Members Suspended for Nonpayment of Dues
District of Columbia Bar members who did not pay their 2007–2008 annual dues and/or late fee as of October 31 have been automatically suspended and must take steps to apply for reinstatement.

Suspended members seeking reinstatement must pay a $50 reinstatement fee in addition to any other applicable fees. Suspension for nonpayment of dues and reinstatement are governed by D.C. Bar Rule II, Section 6. Detailed consequences for nonpayment of dues are available online.

To be reinstated, fill out and submit by mail the reinstatement request form, including the necessary dues and fees.

Dues amounts are $188 for active members, $118 for inactive members, and $95 for judicial members. The late fee is $30 for members who did not pay dues by September 17. Members are encouraged to confirm all of their personal information, including e-mail addresses, online.

Both the detailed consequences for nonpayment of dues and the reinstatement request form can be found online at www.dcbar .org/for_lawyers/membership/ current_members.

For more information or to verify the total amount due, contact the D.C. Bar Member Service Center at 202-626-3475, or 1-877-333-2227, ext. 475, or memberservices@dcbar.org. —J.R.

Bar to Conduct Judicial Evaluations
The D.C. Bar Judicial Evaluation Committee began this year’s judicial evaluation program by mailing notices to the 5,541 participating attorneys on November 2.

Participation in the survey is by invitation only and may be completed online or by hard copy. The notices include instructions for accessing the online evaluation form at www.opinionq.com/DCBar. The evaluation process is secure and confidential, and participants will remain anonymous.

The evaluation period will close January 11, 2008.

The Bar’s survey is one of the primary methods of receiving feedback on the performance of judges at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

This year 27 judges will be evaluated. In the D.C. Court of Appeals, they include associate judges John R. Fisher, Noël Anketell Kramer, and Vanessa Ruiz, and senior judges William C. Pryor and Frank E. Schwelb.

In the D.C. Superior Court, they include associate judges Geoffrey M. Alprin, Judith Bartnoff, John H. Bayly Jr., Zoe Bush, John M. Campbell, Erik P. Christian, Kaye K. Christian, Rafael Diaz, Gerald I. Fisher, Anita Josey-Herring, Lynn Leibovitz, Jose M. Lopez, Juliet J. McKenna, Maurice A. Ross, Linda D. Turner, Odessa F. Vincent, and Joan Zeldon, and senior judges Leonard A. Braman, Henry F. Greene, Eugene N. Hamilton, Curtis von Kann, and Ronald P. Wertheim.

Judges are evaluated in their 2nd, 6th, 10th, and 13th years of service. Senior judges are evaluated every other year.

Each evaluated judge receives a copy of his or her survey results, as does the chief judge of each court. Evaluation results of senior judges and of judges in their 6th, 10th, and 13th years of service also are sent to the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure. —J.R.

Anniversaries Abound
The past presidents of the Court of Federal Claims Bar Association were honored at a September 20 reception marking the bar’s 20th anniversary and the 25th anniversary of the National Courts Improvement Act, which led to the creation of the Court of Federal Claims in its modern form and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. —K.A.

Training Introduces Lawyers to D.C. Legal System
The D.C. Consortium of Legal Services Providers and the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Program cosponsored a three-day training event to introduce lawyers to working in public interest and to the basics of the D.C. legal system.

To determine the most appropriate topics to address, said consortium coordinator Jessica Rosenbaum, the organizers polled experienced legal services attorneys to find out what they would have liked to know when they first began their careers. Using this guidance, the program included an overview of the District government and legal system during the first day; how to deal with different client groups and legal ethics on the second day; and prelitigation skills, such as client interaction and social services referrals, on the third day.

The consortium hopes that this program will become a yearly feature for incoming public interest lawyers, said Rosenbaum. Although designed with the needs of the new hires in view, attorneys with a broad range of experience levels also have taken advantage of the course. —J.R.

Superior Court, OAG Collaborate to Form New Fathering Court
The family court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia has partnered with the D.C. Office of the Attorney General and other D.C. government agencies to create a new entity, the Fathering Court. This program, currently in the pilot phase, will help recently incarcerated fathers get the help they need to support their families through services such as drug treatment, parenting classes, and job training.

The Fathering Court will help an initial class of 45 noncustodial fathers become responsible for their children through a combination of needs assessment, case management, and linkage to community resources. Resources for Fathering Court participants include mandatory fathering classes, employment training, and family and parental educational classes. Participants also must maintain sobriety, which will be enforced through mandatory drug testing. An individual case manager and the Fathering Court program manager will monitor each participant’s progress.

“The Fathering Court is a unique effort to help fathers returning from prison become better parents—financially and emotionally—to their children,” said Family Court Presiding Judge Anita Josey-Herring. “[W]e will be able to help them find gainful employment, slowly increase the amount of child support they owe, and to develop meaningful relationships with their children. Custodial parents will get the child support they are due, fathers will have a chance to meet their support requirements, and the relationship between parent and child will be about more than just money.”

D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer agreed.

“Parents coming out of prison have many strikes against them, and this program is designed to give them a fighting chance to be a parent to their child or children,” she said.

Magistrate Judge Milton Lee, who will preside over Fathering Court cases, added that he looked forward to the challenge that this new program represents.

“Judges who hear child support cases can grow weary of excuses, just as those returning from prison can grow weary of job application rejections, and custodial parents can grow weary of not receiving court-ordered child support. And the children living without the benefit of appropriate financial and emotional support from both parents are the ones who suffer most,” he said. “We know that children benefit from having both parents involved in their lives.”

Some agencies supporting the Fathering Court include the Bureau of Prisons, Child Support Services Division, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, Fatherhood Initiative of the Department of Human Services, and D.C. Office of the Attorney General. —J.R.

Ninth Annual Lever Awards Honor Commitment to Access to Justice
D.C. Law Students in Court (LSIC) held its Ninth Annual Lever Awards Dinner on October 4, where it honored Dwight Murray, senior partner at Jordan, Coyne & Savits L.L.P., and George Washington University Law School professor Eric Sirulnik.

LSIC is one of the largest legal services providers in the city and a two-semester legal clinic for law students from American, Catholic, George Washington, Georgetown, and Howard universities.

In his keynote address, Kurt Schmoke, dean of the Howard University Law School, said it was his hope law students participating in LSIC would come out of the program knowing they can make a difference.

Lever-Award winner Sirulnik was introduced by Mary Cheh, a Ward 3 member of the city council and a fellow George Washington law professor, as someone who is held in high esteem by his students and colleagues.

Sirulnik joined the faculty of George Washington University Law School in 1971 and implemented the school’s clinical program, which now is considered one of the oldest and highly respected in the country.

“He believed in the power of the law to fight unfairness and inequality. Using the law for these ends became his mission and his life’s work,” Cheh said of Sirulnik. Murray, a fellow Lever-Award recipient, participated in the Civil Division of the LSIC from 1973 to 1974.

“In addition to his distinguished career as a trial attorney, Mr. Murray is a great teacher and mentor, and that is what makes him near and dear to D.C. Law Students in Court,” said LSIC treasurer Nancy Lopez.

Former LSIC client Susan Battista also was honored at the awards dinner. Battista came to LSIC after the landlord she had been renting from for several years filed a suit for possession of Battista’s basement room.

A student-attorney assigned to Battista’s case was able to find proof that his client did enter into a landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff, and the judge dismissed the case after opening statements. —K.A.

Bar Members Must Complete Practice Course
New members of the District of Columbia Bar are reminded that they have 12 months from the date of admission to complete the required course on District of Columbia practice offered by the D.C. Bar’s Continuing Legal Education Program.

D.C. Bar members who have been inactive, retired, or voluntarily resigned for five years or more are also required to complete the course if they are seeking to switch or be reinstated to active member status. In addition, members who have been suspended for five years or more for nonpayment of dues or late fees are required to take the course to be reinstated.

New members who do not complete the mandatory course requirement within 12 months of admission receive a noncompliance notice and a final 60-day window in which to comply. After that date, the Bar automatically suspends individuals who have not attended and forwards their names to the clerks of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and to the Office of Bar Counsel.

Suspensions become a permanent part of members’ records. To be reinstated one must complete the course and pay a $50 fee.

The course is $190. The next course dates are December 11, January 12, February 5, March 8, April 15, May 10, June 17, July 12, and August 12. Advanced registration is encouraged.

For more information or to register online, visit www.dcbar.org/mandatorycourse.

Brookings Institution Panel Explores Prosecutorial Misconduct
The rape accusation and subsequent exoneration of members of the Duke University lacrosse team, followed by the disbarment and brief incarceration of the prosecuting attorney in the case, has led to questions regarding possible ethical lapses on the part of prosecutors. A distinguished panel of researchers and practitioners met at the Brookings Institution on October 10 to discuss the ways in which the Duke case does, and does not, reflect more general problems for prosecutors.

