,
46 tweets,
15 min read
Read on Twitter
was about to read the larry klayman bar discipline decision but it is 185 pages long
finally doing this and it is worth it. his client was an iranian tv presenter who was suing her employer for sexual harassment/hostile work environment but klayman clearly took the case was for the twofer of iran/obama bashing and because he was trying to sleep with her
there is paragraph after paragraph of him getting angry that she refers to him as her "attorney" when he is actually "her friend" and in love with her and at one point he chases her into a hotel bathroom to continue whining at her about it then jokes about it later 
he wrote about her case constantly in world net daily even though (1) she clearly told him she didn't want publicity because it would damage her reputation in her community and (2) the point of the articles seemed more to complain about obama's iran policy than to help the case
after losing a motion for an injunction that would force the employer to let his client work in LA instead of DC (despite there being no job for her in LA), Klayman wrote a scorched earth motion to reconsider, accusing the judge of harboring animosity because he sued the clintons
klayman was trying to pawn off her case because she wanted to keep the relationship professional. when she emailed him about the case he replied "new phone who dis".
when the client complained that he was making a straightforward sexual harassment case into a complicated political crusade he... blamed Iran, Obama and a libtard judge ... and his broken heart
they met at a social event, she told him about the workplace harassment, he offered to represent her on a contingency and front expenses and told her it would be easy. the crazy came later.
Klayman didn't get the letter she sent to fire him - at 2 addresses - because his own letterhead had a typo and the second address was a temporary space he used during - reading between the lines - a contentious divorce. he blamed her for mailing something to his office address.
this is all after she fired klayman. not great, bob.
The client sent an email following up on the termination email. Klayman responded by accusing a third party of using his client's email address to interfere and then three days later... filed more papers in the case.
The fact section of a bar discipline takes up 64 pages. THERE ARE 121 PAGES LEFT.
Klayman tried to defend his months of abusive correspondence about how he loved her and whining that she wanted the relationship to be professional by (dubiously) arguing "IT WASN'T A SEXUAL TYPE OF LOVE" and the Court replied "that's not the point you absolute loon"
oh is that all
After the client rejected his advances, did Klayman get racist? i think you know the answer to this.
The client had only one non-loony claim - for sexual harassment. It was the only claim she cared about and she begged Klayman to focus on it only to later learn that Klayman had screwed up and that claim had already been dismissed.
the court then moves on to klayman's obsession with the clintons and even sneaks in the fact that, even though it isn't technically part of the case, klayman probably screwed up the actual sexual harassment case (the Falahati action) because it distracted him from blaming hillary
Klayman: I'm not mad I'm laughing actually
Court: You are incapable of not going off the rails.
Court: You are incapable of not going off the rails.
your desire for personal notoriety came at the expense of your client. for example, your client didn't want publicity and yet here are all of these World Net Daily articles with a curious consistency in their titles.
for the record, the court let him off the hook for having a link to his autobiography in all the articles that he wrote about the case for WND because *actually* WND bought the rights to his book, so it was WND who had a financial interest in pushing the book, not him.
now that's what i call good lawyerin'
i still have 90 pages to go somehow
Klayman filed the You-Hate-Me-Because-I-Sue-The-Clintons motion to disqualify the judge in the sexual harassment case (Falahati), the second case that the client didn't even want filed against Hillary et al. (BBG) and a third case that didn't involve this client at all.
this is a good correction: this isn't the court's ruling, it is more like a magistrate's report and recommendation for the court with suggested discipline (which i haven't gotten to yet, but is a 33 month suspension)
The ad hoc committee refers to a practice guide which argues that because motions to disqualify are risky, client consent is an absolute must, but also, if you are going to do it, you have to be professional about it. How did Klayman do it?
It is possible that the turmoil in Klayman's life wasn't from a divorce from a spouse but his divorce from Judicial Watch. I am curious about the allegations JW made that made his personal life relevant. He was really pissed that the judge agreed, though.
Klayman tried to get conservative congressmen interested in the case, but they didn't. So he put them on blast in World Net Daily (despite his client's often stated aversion to publicity).
Moving on to the section about the fee arrangement. To defend against the charge that the client did not sign, as required, a written representation agreement, Klayman says "there was NEVER a written representation agreement." An interesting strategy to say the least.
Klayman said he didn't need a representation agreement because it was pro bono. Two problems. (1) You still need a written agreement and (2) he clearly intended to be paid - to be reimbursed for his expenses and to share in the recovery.
And now we get to where Klayman kept on litigating after he got fired, and mostly just to yell at the Clintons and the judge some more.
First of all, if the client agrees to any publicity, I can write a dozen incendiary articles about it despite her request that the case be handled low key. Second of all, they aren't client confidences because she also told her friends she was being harassed.
How bad were Klayman's articles, really? What could the client have been trying to keep him from writing about? Oh. I see.
And now we're at the charge of making baseless and inflammatory claims of bias against the judge. things don't look good for Klayman.
BUT! Because this was in an article, not a judicial filing, the hyperbole is normal and there are first amendment implications to disciplining Klayman for writing stupid articles about judges, no discipline for ranting about biased liberal judges.
When it gets to the recommendation of discipline section, they discuss Klayman's "attitude to the underlying misconduct" and his response is "I'm getting #metoo'ed by the liberals on the disciplinary committee!"
i can't even imagine what possessed him to put this in his brief, except maybe to argue that if some Senators can openly accuse Kavanaugh of assault, how could he get in trouble for calling Kollar-Kotelly a Clinton stooge?
this is a quick summary of the rules violations that the disciplinary committee found
A quick summary of the Klayman "prejudice to the client" section. After each one of these I said "dayenu" to myself.
The disciplinary committee thinks that Klayman deserves a three-year suspension (but not disbarment because he didn't steal from anyone) but actually cuts him a three-month break because of the "public interest" work he did at Judicial Watch suing the government.
there's a section about the numerous and frivolous motions klayman filed in his own case, to the point where the committee treated him as a vexatious litigant, but i'm only going to highlight when he submitted something with a document title from a different matter
Klayman repeatedly asked to delay the hearing because of a family medical emergency. After a number of requests, the committee required him to file proof, but he repeatedly refused - even under seal - due to the sensitive nature of his wife's unspecified "female health issues."
Klayman also apparently fudged the facts about his work schedule in order to get extensions and postponements.
The committee found Klayman's litigation tactics and total lack of remorse so troubling that, even though he wasn't disbarred, they recommend that the Bar require that he prove he has reformed and is fit to practice at the end of the recommended 33 month suspension.
Based on literally everything else I read in this decision, I suspect Klayman has already filed a Motion for Reconsideration and has accused every member of the Ad Hoc Disciplinary Committee of X-treme Liberal Bias.
~fin~
if you want to read the Klayman disciplinary recommendation yourself, have at it assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6212…
