Sri Lanka publications twist Judicial reprimand to fefame Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran

Tuesday, "" :ebruary 02"6

A disciplinary sanction which a court imposed against a respected New York attorney early last year has recently become a pretext for online character assassination against the attorney by websites that appear to be opposed to the attorneys politics. The attorney, Visu anathan !udrakumaran, was admitted to the New York bar in "##$. %&'%(&'%T)* "+ ,ommittee noted !udrakumaran-s .ealousness for his clients- cause, his competence, his effecti eness, his commitment to pro bono ser ice to indigent clients, his creati ity, persistence, knowledge of immigration law and his unwa ering and heartfelt commitment to his clients a rare combination of /ualities that undoubtedly ser es his clients well. 0+ The committee found that !udrakumaran faced 1o erwhelming1 demands on his times and attention, due to the competition between !udrakumaran-s legal practice and his public commitments during the 0223402"2 time period when he tra eled internationally on at least $2 occasions. $+ The ,ourt order reprimanded !udrakumaran publicly for missing filing deadlines and ignoring 5udicial scheduling orders during the time period 0223402"2. 6+ The fact that )ri (ankan military website published an account of the decision raises a /uestion all publications may ha e be coordinated by the )ri (ankan go ernment. 7+ The )ri (ankan publications appears to undermine both !udrakumaran-s leadership and the Tamil cause which he ser es. 3+ !udrakumaran was not charged with any crime, any fraud or any decepti e acti ity. 8+ !udrakumaran continues to practice in good standing before the 9) )upreme ,ourt, the &mmigration Tribunals and :ederal ,ourts of appeals for "" of the "$ :ederal ,ircuits.

:9(( ;!<)) !<(<A)<* A disciplinary sanction which a court imposed against a respected New York attorney early last year has recently become a pretext for online character assassination against the attorney by websites that appear to be opposed to the attorneys politics. The attorney, Visu anathan !udrakumaran, was admitted to the New York bar in "##$. )ince that time, he has represented an estimated 0222 to $222 clients, mainly in immigration remo al defense. %is practice has resulted in numerous published 5udicial decisions. %e is a past co4chair of the ,ommittee on &nternational (aw and ,omparati e (aw of the New York ,ounty =ar Association, and has presented papers and participated in panel discussions at the Yale (aw )chool, before the American =ar Association ,ommittee on &nternational %uman !ights, and at forums in New York, >ashington, ?,, (ondon, @ttawa, ,anberra, Norway, and elsewhere. A nati e of )ri (anka, Ar. !udrakumaran was legal ad isor to the (TT<" delegation to the 0220 4 0223 peace talks that sought to negotiate an end to the )ri (ankan ,i il >ar, and since No ember, 02"2, he has ser ed as the elected ;rime Ainister of the Transnational 'o ernment of Tamil <elam, a go ernment4in4exile of the transnational Tamil diaspora. &n that position, Ar. !udrakumaran has been, and continues to be, a critic of the 'o ernment of )ri (anka. %e also filed a lawsuit in the 9nited )tates against a isiting )ri (ankan ;resident on behalf of the sur i ing wife of an (TT< commander who was killed by )ri (ankan security forces. Ar. !udrakumarans acti ities on behalf of the Tamil people ha e made him a political target for many people in )ri (anka, including the 'o ernment of )ri (anka. ?uring the past month, two )ri (anka 4 based web BnewsC sites ha e used a year4old 5udicial disciplinary decision to spread lies about Ar. !udrakumaran. The fact that a )ri (ankan military website published an account of the decision at approximately the same time adds to the e idence that the two publications were politically moti ated, and raises a /uestion as to whether all three publications may ha e been coordinated by the )ri (ankan 'o ernment. @n :ebruary "7, 02"$, a panel of the 9nited )tates ,ourt of Appeals for the )econd ,ircuit, a federal appellate court that sits in New York ,ity, issued an order reprimanding Ar.!udrakumaran publicly for, inter alia, missing filing deadlines and ignoring 5udicial scheduling orders during the time period 0223 4 02"2. The courts order adopted a disciplinary committee report that attributed Ar. !udrakumarans defaults to his Bnegligent practice management and apparently o erwhelming obligations between his practice and his public ser ice commitments.C The report also noted Ar. !udrakumarans Bgeneral .ealousness and apparent competence in the representation of his clientsC and stated, on the record, that* The e idence shows that DAr. !udrakumaranE has often been an effecti e ad ocate and has obtained successful results for his clients, sometimes on a pro bono basis. The ,ommittee found his testimony regarding his unwa ering and heartfelt commitment to his clients credible, and his testimony e idenced a grasp of immigration law and a creati ity and persistence that undoubtedly ser es his clients well.

