Scallan Decision Letter 7-25-2025
Introduction
Complainant, Victoria Lloyd Scallan, hereby submits this formal complaint to the District of Columbia Office of Disciplinary Counsel against Attorney Emily Gelmann, a member of the D.C. Bar, for egregious professional misconduct. This complaint arises from Ms. Gelmann’s conduct during a contentious family law matter in which she represents the opposing party. It is documented that over the course of representation, Ms. Gelmann has engaged in a persistent pattern of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and unethical litigation tactics that violate multiple D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and are documented as having impacted the administration of justice and severely harming the two minor children involved.
The misconduct detailed below demonstrates that Attorney Emily Gelmann knowingly made false statements to the Court and third parties, manipulated therapeutic processes, and employed litigation tactics designed to demean and discredit the opposing party. Her actions reflected a pattern of bias, selective omission of material facts, and deliberate misrepresentation. This conduct, taken as a whole, constitutes a serious breach of professional ethics and warrants the imposition of the most severe disciplinary sanction.
As a direct result of the course of litigation shaped by Attorney Gelmann’s conduct, one child now suffers from extreme trauma-related symptoms, including dissociative flashbacks, psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES), temporary paralysis triggered by fear, and recurrent episodes of respiratory distress. The severity of both children’s psychological and physical deterioration is documented in the attached forensic medical evaluation prepared by Dr. Gregory Hipskind, M.D., Ph.D., a recognized expert in neuropsychiatric trauma. (Curriculum vitae attached.)
The following sections outline specific allegations of misconduct, each correlated with violations of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct (including Rules 3.3, 4.1, 4.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d)). A summary of available supporting evidence is provided thereafter, followed by a conclusion explaining why disbarment is the appropriate sanction under the applicable standards (Rules 5.11 and 6.11 of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions). Complainant respectfully requests that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigate these allegations thoroughly and proceed with formal charges, seeking Ms. Gelmann’s disbarment in light of the severity of her misconduct and her danger to the larger community.
Background
Attorney Gelmann generated Plaintiff’s petition for divorce. Pre-separation conditions involved circumstances in which the minor children were subjected to ongoing, unconscionable abuse. Defendant, for the majority of her adult life, was a highly productive professional. The dysfunction within the household, stemming from Plaintiff’s overwhelming hostility and aggressive behavior toward the children, created an atmosphere of such danger that their mother found herself unable to leave them due to the ongoing threat of violence and multiple levels of harm.
As a result, the Defendant was not only prevented from continuing her professional career but was also increasingly impacted in terms of her own physical and emotional well-being. The Plaintiff posed imminent danger to the children, and documented concerns about any potential separation from them underscored the legitimacy of the Defendant’s fears. Plaintiff’s frustration and rage grew in response to the Defendant’s refusal to return to full-time work—despite knowing that her absence left the children vulnerable to harm by him.
Attempts to address Plaintiff’s hostility toward the children and his persistent deprecation of their mother created an insoluble conundrum. Within this toxic dynamic, Plaintiff filed for divorce on fabricated grounds, framing the Defendant as the problem while ignoring his own contribution to the dysfunction in the marriage and family. Although it is common for attorneys to present their clients favorably during contentious divorces, some acknowledgment of underlying facts usually surfaces. However, Attorney Gelmann’s approach was to exploit complaints and allegations, inflating fiction into the appearance of fact—building castles in the clouds and attempting to establish residence therein.
At no point was there any effort to review the extensive medical and psychiatric documentation that accompanied multiple hospitalizations for trauma-related illnesses. The Plaintiff was fully aware of the trauma-induced, serious physiological conditions affecting his young children. Audio and video documentation of violence and resulting threats to their lives exist, along with accessible medical, psychiatric, and educational records available to both parents. Despite this, Attorney Gelmann never sought to access, review, or evaluate this material, nor did she consult experts for insight into its relevance.
