the subpoena, the documents were needed for the investigation by the "Administrator relating to Attorney John
Doe." The subpoena sent by the ARDC required my school to produce all documents related to me.
This subpoena clearly violates the law and trampled my rights. First, the subpoena did not attempt to limit the
scope of the documents in any way, and it certainly did not attempt to limit the scope of subpoena to issues that
were relevant to the facts in Naomi Coverdill's letter. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in Naomi
Coverdill's letter to suggest that my alma muter could possibly have information that is even remotely relevant
to the ARDC's investigation. Simply sending the subpoena violated the discovery rules, and then asking for every
document in the school's possession was nothing short of hubris.
Second, the subpoena stated that it was based on an investigation relating to "Attorney John Doe." This is a
patent misrepresentation. Why the ARDC did this is unclear to me, but still it is still obviously an abuse of the
subpoena process.
Third, the ARDC never notified me that it was invading my personal records. Under civil procedure rules, it
seems likely that the ARDC is required to notify me since I am either a party to the civil action or I am the thirdparty target of the subpoena. But more importantly, statutory and constitutional privacy protections certainly
required the ARDC to notify me when it was requesting all of my school records. While the cliche "fishing
expedition" is overused, it is quite apt in this situation.
Finally, the fact that the ARDC sent to my school a subpoena for my personal records-~vlthout notifying me and
while putting false information on the subpoena-suggests that the ARDC may have improperly subpoenaed
other information The only reason I know about the subpoena sent to my school is because my school not~fied
me. Unfortunately, I only found out about the subpoena after my school had sent the records.
THE ARDC COERCED M E INTO HIRING THE LAWYER OF THEIR CHOICE
-
-
ARDC Rule 1 states that the ARDC will conduct its affairs "with due regard to the right of the respondent to have
adequate time to prepare his defense."s The ARDC subpoenaed me to give testimony. Once again, the subpoena
was incorrectly issued: it was not served in accordance with the relaxed service rules of the ARDC and it was sent
to my old home address and not my registration address. Since the subpoena had to be forwarded to my correct
address, I had very little time to locate, hire, and consult a lawyer before the subpoena date. The testimony date
was rescheduled to December 21, 2010. I was in the process of retaining a lawyer, and if I were to hire a lawyer,
Elizabeth Granoff was a candidate. The date of the scheduled testimony was very close to my three final exams,
and I was very busy preparing for finals. The ARDC said that if I hired Ms. Granoff that it would reschedule the
testimony, but if I did not hire Ms. Granoff, then I would have to prepare for and appear at the testimony in the
midst of my final exams.
Despite my right to have enough time to prepare for the testimony, the ARDC's threat left me no choice but to
hire Ms. Granoff. Attempting to locate a different lawyer would have been absurd. In addition to the fact that I
was very busy studying, the testimony date was very soon and no other lawyer would have had enough time to
learn the facts of my case to properly advise me by the December 21s1date. My "choice" was to either proceed
with the testimony without the assistance of counsel and during the hectic time of my finals or to hire Ms.
Granoff, the lawyer anointed by the ARDC. I hired Ms. Granoff and the ARDC rescheduled the testimony to a
time that did not conflict with my school work.
Obviously, there are many ways that the ARDC's coercion was unethical, tortuous, and possibly criminal.
Especially when viewed in the light of all of the other inappropriate actions of the ARDC, coercing me to hire Ms.
Granoff was obviously calculated to give the ARDC additional advantages. Ms. Muchrnan acknowledged this
advantage when she said that she was "glad" that I hired Ms. Granoff.
5
Note that the wording here assumes that the right exists independently of the ARDC rules.
I
;.
-3