Jeffery Chiow Ethics Complaint — Rogers, Joseph, O’Donnell

Dear Mr. O’Donnell: I am writing to you to complain about questionable ethical conduct on the part of Mr. Jeffery Chiow. In his pro bono representation of Grace Episcopal Church against me, he: 1) repeatedly made false statements of law and fact to the trial court, including falsely stating as a matter of fact that I had never been licensed as an attorney and had never served as a police officer. 2) ignored the court’s Order to Compel Discovery. 3) attempted to subpoena my late mother, whom he knew to be terminally ill, in violation of PA RCP 1930.5, which requires prior leave of court. 4) consistently engaged in highly unprofessional inflammatory rhetoric in his pleadings, including his reference to my conflict with Grace Church as one of “domestic terrorism.” 5) attempted to claim $100,000 in legal fees — a claim both highly questionable and a curious expenditure of firm resources—and one he states as truthful in his court pleadings. 6) invented an imaginary city of “Sugarland Texas” (all one word), and an equally imaginary church shooting, which he included in his written pleadings. This leads me to several troubling conclusions apropos Mr. Chiow’s ability to differentiate fact from fiction; additionally, his fact-checking is problematic at best. 7) Attempted to reference my sexual orientation in an effort to improperly influence the trial court. Most recently, I discovered that Mr. Chiow filed a false police report against me on the basis that I leafletted homes near his. That indicates that either 1) Mr. Chiow is incompetent and does not understand the First Amendment or 2) he does understand the First Amendment, but instead knowingly engaged in abuse of process. A copy of the relevant police report is attached. I further note that, if Mr. Chiow believes I have made false statements on my blog, his remedy is a claim of defamation, not attempting a fraudulent claim of stalking. In summary, Mr. Chiow’s conduct reflects badly on the law firm, violates Rule 3.3, contravenes his role as an officer of the court, and implicates his personal and professional integrity, as well as that of the law firm itself. Moreover it places associates at a professional disadvantage, for a reputation for providing false statements of law and fact to the court is a difficult one to overcome. Thus I believe it appropriate that Mr. Chiow resign, effective immediately. Attached is his false police report, a comment from Mom’s attorney referencing his use of the legal system in pursuit of a personal vendetta, and his reference to domestic terrorism. A copy of this letter will be posted to social media and sent to various news outlets. My hope is you will demonstrate a zero-tolerance policy towards unethical conduct such as that evinced by Mr. Chiow, and Ms. Rodin, who served as local counsel in the Pennsylvania litigation. I remind you as well that police reports enjoy only qualified privilege, and when made with actual malice may result in legal liability. Note that while the VA Disciplinary Board has thus far demonstrated its classic “no blood, no foul” approach, there is a petition for writ of mandamus pending before the Virginia Supreme Court regarding Mr. Chiow’s conduct. Should that be successful, Ms. Rodin and the other associates who allegedly donated $100,000 worth of legal services will face similar charges. Regards, Eric Bonetti Fairfax VA

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook