2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Florida court dismissed her complaint, calling it “silly and vindictive.” In re Klayman, 228 A.3d 713, 716 (D.C. After ending her employment with Judicial Watch, Cobas filed suit against the organization in Florida state court. Klayman, as general counsel, advised Judicial Watch about her complaints. While there, Cobas alleged that she faced a hostile work environment, and Mr. The first client, Sandra Cobas, served as director of Judicial Watch’s Miami Regional Office. Klayman focused on his representation of three clients in suits against his former employer, Judicial Watch. According to the comments to Rule 1.9, the relevant “matter” is not limited to litigation: “hen a lawyer has been directly involved in a specific transaction, subsequent representation of other clients with materially adverse interests clearly is prohibited.” Id. The D.C. Rule 1.9 provides that “ lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent.” D.C. See Report and Recommendation, In re Klayman, No.
Klayman violated Rules 8.4(d) and 1.9 of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. 13.įollowing the filing of a complaint with the District of Columbia Bar in 2013, the Bar’s Hearing Committee Number Nine concluded that Mr. Since then, he has worked as “a public interest attorney and advocate.” Br.
“Larry Klayman founded Judicial Watch in 1994 and served as its general counsel until he left in 2003. The opinion sets forth the facts in this fashion:
Klayman, who at one time worked at Judicial Watch, represented clients who were adverse to Judicial Watch. The District of Columbia Circuit has imposed reciprocal discipline on Larry Klayman for violations of Rule 1.9.