(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Lawyer Group Files Ethics Complaint Against Cassidy Hutchinson’s Former Attorney [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags'] Date: 2023-03-16 Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) has filed a complaint with the District of Columbia Office of Disciplinary Counsel seeking to disbar Stefan Passantino. As some here may recall, Passantino was the Trump World attorney who initially “represented” Ms. Hutchinson during her earlier testimony before the House January 6th Committee. Many of the facts from the LDAD complaint come straight from Ms. Hutchinson’s sworn testimony taken on September 14, 2022—which was after her televised testimony on June 28, 2022. x YouTube Video Passantino was previously employed as an “ethics attorney” in the Trump administration Office of White House Counsel. During the same time, he was also employed at the D.C. law firm Michael Best and Friedrich, LLP. When his involvement with Ms. Hutchinson came to light, Passantino and Michael Best “parted ways” in December of 2022, although Passantino alleges he is only on a leave of absence. Passantino is also the co-founder of Elections LLC. Elections LLC received at least $1.6 million from Trump PACS, and continues to promote Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election being stolen. Passantino formerly served as counsel to Newt Gingrich and had been active in Georgia Republican politics. According to the LDAD complaint, Passantino violated three of the most fundamental ethical duties of attorneys: (1) the duty to fully disclose any potential conflicts of interest (and decline representation unless the client consents); (2) the duty to maintain client confidentiality; and (3) the duty of “candor toward the tribunal,” a duty which seems to have been violated by many other Trump attorneys in their efforts to overturn the election and foment a coup. Conflict of Interest Ms. Hutchinson received a telephone call from Passantino the day before she was required to produce documents for the January 6th Committee. Passantino “announced” that he would be representing her at no cost. Trump World somehow knew Ms. Hutchinson was looking for work, and her own father (a Trump supporter) refused to help her with legal fees. Ms. Hutchinson offered to sign an engagement letter with Passantino, which he refused. Ms. Hutchinson noticed what (in hindsight) appeared to be “red flags” about Passantino’s representation. He advised her to not spend a lot of time preparing and not to refer to her calendar when answering questions. Although Passantino never expressly told her to lie, his general advice was to say she did not remember—even if the only thing she was unable to remember was a small detail. Passantino’s justification was “the goal it to get you in and out” so the process would be “painless.” “They don’t know what you do or don’t know, Cassidy.” Although Passantino’s (now) obvious objective was to protect Trump World, he never disclosed this conflict to Ms. Hutchinson, not did he seek her consent in doing so. Violation of Client Confidentiality During his representation of Ms. Hutchinson, Passantino was in contact with New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman. Ms. Hutchinson expressly told Passantino that she did not want him discussing her testimony with the media. Not only did Passantino discuss Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony with Ms. Haberman, evidence suggests that he was also keeping Trump World apprised of their confidential attorney-client discussions. Knowing Counsel or Assisting a Witness to Testify Falsely In addition to advising Ms. Hutchinson to conveniently forget facts that could be detrimental to Trump World, Passantino also urged her to resist the Committee’s subpoena for additional testimony—something which could have exposed Ms. Hutchinson to prosecution for contempt of Congress (in addition to possible perjury). Throughout Ms. Hutchinson’s transcript, she repeatedly expresses concern about her unease with not being completely candid as well as possible criminal repercussions. Passantino would not only reassure her that she had “nothing to worry about,” he also strategically dangled the possibility of a job in order to secure her continued compliance. Passantino made repeated statements like, “We have you taken care of”…as a “loyal supporter”…and “we want to keep you in the family.” These vague promises of future employment always came just before Ms. Hutchinson was scheduled to testify, only to disappear afterward. In addition to violations of multiple attorney ethics rules, LDAD further states that Passantino appears to have also violated at least four criminal statutes: 8 U.S.C. §1622: Subornation of perjury. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 1512(c)(2): Obstruction of justice, which is “inherently a crime of moral turpitude.” 18 U.S.C. §1512(b): Witness tampering. 18 U.S.C. §201(b)(3) and (c)(2), which prohibits “holding out the prospect of employment to influence testimony before Congressional committees.” (Bribery of public officials and witnesses). The January 6th Committee has made referrals to the DOJ, Update on Texas Bar Complaints As many here are already aware, Judge Andrea Bouressa granted Sidney Powell’s Motion for Summary Judgment against the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline on February 22nd. I have not had the opportunity to wade through the voluminous pleadings in this case. Apparently, the State Bar did not have enough evidence or did not “cure” defects in whatever evidence it had. The Dallas Morning News (no link due to paywall) and other editorials have characterized the ruling as based on “flimsy technical grounds.” Judge Bouressa has previously served as an operative in the Collin County (home of Ken Paxton) Republican Party. The Bar has until around March 22 to appeal. Both Ken Paxton and Brent Webster attempted to have their disciplinary cases dismissed based on an argument that the State Bar has no jurisdiction because this would violate the separation of powers. That is, the Bar (a judicial branch agency) would be interfering with the Attorney General’s (an executive branch agency) discretion on which cases to pursue in the name of the people and State of Texas. The counterargument is that the Bar is not seeking to sanction the AG for filing the case that it did, but for the dishonest manner in which it was conducted. Paxton (and Webster’s) interpretation would essentially make them “above the law” that applies to every other licensed attorney in the State of Texas. Webster’s case was heard in Williamson County, and there is a one-page ruling in his favor by the trial judge. This case is now on Appeal at the Eighth District Court of Appeals. You can read all the case documents here. I am grateful to LDAD, who filed an amicus brief in the Webster case (their complaint only involves Paxton, but the cases involve the same issues and arguments). This case has been set for submission without oral argument on April 14, 2023. Paxton’s parallel Plea to the Jurisdiction (which was heard in Collin County) was denied by Judge Casey Blair on January 27th, and Paxton is appealing. From the Webster pleadings, the State Bar had offered a public reprimand (no disbarment or even suspension), similar to the slap on the wrist received by Jenna Ellis by the State Bar disciplinary authorities in Colorado. Fortunately, Bar counsel seems to be as persistent as the perps. Wondering if any final discipline will be enhanced because the Bar is having to jump through hoops just to do its job. The scope, breadth and massive amounts of funding that has been directed to overthrow American democracy and other corrupt activities should give all of us who value democracy grave concern. We owe a debt of gratitude to LDAD, state bar disciplinary counsel in Texas, D.C. and elsewhere, and all attorneys who continue to fight a never-ending battle to preserve democracy from the oligarchs and sociopaths who are hell-bent on destroying it. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/3/16/2158663/-Lawyer-Group-Files-Ethics-Complaint-Against-Cassidy-Hutchinson-s-Former-Attorney Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/