Seth Robbins

DCCA Opinion (August 30, 2018)

Summary: The D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Robbins for 60 days, effective 30 days from the date of the opinion, with reinstatement conditioned on completing four hours of ethics CLE during or before the period of suspension and filing with the Board on Professional Responsibility and Disciplinary Counsel a certificate that he has completed the requirement. This conflict of interest matter arises out of a business relationship between (1) a government contractor company represented by Robbins, (2) an individual client of Robbins’s who agreed to indemnify the government contractor company’s surety in the event of default, and (3) a second company in which Robbins owned an interest and which was performing services for the government contractor. Prior to the events at issue, Robbins had represented the individual client in four or five different matters. The primary issue presented was whether Robbins also acted as the individual client’s attorney here, or whether, as Robbins contends, he was merely presenting a business opportunity to a friend. Robbins represented both the government contractor company and his former client, that his representation of his former client was adversely affected by his representation of the government contractor company, and that it was likely adversely affected by his ownership interest in the second company. In addition, Robbins did not obtain the former client’s informed consent to the conflicting representations. After the Hearing Committee issued its report, finding that Robbins had an attorney–client relationship with the individual, a Virginia court found that the existence of the relationship had not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Virginia court considered the written record in the D.C. hearing, but did not hear live testimony. The court ruled that D.C. was not collaterally estopped from finding that there was such a relationship because Disciplinary Counsel was not a party to the Virginia proceedings. Rules 1.4(a), 1.7(b)(2), and 1.7(b)(4).

Board Report and Orders (July 13, 2017)

Summary: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends the D.C. Court of Appeals suspend Robbins for 60 days with reinstatement conditioned on completing four hours of ethics CLE during or, with Disciplinary Counsel’s permission, before the period of suspension. This conflict of interest matter arises out of a business relationship between (1) a government contractor company represented by Robbins, (2) an individual client of Mr. Robbins’s who agreed to indemnify the government contractor company’s surety in the event of default, and (3) a second company in which Robbins owned an interest and which was performing services for the government contractor. Prior to the events at issue, Robbins had represented the individual client in four or five different matters. The primary issue presented was whether Robbins also acted as the individual client’s attorney here, or whether, as Robbins contends, he was merely presenting a business opportunity to a friend. The Board found Robbins represented both the government contractor company and his former client, that his representation of his former client was adversely affected by his representation of the government contractor company, and that it was likely adversely affected by his ownership interest in the second company. In addition, Robbins did not obtain the former client’s informed consent to the conflicting representations (Rules 1.4(a), 1.7(b)(2), and 1.7(b)(4)). The Board rejected Robbins’s claim of defensive collateral estoppel against Disciplinary Counsel because a three-judge panel in Virginia had found that no attorney–client relationship existed between Robbins and the individual client.

Hearing Committee Report (January 27, 2017)

Summary: Not yet available.