Ethics panels dismiss complaints against former lawyer for witnessing January 6

Legal ethics watchdogs in the District of Columbia and Georgia have dismissed complaints against attorney Stefan C. Passantino over allegations that he pressured a former client, Cassidy Hutchinson, to remain loyal and protect former President Donald J. Trump by doing little to tell Congress about his actions. conduct leading up to the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.

Ms. Hutchinson refused to cooperate with the investigation by repeating to investigators the allegations she made to Congress about Mr. Passantino, whom she replaced as her attorney before testifying publicly before the House committee on Jan. 6 . Mr Passantino has denied allegations that he pressured her.

In dismissing the complaints about him, the State Bar of Georgia and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel with DC’s Board on Professional Responsibility both lack of sufficient proof against him, according to documents provided by his attorney.

Mr. Passantino came under scrutiny after Ms. Hutchinson, a former Trump White House aide, hired another lawyer and then provided more damaging details about Mr. Trump to the House committee investigating the events which culminated in the January 6 riot. Mr. Passantino had worked under Mr. Trump in the White House Counsel’s Office and his legal fees were paid by Mr. Trump’s political action committee.

Ms. Hutchinson told Congress that Mr. Passantino had paired the advice to say she remembered little with an assurance that she would get a “really good job in the Trump world.” critics, including a group called Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

A lawyer for Ms. Hutchinson, Bill Jordan, said she had not become involved in the reviews by various bar associations. Although he did not directly answer why she was uncooperative, he noted that “Ms. Hutchinson has not filed any complaints against Mr. Passantino.”

Mr. Passantino’s lawyer, Ross Garber, applauded the outcome and denounced the allegations of misconduct against his client, including by the commission in its Jan. 6 report. Mr. Passantino, he said, had suffered “serious consequences” as a result, including having to leave his law firm.

“Unlike others, bar officials sought information from Mr. Passantino, who fully cooperated,” he said. “Unlike others, bar officials looked carefully at the facts and the law. The result was what it should have been. Mr. Passantino will continue his impressive 30-year career with an impeccable track record.”

The ethics panels’ decisions were previously reported by the conservative website Just the News.

A spokesman for Lawyers Defending American Democracy, John T. Montgomery, expressed regret at the limitations faced by the investigation into the key allegations, focusing on allegations that Mr. Passantino put the interests of a third party ahead of those of his client had stated.

“The complaint against Passantino raised troubling issues regarding the ethics of his conduct in representing Ms. Hutchinson,” Mr. Montgomery said. “Our duty as lawyers is to raise such issues when they arise, and it is detrimental to the bar and the public that a full investigation into these allegations could not be completed.”

Lawyers defending American democracy have also said it has filed a complaint against Mr. Passantino in New York. Mr. Garber said Tuesday that “to our knowledge, the New York Bar has taken no action on any complaints filed with it.”

The DC Board of Professional Responsibility’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel has charged Mr. Passantino with violating a rule requiring him to provide Ms. Hutchinson with a written document outlining the scope of his representation and legal fees. Mr. Passantino apparently told the panel that he did not submit a written brief because he feared the House committee on Jan. 6 would subpoena it.

In a letter dated February 2the agency said that although Ms. Hutchinson had agreed to have Mr. Passantino’s fees paid by the Political Action Committee aligned with Mr. Trump, documenting the arrangement in writing is required under Rule l. 5(b) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. It required him to take a legal ethics course while on probation.

But citing Ms. Hutchinson’s reluctance to talk to investigators, the agency said there was insufficient evidence on the larger issue.

“Ms. Hutchinson made a number of allegations to the Committee about your conduct, but she refused to cooperate with our investigation,” the Committee said. “Accordingly, with the exception of the Rule l. 5(b) allegation, which you admit, “We are not pursuing her other allegations at this time. We are unable to prove these allegations with clear and convincing evidence, which we must.”

a Letter dated February 26 of the State Bar of Georgia also said it had failed to “obtain sufficient evidence to warrant formal proceedings” and therefore dismissed the complaint against him.