Instead, she crafted a fictional narrative aimed at persuading the court that the mother was useless, lazy, and manipulative. Her narrative falsely accused the mother of implanting in the children false beliefs that blamed their father for abuse that, according to the attorney, never occurred. This strategy mirrored the debunked and dangerous theories of so-called “parental alienation.” Consistent with prevailing court assumptions, Gelmann pushed for a 50/50 custody arrangement, ignoring the fact that the family dysfunction and divorce stemmed from the well-documented pathology of the father.
Attorney Gelmann’s conscious strategy buried the truth beneath a scripted legal facade, thereby initiating a litigation process fundamentally disconnected from the reality that this father could never, under any circumstances, safely co-parent—much less assume sole parenting responsibilities. As the architect of this delusion, Ms. Gelmann expected both parents to play roles in her fictional construct, perpetuating a dangerous illusion and continuing to enrich her in the process.
She advanced harmful and contraindicated therapeutic processes with malicious disregard for the children’s diagnoses, in particular the nociopathic pain condition, (AMPS), that the son suffers from which is documented as causing intense pain throughout the child’s body in situations of stress or anxiety. Ignoring the danger posed by the coercively controlling and abusive father, she mapped a future of continued suffering, despair, and even potential death for the children. The mother has borne the burden of Attorney Gelmann’s unethical and deceitful attacks—undermined and prejudiced by Ms. Gelmann and her so-called expert, whose role has been to manufacture a false reality through misdirection and manipulation.
To further cement her case, Attorney Gelmann escalated her fabricated construct of the mother’s alleged incompetence and parental alienation. Psychiatric evaluations and therapeutic interventions, however, painted a very different picture—revealing that the father was a dysfunctional alcoholic shielded for years by money, status, and family privilege. His emotional and medical neglect as well as his long-standing verbal, physical, and most recently disclosed, sexual abuse impacting the children has been extensively documented, yet has been inexplicably minimized or ignored.
This petition will demonstrate that Attorney Gelmann was fully aware of the children’s clinical diagnoses and the ongoing harm they were experiencing, yet continued to pursue a course of conduct that exacerbated their trauma. Her willful disregard of the foreseeable consequences of her actions—and her refusal to acknowledge her role in causing such harm—warrants her disbarment in the interest of protecting the public and safeguarding the welfare of vulnerable children.
One of her first attacks was to claim the mother suffered from Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy—a rare disorder typically tied to criminal charges. This diagnosis had no clinical basis. Nevertheless, Ms. Gelmann pushed this narrative and went so far as to attempt to limit the children’s access to essential medical and psychiatric care.
One can only conclude that Ms. Gelmann’s malicious intent was to accelerate the children’s decline, thereby falsely blaming the mother for their worsening condition due to the father’s absence—an absence he had long chosen. The deeply troubling nature of Ms. Gelmann’s strategy has indeed culminated in filings asserting that the children are deteriorating in their mother’s care and custody should be transferred to her client.
In response—and in support of Dr. Hipskind’s letter— we stand ready to submit volumes of medical, psychiatric, audio, video, and photographic evidence documenting the brutal abuse and resulting suffering endured by these children and exacerbated by the actions of Attorney Gelmann. The silence of the court in the face of such overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing cannot continue. Attorney Emily Gelmann must be removed from the practice of law to protect justice, uphold the rule of law, and most importantly, safeguard the welfare of children.
Allegations of Misconduct
-
Misrepresentations of Court Orders as “Reunification Therapy” and Resulting Harm (documented and subject to damages filings):
During the initial hearing in the underlying family court matter, the presiding judge indicated that supervised visitation would be ordered at a supervised visitation center (SVC). At that time, Complainant’s attorney proposed that the supervised visitation instead occur with a licensed therapist. This proposal was agreed to by both parties on the open court record. A subsequent consent order memorialized the agreement as “therapeutic supervised visitation.” This arrangement was clearly intended by the Court to ensure safe access to the children for Attorney Gelmann’s client under the structure and protection of therapeutic supervision.
