COMPLAINT TO:
Disciplinary CounselCOMPLAINANT:
Two Lemoyne Drive
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
National Legal and Policy CenterRESPONDENT-ATTORNEY
1309 Vincent Place, Suite 1000
McLean, Virginia 22101
703-847-3088
Richard L. Trumka
AFL-CIO
815 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-637-5300
In order to protect the public, the profession and the courts, I request that Respondent-Attorney Richard L. Trumka be disbarred from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
This is a formal complaint under the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to request that the Disciplinary Counsel initiate an investigation into the conduct of Respondent-Attorney Richard L. Trumka pursuant to the procedure outlined in Rule 208. Pa.R.D.E. Rule 208 (2000).
Respondent-Attorney Trumka is subject to the "exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction" of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and its Disciplinary Board because he is a "formerly admitted attorney" and has engaged in "acts . . . which . . . constitute the violation of these rules." Pa.R.D.E. Rule 201(a)(3) (2000); see also Pa.R.D.E. Rule 219(j) (2000) ("Disciplinary proceedings may be initiated and maintained against a formerly admitted attorney who has voluntarily assumed inactive status.").
According to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Respondent-Attorney Trumka is an inactive member of the Bar of Pennsylvania, when consulted on September 14, 2000.1
The Complainant did not employ Respondent-Attorney Trumka. The Complainant's connection to Respondent-Attorney Trumka is that the Complainant is a nonprofit foundation that monitors corruption within labor organizations and Respondent-Attorney Trumka is an official of a labor organization.
A. Overview
Respondent-Attorney Trumka serves as the Secretary-Treasurer of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). See AFL-CIO, Top National Officers (visited Sept. 14, 2000) <http://www.aflcio.org/about/profile.htm#trumka>. In this capacity, Respondent-Attorney Trumka allegedly participated in illegal schemes to aid the reelection campaign of then-International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) President Ron Cary in 1996.2 See Kenneth Conboy, IBT Election Officer, Decision to Disqualify IBT President Ron Carey, §§ III.A.2-3, Nov. 17, 1997,3 aff'd without modification, United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 988 F. Supp. 759 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff'd, 156 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 1998) [hereinafter Conboy Decision]. Six individuals have been criminally charged in these schemes—five have pled guilty and one has been convicted. See United States v. Hamilton, No. 98-CR-393, at 3018-19 (S.D.N.Y. jury verdict Nov. 19, 1999)4; Conboy Decision, at § I; Steven Greenhouse, "Ex-Teamster Official Guilty in Campaign Finance Case," N.Y. Times, Nov. 20, 1999, at A7; see also infra Statement of Facts, Section D.
While Respondent-Attorney Trumka has not been charged with any crime to date, he is reportedly under federal investigation.5 See Brian Ross, "Top Labor Official Under Federal Investigation for Questionable Fund-Raising Activities," ABC News (Aug. 15, 2000) <http://abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNewsTonight/wnt000815_LaborUnions_feature.html>. Respondent-Attorney Trumka has invoked the Fifth Amendment on at least two occasions to avoid federal investigators' questions in the matter.6 See Conboy Decision, at §§ III.A.2, B.4.b; House Comm. on Education and the Workforce, Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations, 106th Cong., 1st Sess., Report on the Financial, Operating and Political Affairs of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 51-52, 195 (Comm. Print 1999).
Nevertheless, publicly available federal court documents provide a detailed picture of Respondent-Attorney Trumka's conduct in the matter. Respondent-Attorney Trumka reportedly engaged in two separate transactions to aid the Carey campaign.
