary proceedings Formal were thereafter matter was instituted Hearing heard Committee As its re- Board. stated in Committee port to the Board: C. dispute that Claude There is no Wild, make contributions did Jr., behalf campaign effort on reelection Committee President Nixon —to President; did so he Reelect offi by two Cabinet solicited after Mitchell (Attorney cers General John Maurice Secretary of Commerce did agents, and that and their Stans) happen what would out of fear of so action. not such he did take [Footnote omitted.]2 mitigating all taking account into After circumstances, found the Committee had, charged violated respondent Wild (4) 1-102(A)(3), Rule Disciplinary suspend- he be and recommended C., (5),3 Grabowsky, Fred Washington, D. law petitioner. ed from involving illegal (3) Engage conduct Illegal campaign 1. contributions. adversely turpitude reflects moral Report Hearing Committee, p. practice law. on his fitness involving Engage (4) dishon- conduct (4) 1-102(A) (3), Rule misrepresentation. esty, fraud, deceit, or provide: (5) preju- Engage in conduct Misconduct. justice. to the administration (A) dicial lawyer not: A shall
183
political gift
review-
lie disclosure of
years.
two
7
corporation.”
of the
finding
ed
and recommendations
the
and,
briefing and
after
Hearing Committee
that no dis-
Respondent does not contend
counsel, adopted
findings
argument
its
of
applied in this
ciplinary action should be
a recom-
this court
of
but submitted to
fact
however,
urge,
that with
does
case. He
be sus-
mendation that
Wild
precedent and the
the Kleindienst
as
case
year.
pended
only
comparison
that of
of his misconduct with
dissented, stating that
One Board member
Kleindienst,
suspension of
a token
Richard
this
different than
of
matter was no
thirty
sufficient dis-
days
serve as
“would
Kleindienst,
ultimately
Richard
G.
of the
ciplinary
in the maintenance
action
30-day suspension,4
sug-
resulted in a
punish-
distinction between fitness
ap-
gested
sanction would be
similar
ment.”
propriate
dissenting member
here. The
approach
was concerned that a different
discipli-
appropriate
In
the
considering
would make the “Bar and
entire disci-
take,
made the
nary
the Board
action
plinary process suspect.”
statement,
following
with which we
agreement:
full
Disciplinary Board
it unnec-
found
essary
respondent’s
determine
whether
as
Kleindienst Case
not read the
We do
turpitude (DR1-
involved moral
conduct
standard
cases
disposition
setting the
prejudicial
102(A)(3)) or
ad-
affecting the
involving criminal conduct
justice
ministration of
within the
political process. We believe
DR1-102(A)
of
since
found
clear
function re-
proper discharge
respon-
DR1-102(A)(4)
appears
quires
recommend what
that we
secretly transferring
dent’s
aof Ba-
funds
and reason-
to be the
us
Corporation
hamian subsidiary of Gulf Oil
all
circumstances
sanction under
able
to President Nixon’s Reelection Committee
arriving at a
particular
In
case.
and directing Maurice
to list
Stans
spe-
discipline, the
recommendation
“employees
contributions
made
must be
involved
cific misconduct
Corporation”
patent
effort to cir-
discipli-
—a
weighed against
purposes of
public
cumvent the law in violation of the
discipline im-
nary proceedings. The
n
public good.6
interest and the
only
not
posed should be commensurate
contends
finding
overlooks the
integrity
maintain
with the need to
fact that
only
he acted
as a conduit of the
protection of
profession
and the
question
funds and the
of how the contri-
for the de-
public,
the need
but with
butions were to be listed is immaterial to
lawyers
engaging
of other
terrence
the charge before the
It was
Board.
.9
in similar misconduct.
findirijg,however,
Board’s
misrep-
that the
unique in
The Kleindienst case
resentation
deceit
not
between
Board’s recommendation
holding
recipient
contributor and
of the funds
“appear
been under-
to have
there
corporation’s
but
[ed]
to the
shareholders and
punitive
pinned by
considerations”10
public
prevent
“in an effort
pub-
Findings
the Dis-
7.
Recommendations
4.
Kleindienst,
See District
Columbia Bar v.
ciplinary Board, p. 3.
D.C.App.,
(1975).
6. The fact
duties as Vice-
ciplinary Board, p. 4.
President
for Government Relations did not
include the active
of law was not
Kleindienst,
Bar v.
10. District
Columbia
germane
considered
to the issue before it.
supra
Kirtz,
Id.
See In
at 3.
re
We have
been
part
dissenting
part):
the case of an attorney suspended for
year
before the Federal
agree
I
ne-
misconduct
Commission,
Trade
“[C]ontrary
that:
practice of
suspension from the
cessitates
concept, disciplinary pro
Commission’s
I dis-
law in the
but
District of Columbia
ceedings
adversary
‘are
proceedings of a
adopted
agree
length of time
with the
quasi-criminal nature,’
‘[d]isbarment,
suspension.
the Court for that
designed
public,
punish
is a
”
imposed
Disciplinary
ment or penalty
lawyer.’
Preliminarily,
I
on the
note
XI,
prescribes that
4(3)
Charlton v. Federal
Rule
Section
[Footnote omitted.]
Commission, - F.2d - (D.C.Cir.,
findings
Trade
review the
10,
74-1571,
1976), quoting
March
No.
its
recommendations of
1222,
544, 88
alo,
S.Ct.