Benjamin Wittes, a fellow and research director in public law at Brookings, moderated the panel that included Stuart Taylor Jr., a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings and coauthor of a book on the Duke case, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case; James B. Comey, general counsel and senior vice president at Lockheed Martin and a former federal prosecutor; and Steven D. Benjamin, a defense attorney at Benjamin & DesPortes, P.C. in Richmond, Virginia.

Taylor began by offering a synopsis of the Duke case. The accuser made bizarre, contradictory statements about what happened to the police. None of these claims were supported by physical evidence and ultimately DNA testing proved that they could not have happened. Michael Nifong, the district attorney of Durham, North Carolina, was in the middle of an election campaign when the case arose. He barely won the election in part through inflammatory statements to the press about the defendants, and he continued his pursuit of the case long after it became clear that no crime had taken place.

The Duke case, said Taylor, powerfully demonstrates the ability of a prosecutor to maintain a meritless case. However, Nifong’s example should not be taken as standard practice. In his own experience, Taylor observed, most prosecutors are upright public servants who do the best they can. However, other, more general problems within the United States criminal justice system, such as the manipulation of evidence and the use of the grand jury, can indicate possible reforms.

Benjamin expressed the opposite view, claiming prosecutorial misconduct or error is far more common than anyone realizes. While he didn’t think most prosecutors lacked integrity, he pointed to several factors that might lead to the punishment of innocent people. These included a prosecutor’s reluctance to turn over evidence to the defense, unwillingness to question their own cases or witnesses, poor attention to detail, and uncertainty about their duties under the law. The confluence of these factors finally result in making the justice system an inadequate mechanism for determining the truth of a case, said Benjamin.

Comey defended his fellow prosecutors, saying they are honorable people. While the system works most of the time, Comey agreed it needs to put more effort into protecting the innocent. All people are at their most dangerous “when they believe their cause is just and that their facts are right,” he said.

Benjamin said the greatest consequence of the criminal justice system’s flaws is widespread mistrust. The system relies on public trust to function effectively and to ensure citizens don’t seek their own justice. He urged a greater focus be placed on the justice mechanism itself rather than on outcomes. Comey added the suspect identification process could be improved by using a double-blind protocol or giving a witness a pile of photographs instead of a staged photo array. —J.R.

Request for Public Comment: Rule 4.2 and Contacts With Represented Persons in the Criminal or Enforcement Context
The D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Review Committee[1] (Rules Review Committee) is currently soliciting public comment on whether Comment [12] to D.C. Rule 4.2 should be revised. Rule 4.2(a) reads:

(a) During the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a person known to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other person or is authorized by law or a court order to do so.

Comment [12] reads:

[12] This rule is not intended to enlarge or restrict the law enforcement activities of the United States or the District of Columbia which are authorized and permissible under the Constitution and law of the United States or the District of Columbia. The “authorized by law” proviso to Rule 4.2(a) is intended to permit government conduct that is valid under this law. The proviso is not intended to freeze any particular substantive law, but is meant to accommodate substantive law as it may develop over time.

Although the Rules Review Committee does not wish to restrict the scope of comments, questions of particular interest to the Committee are:

More information about this call for public comment, including a history of D.C. Rule 4.2, can be found at the Bar’s Web site at www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/ legal_ethics/
public_comments.cfm. Written comments should be submitted by e-mail to ethics@dcbar.org, or to the Rules Review Committee, c/o Hope C. Todd, Ethics Counsel, District of Columbia Bar, 1250 H Street NW, Sixth Floor, Washington, DC 20005-5937, not later than January 31, 2008. All comments received will be posted to the Bar’s Web site.

[1] The Rules of Professional Conduct Review Committee is the standing committee of the District of Columbia Bar that considers and recommends changes to the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee’s recommendations are transmitted to the D.C. Bar Board of Governors, which decides whether to recommend changes to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Attorney Temple Receives Ollie May Cooper Award
On October 18 the Washington Bar Association honored D.C. attorney Donald Temple with the Ollie May Cooper Award at its 29th annual awards ceremony at Howard University School of Law.

Temple’s law practice consists of civil and commercial litigation with an emphasis on police misconduct, race discrimination, and business disputes. In 1983 he cofounded Congressional Black Associates, a professional legislative staff organization, and in 1979 he started an informal tutoring law program for law students that led to the development of the Charles Hamilton Houston Pre-Law Institute.