The committees report noted that the ,ourt has the power to impose Ba range of sanctions,including disbarment, suspension, public or pri ate reprimand, monetary sanction, remo al from pro bono or ,riminal Fustice Act panels, referral to other disciplinary bodies, super ision by a special master, counseling or treatment, or 1such other disciplinary or correcti e measures as the circumstances may warrant.11 The committee recommended that the ,ourt impose a Bmore lenientC sanction upon Ar.!udrakumaran, and that phrase accurately characteri.es the sanction that the court imposed upon him last year. The courts disciplinary order re/uired Ar. !udrakumaran to de ote eight hours of his biennial mandatory continuing legal education G,(<+ re/uirement to classes on law practice management, to file reports concerning his compliance with 5udicial scheduling orders, and to make good on his oluntary offer to refund one clients legal fee, either by finding the client Gwho has oluntarily left the 9nited )tates+ and paying him, or by depositing the fee with the (awyers :und for ,lient ;rotection maintained by the )tate of New York. )ince the order was issued last year, Ar. !udrakumaran has filed reports on his compliance with 5udicial deadlines and other matters, has taken the re/uired ,(< courses on law practice management, and has deposited the re/uired client refund with the New York )tate ,lient protection fund, in full compliance with the order. A New York )tate court subse/uently issued a parallel order, according to its uniform practice in such situations, which established no additional facts and imposed no additional duties upon Ar. !udrakumaran. Ar. !udrakumarans political foes, howe er, appear to ha e recently disco ered the order, and ha e published two web articles Gat least, two that are known to usH more may ha e been published that are not known to us+ that misrepresent Ar. !udrakumarans attorney discipline and use it to publish lies about him. The (ankaenews.com Article is B?elusionalC &n an article entitled B?elusional ;rime Ainister of the Transnational 'o ernment of Tamil <elam V. !9?!AI9AA!AN ;9=(&,(Y !<;!&AAN?<? for misconduct of New York ,ourt of AppealsJ 9) court defiantly punishes and stigmati.es transnational <elam go t. ;remier !udrakumaranC Ghereinafter, B?elusionalC+, a website, lankaenews.com, appears to ha e been the first )ri (anka news source to publish a report concerning the )econd ,ircuits order on or about Fanuary K, 02"6. The ?elusional article refers to !udrakamurans disciplined conduct as BfraudC and Ba second4 grade crime.C =oth of these descriptions are completely false. The court order and committee report do not charge the attorney with criminal or fraudulent conduct of any type. To the contrary, the committee found that Ar. !udrakumaran faced Bo erwhelmingC demands on his time and attention, due to the competition between Ar. !udrakumarans legal practice and his public commitments during the 0223 4 02"2 time period, when he tra eled internationally on at least thirty occasions. As a result, he was negligent in some cases in meeting scheduling orders that were imposed by the court, he failed to withdraw some cases after he determined that they should not be further pursued, and he delayed longer in attempting to contact one missing client about the dismissal