In re
390 U.S.
to this court
prepare and forward
and then
Ruff
so,
this is
Because
(1968).
findings
mittee the Reelection of Presi- the testimony be- Respondent, in sworn his dent in ... of the stat- Presi- on Committee the Select fore Senate ute. Activities, is a which Campaign dential us, in related part of the record before statute, The applicable 18 U.S.C. § Reelect Committee agent the proscribes (1970), “any corporation” from Nunn, visited Mr. (CREP), President the making any political a in contribution elec- a contribution respondent and asked tion provides “every and officer” of 1972 elec- $100,000 from Gulf Oil the any corporation consenting to a contribu- the then tion, he contact suggesting that misdemeanor, tion is of a or “if the varify the Attorney Mitchell General willful,” felony. spe- violation was a met of CREP. bona fides prosecutor respondent’s cial in case advised Depart- the Attorney at General with respondent federal trial court the exis- confirmed who ment of Justice . voluntarily “came forward . . and operation, reelection a of CREP tence charged disclosed contributions operation in that participation Nunn’s Mr. light cooperation . and in of that had full confidence that “he [Mitchell] complete voluntary” which has been concluding Respondent, Mr. Nunn.” in charged only had been with a misdemeanor do,” something had better is “that this violation. one from $50,000 in cash obtained subsidi- wholly owned foreign and many us The record before further reflects charged was (which amount aries of Gulf corporate circumstances of the contribu- gave the expenses”), to “miscellaneous respondent He tions which consented.1 money to Nunn. made, illegality when aware their acknowledged “I have been and he should respondent, he was 1972, according to In resisting . what could stronger in Secretary of Com- by the then contacted a be characterized as form of extortion hope of ob- indicated his who merce Stans way.” When asked before cor- $100,000 large American from taining specific a little more Gulf; “be re- $50,000 more from porations and thought type reprisal you about it considerable “considered spondent, who and an officers two pressure re- when Cabinet you possible didn’t make the the contributions. unaware of Gulf were record indicates that other senior officials agent of respondent’s testimony, the committees during the Secre funds,” asking tary me for quite obtained of Commerce “has voice” [were] way cash before deliv- fixing the same oil While quotas.) it when Subsequently, law, ered to Stans. first he did concealed the violation of report voluntarily, according asked how to the source of Stans come forward $100,000 Special Prosecutor, cooperated contribution in order to con- com corporate pletely. ceal the fact was contribu-
tion, respondent suggested it be listed as suspension If seems here to coming “employees of Gulf.” reputation the Bar’s discour- case The denouement of the criminal future, illegal lawyers age acts gave back the that CREP Gulf question long becomes then for how contribution; $100,000 also received suspension be. In deter- should repay the respondent, “to cor- mining that issue should I believe attention poration legal expenses involved for the given mis- to the nature they pay,” thus the fine had to pos- past history conduct and both his apparently making Gulf and stockhold- profession. Respondent sible future hand, financially the other ers whole. On vi- did knowingly violate a statute but respondent’s employment as Vice-President po- murky area of olation occurred in that terminated, pled guilty with Gulf was fund-raising, apparently it litical where *5 crime, fined committing a and he was receive,3 give not more blessed to than $1,000. has and where considerable reformation no circumstances, seemingly in extraordinary occurred.
Absent over-reaching of his client here, way present which are not commission cause; or his requires failure to advance client’s by attorney both of a crime in- his anything, his zeal client’s integrity of the the maintenance of the public terest excessive. of the profession protection and the against other attor future misconduct upon further reflects The record of his licensure to neys, the termination he became graduation from law school Bar practice District Columbia law. Cf. of association “legislative to trade assistant” Kleindienst, D.C.App., A.2d 146 in- was not during employment becomes then (1975). The critical issue any in “legal representation termination, e., volved dis of that i. nature “legislative Thereafter, awas way.” Board’s suspension.2 or barment Gulf, ultimately becom- representative” for itself and the Board Rela- for Government ing Vice-President suspension for recommended active tions, “engaged and has never here; this upon agree the record and I of Colum- District in the of law the in corporation, at was not a case of respondent’s testi- As the time of of officers, pumping bia.” stigation of one of hearing commit- mony before the Board’s process political money into the streams of up an setting he was tee he testified my an ex pollute it but rather in view “a as out himself going to hold occupying office politicos tortion conducted af- governmental legislative consultant department offices important executive I generally. business consultant fairs or governmental considerable armed with sense in the to'practice law do not intend (As Senator might vis-a-vis businesses. familiar with.” you are hearings which pointed out the Senate Ervin Senate Com- and the parenthetically the federal Both both disbarment I note expressed public the absence suspension concern (1) mittee become matters of organizations persons who prosecutions attorney require so dis- record and ciplined corporate contributions —a notify fact and received clients of that his law, legal also. advise advice elsewhere. them seek li respondent, while It seems clear law practicing law
censed broadly-worded
within the rules, out has in fact been
definition profession for the mainstream pe Accordingly, think
some time. some and reorienta
riod of time for reflection profession would
tion to the dictates balance, salutary justified. con On
sidering the nature of misconduct suspen-' respondent, deem history adequate insure six
sion for months be en respondent’s fitness “to
henceforth . mat professional
trusted with 12 months longer
ters.” my by majority in view carries
adopted punitive considerations
with it rejected improper.
court has heretofore Bar v. Klein District Columbia
See dienst, supra. *6 CORPO- MANAGEMENT
WINCHESTER RATION, Appellant,
v. S. Belton STATEN and Elizabeth
Clara L. al., Appellees. et Belton
Clara STATEN Elizabeth L. S. al., Appellants, et
WINCHESTER CORPO- MANAGEMENT RATION, Appellee. 8157,
Nos. Appeals.
District of Columbia Court of
Argued Jan. July 14,
Decided