DC Circuit Upholds Contempt Order Against Virginia Attorney
The panel found the attorney could not use attorney-client privilege to avoid testifying in district court.
March 26, 2019 at 01:47 PM
4 minute read
A Washington federal appeals court on Tuesday affirmed a criminal contempt order for an Arlington, Virginia, attorney who refused to take the witness stand.
A panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit knocked down solo practitioner Matthew LeFande's bid to vacate the order. A federal magistrate judge in Washington hit LeFande with a criminal contempt order in September 2017 after he refused to take the witness stand in a civil case that involved two clients. U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson of the District of Columbia held him in contempt and fined him $5,000, and U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson affirmed the order last year.
In his appeal, LeFande sought to set aside the lower court's order, contending the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction in the underlying proceeding. He also argued it lacked personal jurisdiction over him, and that the order to testify violated attorney-client privilege.
“Because none of those arguments has merit, we affirm the criminal contempt order,” Judge Cornelia Pillard wrote. Judge Patricia Millett and Senior Judge Harry Edwards joined.
LeFande said he will seek an en banc rehearing. LeFande said he found the panel's reasoning “extraordinarily deficient,” and defended what he described as “an absolute duty” to his deceased client “who otherwise had no voice.”
In the underlying case, the lower court ruled against Lefande's clients and imposed a $300,000 judgement. The clients were locked in a dispute with real estate settlement company District Title.
District Title sought to conduct post-judgment discovery in an effort to collect the judgment. At one point, it sought to depose LeFande, because it believed he knew and helped his clients transfer assets to New Zealand to escape the judgment.
In a hearing, the magistrate judge ordered LeFande to take the stand for questioning, but he repeatedly refused, citing attorney-client and Fifth Amendment privileges, among other things.
LeFande told the D.C. Circuit that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the underlying post-judgment discovery proceedings, because they came after one client died and the other filed for bankruptcy.
But the D.C. Circuit brushed aside his argument, writing that the district court “indisputably” had jurisdiction. Pillard wrote that “leaving the merits of those claims aside, the Supreme Court has specifically 'upheld a criminal contempt citation even on the assumption that the District Court issuing the citation was without jurisdiction over the underlying action.'”
The panel also rejected LeFande's argument that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he wasn't served with a subpoena. Pillard noted the court had given LeFande “clear notice” of why he had to appear before the court, which gave him time to object to the order.
Although LeFande hadn't “specifically” raised the point on appeal, Pillard also said the panel believed the judge's in-person order to testify, instead of a subpoena, was sufficient.
The judge wrote: “As every lawyer knows, a court order is backed by the contempt power,” although she added that the panel expressed “no general approval, beyond the unusual circumstances of this case, of a court order as an adequate substitute for a subpoena.”
The panel also said LeFande's objection on the grounds of an attorney-client privilege violation was “contrary to circuit law.”
Pillard said LeFande bore the burden of establishing a claim of privilege. She noted the correct process for asserting privilege would have been for LeFande to take the stand and assert the privilege claims and their basis, something the lower court had specified when it rejected LeFande's blanket assertion of privilege.
LeFande's law firm biography says he has practiced complex civil litigation and appellate work for over 15 years. He argued the case, but was represented by n briefs.
A spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., which handled the appeal, did not immediately return an email seeking comment.
Read more:
Judge Upholds Contempt for Va. Attorney Who Refused to Stand for Deposition
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All4th Circuit Upholds Virginia Law Restricting Online Court Records Access
3 minute read'Where Were the Lawyers?' Judge Blocks Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
3 minute readRFK Jr. Will Keep Affiliations With Morgan & Morgan, Other Law Firms If Confirmed to DHHS
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250