Donald Trump

Attorney Larry Klayman Calls D.C. Bar Partisan During Oral Argument. It Didn’t End Well.

D.C. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson Shuts Down Attorney Larry Klayman During Oral Argument re D.C. Bar Ethics Issues.

LIT UPDATE

April 5, 2021: Klayman Says Judge’s ‘Hostility’ Warrants Rehearing His Case

Conservative lawyer Larry Klayman on Friday urged the D.C. Circuit to rehear his disciplinary case, accusing a federal judge of being hostile, condescending and “ideologically based” when the panel suspended him from practicing law last week.

LIT COMMENTARY

Conservative [Celebrity] Attorney Larry Klayman

We’ve previously written about Klayman’s ongoing ethics issues with the D.C. Bar and he’s now appealed to the D.C. Circuit. Listening to oral arguments, he asserted that DC Bar [counsel] was ‘partisan’, which was quickly closed down by Judge Henderson, a Ronald Reagan appointee.

D.C. Bar

LIT would say that whether it’s partisan or not, it’s clear from our investigations that the D.C. Bar is corrupt.

Goodwin Law

Especially when you read the complaint against Klayman for violating rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest). Goodwin Procter, are lawyers who also violated Rule 1.7, e.g. the Hot Potato doctrine, in Illinois, yet the Bar declined to pursue ethic[s] complaints past the inquiry stage against this Biglaw firm or it’s attorneys who represent Banks and Nonbanks and who violated D.C. Bar’s ethical codes designed to protect consumers and litigants.

Larry Klayman, 20-7110
Judges: Henderson, Tatel, Edwards
Arguing: Larry Klayman
02/17/2021

‘Let Me Stop This’ – D.C. Circuit Judge Henderson Shuts Down Attorney Klayman During Oral Argument re D.C. Bar Ethics Issues

Conservative legal firebrand Larry Klayman evoked an angry response from a D.C. Circuit judge Wednesday after he repeatedly interrupted a fellow member of a three-judge panel during argument for his battle against a since-expired suspension from practicing law in the nation’s capital.

Klayman’s Supplement to Respondents Initial Brief Filed on Day of Oral Argument (17 Feb, 2021)

Henderson, Karen LeCraft

Born 1944 in Oberlin, OH

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 3, 1986, to a seat vacated by William W. Wilkins. Confirmed by the Senate on June 13, 1986, and received commission on June 16, 1986. Service terminated on July 11, 1990, due to appointment to another judicial position.

Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on May 8, 1990, to a seat vacated by Kenneth W. Starr. Confirmed by the Senate on June 28, 1990, and received commission on July 5, 1990.

Education:
Duke University, B.A., 1966
University of North Carolina School of Law, J.D., 1969

Professional Career:
Private practice, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1969-1970
Office of the Attorney General, State of South Carolina, 1973-1983
Assistant attorney general, 1973-1978
Senior assistant attorney general/director, Special Litigation Section, 1978-1982
Deputy attorney general/director, Criminal Division, 1982-1983
Private practice, Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina, 1983-1986

Tatel, David S.

Born 1942 in Washington, DC

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by William J. Clinton on June 20, 1994, to a seat vacated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Confirmed by the Senate on October 6, 1994, and received commission on October 7, 1994.

Education:
University of Michigan, B.A., 1963
University of Chicago Law School, J.D., 1966

Professional Career:
Instructor, University of Michigan Law School, 1966-1967
Private practice, Chicago, Illinois, 1967-1969, 1970-1972
Chicago Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 1969-1970, 1972-1974; executive director, 1969-1970; director, 1972-1974
Private practice, Washington, D.C., 1974-1977, 1979-1994
Director, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1977-1979
Board member, Federal Judicial Center, 2016-present

Edwards, Harry Thomas

Born 1940 in New York, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on December 6, 1979, to a seat vacated by David L. Bazelon. Confirmed by the Senate on February 20, 1980, and received commission on February 20, 1980. Served as chief judge, 1994-2001. Assumed senior status on November 3, 2005.