of his case than he should ha e done. Ar. !udrakumarans conduct iolated court rules and scheduling ordersH they did not iolate criminal law or work frauds on his clients. The ?elusional articles accusations of criminal and fraudulent conduct cast a ile and false slur on the reputation of Ar. !udrakumaran. The ?elusional article accuses Ar. !udrakumaran of Bnot filing actionDsE on time after fleecing ... Tamils of their monies,C and of acting with Bthe goal of plundering monies from the Tamil diaspora.C These accusations are also entirely false. Nothing in the court order or in the committee report accuses the attorney of failing to file actions with the court. &ndeed, the problem cited by the committee was the opposite* on occasion, Ar. !udrakumaran failed to withdraw petitions for re iew that he filed with the ,ourt of Appeals after it became apparent that the clients no longer intended to pursue the matters. !udrakumaran ne er failed to file a brief re/uired in his clients cases, although in some instances briefs were filed late. Nor did anyone accuse the attorney of BfleecingC or BplunderingC his clients. The committee and court did not find that !udrakumaran e er unduly enriched himself at the expense of his clients. &n one sole situation, the court ordered Ar. !udrakumaran to refund his clients fee, which the attorney had olunteered to do in his meetings with the committee, but was unable to do, his client ha ing left the country, without a court order directing him to pay the moneys into the client protection fund. @ne client refund pro ides no e idence that an attorney is BfleecingC clients. &ndeed, the committee commended Ar. !udrakumaran for Bhis unwa ering and heartfelt commitment to his clients,1 and cited his commitment to performing pro bono work for some of them. The latin phrase pro bono publico refers to legal work that is performed without payment of fees. The ?elusional article obser ed that the court re/uired Ar. !udrakumaran to de ote eight hours of continuing legal education to the study of law practice management, and then claimed that 1DiEn other words he had been ordered to learn the law again ....1 This claim is also false. < ery experienced lawyer who is licensed to practice in New York is re/uired to complete at least 06 hours of continuing legal education courses during each two4year period. The ,(< regulations re/uire only that at least 6 of these credit hours must be in the <thics and ;rofessionalism category. The remaining credit hours may be in any category including, inter alia, law practice management. Thus, the court order did not impose any additional ,(< hours upon Ar. !udrakumaranH and they certainly did not Border him to learn the law again.C To the contrary, they simply directed him to complete K of his 06 ,(< hours in law practice management, in person, within one year. The ?elusional article falsely states that Ban ad erse report has been prepared against D!udrakumaranE considering him as an (TT< terrorist.C No such report was discussed anywhere in the committee report or court order and, to the contrary, the court and committee accepted !udrakumarans statement that he had conducted his acti ities completely in compliance with 9.). law. The &sland Article ?istorts the :acts

