throbber
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01m2018 02:17 PM
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
`
`INDEX No. 518372/2017E
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3F: 01/03/2018
`RfiCfiIVfiD \IYSCI
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`EXHIBIT “EE”
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`/2017
`: 51
`:
`12
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
`41
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`1:16-mc-02240-CRC-RDM-APM
`Case
`
`Document
`
`26
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`518372
`/ 2 017
`INDEX
`NO.
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`11/14/2017
`EC IVED
`N
`CEF:
`4
`age
`1 o
`
`Filed
`
`11/30/16
`
`UNITED
`STATES
`FOR THE DISTRICT
`
`come
`DISTRICT
`OF COLUMBIA
`
`'
`
`~ < < 9
`NOV30
`
`
`
`ROIS)QIS
`
`Clark,U.S.Distrlot
`&Bankru
`+
`Courts for flie Distriot of Columb a
`
`Attorney
`Docket
`
`Grievance
`15-19
`No.
`
`))
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`) ) )
`
`ORDER
`
`TY CLEVENGER
`
`Respondent
`
`Member
`Court
`
`the Bar
`of
`the District
`
`for
`
`of
`
`the District
`of Columbia
`
`This matter
`
`comes
`
`before
`
`the Disciplinary
`
`Panel
`
`(hereinafter
`
`"Panel"
`"Panel"
`"Panel")
`
`for approval
`
`of
`
`the
`
`I
`
`terms
`
`of settlement
`
`resolving
`
`the issues
`
`raised
`
`by the charges
`
`filed
`
`by Committee
`
`on Grievances
`
`against
`
`the Respondent,
`
`Ty Clevenger.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Committee
`
`on Grievances
`
`("COG"),
`
`pursuant
`
`to LCvR
`
`83.16(d)(7),
`
`submitted
`
`charges
`
`to the Panel
`
`alleging
`
`that Ty Clevenger,
`
`a member
`
`of
`
`the Bar of
`
`this Court,
`
`violated
`
`certain Rules
`
`of Professional
`
`Conduct.1
`
`see Dkt.
`
`1.
`
`In particular,
`
`Mr. Clevenger
`
`was charged
`
`with:
`
`l.
`
`Violation
`
`of Rule
`
`8.4(d)-
`
`——
`Misconduct
`
`.
`
`.
`
`It
`
`is professional
`
`misconduct
`
`for a lawyer
`
`to:
`
`(d) Engage
`
`in conduct
`
`that seriously
`
`interferes
`
`with
`
`the administration
`
`of
`
`justice
`
`2.
`
`Violation
`
`of Rule
`
`3 - Meritorious
`
`Claims
`
`and Contentions
`
`A lawyer
`shall
`unless
`therein,
`which
`Includes
`of existing
`law.
`
`or assert or controvert
`a proceeding,
`or defend
`not bring
`so that
`is not
`for doing
`there
`is a basis
`in law and fact
`for an extension,
`a good-faith
`argument
`modification,
`
`an issue
`frivolous,
`or
`reversal
`
`3.
`
`Violation
`
`of Rule
`
`3.2 -
`
`Expediting
`
`Litigation
`
`5
`
`previously
`
`The factual support and specific charges ofviolations
`submitted to the Panel as COG Exhibit 2.
`
`ofthe Rules ofProfessional
`
`Conduct were
`
`1I
`
`
`
`156-181SG-1S
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED:FILED:
`
`KINGSKINGS
`
`
`COUNTYCOUNTY
`
`CLERKCLERK
`1111
`
`20172017
`
`12:5112l51
`PP
`1414
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`41
`Case
`
`1:16-mc-02240-CRC-RDM-APM
`
`Document
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372
`/ 2 O17
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`E
`IVED
`N
`CEF:
`11/14/2017
`Ÿage
`2 of
`
`11/30/16
`
`26
`
`Filed
`
`(a)
`
`In representing
`knows
`or when
`injure
`
`maliciously
`
`a lawyer
`a client,
`it
`is obvious
`that
`another.
`
`a proceeding
`shall not delay
`serve
`such action would
`
`when
`solely
`
`the lawyer
`to harass
`or
`
`(b) A lawyer
`interests
`
`shall make
`of
`the client.
`
`reasonable
`
`efforts
`
`to expedite
`
`litigation
`
`consistent
`
`with
`
`the
`
`The charges
`
`filed
`
`against Mr. Clevenger
`
`were the result
`
`of COG's
`
`investigation
`
`that was
`
`spurred
`
`by a letter of complaint
`
`sent
`
`to COG by Patrick
`
`Keamey.2
`
`Mr. Kearney's
`
`letter of complaint
`
`to COG arose out of very
`
`contentious
`
`litigation
`
`in the case of Wade A. Robertson
`
`v. William
`
`C.
