RTL was not founded by a BEA, law professor, or other ethics specialist, but simply by a practicing attorney who, in entirely unwelcome circumstances, witnessed attorney fraud that has caused over $150M in harm, first and foremost to persons of color. As required by DC’s Rule 8.3 (as he is a member of that Bar as are the violating attorneys), he reported the fraud only to see BEAs do nothing and even violate the Rules to avoid enforcing them.

The Reporting Attorney (“RA”) reported the violations despite threats he would be sued under an NDA that is almost certainly unethical as applied, since it is being used by attorneys to conceal their own fraud. Though D.C.’s BEAs acknowledged that the threats were unethical, they: (1) failed to sanction the violators for reasons that lacked any good faith basis; and (2) failed even to acknowledge much less address the underlying fraud and other violations. To enable disclosure of the fraud to the victims without further threat of suit, the RA has for years asked not only the D.C. Bar but also VT’s (as he is a member of both) the elsewhere-discussed NDA-related Q of whether an NDA can be used by attorneys to prevent disclosure of their own ongoing fraud. Neither Bar has even acknowledged the questions … nor, at this point, could they without acknowledging their own role in the concealment.

Were any of these or other RTL statements false or simply to lack a demonstrably good faith basis, DC’s and VT’s BEAs could and almost certainly would sanction if not disbar the RA. If BEAs believe they have any good faith reason to deny any of what’s written here, they could accept RTL’s offer to post their rebuttals here. As yet, none has responded to this offer.