@n or about Fanuary "2, 02"6, a second web news source, The &sland @nline, found online at www.island.lk, published an article entitled B)potlight on !udrakumaran and ,hannel 6* 9) (aw and 9I public expose pro4(TT< oices.C This article also contained multiple false statements relating to !udrakumarans disciplinary order. The &sland article claimed that the disciplinary order purportedly BexposedC !udrakumarans 1gross illegal acti ity and dangerous misleading of the public.1 This claim is totally unsupported by the actual decision issued by the court in Ar. !udrakumarans case. Nowhere in its opinion did the court find that Ar. !udrakumaran committed anything that could be described as Bgross illegal acti ityC or Bmisleading of the public.C The attorney was not charged with any crime, any fraud, or any decepti e acti ity. The committee and court ne er challenged the attorneys integrity or credibility. To the contrary, the committee expressly found Ar. !udrakumaran to be credible. The worst that could be said about Ar. !udrakumarans conduct is that, during a period when he faced Bo erwhelmingC demands, Ar. !udrakumaran missed deadlines and failed to obey 5udicial scheduling orders and that the court found, in two cases, Ba lack of reasonable diligence causing in5ury or potential in5ury to the client,C and in one case, that Ar. !udrakumaran Bacted recklessly because he knew the rele ant facts and unreasonably failed to appreciate the high degree of risk in ol ed.C The &sland article also plays with words to put a false face on the facts. According to his testimony to the committee, when Ar. !udrakumaran ad ised the (TT< negotiating team during the )ri (ankan ci il war, he acted as a legal ad isor for the negotiators who were acting as representati es of the Tamil cause in trying to negotiate an end to the war. This did not make Ar. !udrakumaran an 1ad ocateD E of separatist terror1 as the article alleges. The article plays similar games with words when it refers to the committee that ad ised the court in Ar. !udrakumarans disciplinary matters as the B9nited )tates- ,ourts ,ommittee on Admissions and 'rie ances for )erious Aisconduct.1 &n fact, the committee is simply called the 1,ommittee on Admissions and 'rie ances.1 Another example of the &slands decepti e phrasing is found in the articles suggestion that readers should Bsee in DAr. !udrakumaransE iolation of the ethics of the 5udiciary his continued commitment to the cause of terrorism that the (TT< will remain to be known for.C Nothing in the courts opinion or the committee report supports any inference that Ar. !udrakumaran is, or has e er been, committed to Bthe cause of terrorism,C or that the BethicalC iolation in ol ed was caused by anything other than a ery human inability to cope perfectly with Bo erwhelmingC demands during a period of extraordinary acti ity. ?iscipline, B?isgraceC and ?efamation =oth articles appear to use the courts disciplinary order for partisan purposes, in order to undermine both Ar. !udrakumarans leadership and the Tamil cause which he ser es. Thus, the &sland article stresses that BDsEuch humiliation is hard to match.C The (ankaenews article goes e en farther along this line. &t argued that BDwEhen a lawyer in the legal profession is Lpublicly reprimanded,- it is to underline their disgraceful acts for which they are publicly brought to disgrace and stigmati.ed,C and claimed that BDtEhe court ... emphasi.ed it shall be public and a mark of disgrace ....C Yet the court did not say that Ar. !udrakumaran should be

Bdisgraced.C To the contrary, the court expressly adopted the committees report, which noted Ar. !udrakumarans .ealousness for his clients causes, his competence, his effecti eness, his commitment to pro bono ser ice to indigent clients, his creati ity, persistence, knowledge of immigration law, and his Bunwa ering and heartfelt commitment to his clients,C a rare combination of /ualities Bthat undoubtedly ser es his clients well.C Ar. !udrakumaran continues to practice, in good standing, before the 9nited )tates )upreme ,ourt, the immigration tribunals of the 9.). 'o ernment, and in the federal courts of appeal for ele en of the thirteen federal circuits, and remains in good standing with the courts of New York )tate. %e continues to participate acti ely in the acti ities of numerous bar associations, and is a member in good standing of the New York ,ity =ar Association, New York ,ounty (awyers Association, American &mmigration (awyers Association, American )ociety of &nternational (aw, and &nternational (aw Association GAmerican =ranch+. 9nder the laws of New York )tate and the 9nited )tates, written statements Gincluding statements that are published on a website+ are considered to be libel when they contain a false and defamatory assertion of fact concerning a plaintiff, which is published to a third party, causing harm to the plaintiff. ?efamatory written statements concerning a persons business or professional reputation constitute libel e en without proof of damages. The articles published by (ankaenews and The &sland clearly cross the line. =oth articles appear to be moti ated by malice toward Ar. !udrakumaran personally and toward the Tamil cause, generally. &n my opinion, they are libelous. A9T%@!* The author is an attorney practicing in New York ,ity. The author represented Visu anathan !udrakumaran in attorney disciplinary proceedings before the 9.). ,ourt of Appeals for the )econd ,ircuit. The statements made herein represent the opinions of the author. !eaders may erify the statements by referring to the documents and articles referenced herein, and decide for themsel es. Fonathan !. Nelson, <s/. (aw @ffice of Fonathan !obert Nelson, ;.,. M" G0"0+ 7#$47887