# Brown v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · December 21, 1984 · 486 A.2d 37

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736103

## Case

- **Full name:** Phillip J. BROWN, Et Al., Petitioners, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, Respondent. Oliver T. Carr, Jr. & George Beuchert, Intervenors
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 21, 1984
- **Citations:** 486 A.2d 37; 1984 D.C. App. LEXIS 572
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pryor
- **Judges:** Pryor, Nebeker, MacK, Newman, Ferren, Bel-Son, Terry, Kern, Gallagher
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736103

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- describing the “revolving door” context as one in which “a government attorney who leaves to join a private firm and begins to represent clients against, or before an agency of, the former government employer”

## Opinion text

PRYOR, Chief Judge,
concurring:
The ethical issue presented here arises not from a breach of confidentiality born of a conflict of interest, but from the possibility that an attorney may wield governmental authority with a view to subsequent private gain. To avoid even the appearance of such impropriety, the Code of Professional Responsibility directs the former government attorney to refuse private employment in matters for which he had substantial responsibility as a public servant. DR 9-101(B). See generally EC 9-3, “Revolving Door,” 445 A.2d 615 (D.C.1982) (en banc) (per curiam).
In affirming the ruling of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, the majority opinion employs a comprehensive analysis of several of the canons related to the one at issue. Given our limited experience in this area, I am more cautious. In the context of this case, I am confident that the height litigation and discussions concerning the proposed air rights condominium, are not sufficiently related to Carr’s efforts to increase available off-street parking to constitute the same “matter” within the mean *60 ing of DR 9-101(B). See Committee for Washington’s Riverfront Parks v. Thompson, 451 A.2d 1177 (D.C.1982).
In sum, without requiring the proof of a specific violation which the majority opinion seems to imply, I vote to affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736103. Public record. Not legal advice.