In his acceptance speech, Temple said it was important to teach students not to be scared of the law and to be aware of the history of African Americans in the legal profession. He also urged the audience to think about the future and the type of world in which they would like to live.

“This cancer called racism has to be checked,” he said.

The evening also featured the Washington Bar Association’s 27th annual Founders’ Lecture Series, delivered by Angela J. Davis, American University School of Law professor (and former director of the D.C. Public Defender Service).

Davis’s lecture followed the subject of her recently released book, Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor (Oxford University Press, 2007), which looks at the rise in prosecutorial power and how prosecutorial discretion can lead to misconduct and inequality in the justice system.

Davis said she finds it phenomenal that African Americans are incarcerated at a rate six times that of whites and make up almost half of the 2.2 million prison population, even though they comprise only 13 percent of the general population.

“Not much attention has been given to the role that prosecutors play in this discrepancy,” she said.

One exception has been the Jena Six case in which there has been a loud outcry that the attempted murder charges against six black teenagers in Jena, Louisiana, were excessive and racially motivated.

She said while other instances of prosecutorial misconduct may be more subtle and based on unconscious racism, that does not make it any less harmful.

The legal profession must step up to address “the civil rights fight of our day” and demand change, said Davis. —K.A.

NLCHP’s McKinney-Vento Awards Honor Opponents of Homelessness
It has been 20 years since the passage of the McKinney-Vento Act, the only federal legislation addressing homelessness, but the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP) continues to pay tribute to the work of Representatives Stewart McKinney and Bruce Vento at its annual awards dinner named in their honor.

This year’s McKinney-Vento Awards took place on October 24 and recognized the law firm of Covington and Burling LLP, and individuals Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), homeless advocate Rickie Slaughter, Washington Wizards center Etan Thomas, and Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for their commitment to end and prevent homelessness.

Reed authored the bipartisan Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act and the Services to End Long-Term Homelessness Act in addition to supporting the McKinney-Vento Act.

NLCHP board member William Breakey said of Reed, the recipient of the Stewart B. McKinney Award, that the senator had worked tirelessly to reauthorize and increase funding for the act.

Reed promised work on the act will continue on a bipartisan basis.

“Everyone in this country should have a decent, safe place to live,” he said.

Bruce Vento’s widow, Susan Vento, presented the award named in her husband’s honor to Judge Zainey, who organized the Homeless Experience Legal Protection (H.E.L.P.) Program, which has attorneys provide legal consultation and notary service at homeless shelters in New Orleans.

Zainey said it was the 450 lawyers participating in this program who deserved praise, and that he was accepting his award on behalf of all of the advocates in the room “who go without credit and who are down in the trenches.”

Sharing the Bruce F. Vento Award with Judge Zainey was Thomas, who Susan Vento said had “made an even bigger impact off the [basketball] court.”

“Mr. Thomas refuses to keep silent and speaks his mind and his soul,” she said. Thomas was not able to attend the awards, but he taped an acceptance speech in which he praised the work of the NLCHP, saying the organization “makes a crucial difference in the lives of thousands of people every day ... It’s changing laws and changing lives.”

Covington & Burling LLP received the Pro Bono Counsel Award for its role in securing the passage of the McKinney-Vento Act and for its continued commitment to ending homelessness.

The Personal Achievement Award went to Slaughter, who struggled with drug abuse and homelessness before seeking rehabilitation at New Directions, a facility targeted to homeless veterans. Slaughter went on to become a New Directions staff member and a certified drug addictions recovery specialist.

In her closing remarks, NLCHP executive director Maria Foscarinis spoke about the strides made by the NLCHP and others, but warned that much remained to be done in the battle to end homelessness. Foscarinis said the McKinney-Vento Act is meant to be an important step in that battle, but it needs to be followed by specific long-term solutions such as affordable housing. —K.A.

Panel Discusses Suggestions for Making Right Career Moves
A panel of four attorneys with a range of practice areas and backgrounds met on October 23 to offer their own experiences and advice on making the most of one’s legal career. “Secrets to a Successful Career in the Law: The Best Career Advice I Ever Received was...” was moderated by Coke Stewart of Kaye Scholer LLP.

