June 15, 2017
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Board on Professional Responsibility
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
515 5th Street NW
Building A, Suite 117
Washington, DC 20001
Re:

Complaint vs. Marc E. Kasowitz

Dear Sir or Madam:
Campaign for Accountability respectfully asks that you investigate whether attorney Marc E.
Kasowitz violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct regarding the
unauthorized practice of law and dealing with unrepresented parties.
Background
As you may know, President Donald J. Trump has retained New York attorney Marc E.
Kasowitz to represent him in connection with ongoing investigations into possible collusion
between the Russian government and the Trump campaign to ensure President Trump’s victory
in the 2017 presidential election and whether the president engaged in obstruction of justice.
According to a recent report in The New York Times, Mr. Kasowitz, who reportedly is seeking an
office in the Old Executive Office building, has advised White House staff that they need not
retain their own counsel. According to the Times,
Mr. Kasowitz has advised White House aides to discuss the inquiry into Russia’s
interference in last year’s election as little as possible, two people involved said. He told
aides gathered in one meeting who had asked whether it was time to hire private lawyers
that it was not yet necessary, according to another person with direct knowledge. 1
Mr. Kasowitz reportedly “bypassed the White House Counsel’s Office in having these
discussions.”2
As former White House Counsel Robert Bauer explained, “[t]he president’s private lawyer is
representing only his interests, not the interests of the United States government or the individual

1

Rebecca R. Ruiz and Sharon LaFraniere, Role of Trump’s Lawyer Blurs Public and Private Lines, The New York
Times, June 11, 2017 available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/ us/politics/trump-lawyer-marckasowitz.html.
2
Id.

660 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E.  Suite 303  Washington, D.C. 20003  (202) 780-5750
campaignforaccountability.org

 Disciplinary Counsel
June 15, 2017
Page 2
interests of the White House staff.”3 Typically, the White House Counsel’s Office supervises
discussions with staff “to make sure the aides understand their rights and do not feel pressured to
help a lawyer who does not represent their interests, legal experts said.” 4
Potential Violations
District of Columbia Bar Rule 5.5(a) provides “a lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction
where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction.” 5
Nevertheless, Mr. Kasowitz met with White House aides inside the White House complex and
advised them there is no need for them to retain counsel. According to the biography posted on
Mr. Kasowitz’s firm’s website, Mr. Kasowitz is a member of the New York bar, but not the
District of Columbia bar. 6 Therefore, by offering aides the legal advice not to retain counsel, it
appears Mr. Kasowitz engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Rule 5.5(a).
Further, District of Columbia Bar Rule 4.3, Dealing With Unrepresented Person, provides:
(a) In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a
lawyer shall not:
(1) Give advice to the unrepresented person other than the advice to secure counsel, if
the interests of such person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with
the interests of the lawyer’s client.7
The comment to the rule explains that an unrepresented person might assume that a lawyer is
providing disinterested advice and, therefore, must take particular care not to exploit this
assumption.8 The comment further states, “the possibility of the lawyer’s compromising the
unrepresented person’s interests is so great that the rule prohibits the giving of any advice, apart
from the advice that the unrepresented person obtain counsel.” 9
By advising White House staff members, who are not represented by counsel and who have a
reasonable possibility of having interests in conflict with the interests of President Trump, Mr.
Kasowitz’s client, that they do not need to hire their own counsel, Mr. Kasowitz appears to have
violated Rule 4.3.
Conclusion
White House staff members, aware of numerous congressional investigations as well as an
investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, may justifiably be concerned about whether
they are in any legal jeopardy. It is in President Trump’s interests that those staff members –
who may be questioned as witnesses by either the special counsel or a congressional committee –
3

Id.
Id.
5
https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/legal-ethics/amended-rules/rule5-05.cfm.
6
See http://www.kasowitz.com/marc-e-kasowitz/.
7
https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/legal-ethics/amended-rules/rule4-03.cfm.
8
Id.
9
Id.
4

 Disciplinary Counsel
June 15, 2017
Page 3
not retain their own counsel, as doing so would severely limit Mr. Kasowitz’a ability to talk to
them, potentially helping to shape their testimony, before they are interviewed. It is for this very
reason that the rule prohibits a lawyer from offering an unrepresented party any legal advice save
advice to retain counsel exists.
Given the exigencies of the situation, to protect the numerous staff members in the White House
who may find themselves ensnared in the investigations and who may come to regret heeding
Mr. Kasowitz’s advice, Campaign for Accountability requests that you immediately initiate an
investigation into whether Mr. Kasowitz violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,

Daniel E. Stevens
Executive Director
cc:

Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department
New York State Bar
Donald McGahn
White House Counsel