`
`Cartinhour,
`
`1:09-ov-1642.
`
`That
`
`case was litigated
`
`in the United
`
`States District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`before United
`
`States District
`
`Court
`
`Judge Ellen Huvelle.3
`
`The litigation
`
`of Robertson
`
`v. Cartinhour
`
`involved
`
`battles
`
`on many
`
`fronts,
`
`in multiple
`
`courts,
`
`and included
`
`the filing
`
`of multiple
`
`appeals.
`
`These multiple
`
`court
`
`battles
`
`and appeals
`
`resulted
`
`in the Respondent
`
`being
`
`sanctioned,
`
`not
`
`but also
`
`Judge
`
`of
`
`court
`
`only
`
`by Judge Huvelle,
`
`by the then-Chief
`
`this Court,
`
`a bankruptcy
`
`judge,
`
`and the United
`
`States Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`Circuit
`
`
`Circuit"Circuit"
`("the D.C. Circuit").
`
`The Panel
`
`notes
`
`that,
`
`in a Memorandum
`
`Opinion,
`
`Judge Huvelle
`
`listed
`
`and summarized
`
`several
`
`events
`
`involving
`
`sanctions
`
`against Mr. Clevenger
`
`that occurred
`
`since
`
`the Court
`
`dismissed
`
`Robertson
`
`I on March
`
`16, 2012,
`
`Those
`
`events
`
`included:
`
`l. On April
`
`2, 2012, Chief
`
`Judge Lambert
`
`imposed
`
`sanctions
`
`of $7,249.00
`
`against Messrs.
`
`Robertson
`
`and Clevenger
`
`jointly
`
`because
`
`they had filed
`
`a frivolous
`
`bankruptcy
`
`case in
`
`an attempt
`
`to stall
`
`litigation
`
`in this district
`
`in front
`
`of Judge Huvelle.
`
`Judge
`
`Lamberth
`
`found
`
`that
`
`the
`
`sanctions
`
`were warranted
`
`because
`
`of
`
`the
`
`"groundless
`
`nature
`
`of
`
`the
`
`(bankruptcy]
`
`appeal,
`
`unfounded
`
`whatsoever
`
`in the law."
`
`2 Mr. Kearney was opposing counsel
`in a case against one of Mr. Clevenger's
`Mr. Kcamoy is dated December 29, 2014, and is COG's Exhibit
`1.
`3
`Robertson v. Cartinhour
`resulted in ajury verdict against Mr. Clevenger's
`in compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages.
`
`million
`
`clients. ‰ letter from
`in the amount of $3.5
`
`client
`
`22
`
`

`

`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`
`FILED:FILED:
`
`KINGSKINGS
`
`COUNTYCOUNTY
`INDEX
`NO.
`5183 7 2 / 2 0 1 7
`
`CLERKCLERK
`1111
`
`20172017
`
`12:5112:51
`1414
`PP
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`NYSCEFNYSCEF
`
`DOC.DOC.
`NO.NO.
`4141
`11/30/16 7 ge a
`RECEIVED
`NZSCEF:
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`11/14/2017
`~~
`a OA
`ase
`1:16-mc-02240-CRC-RDM-APM
`Or~4
`
`Document
`
`26
`
`Filed
`
`II
`
`2. On April
`
`3, 2012,
`
`the D.C. Circuit
`
`affirmed
`
`the jury's
`
`$7 million
`
`verdict
`
`in Robertson
`
`Iand
`
`found
`
`that Robertson
`
`presented
`
`"no meritorious
`
`argument
`
`on appeal."
`
`3. On May
`
`4, 2012,
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Judge
`
`Teel
`
`granted
`
`a motion
`
`for
`
`sanctions
`
`and fined
`
`Messrs.
`
`Clevenger
`
`and Robertson
`
`$10,000
`
`each,
`
`finding
`
`that
`
`"Clevenger
`
`joined
`
`Robertson
`
`in
`
`knowingly
`
`and
`
`in
`
`bad
`
`faith
`
`advancing
`
`frivolous
`
`arguments
`
`in [the]
`
`bankruptcy
`
`case."
`
`4. On June
`
`12, 2012, Mr. Clevenger
`
`filed
`
`an appeal
`
`in the D.C. Circuit
`
`seeking
`
`review
`
`of
`
`this Court's
`
`dismissal
`
`of Robertson
`
`II.
`
`5.
`
`On June 25, 2012, Chief
`
`Judge Lambeith
`
`ordered Messrs. Clevenger
`
`and Robertson
`
`to
`
`show cause why
`
`they
`
`"should
`
`not be enjoined
`
`from further
`
`filings
`
`[in the bankruptcy-
`
`related matters),
`
`filing
`
`further
`
`appeals
`
`from the underlying
`
`bankruptcy
`
`case, and from
`
`new related matters
`
`in this
`
`district
`
`court."
