Larry Klayman bad habits have caught up with him again. He’s being publicly censured by the Office of Bar Counsel in Washington, DC for violating the ethics rules that govern the behavior of attorneys. It all apparently stems from his acrimonious split with Judicial Watch, the group he founded and was later thrown out of.
Larry Klayman, the Washington attorney who won a landmark trial court ruling against government surveillance, has agreed to accept a public censure for violating attorney ethics rules.
Klayman signed the negotiated discipline with the Office of Bar Counsel in Washington on Monday. Klayman was accused of conflicts of interest in three cases in which he represented a client suing Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group he founded and later had a falling out with after leaving in 2003.
“I wanted to put [the ethics case] behind me because I have a lot of important things to do to also protect the American people,” Klayman said on Tuesday.
Oh yes, I’m sure that’s true. It isn’t because he knew he would lose or anything, it’s just so he can get back to the important work of protecting freedom and democracy and cute kittens. It’s kinda like how Newt Gingrich cheated on his second wife (the one he had cheated on his first wife with) because he just loved his country so much.
We’ll add this to the list of Klayman’s misbehavior, which includes taking a $25,000 retainer from a client and failing to provide legal services, then repeatedly failing to pay her back, resulting in being reprimanded by the Florida Bar Association. And being hammered by the judge in his lawsuit against Judicial Watch:
A federal judge took attorney Larry Klayman to task for his “consistent pattern of engaging in dilatory tactics” and disobedience of the court during a 5-year legal battle against Judicial Watch, which Klayman founded.
The judge granted Judicial Watch’s motion to strike aspects of Klayman’s contributions to the parties’ revised joint pretrial statement.
“The court concludes that the requested sanction is appropriate under the unique circumstances presented in this case – most notably, Klayman’s consistent pattern of engaging in dilatory tactics, his disobedience of court-ordered deadlines, and his disregard for the federal rules of civil procedure and the local rules of this court, coupled with the patent failure of the court’s use of lesser sanctions in the past to have any discernible effect on Klayman’s conduct in this litigation,” U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote…
“Despite the passage of five years, resolution of this action has been needlessly delayed, largely as a result of Klayman’s conduct in this litigation,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote, recounting numerous instances when Klayman refused to file documents and responses on time.
Citing his routine disobedience, Judicial Watch filed is motion to strike with regard to Klayman’s pretrial statement, specifically his statement of the case, list of witnesses, list of exhibits and deposition designations.
“Klayman filed a two-sentence opposition to defendants’ motion to strike, claiming in relevant part that ‘the sanctions requested by defendants is [sic] not warranted,'” according to the Aug. 10 decision.
The motion to strike precludes Klayman from presenting any affirmative evidence in support of his claims or in his defense of the counterclaims.
“Without a doubt, this is a severe sanction,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “Its application in this action will effectively prevent Klayman from carrying his burden of proof on his claims, thereby almost certainly requiring dismissal.”
This is a guy who sued his own mother, for crying out loud, for failing to pay him back $50,000 he loaned her to take care of his dying grandmother.