Education:
Cornell University, B.S., 1962
University of Michigan Law School, J.D., 1965

Professional Career:
Private practice, Chicago, Illinois, 1965-1970
Professor of law, University of Michigan Law School, 1970-1975, 1977-1980
Labor arbitrator, 1971-1980
Professor of law, Harvard Law School, 1975-1977
Chairman of the board, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 1978-1980
Member, Judicial Conference of the United States, 1994-2001

Elham Sataki

Larry Klayman

Docket No. 17-BD-063

Decisions

 Hearing Committee Report (July 24, 2019)

Discipline Imposed: Not yet available.

 Board Report and Orders (October 2, 2020)

Discipline Imposed: Not yet available.

DCCA Order (January 7, 2021)

Discipline Imposed: In re Larry E. Klayman. Bar No. 334581. January 7, 2021. Klayman was suspended on an interim basis pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g), pending final action on the Board on Professional Responsibility’s October 2, 2020, recommendation of an eighteen month suspension with fitness.

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 20-7110 Docketed: 11/23/2020
In re: Larry Klayman
Appeal From: null
Fee Status: Fee Not Required
Case Type Information:
     1) Attorney Discipline
     2)
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     None
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
     None
Panel Assignment:
Panel: KLH     DST     HTE
Date of Hearing: 02/17/2021      Date of Decision:

 

In re: Larry Elliott Klayman
In re – Respondent
Larry Elliott Klayman
Email: leklayman@gmail.com
[NTC Pro Se]
2520 Coral Way
Suite 2027
Miami, FL 33145

In re:  Larry Elliott Klayman,

In re – Respondent

11/23/2020 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE CASE docketed. [20-7110] [Entered: 11/23/2020 11:16 AM]
11/23/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 38.14 KB
CLERK’S ORDER [1872693] filed that this case be assigned general case No. 20-7110, No mandate shall issue. [20-8511, 20-7110]–[Edited 11/23/2020 by SA-Document Replaced by the Clerk’s Office] [Entered: 11/23/2020 11:40 AM]
11/23/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 42.17 KB
CLERK’S ORDER [1872706] filed setting briefing schedule: APPENDIX due 01/12/2021. RESPONDENT Brief due on 01/12/2021 [20-7110] [Entered: 11/23/2020 12:13 PM]
01/11/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 40.69 KB
CLERK’S ORDER [1879402] filed scheduling oral argument on Wednesday, 02/17/2021. [20-7110] [Entered: 01/11/2021 02:48 PM]
01/11/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 129.79 KB
MOTION [1879428] to extend time to file brief to 02/11/2021, and to reschedule oral argument filed by Larry Elliott Klayman (Service Date: 01/11/2021 by 3rd Party) Length Certification: 181 Words. [20-7110]–[RELIEF ADDED–Edited 01/12/2021 by LMC] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 01/11/2021 04:15 PM]
01/12/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 38.77 KB
PER CURIAM ORDER [1879726] filed granting respondent’s motion to extend time to the extent that the brief and appendix are now due 01/19/2021. [1879428-2]; denying respondent’s motion to reschedule oral argument [1879428-3], This case remains scheduled for oral argument on February 17, 2021. [20-7110] [Entered: 01/12/2021 05:12 PM]
01/19/2021  Open Document
84 pg, 7 MB
APPENDIX [1880735] filed by Larry Elliott Klayman. [Volumes: 1] [Service Date: 01/19/2021 ] [20-7110] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 01/19/2021 04:48 PM]
01/19/2021  Open Document
20 pg, 232.25 KB
RESPONDENT BRIEF [1880737] filed by Larry Elliott Klayman [Service Date: 01/19/2021 ] Length of Brief: 4045 words. [20-7110] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 01/19/2021 04:50 PM]
02/05/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 41.18 KB
PER CURIAM ORDER [1883965] filed allocating oral argument time as follows: Respondent – 10 Minutes. One counsel per side to argue. Directing party to file Form 72 notice of arguing attorney by 02/10/2021. [20-7110] [Entered: 02/05/2021 01:20 PM]
02/10/2021 FORM 72 submitted by arguing attorney, Larry Klayman, on behalf of Respondent Larry Elliott Klayman (For Internal Use Only: Form is restricted to protect counsel’s personal contact information). [20-7110] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 02/10/2021 03:56 PM]
02/17/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 39.31 KB
ORAL ARGUMENT HELD before Judges Henderson, Tatel and Edwards. [20-7110] [Entered: 02/17/2021 10:43 AM]
02/17/2021  Open Document
159 pg, 8.88 MB
SUPPLEMENT [1885755] to Appellee/Respondent brief [1880737-2] filed by Larry Elliott Klayman [Service Date: 02/17/2021 ] [20-7110] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 02/17/2021 01:46 PM]

