Scathing criticism of DC’s BEAs dates to a 2005 article by a Georgetown ethics professor who’d worked as a DC BEA for 17 years, and 2016 media reports of DC BEAs’ retaliation against attorneys who speak up in accordance with the 2003 mandates. Though DC’s highest court has warned that “compliance with Rules … depends … upon enforcement,” its BEAs still never enforce 8.3 and only rarely enforce 3.1. In one matter, DC’s BEAs have for years ignored questions regarding a plainly-invalid NDA despite >$150M in ongoing harm because of it.

DC BEAs have for years refused to respond to any of these three questions:

1. Can attorneys draft NDAs to conceal their own fraud even where disclosure is needed to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial harm to others?  DC’s BEAs have ignored this Q despite its being posed three times (2015, 2017, and 2020 after Justice Ginsberg condemned NDAS used in similar contexts).

2. Is there any good faith reason why DC BEAs have never enforced 8.3?  Though 8.3 does not require reporting if it would break privilege or the lie is purely social and harmless, those exceptions don’t swallow the Rule (and the privilege exception itself has exceptions, RPC 1.6(c, d) and 8.3. Further information on this question is here.

3. Can the Bar articulate any 3.1-compliant basis for dismissing this report?