## Facts

- Abraham D. Sofaer served as Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State during the government’s response to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
- In that role, he participated in the State Department’s investigation and legal/diplomatic response to the bombing.
- He advised on the government’s response to a subpoena in civil mass-tort litigation brought by victims’ families alleging the government had advance warning of the attack.
- He attended confidential briefings concerning the status of the criminal investigation into the bombing.
- After leaving government service and entering private practice, Sofaer and his firm were retained by the Libyan government to represent it in litigation and related disputes arising from the same bombing.
- The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility investigated and concluded that the representation violated D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.11(a), and directed issuance of a formal admonition.
- Sofaer sought review in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether Sofaer’s post-government representation of Libya was “in connection with a matter” that was the same as, or substantially related to, a matter in which he participated personally and substantially as a government lawyer under D.C. Rule 1.11(a).
2. Whether Sofaer’s government activities (subpoena advice and confidential briefings) constituted “personal and substantial” participation in the relevant matter.
3. Whether the Board’s imposition of a formal admonition should be sustained.

## Decision

- The court sustained the Board’s order and upheld the formal admonition.
- The court held that Sofaer violated D.C. Rule 1.11(a).
- The court concluded the Pan Am 103 bombing and its legal fallout constituted a single discrete “matter,” and the later Libya representation was at least substantially related to that same matter.
- The court found Sofaer’s work as Legal Adviser, including subpoena-related legal advice and participation in confidential investigative briefings, amounted to personal and substantial participation.

## Legal Principles

- Under D.C. Rule 1.11(a), a former government lawyer may not accept employment connected to the same, or a substantially related, matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in public service.
- A “matter” for Rule 1.11(a) purposes can encompass a discrete factual controversy involving specific events and parties, even if it includes multiple proceedings (e.g., civil litigation, investigative steps, and diplomatic/legal responses) arising from the same incident.
- Personal and substantial participation includes central advisory functions and access to confidential government information; a showing of actual misuse of confidential information is not required for a violation.
- In disciplinary review, the court will sustain professional responsibility findings and sanctions when supported by the record and consistent with the governing rule’s protective purpose.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a formal admonition after finding that a former State Department Legal Adviser violated Rule 1.11(a) by later representing Libya in substantially related disputes arising from the Pan Am 103 bombing, where his prior government involvement was personal and substantial and included confidential investigative briefings and key legal advice.


In re Sofaer, 728 A.2d 625 (D.C. 1999)