B. Transaction One—Funneling $150,000 Through The AFL-CIO
In his report to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that disqualified Mr. Carey, IBT Election Officer Kenneth Conboy, a retired United States District Judge, found that Respondent-Attorney Trumka laundered $150,000 from the IBT through the AFL-CIO to a political group called Citizen Action, which routed $100,000 of the original amount to the Carey campaign. See Conboy Decision, at § III.A.3. Mr. Conboy wrote:
In the Fall of 1996, [Carey campaign consultant Martin] Davis sought to raise an additional $100,000 to cover more of the costs of the direct mail campaign to be conducted by the November Group for the Carey campaign. Mr. Davis initially sought to raise these funds by arranging for another IBT contribution to Citizen Action. In late October 1996, Citizen Action agreed that if Mr. Davis could obtain an additional contribution from the IBT of $150,000, Citizen Action would pay the November Group $100,000. Mr. Davis told [Carey campaign manager Jere] Nash that he wanted the IBT to make another contribution to Citizen Action which would, like the first contribution to Citizen Action for $475,000, benefit the Carey campaign. To follow up on Mr. Davis' request, on October 31, 1996, Ira Arlook of Citizen Action sent [IBT Government Affairs Director William] Hamilton a request for an additional $150,000 contribution from the IBT. In that letter, Mr. Arlook noted that the IBT had already "been extremely generous in supporting [Citizen Action's] efforts."In the United States' prosecution of former IBT Government Affairs Director William Hamilton, it confirmed Mr. Conboy's findings and added to them as illustrated in the following excerpt of Assistant United States Attorney Martine Beamon's summation to the Hamilton jury:Mr. Hamilton turned down this request from Citizen Action. Mr. Hamilton wrote to Mr. Arlook on November 1, 1996, stating, "[m]uch as I'd like to, we can't do the additional request." Mr. Nash stated that he was told by Mr. Hamilton that an additional contribution to Citizen Action could not be justified, since the IBT had recently given the group $475,000.
After learning that Mr. Hamilton denied the Citizen Action request for $150,000, Mr. Davis stated that he approached Richard Trumka, the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, and asked whether his union could donate $150,000 to Citizen Action. Mr. Davis explained to Mr. Trumka that such a donation by the AFL-CIO would help the Carey campaign. According to Mr. Davis, Mr. Trumka indicated that the AFL-CIO did not have any money to contribute. Mr. Davis stated that he and Mr. Trumka then agreed that if Mr. Davis could persuade the IBT to give $150,000 to the AFL-CIO, Mr. Trumka would have the AFL-CIO provide $150,000 to Citizen Action.
Mr. Davis then asked Mr. Nash to arrange for the IBT to contribute $150,000 to the AFL-CIO in order to benefit the Carey campaign. Mr. Nash asked Mr. Hamilton to recommend such a contribution, and Mr. Hamilton agreed to submit a request to contribute $150,000 of IBT funds to the AFL-CIO. By memorandum dated October 31, 1996, Mr. Hamilton asked for Mr. Carey's approval "to move $150,000 in general treasury funds to the AFL-CIO's [political action committee] COPE program to help finance get-out-the-vote activity in selected Labor ‘96 states." The request was approved on November 1, 1996, and a check for $150,000 was sent to the AFL-CIO. According to Mr. Davis, the AFL-CIO then transferred $150,000 to Citizen Action, which then forwarded $100,000 to the November Group. This $100,000 was applied by Mr. Davis to the costs of the direct mail campaign conducted by the November Group for the Carey campaign. Id. (emphasis added).
Shortly after that, as you know, Bill Hamilton wrote a memo recommending the $150,000 contribution to the AFL-CIO. That's Government Exhibit 401A.
What happens next? Well, Martin Davis had already gone to Ira Arlook [of Citizen Action] to see if Ira Arlook would request money from the Teamsters' Union. And Ira Arlook had said, yes, but Bill Hamilton had rejected that idea.
So, what did Martin Davis need to do next? He needed to get the AFL-CIO on board. He needed to get them to make a request for $150,000 from the Teamsters' Union. How do you know that that's what happened? Well, you know from [AFL-CIO controller] Sue Mackie that right around this same time period, she gets called to a meeting in the secretary-treasurer's office, in Mr. Trumka's office, and there are four people at that meeting; Sue Mackie herself, Richard Trumka, Richard Trumka's secretary, Kathy Smith, and a fourth person that Sue Mackie can't identify, someone that she's never seen before and she can't remember since. What happens during that meeting? Well, when Sue Mackie leaves, she knows this: She knows that the AFL-CIO might be getting $150,000 from the Teamsters' Union, and that if that money comes in, then that $150,000 should be sent to Citizen Action.
Who was that fourth person? Well, you know that it wasn't someone from within the AFL-CIO because Sue Mackie had never seen that person before. You know it wasn't anyone from Citizen Action, because Ira Arlook and Rochelle Davis told you that, they both told you that they never requested $150,000. And, in fact, as Ira Arlook explained to you, they wouldn't have requested that $150,000 from the AFL-CIO. Ira Arlook wouldn't go back to that well one more time. Not only wouldn't he go back to Steve Rosenthal, he wouldn't go over Steve Rosenthal's head to Richard Trumka. So, if it wasn't someone from the AFL and it wasn't someone from Citizen Action, who else could it be?
Who else knew that Citizen Action was looking for $150,000? Who else wanted Citizen Action to receive $150,000? Who else would have access to Richard Trumka? The only person, ladies and gentlemen, who fits all of those criteria is Martin Davis. Martin Davis was the very person who told Ira Arlook that he should ask for $150,000.
Martin Davis wanted Citizen Action to get $150,000. Why? Because Martin Davis wanted more money that he could apply to the Carey campaign. Remember, the election is getting close. He hasn't raised all the money he needs to and he needs more money. So, he wants Citizen Action to get some money hoping Citizen Action would pass some on to him.
And what else? Martin Davis is the one who knows Richard Trumka. Martin Davis was one of the people who was responsible for raising money from Richard Trumka for the Carey campaign and, in fact, as you know from Defense Exhibit 11 C, Martin Davis actually got $10,000 in cash from Richard Trumka that he applied to the Carey campaign.
So, what happens? On November 1st, the day after Bill Hamilton writes his request for the $150,000 contribution, a check is cut by the IBT for $150,000. What else happens the day after Bill Hamilton has written his request?
Bill Hamilton finally gets a request from the AFL-CIO, he finally gets a letter. Who does he get the letter from? He gets the letter from Richard Trumka. And what's the final thing that happened on November 1st? Bill Hamilton rejected officially the request for $150,000 from Citizen Action. That's Government Exhibit 402.
What happens then after the $150,000 goes from the Teamsters' Union to the AFL-CIO? Well, again, you know from Ms. Mackie's testimony that once the money comes into the AFL-CIO, it's supposed to go out to Citizen Action. But you don't just have to rely on Ms. Mackie's testimony on the stand about that. There are a couple of exhibits in the record that show you about it.
Take a look at Government Exhibit 408. Government Exhibit 408 is a memo that Sue Mackie wrote to another person in her accounting department explaining that $150,000 has come into the AFL-CIO and it's supposed to be recorded as a payment above and beyond the special assessment.
Then look at Government Exhibit 405. Government Exhibit 405 tells you how that money from the Teamsters' Union is supposed to be used. Government Exhibit 405 is a memo from the secretary-treasurer's office to Sue Mackie that says after the $150,000 had come in, that that exact same amount, $150,000 should be sent to Citizen Action.
How do you know, ladies and gentlemen, that Bill Hamilton made that $150,000 contribution to Citizen Action as a result of the swap scheme? Well, begin again by looking at the memo that Bill Hamilton drafted. That's Government Exhibit 401A. Again, just like the National Council of Senior Citizens memo that Bill Hamilton drafted, this memo, Government Exhibit 401A, predates any request from the AFL-CIO. It's written before any request comes in.
You know it's written before any written request comes in because the letter from Richard Trumka doesn't come in until the next day, November 1st. And in addition, take a look at Government Exhibit 401A, Bill Hamilton's memo, and see what Bill Hamilton is asking for there. Bill Hamilton says that he wants $150,000 to be sent to the AFL-CIO in connection with Labor ‘96. Well, did Steve Rosenthal call and make a request for $150,000? No, he didn't.
And who was it that ran the Labor ‘96? It was Steve Rosenthal. Steve Rosenthal never made any oral request to get another $150,000 from the Teamsters' Union. Did Steve Rosenthal ever ask anyone to request an additional $150,000 from the Teamsters' Union? No, he didn't. Did anyone ever tell Steve Rosenthal that another $150,000 might be requested from the Teamsters' Union? The answer to that question again is no. So, you know that this request didn't come through any ordinary channels.
What else shows you what was really going on with this $150,000 contribution? Well, as we just discussed, look where the money that the AFL gets, look where it goes. It goes to Citizen Action. As we've just discussed, Citizen Action didn't request $150,000 from the AFL-CIO. They didn't need $150,000 from the AFL-CIO because the mailing for Campaign For a Responsible Congress was already paid for. But on top of that—how could Bill Hamilton possibly think that it was a good idea to send money to the AFL-CIO if it was only to be passed on to Citizen Action? Bill Hamilton rejected another request for a contribution in the same amount to Citizen Action. How could Bill Hamilton possibly think that it would be a good idea for Citizen Action to get the money if he rejected their very request?
