Neal v. Clinton

Former president William Jefferson Clinton was admitted to practice law in Arkansas in 1973, changed his license to inactive status in 1990, and lived in Washington D.C. at all times relevant to this disciplinary matter. Clinton nonetheless remained subject to Arkansas’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct when Paula Jones brought her civil suit against him in federal court. Although the federal judge awarded him summary judgment, she found Clinton in civil contempt for giving false, misleading, and evasive answers intended to obstruct justice during his deposition, concerning whether he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The judge ordered Clinton to pay $90,000 in contempt sanctions as a result. The judge ruled that Clinton’s testimony about Lewinsky was not essential, might have been inadmissible, and that Jones’s case would have lacked merit even if Clinton had been truthful about his relationship with Lewinsky. The judge ultimately found that Jones had been made whole after Clinton settled her appeal for $850,000, plus nearly $90,000 in expenses and attorney fees. Meanwhile, the judge referred the matter to the Arkansas Committee on Professional Conduct for disciplinary proceedings. Clinton had no prior disciplinary record, was a member of the bar in good standing for over 25 years, and cooperated fully in the investigation. The Committee voted to initiate disbarment proceedings against Clinton and filed a complaint seeking disbarment. Clinton answered the complaint and agreed to an order of discipline.