September 1998: Independent Counsel Ken Starr releases the IC Report to Congress, detailing multiple instances of presidential and professional misconduct by President Bill Clinton.

September 1998: SLF files a complaint with the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct regarding attorney William Jefferson Clinton’s “willful professional misconduct by lying under oath in a court of law.” SLF alleges Clinton’s explicit violations of Arkansas rules of professional conduct governing attorneys, including acts involving “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Arkansas rules further specify that, in the case of attorneys who are elected officials, “[a] lawyer’s abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the role of attorney.”

November 1998: SLF releases the results of a national non-partisan poll of 1,000 Americans, revealing that 63 percent believe that President Clinton should lose his attorney’s license if he is found guilty of lying under oath. In contrast, the poll reveals that only 13 percent believe he should be impeached.

February 1999: SLF forwards a letter to the Arkansas committee, requesting action on the pending ethics complaint against Clinton.

April 1999: Federal district court Judge Susan Webber Wright, the presiding judge in the Paul Jones case, issues a civil contempt citation for Bill Clinton’s misrepresentations while under oath. The citation states, “It is not acceptable to employ deceptions and falsehoods in an attempt to obstruct the judicial process . . . [n]evertheless, the President’s . . . conduct in this case, coming as it did from a member of the bar and the chief law enforcement officer of this Nation, was without justification and undermined the integrity of the judicial system.” The contempt citation is forwarded to the Arkansas committee, which triggers an automatic formal complaint under state law. No action is taken. Attorneys representing President Clinton fail to appeal Judge Wright’s contempt citation.

December 1999: SLF files a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Arkansas Supreme Court, requesting that the court order the Arkansas committee to fulfill its obligation to pursue a formal complaint against President Clinton, pointing out that the contempt citation alone obligates the issuance of a formal complaint by the committee.

January 2000: The Arkansas Supreme Court grants SLF’s mandamus request, ordering the Committee to proceed with SLF’s complaint “forthwith.”

February 2000: The Committee notifies SLF that President Clinton has been served with a formal legal ethics complaint based on SLF’s 1998 complaint. President Clinton has thirty (30) days from receipt to respond. Disciplinary penalties may include disbarment. Three members of the Arknansas Committee recuse themselves from the proceedings, citing avoidance of the appearance of impropriety as former Clinton political contributors.
CLINTON LEGAL ETHICS TIMELINE/2

March 2000: On the afternoon of the 30th day in which Clinton was allowed to respond, Clinton attorney David Kendall filed a motion with the Arkansas Committee requesting that all legal ethics proceedings against the President be stayed until 30 days after Clinton leaves office. SLF threatens to return to the Arkansas Supreme Court to ensure that “the law be upheld and the proceedings move forward” if the Arkansas Committee acquiesces. The Arkansas Committee, in a special closed-door meeting, denies the motion and orders that Clinton respond no later than April 21, 2000.

April 2000: Kendall files a formal response to the Committee’s two complaints.

May 5, 2000: SLF files a formal rebuttal with the Committee in response to Clinton’s defense brief.

May 16, 2000: The Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct releases its vote, which initiates disbarment proceedings against Clinton. National media attention focuses on the historical nature of the proceedings, which are the first such proceedings against a sitting President. Since 1929, only one Committee recommendation for attorney sanctions was overturned. The case moves to Pulaski County Circuit Court, where a judge will preside over disbarment proceedings.

June 30, 2000: The case for the disbarment of President Clinton is filed in the Pulaski County Circuit Court by Committee-appointed prosecutor, Marie-Bernarde Miller of Little Rock. Four judges recuse themselves from considering the case in the days following the filing.

August 29, 2000: Clinton attorney David Kendall files answer to Committee’s court complaint in Little Rock, acknowledging deceptive behavior yet arguing that disbarment is too harsh a penalty for lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

August 31, 2000: Committee prosecutor Marie-Bernard Miller drafts letter to Arkansas Circuit Court Judge Leon Johnson, who is set to hear the Clinton case. In the letter, she argues that Johnson should schedule a hearing for the matter before his term expires at year’s end, due in part to the fact that the judge elected to fill the seat, Willard Proctor, has indicated a conflict of interest in hearing the Clinton case, causing further delays in the proceedings.

September 15, 2000: Two-year anniversary of the original ethics complaint filed against President Clinton by Southeastern Legal Foundation. Judge Johnson’s clerk indicates publicly that Clinton matter is not likely to be scheduled before year’s end due to “full docket.”

January 19, 2001: Clinton, during his last day as President, admits wrongdoing, acknowledging that he gave false and misleading testimony and acted to prejudice the administration of justice. He receives an extraordinary five-year suspension of his law license and a $25,000 fine.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm, has always believed that the public has a strong interest in a legal profession free from wrongdoing. The public respect for the profession of law is damaged when someone in high position flouts the law with impunity. The Clinton case sends a clear message that lying under oath and obstruction of justice are worthy of severe sanction. Additionally, the harsh penalty in the Clinton matter illustrates that attorneys are indeed accountable in their professional lives for wrongdoing committeed in a legal proceeding, even when they were not acting as an attorney but as a party in the dispute.

For more answers and background, please contact Southeastern Legal Foundation.

For More Information Contact:
Media Relations
media@southeasternlegal.org
(404) 365-8500