In addition, did Bill Hamilton ask any questions about what that money would be used for? Did he call Steve Rosenthal and say: Hey, what are you guys going to do with this $150,000? Or, hey, why do you guys need $150,000 from us? You've raised $35 million in connection with Labor ‘96. Why do you need money from the Teamsters' Union, a union that owes you $3.7 million? We've already given you enough money this year, Mr. Rosenthal.
None of those conversations occurred. Bill Hamilton doesn't ask any of those questions because he just doesn't care what the AFL-CIO is going to do with the money. All he cares about is that this money is going to be raised to raise money for the Carey campaign.
How else do you know that? You know that because he doesn't talk to any member of his staff about $150,000. Even if he had, you can imagine what the reaction would have been. Remember the IBT at this point didn't have enough money to send out to its local unions that were making requests for political contributions. And more specifically, Bill Hamilton and Mike Mathis discussed whether a contribution should be made to the AFL-CIO above any special assessment amounts not in conjunction with this request, but some time after an AFL-CIO meeting, they discussed it.
And what did Bill Hamilton say? Bill Hamilton said he didn't want to give any more money to the AFL-CIO. He had given enough money to the AFL-CIO. The Teamsters' Union had done their part. So, after having that conversation with Mike Mathis, how on earth would he just go to his staff and say that he needed to send this money along? He couldn't have just tied it to his staff, and that's why he didn't tell them. That's why his staff had to find out about this contribution in the newspapers in 1997.
What's the unmistakable conclusion from all of the facts, all of the circumstances surrounding this contribution? That Bill Hamilton is asking for this help, for this $150,000 to be contributed to the AFL-CIO in exchange for contributions to the Carey campaign?
Now, does the money ever benefit the Carey campaign? Yes, it does. But again, it's not like the Citizen Action or Project Vote deals. It's slightly different. How do you know that the money actually gets to benefit the Carey campaign?
You know that after the AFL-CIO cuts a check to Citizen Action on November 4, Rochelle Davis writes an e-mail to people who work for her. That's Government Exhibit 409.
Now, in Rochelle Davis' memo, she says: We just got in $150,000 from the AFL-CIO. I want you to send $100,000 of that amount to the November Group, and that's exactly what Citizen Action does. It's Government Exhibit 410. The check is cut from Citizen Action to the November Group for $100,000. What happens to the money that comes into the November Group? How is that used? Oh, and by the way, let me just note, I don't want to forget this fact: When Rochelle Davis directed Citizen Action to send that $100,000 to the November Group, she hadn't even received an invoice for any services.
The invoice from the November Group doesn't come to Citizen Action until two days later. That's Government Exhibit 411. The November Group sends Rochelle Davis an invoice for $100,000. I mean, that's not how business usually works. Why not? Because this money isn't going for any business purpose of the November Group. It's going to benefit the Carey campaign. How do you know that?
Take a look back at . . . Defense Exhibit C. You can see that Martin Davis applied $100,000 from Citizen Action toward the cost of the Carey mailing. We know that because Special Agent Sollet told you that. That money, the $100,000 was applied to defray the costs of the Carey campaign mailing. Now, again, just like with the National Council of Senior Citizens, neither Jere Nash nor Bill Hamilton knew exactly how the money was going to end up benefiting the Carey campaign. But as I mentioned before, as the Judge is going to tell you, Bill Hamilton didn't need to know that detail to be a member of the conspiracy and neither did Jere Nash.
All that Bill Hamilton needed to know and that he did know was that this contribution to the AFL-CIO was made in exchange for some type of donation to the Carey campaign. And that's exactly what happened here. You know, there actually was one other thing on Bill Hamilton's mind when he made that contribution to the AFL-CIO. The other thing on his mind was that he didn't want to get caught. How do you know that? Let's go back to something we discussed a moment ago.
Bill Hamilton told Jere Nash that he couldn't defend another contribution to Citizen Action for $150,000. Why couldn't he? Because he couldn't justify a single penny more to that organization. He'd be sure to be found out. There's no legitimate reason for that kind of money to be going to Citizen Action at a time when the union was close to financial ruin, at least in terms of where it had been.
And besides, he knows that the $475,000 contribution to Citizen Action alone had caused a lot of controversy within the IBT so how could he possibly go back and say that he needed to send another $150,000? But he didn't balk when that same amount of money was going to go to the AFL-CIO. He didn't stop for a minute. He went ahead and sent it on. If this money, this $150,000 is really being used to defeat the Newt Gingrich Congress, why would it matter whether Bill Hamilton sent that money to Citizen Action or to the AFL-CIO? Why would that matter one bit?
If he had legitimate reasons to send another $150,000 out of the Teamsters' Union, then he could have sent it to whomever he wanted. There was no legitimate reason, ladies and gentlemen. There was no legitimate reason and that's why Bill Hamilton wouldn't send that money to Citizen Action and would only send it to the AFL-CIO because he, like everybody else in this scheme, didn't want to get caught." Hamilton, at 2709-18 (closing arguments Nov. 16, 1999) (emphasis added).
Mr. Conboy's report also found that Respondent-Attorney Trumka participated in a second scheme in which he wrongfully contributed and/or solicited $50,000 to/for the Carey campaign. See Conboy Decision, at § III.A.2. Mr. Conboy wrote:
At that time, he had been assured by Martin Davis and Eddie Burke, one of Ron Carey's closest advisors, that this wasn't going to be that tough a job as campaign manager. Why? Because Ron Carey was a popular incumbent. He had brought reform to the union. Ron Carey wasn't going to have trouble raising money.
Well, quickly, ladies and gentlemen, it became clear that that just wasn't the case. It was going to be very difficult to raise money for this campaign because there were lots of rules about how to go about doing that. Within weeks of Jere Nash being hired, he learns that one of the ways that the union is going to raise money is through an illegal scheme to get cash from other labor union leaders. And that's against the election rules because those other labor union leaders are employers.
. . . Jere Nash told you that early on, he learned that there were commitments from three labor union leaders to raise $50,000 a piece. The heads of AFSCME, the leader at SEIU, and Richard Trumka at the AFL-CIO. . .
. . . How about the Richard Trumka angle? How about the fact that Richard Trumka was trying to raise $50,000 for the Carey campaign? Well, one piece of corroboration that you have for that is Defense Exhibit C, which we've blown up for you. You know from Defense Exhibit C that a lot of money came into the November Group to do the direct mailings. . . . [M]onies came in directly as a result of the corrupt scheme and one of the ways the money came in was that $10,000 came in from Richard Trumka and you know from Special Agent Sollet's testimony that that's what Martin Davis said what happened. Now, this is a chart that Jere Nash has never seen. $10,000 from Trumka corroborates what Jere Nash was telling you that other labor union leaders were out there trying to raise money for the Carey campaign.
. . . [O]ne other thing about raising money from labor union leaders before I forget. The other thing that Jere Nash tells you is who participated in the scheme. He tells you he participated in it. He tells you that Martin Davis participated in it. He tells you that Ed Burke participated in it. He tells you that Richard Trumka participated in it. Hamilton, at 2611-15 (closing arguments Nov. 16, 1999) (emphasis added).
Again, while Respondent-Attorney Trumka has not faced criminal charges for his conduct in the two transactions to date, several of the aforementioned individuals who participated in these and related schemes have either pled guilty to or been convicted of federal crimes.
"On September 18, 1997, … Jere Nash [and] Martin Davis . . . each pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to felonies arising out of their conduct on behalf of the Carey campaign." Conboy Decision, at § I. "Mr. Nash pled guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of making false statements. Mr. Davis pled guilty to one count of conspiracy, one count of embezzling union funds and one count of mail fraud." Id., at § I n.1; see also International Bhd. of Teamsters, 988 F. Supp. at 762 n.1.
On November 19, 1999, a federal jury of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York convicted Mr. Hamilton on all six criminal counts brought against him—conspiracy, union embezzlement, mail fraud, wire fraud, lying to a court officer, and perjury. See Hamilton, at 49-50, 3018-19.
A. Respondent-Attorney Trumka Has Apparently Committed Professional Misconduct
Respondent-Attorney Trumka's participation in the two transactions that wrongfully aided the Carey campaign appears to provide "clear and satisfactory evidence" that he has committed professional misconduct. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Surrick, No. 383, 2000 Pa. LEXIS 716, at *6, 749 A.2d 441, 444 (Mar. 24, 2000) (citing Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Duffield, 509 Pa. 573, 506 A.2d 872 (1986)). Specifically, Respondent-Attorney Trumka has apparently violated Rule 8.4(b)-(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. See Pa.R.P.C. Rule 8.4(b)-(c) (2000).
1. Respondent-Attorney Trumka Has Apparently Violated Rule 8.4(c)
Rule 8.4(c) states: "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." Pa.R.P.C. Rule 8.4(c). One legal standard applied in such cases is moral turpitude, which the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has defined as "anything done knowingly contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals." See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Holston, 533 Pa. 78, 82, 916 A.2d 1054 (1993) (quoting Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Simon, 510 Pa. 312, 507 A.2d 1215 (1986)). There is a broader standard for misrepresentation—"a prima facie case is made where the record establishes that the misrepresentation was knowingly, or made with reckless ignorance of the truth or falsity of the representation." Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Price, 557 Pa. 166, 175, 732 A.2d 599, 604 (1999) (citing Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney A, 552 Pa. 223, 233, 714 A.2d 402, 407 (1998)). Thus, whether Respondent-Attorney Trumka's apparent wrongful conduct is determined to be intentional or unintentional, he should be subject to Rule 8.4(c).
In the $150,000 transaction, Respondent-Attorney Trumka appears to have violated Rule 8.4(c). Respondent-Attorney Trumka apparently knew that he was transferring $150,000 of embezzled funds from the IBT's treasury to Citizen Action. Respondent-Attorney Trumka apparently knew that the $150,000 he handled was meant to benefit the union election effort of Mr. Carey. Thus, Respondent-Attorney Trumka apparently knew that this transfer was intended to circumvent federal labor law. See 29 U.S.C. § 481(g) (2000)7; see also Conboy Decision, at § IV.A; Hamilton, at 719-20 (Oct. 28, 1999). Similarly, in the $50,000 transaction, Respondent-Attorney Trumka appears to have violated Rule 8.4(c). Respondent-Attorney Trumka apparently knew that this transfer was intended to circumvent federal labor law. See 29 U.S.C. § 481(g)8; see also Conboy Decision, at § IV.A; Hamilton, at 719-20.
Mr. Conboy described the rationale of why such conduct is wrong and the gravity of such wrongdoing:
Moreover, the democratic process does not operate fairly when there is money donated by employers. Union officials and others defined as employers under the Election Rules contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the Carey campaign, further undermining the fairness of the process. Such contributions are anti-democratic because candidates become beholden to those other than the rank and file, whom they represent. Both the LMRDA and the Election Rules prohibit contributions by employers. 29 U.S.C. § 481(g) . . . United States v. IBT, 931 F.2d 177, 189 (2d Cir. 1991) (upholding rule prohibiting contributions from employers; "the danger of allowing employers to aid candidates whom they may one day face across a bargaining table is self-evident); Marshall v. Local Union 20, 611 F.2d 645, 651 (6th Cir. 1979) ("Even the most subtle of influences can produce serious consequences for the loyalty and integrity with which the union should represent its membership"). Conboy Decision, at § IV.A (emphasis added).
2. Respondent-Attorney Trumka Has Apparently Violated Rule 8.4(b)
Rule 8.4(b) states: "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." Pa.R.P.C. Rule 8.4(b). The rule does not require a lawyer to be convicted. This is an astute policy that correctly recognizes 1) that many criminal acts are never prosecuted but 2) that it may still be desirable to hold lawyers accountable for such acts. Rule 211(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement provides additional support for this policy: "The acquittal of the respondent-attorney on criminal charges . . . involving substantially similar material allegations shall not in and of itself justify abatement of a disciplinary investigation predicated upon the same material allegations." Pa.R.D.E. Rule 211(b) (2000) (emphasis added). Thus, while a respondent-attorney may avoid criminal conviction for his acts, his acts may still lead to professional discipline.
First, for a finding of professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(b), there must be a commission of a criminal act. Pa.R.P.C. Rule 8.4(b). Given that Mr. Nash and Mr. Davis pled guilty to the crime of conspiracy and Mr. Hamilton was convicted of the crime of conspiracy, it is safe to say that a conspiracy existed here. See Conboy Decision, at § I n.1; International Bhd. of Teamsters, 988 F. Supp. at 762 n.1; Hamilton, at 49-50, 3018-19; supra Statement of Facts, Section D. Further, given the above descriptions of the conspiracy by Mr. Conboy and Ms. Beamon, it appears that Respondent-Attorney Trumka was apart of the conspiracy. See Conboy Decision, at §§ III.A.2-3; Hamilton, at 2611-15, 2708-18; supra Statement of Facts, Sections B-C. For example, Respondent-Attorney Trumka allegedly held a meeting with Mr. Davis in Respondent-Attorney Trumka's office about the $150,000 transaction. See Hamilton, at 2709-11; supra Statement of Facts, Section B. Further, Ms. Beamon said in her discussion of the $50,000 transaction that "Richard Trumka participated in it." Hamilton, at 2615; supra Statement of Facts, Section C. Therefore, while other criminal acts under the given facts are conceivable, it appears that Attorney-Respondent Trumka, at the very least, committed a criminal act of conspiracy—thus satisfying the commission of a criminal act requirement of Rule 8.4(b).
The second requirement of Rule 8.4(b) is that the act "reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." Pa.R.P.C. Rule 8.4(b). The argument here follows closely with the argument for Rule 8.4 (c). See supra Argument, Section A.1. Respondent-Attorney Trumka apparently knew that both transactions were intended to circumvent federal labor law. See 29 U.S.C. § 481(g); Conboy Decision, at § IV.A; Hamilton, at 719-20. Again, Respondent-Attorney Trumka's conduct demonstrates a "callous disregard" for the law. Valentino, 556 Pa. at 615, 730 A.2d at 483. This circumvention of the law appears to have involved a lack of honesty. Therefore, there appears to be wrongdoing on the part of Respondent-Attorney Trumka that justifies a finding of professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(b).
B. Respondent-Attorney Trumka Should Be Disbarred
Given the known facts of Respondent-Attorney Trumka's alleged misconduct, the proper discipline should be disbarment. See Pa.R.D.E. Rules 203, 204(a)(1) (2000).9 Respondent-Attorney Trumka's apparent conduct in the two transactions involves serious dishonesty. See supra Statement of Facts; Argument, Section A. "In choosing an appropriate punishment, [there] is no doubt that dishonesty on the part of an attorney establishes his unfitness to continue practicing law. Truth is the cornerstone of the judicial system; a license to practice law requires allegiance and fidelity to the truth." Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chung, 548 Pa. 108, 115, 695 A.2d 405, 408 (1997) (Castille, J., dissenting) (quoting Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, 493 Pa. 194, 200, 425 A.2d 730, 733 (1981)); see also Surrick, 2000 Pa. LEXIS 716, at *26, 749 A.2d at 449 (quoting same). "[T]he purpose of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement is to protect the public, the profession, and the courts. Whenever an attorney is dishonest, that purpose is served by disbarment." Holston, 533 Pa. at 83, 916 A.2d 1054 (quoting Grigsby, 493 Pa. at 201, 425 A.2d at 733) (emphasis added); see also Valentino, 556 Pa. at 614-15, 730 A.2d at 483-84 (quoting same). To state it another way:
Further, disbarment is the appropriate discipline here because Respondent-Attorney Trumka's apparently dishonest conduct was not an isolated incident, rather he apparently engaged in repeated dishonesty. "[B]ehavior [is] more egregious . . . [when] it involve[s] a course of dishonest conduct rather than an isolated incident." Chung, 548 Pa. at 113, 695 A.2d at 407; see also Valentino, 556 Pa. at 614-15, 730 A.2d at 483-84 ("[D]isbarment was necessary to protect the public, the profession and the courts from a lawyer who had repeatedly engaged in professional misconduct.") (citing Grigsby, 493 Pa. at 200, 425 A.2d at 733); Monsour, 549 Pa. at 486, 489, 701 A.2d at 558, 560 (the fact that the attorney "engaged in a deliberate pattern" of misconduct contributed to him being disbarred). Respondent-Attorney Trumka apparently engaged in at least two different attempts to circumvent the law—once in the $150,000 transaction and a second time in the $50,000 transaction. See supra Statement of Facts, Sections B-C. Further, the $50,000 transaction apparently was comprised of many sub-transactions (i.e., multiple solicitations and multiple contributions of cash and checks); this is evidenced by Ms. Beamon's discussion of one $10,000 transfer from Respondent-Attorney Trumka to Mr. Davis. See supra Statement of Facts, Sections B-C. This discussion implies that the remaining $40,000 was transfered to the Carey campaign in different forms and at different times. Thus, Respondent-Attorney Trumka repeatedly engaged in this apparently dishonest conduct thereby justifying disbarment.
Finally, as previously mentioned, "[t]he purpose of [the Pennsylvania] system of professional responsibility and disciplinary enforcement is to protect the public, the profession and the courts from unfit attorneys." Surrick, 2000 Pa. LEXIS 716, at *25, 749 A.2d at 449 (citing Grigsby, 493 Pa.194, 425 A.2d 730 (1981)); see also Price, 557 Pa. at 179, 732 A.2d at 607 ("[D]isciplinary sanctions . . . are intended to protect the public from unfit attorneys and to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and the judicial process.") (citing Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Christy, 536 Pa. 394, 639 A.2d 782 (1994); Valentino, 556 Pa. at 613, 730 A.2d at 482 (stating and citing same). Given that Respondent-Attorney Trumka is a formerly admitted attorney on inactive status, disbarment is the only discipline that will fulfill the said purpose of the professional responsibility and disciplinary enforcement system and the only discipline with real meaning. Respondent-Attorney Trumka's inactive status makes suspension or some other lesser discipline almost meaningless. See Pa.R.D.E Rule 204(a)(2)-(6). Disbarment is more permanent and will protect the public, the profession and the courts from Respondent-Attorney Trumka if he ever seeks reinstatement. See Pa.R.D.E. Rule 219(j) ("Upon the filing of a notice voluntarily to assume inactive status, an attorney shall be removed from the roll of those classified as active until and unless such person requests and is granted reinstatement to the active rolls. Reinstatement shall be granted unless the formerly admitted attorney is subject to an outstanding order of suspension or disbarment . . .") (emphasis added). Therefore, to indefinitely preclude such reinstatement, thereby protecting the public, the profession and the courts, Respondent-Attorney Trumka should be disbarred.
Federal court documents detail conduct by Respondent-Attorney Trumka that suggests that he has committed professional misconduct pursuant to Rules 8.4(b)-(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. Thus, Respondent-Attorney Trumka's alleged professional misconduct should be investigated by the Disciplinary Counsel. Further, given what is already publicly known about Respondent-Attorney Trumka's conduct, the appropriate discipline, in order to protect the public, the profession and the courts from Respondent-Attorney Trumka, should be disbarment.
Kenneth F. Boehm
1 This fact was confirmed by telephone: 717-731-7083. See Pennsylvania Bar Association, Frequently Asked Questions (visited Sept. 14, 2000) <http://www.pa-bar.org/mscfaq.shtml> ("How do I know if an attorney is in good standing in Pennsylvania? Please call the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at (717) 731-7073.").
2 For a helpful visual aide to better understand these schemes, see National Legal and Policy Center, Chart, Teamsters Money-Laundering Schemes, (visited Sept. 14, 2000) <http://www.nlpc.org/ssi/teamster.ssi>.
3 Reprinted at Decision of Kenneth Conboy to Disqualify IBT President Ron Carey, [1997] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 222, at D-32 (Nov. 18, 1997).
4 The 3,021 page trial transcript of United States v. Hamilton, which ran from October 21, 1999 to November 19, 1999, is down-loadable, free of charge, at the Republican National Committee's website: <http://www.rnc.org/GoreFiles/us_vs_Hamilton>.
5 Since there is no known pending criminal litigation against Respondent-Attorney Trumka, it would appear that Rule 211(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement is not applicable here. See Pa.R.D.E. Rule 211(a) (2000).
6 While an attorney may not be disciplined for invoking the Fifth Amendment, Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 514 (1967), this fact is included to provide a full account of the circumstances surrounding Respondent-Attorney Trumka and to demonstrate the need for investigation by the Disciplinary Counsel.
7 The pertinent part of Section 481(g) states: "No moneys received by any labor organization by way of dues, assessments, or similar levy . . . shall be contributed or applied to promote the candidacy of any person in [a union] election." 29 U.S.C. § 481(g) (2000).
8 The pertinent part of Section 481(g) states: "[N]o moneys of an employer shall be contributed or applied to promote the candidacy of any person in [a union] election." Id.
9 Given that Respondent-Attorney Trumka was not acting as an attorney when the alleged misconduct occurred, it is important to note that Rule 203(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement states: "misconduct . . . shall be grounds for discipline, whether or not the act or omission occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship." Pa.R.D.E. Rule 203(a) (2000).
NLPC Links:
Letter to AFL-CIO Executive Council requesting
the removal of Richard L. Trumka (Feb. 11, 2000)
Teamsters Money-Laundering Chart
Organized Labor Accountability Project