The career trajectory of Andrew Stewart, now a lawyer with the Office of Civil Enforcement at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is fairly common for lawyers in the District of Columbia. He began by working at a large law firm, but he intended at some point to move into government work. He contrasted the merits of both employers. Large law firms place greater demands on their attorneys’ time and don’t offer much schedule flexibility. Government employment is generally more relaxed regarding leave time and offers a more regular schedule.

Working for the federal government has other benefits, said Stewart. Morale is generally high and colleagues have a strong sense of shared mission. However, government lawyers must contend with the notorious bureaucratic red tape, the work can be repetitive, and a complex promotion process can make it difficult to achieve a higher rank. Finally, the government salaries cannot compare to those offered to associates at large law firms.

Christopher Manning also began his legal career at a large law firm. He later left to cofound his own firm, Manning & Sossamon PLLC. Losing the comparative security of large-firm employment is compensated for by the satisfaction of running one’s own business, he said. Striking out on one’s own is a high-risk, high-reward venture. The hours can be long, and until the firm is sufficiently stable to hire on support staff and associates, the partners also are responsible for administrative tasks, client development, and so on. Working in a small firm also permits considerable client contact and responsibility. Manning emphasized opening and running a firm is both difficult and labor intensive, requiring a great deal of planning and self-discipline.

Alan M. Fisch, who became one of the youngest equity partners at Kaye Scholer, emphasized that, at bottom, law firms are for-profit businesses and make decisions with the purpose of increasing profitability. Recent increases in associate salaries are part of this decision-making process; firms want to entice the best talent and will continue to offer these salaries so long as they are sustainable. Other benefits of big-firm life include access to the latest technology and comprehensive staff support.

Though large firms do present opportunities to work on complex, sophisticated cases, new associates in particular will often be tasked with more tedious components of those cases, such as document review. One case that Fisch recalled involved more than one million pages of documents for review. Consequently, associates’ working hours can be grueling and lead to burnout.

When asked to summarize their best career advice, the panelists offered an array of opinions. If you’re going to open your own business, said Manning, don’t have a fallback Plan B. Rather, focus on making the business successful and developing a client base. Be honest with yourself and what you want out of work, added Stewart. Networking is crucial to getting a coveted position. Stewart recounted the contacts he had to develop and lobbying efforts to be hired in his initial position at the EPA. Fisch echoed the need for determination, to find one’s passion and pursue it with persistence.

The event was held at the D.C. Bar and sponsored by the Administrative Law and Agency Practice Section; Antitrust and Consumer Law Section; Computer and Telecommunications Law Section; Criminal Law and Individuals Rights Section; Health Law Section; Law Practice Management Section; Real Estate, Housing and Land Use Section; and Litigation Section. —J.R.

SEC Nets Award for Pro Bono Work
The Interagency Pro Bono Working Group presented its inaugural Federal Agency Pro Bono Leadership Award to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) at a Federal Government Pro Bono Recognition Reception, sponsored by the Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Circuit, at the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse on October 25.

The SEC was recognized for its efforts to encourage pro bono work among its legal staff though its development of a pro bono program, and organizing pro bono events and initiatives such as a Pro Bono Fair, an Accountant’s Pro Bono Opportunity Program, and the Government Pro Bono 2006 Volunteer Appreciation Luncheon.

“We cannot underestimate the importance of pro bono service,” said Judge David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who spoke at the reception. Judge Sentelle acknowledged government lawyers face more restrictions when it comes to pro bono, but said there are lawyers who have found ways to be of service, largely outside of their regular work hours.

“On behalf of the courts, we thank you for taking your time to serve the public good,” he said.

The Interagency Pro Bono Working Group, established in 1996, helps federal agencies such as the SEC develop pro bono programs and policies, and organizes events that promote pro bono work among government attorneys. —K.A.

D.C. Bar staff writers Julie Reynolds and Kathryn Alfisi can be reached by e-mail at jreynolds@dcbar.org and kalfisi@dcbar.org, respectively.

Senior Lawyer Public Interest
Arnold & Porter LLP’s James Sandman (left) talks about his transition from senior partner to senior pro bono partner at a November 1 reception hosted by the Senior Lawyer Public Interest Project. Other speakers included (center) James van R. Springer, a volunteer staff attorney with the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, and Jonathan Smith, executive director of the Legal Aid Society. —K.A.

Julie Reynolds and Kathryn Alfisi are staff writers with the D.C. Bar. They can be reached by e-mail at jreynolds@dcbar.org and kalfisi@dcbar.org.