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 20-7110 Docketed: 11/23/2020
Termed: 03/26/2021
In re: Larry Klayman
Appeal From: null
Fee Status: Fee Not Required
Case Type Information:
     1) Attorney Discipline
     2)
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     None

02/05/2021 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER [1883965] filed allocating oral argument time as follows: Respondent – 10 Minutes. One counsel per side to argue. Directing party to file Form 72 notice of arguing attorney by 02/10/2021. [20-7110] [Entered: 02/05/2021 01:20 PM]
02/10/2021 FORM 72 submitted by arguing attorney, Larry Klayman, on behalf of Respondent Larry Elliott Klayman (For Internal Use Only: Form is restricted to protect counsel’s personal contact information). [20-7110] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 02/10/2021 03:56 PM]
02/17/2021 Open Document ORAL ARGUMENT HELD before Judges Henderson, Tatel and Edwards. [20-7110] [Entered: 02/17/2021 10:43 AM]
02/17/2021 Open Document SUPPLEMENT [1885755] to Appellee/Respondent brief [1880737-2] filed by Larry Elliott Klayman [Service Date: 02/17/2021 ] [20-7110] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 02/17/2021 01:46 PM]
03/08/2021 TRANSCRIPT [1888854] of oral argument [20-7110] [Entered: 03/08/2021 04:05 PM]
03/26/2021 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER [1891858] filed suspending attorney. It is FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Disciplinary Rule II(d), this matter be referred to the Committee on Admissions and Grievances for recommendations about any further discipline warranted by Larry Klayman’s failure to comply with Rule X. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS) Before Judges: Henderson, Tatel and Edwards. [20-7110] [Entered: 03/26/2021 10:24 AM]
03/26/2021 Open Document OPINION [1891862] filed (Pages: 13) for the Court by Judge Tatel. [20-7110] [Entered: 03/26/2021 10:31 AM]
03/26/2021 Open Document LETTER [1892010] sent to refer matter to Committee on Admissions and Grievances for recommendation [20-7110] [Entered: 03/26/2021 04:47 PM]
03/30/2021 Open Document NOTICE [1892345] Notice of Pending Filing filed by Larry Elliott Klayman [Service Date: 03/30/2021 ] [20-7110] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:21 PM]
04/02/2021 Open Document PETITION [1892990] for rehearing filed by Respondent Larry Elliott Klayman [Service Date: 04/02/2021 by CM/ECF NDA] Length Certification: 5293 word. [20-7110] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 04/02/2021 05:11 PM]

The Big Question is Asked of The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

The scope of judicial immunity in the Eleventh Circuit is now made clear. Judicial immunity is complete, unqualified, and without exception.

D.C. Dismissed One Hundred Percent – 478 Judicial Complaints – over an 11 Year Period

In the 11-year period that ended Nov. 30, 2017, the District of Columbia Circuit had received 478 complaints of judicial misconduct, 100% of which were dismissed.

It’s Still Cookin’ in the County Hot Potato Case. A Letter is Issued to the Chief Judge Smashing the Sanctions Order

Magistrate Judge Harjani did not take into account the Hot Potato Doctrine which does not protect the Goodwin Procter lawyers violations.

Attorney Larry Klayman Calls D.C. Bar Partisan During Oral Argument. It Didn’t End Well.
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top