`
`Chief
`
`Judge
`
`Lamberth
`
`responded
`
`to
`
`!
`
`behavior
`
`filing
`
`their
`
`objections
`
`on July 25, 2012,
`
`by listing
`
`the egregious
`
`engaged
`
`in dating
`
`back
`
`to the inception
`
`of Robertson
`
`I.4
`
`The Panel
`
`has determined
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is both
`
`a factual
`
`and legal
`
`basis
`
`for
`
`the charges
`
`filed
`
`by COG against Mr. Clevenger.
`
`The Panel notes
`
`that Mr. Clevenger
`
`submitted
`
`written
`
`responses
`
`.
`
`to the charges
`
`filed
`
`by COG.
`
`Those
`
`responses
`
`included:
`
`Mr. Clevenger's
`
`Motion
`
`to Dismiss,
`
`Dkt.
`
`6, a Motion
`
`to Permit
`
`Discovery,
`
`Dkt.
`
`4, and a Motion
`
`to Transfer,
`
`Dkt.
`
`5.
`
`In the Motion
`
`to
`
`Dismiss,
`
`Mr. Clevetiger
`
`alleged
`
`that he was a victim of selective
`
`prosecution.
`
`See Dkt.
`
`6 at 2-3.
`
`However,
`
`in a written
`
`Order
`
`issued
`
`by this Panel
`
`on October
`
`26, 2016,
`
`all
`
`of Mr. Clevenger's
`
`motions
`
`were
`
`denied.
`
`See Dkt.
`
`25. With
`
`regard
`
`to the selective
`
`prosecution
`
`defense,
`
`this Panel
`
`stated
`
`in its Order
`
`that Mr.
`
`Clevenger
`
`"has
`
`not
`
`identified
`
`any
`
`evidence
`
`that would
`
`support
`
`a
`
`'colorable
`
`claim'
`
`of selective
`
`prosecution."
`
`Id
`
`at 2.
`
`4
`
`See COG Exhibit
`
`33 - Robertson v. Cartinhour,
`
`883 F. Supp. 2d 121, 124 (D.D.C. 2012).
`
`33
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`:
`/2017
`: 51
`12
`P14
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`41
`NO.
`da
`
`1:16-mc-02240-CRC-RDM-APM
`
`Document
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECETVED
`EF:
`11/14/2017
`ac Ï4NO
`oak
`
`11/30/16
`
`26
`
`Filed
`
`I
`
`An evidentiary
`
`hearing
`
`was scheduled
`
`in this matter
`
`for November
`
`29, 2016. Meanwhile,
`
`at
`
`the conclusion
`
`of
`
`the motions
`
`hearing
`
`on October
`
`14, 2016,
`
`the parties
`
`were
`
`encouraged
`
`to
`
`explore
`
`ways
`
`in which
`
`this matter
`
`could
`
`be resolved.
`
`Consistent
`
`with
`
`the Panel's
`
`encouragement
`
`to work
`
`toward
`
`a resolution,
`
`it was reported
`
`to the Panel
`
`that Mr. Clevenger
`
`and COG entered
`
`negotiations
`
`and have reached
`
`a settlement.
`
`OMR
`
`Based
`
`upon
`
`the agreed
`
`terms
`
`reached
`
`by the parties,
`
`it
`
`is on this
`
`300'
`
`day of Novernber
`
`2016,
`
`hereby ORDERED
`
`that:
`
`l.
`
`Respondent,
`
`be and
`
`suspended
`
`from practicing
`
`law in the
`
`Ty Clevenger,
`
`is hereby
`
`United
`
`States District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`for
`
`120 days
`
`from November
`
`29, 2016.
`
`2. Respondent,
`
`Ty Clevenger,
`
`is hereby
`
`fined
`
`in the amount
`
`of $5,000,00
`
`(Five
`
`Thousand
`
`Dollars)
`
`to be paid
`
`in full
`
`by no later
`
`than December
`
`30, 2016.
`
`3.
`
`The
`
`letter
`
`of
`
`resignation
`
`(Attachment
`
`A)
`
`from the Bar of
`
`this Court
`
`that
`
`is signed
`
`Respondent
`
`and which
`
`takes effect
`
`on March
`
`29, 2017
`
`(120
`
`days
`
`from November
`
`2016),
`
`is accepted
`
`by this Panel
`
`and is incorporated
`
`as an integral
`
`part of
`
`this Order.
`
`by
`
`29,
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Judge Christopher
`
`R. Cooper
`
`y
`
`dge
`
`ndolph
`
`D. Moss
`
`Judge
`
`'
`
`ehta
`
`4
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket