Ethics filing lists president's testimony as evidence

MICHAEL ROWETT
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE

An ethics complaint against President Clinton accuses him of violating a rule that forbids lawyers from engaging in deceit and another that forbids conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
A copy of the complaint, obtained Wednesday by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, offers as evidence statements that he made in grand jury testimony, a deposition he gave in a civil lawsuit, and remarks he made elsewhere.
Asked about the complaint Wednesday during a White House news conference, Clinton said, "I don't think I should be spending my time on this. I think I'm working for the American people, and I'm going to do my best to adhere to that. And as a result, I have refrained from saying a lot of things I would otherwise have said as an American citizen and as a lawyer."
The complaint originally was filed in September 1998 by the Southeastern Legal Foundation of Atlanta and L. Lynn Hogue, chairman of its legal advisory committee. That complaint asked the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to disbar Clinton. The committee modified the complaint and this month formally sent it to Clinton, who has 30 days to respond to the allegations.
Under Section 5 of Arkansas court rules governing the professional conduct committee, failure to respond to a formal complaint constitutes an admission of the factual allegations of the complaint. If Clinton didn't respond, he'd lose his right to a public hearing before the committee to appeal its decision and could face additional sanctions for failing to respond.
The complaint's supporting information grows partly out of Clinton's testimony before a federal grand jury working with former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, partly out of his statements under oath in a deposition in the sexual harassment lawsuit that Paula Corbin Jones filed against him, and partly out of remarks he made to White House employees.
His aim in those remarks was to conceal the truth about his sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, the complaint says, and to prejudice the handling of the Jones case while it was pending in U.S. District Court in Little Rock.
On April 1, 1998, federal court Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed Jones' lawsuit; but Jones appealed, and while the appeal was pending, Clinton on Nov. 13, 1998, agreed to settle the suit for $850,000. Under the terms of the settlement, Clinton admitted no wrongdoing.
An April 12, 1999, memorandum opinion and order from Wright found Clinton in civil contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony during his Jan. 17, 1998, deposition in the Jones case about his relationship with Lewinsky.
Wright fined Clinton $90,686. Clinton didn't challenge the ruling and paid the fine. On April 13, 1999, Wright referred her opinion and order to the committee for review and any "action you deem appropriate." Wright's decision to cite Clinton for civil contempt for lying about his relationship with Lewinsky marked the first such judgment against a sitting president.
Wright also ordered Clinton to pay $1,202 for the court's expenses when she and a law clerk traveled to Washington, D.C., at the president's request to preside over the deposition where he committed contempt.
Wright wrote in her contempt decision that had Clinton testified truthfully about his relationship with Lewinsky, it would not have changed her April 1, 1998, decision to dismiss Jones' suit.
During the news conference Wednesday, the first question that Clinton was asked about the complaint was whether he would surrender his license to avoid a conduct committee hearing.
"Well, let me say to you, the reason and the only reason I even settled the lawsuit in the first place was because I thought that it was wrong for the president to take an hour, much less a day, much less weeks, away from the job of the American people to deal with anything that could be a distraction," Clinton answered. "And I did it only after there was a court ruling that the case had absolutely no merit, which was obvious to everybody who looked at the facts.
"Now, I haven't changed my position on that. As a result, in all the things that have happened subsequently, I have left a lot of things unsaid which I might have otherwise said. And I hope I can continue to do that. And that's what I'm going to do today."
Later another reporter asked whether Clinton meant he or his lawyers "would not offer a defense" to the ethics committee. The president answered, "No, I meant to say I'm not going to discuss it any more than I absolutely have to because I don't think I should be dealing with it. I should be dealing with my job."
Proceedings of the committee are confidential, but the rules allow an accused attorney to waive his right to keep the proceedings private. The White House has declined to say whether Clinton would do that.
Foundation President Matthew Glavin has said that a lawyer for the conduct committee told him that the committee intended to serve Clinton with two formal complaints. The source of the second complaint might be the referral from Wright, but she doesn't intend to divulge a written submission she received Feb. 10 from the committee, her law clerk said.
Complaints filed with the committee aren't referred to the accused lawyer unless the committee executive director finds that the complaint is based on sufficient evidence to warrant further inquiry. A referral from a judge of any court in Arkansas, however, is automatically considered a formal complaint and requires no action on the part of the executive director.
Clinton, a former law professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville, has been licensed to practice law in his home state since Sept. 7, 1973, although he has not done so in many years.
The foundation characterizes itself as a conservative public-interest law firm. Hogue, a licensed Arkansas lawyer, is a law professor at Georgia State University and a former law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law.
Hogue and the foundation want Clinton disbarred because, they assert, he lied under oath, obstructed justice and encouraged perjury during proceedings in the Jones lawsuit regarding his relationship with Lewinsky.

This is the text of a complaint before the state Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct. The complaint is against President Clinton as a licensed Arkansas lawyer.
------
Before the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct
In Re: William Jefferson Clinton
Arkansas Bar ID #73019

COMPLAINT
Attached hereto as Exhibit "1" is the Affidavit of L. Lynn Hogue. Mr. Hogue is the General Counsel for Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., and a member of the Bar of Arkansas. Mr. Hogue's Affidavit is incorporated into the body of this Complaint the same as if set out herein verbatim. The Complaint is hereby directed to you as a formal disciplinary complaint pursuant to Section 5E(1) of the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law. From the information contained in the attached Exhibits, the following violations of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) are alleged:
A. Your conduct, collectively and singularly, violated Model Rule 8.4(c), to wit:
1. You failed to tell the whole truth after being placed under oath in testimony before a grand jury of the Independent Counsel on August 17, 1998, when you denied a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
2. You failed to tell the whole truth after being placed under oath in a deposition taken on January 17, 1998, in the case of Paula Corbin Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton and Danny Ferguson, Case No. LR-C-94-290, when you denied having a discussion with Vernon Jordan about your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
3. You failed to tell the whole truth after being placed under oath in a civil deposition taken on January 17, 1998, in the case of Jones v. Clinton, et al., when you were asked about the gifts exchanged between you and Ms. Lewinsky and you denied the existence of the gifts in order to prevent disclosure of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
4. During your deposition, you falsely stated that no one but your attorney has informed you of Ms. Lewinsky's status as a potential witness in the Jones case.
5. Three weeks before your deposition you had a conversation with Ms. Lewinsky concerning the subpoena from the Jones lawyers and the contents thereof. You denied such a conversation in your deposition.
6. Ten days before your deposition in the Jones matter, you had a conversation with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's signed affidavit denying a sexual relationship. You admitted knowing that Mr. Jordan met with Ms. Lewinsky but averred that you thought the meeting was about something other than the Jones lawsuit.
7. You denied being aware of Mr. Jordan's conversation with Ms. Lewinsky about the Jones case.
8. You testified falsely under oath in a civil case in which you were the defendant, Paula Corbin Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton and Danny Ferguson, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Case No. LR-C-94-290, when you denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Miss Monica Lewinsky.
9. You provided false testimony in your civil deposition concerning being alone with Miss Lewinsky and concerning the many gifts exchanged between Miss Lewinsky and yourself.
Model Rule 8.4(c) requires, in pertinent part, that a lawyer not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation.
B. Your conduct, collectively and singularly, violated Model Rule 8.4(d), to wit:
1. You attempted to influence the testimony of your personal secretary, Ms. Betty Currie, following your testimony in a civil deposition in the Jones case taken on January 17, 1998.
2. You obstructed justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for a period of seven months.
3. You prejudiced the jury proceedings when you failed to tell the whole truth after being placed under oath in testimony before the grand jury on August 17, 1998, wherein you denied a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
4. You prejudiced the civil court proceedings in the Jones matter when you failed to tell the whole truth after being placed under oath in a deposition taken on January 17, 1998, wherein you denied discussion with Vernon Jordan about your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
5. You prejudiced the civil court proceedings in the Jones matter when you failed to tell the whole truth after being placed under oath in a deposition taken on January 17, 1998, wherein you denied the existence of gifts exchanged between you and Ms. Lewinsky in order to prevent disclosure of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
6. You hindered the discovery process in the civil court proceedings in your attempt to conceal gifts exchanged between you and Ms. Lewinsky.
7. Your entered into an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to conceal the existence of your relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included lying under oath in the Jones case.
8. You entered into an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to conceal the existence of your relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included suggestion to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit which would memorialize her testimony under oath and prevent each of you from being questioned about the relationship.
9. You used the affidavit of Ms. Lewinsky, which you knew to be false, in the civil deposition of January 17, 1998, in an attempt to avoid questioning about the relationship you had with Ms. Lewinsky.
10. You obstructed justice during the grand jury investigation when you lied to other potential witnesses with knowledge that the witnesses would relay the false statements to the grand jury.
11. During your grand jury testimony, you refused to answer specific questions about any activities in which you engaged with Ms. Lewinsky.
12. The entirety of your conduct demonstrated an attempt on your part to obstruct the proper functioning of the justice system.
Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF FULTON
I, L. Lynn Hogue, Attorney at Law, 3340 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 2515, Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia, being duly sworn, do hereby state the following:
I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Arkansas. Pursuant to the duty required of me by Rule 8.3(a) of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, I submit to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct (Committee), the following information regarding the conduct of William Jefferson Clinton, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Arkansas. I, at the time of my initial submission to the Committee, was General Counsel to the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., a non-profit public interest legal Foundation. I am currently Chairman of the Foundation's Legal Advisory Board and Of Counsel to the Foundation, and I also make this Complaint on the Foundation's behalf. In addition, I am a Professor of Law at the Georgia State University College of Law involved in the professional formation of prospective attorneys.
On September 10, 1998, the United States House of Representatives released to the public a Referral from the Office of Independent Counsel. I have no personal knowledge or involvement in the matters set forth in the Referral made by the Office of Independent Counsel to the House of Representatives. After review of the information contained in the Referral and noting the seriousness of the allegations and factual basis for the same, I decided that as a member of the Bar of Arkansas and as a law teacher, I should forward this information to the Committee for consideration. The information contained in that Referral, dated September 15, 1998, constitutes the entire basis of my initial complaint. (Copy of the "Referral" attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein the same as if set out herein verbatim). I am also aware of subsequent corroborating information in Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright's Order in Jones v. Clinton, 36 F. Supp.2d 1118 (E.D. Ark. 1999), sanctioning President Clinton for his contemptuous misconduct, a copy of which I forwarded to the Committee. I understand that Judge Wright has also submitted a copy of her Order to the Committee, as noted in the Arkansas Supreme Court's Order in my Mandamus action against the Committee, Hogue v. Neal, No. 99-1451, 2000 WL 66160 (Ark. Jan. 27, 2000). Further affiant says not.
L. Lynn Hogue
Arkansas Bar No. 79165
Subscribed and sworn to by me, a Notary Public, this 7th day of February 2000.
Cheryl M. Dial
Notary Public
My commission expires July 18, 2000.

This article was published on Thursday, February 17, 2000

RETURN to Clinton Crisis

Copyright and permissions
Copyright © 2000, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.