Despite this clear framework, Ms. Gelmann repeatedly and deliberately mischaracterized the nature of the ordered visitation. She referred to the court-ordered “therapeutic supervised visitation” as “reunification therapy” or simply as “therapeutic visitation,” strategically omitting the critical term “supervised.” These misrepresentations appeared in court filings, oral arguments, and communications with mental health professionals involved in the case. Attorney Gelmann’s intentional and repetitive misstatements misled the treating professional into believing the parties had consented to engage in a formal reunification therapy process.
Importantly, therapeutic supervised visitation and reunification therapy are not interchangeable. Reunification therapy—described by the United Nations Council on Child Safety as a practice that may constitute psychological abuse or torture—is categorically contraindicated in cases involving prior abuse, neglect, substance misuse, or deficiencies in parenting capacity. In contrast, therapeutic supervised visitation ensures the presence of a therapist who may intervene when necessary and provide real-time parenting guidance. It does not initiate therapeutic processes aimed at repairing or re-establishing a relationship, particularly when children present with trauma symptoms or where safety concerns exist.
Attorney Gelmann was fully aware of the Court’s intent. This is evidenced by a praecipe she filed which included transcript excerpts expressly referencing “supervised visitation.” Additionally, she was counsel of record on the consent order, which unambiguously used the term “therapeutic supervised visitation.” Furthermore, she had full knowledge that both children had existing trauma diagnoses—one child estranged from her client due to abuse, and the other with a chronic pain disorder exacerbated by stress, likely also resulting from a history of abuse by her client.
Despite these facts, Attorney Gelmann continued to mischaracterize the court’s order. By promoting and mislabeling the structured and protective arrangement of “therapeutic supervised visitation” as “reunification therapy,” she knowingly misled the therapist overseeing supervised visitation into initiating a process of reunification therapy that was clinically inappropriate and foreseeably harmful. This not only contravened the explicit judicial directive and the consent order but also resulted in significant harm to the children.
During the period of “reunification therapy”, both children experienced escalating psychological distress and associated trauma symptoms such as panic attacks, nail biting, bedwetting, increased hypervigilance, nightmares, dissociative episodes, episodes of derealization and depersonalization, self harm, chest pain, severe dysregulation, and excruciating flares of bodily pain. One child’s experience culminated in acute suicidal ideation and hospitalization. The harm inflicted upon the children who were subjected to a contraindicated therapeutic process with their abuser, was a direct and foreseeable consequence of Ms. Gelmann’s misrepresentations. Not only did she lead professionals to act under a false premise, she ultimately influenced the language of subsequent court orders which further caused direct and significant harm to the children’s wellbeing. Misstating the nature of a court order in this manner violates Ms. Gelmann’s duty of candor toward the tribunal (Rule 3.3), which prohibits making false statements of fact to a court. It also constitutes dishonesty and misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c), and was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d), as it led to misguided judicial actions that jeopardized the children’s welfare.
-
False and Misleading Contempt Allegations Regarding Visitation Compliance:
In addition to knowingly and repeatedly misstating the timeline of the last visits between the children and her client, Attorney Gelmann continues to pursue contempt motions seeking incarceration of Complainant on the false premise that lapses in visitation constitute willful noncompliance. In reality—as Ms. Gelmann is fully aware—visitation lapses were not due to obstruction by Complainant, but were the direct result of multiple, well-documented circumstances.
Specifically, from February through March of 2024, when Complainant’s son was attending a PHP program at Dominion Hospital for treatment of suicidal ideation, the treating therapist, per hospital policy, instituted a boundary between him and his father, respecting that the child did not “feel ready” to see his father yet. Then, following a discussion between the “reunification” therapist and the child’s outpatient therapist in April 2024, Ms. Michele Sarris, formally and unilaterally halted all reunification sessions with Complainant’s son until further notice. Any attempt at scheduling further sessions did not resume for several months. In September 2024, which was the actual last date on which Ms. Gelmann’s client saw both children, the children again objected to further “reunification” sessions with Attorney Gelmann’s client. This prompted Ms. Sarris to email Ms. Gelmann’s client with two proposed alternatives: either continue visitation with the daughter only, or switch to a supervised visitation platform that would offer more frequent and less costly sessions. Ms. Gelmann’s client never responded and failed to pursue any further visitation.
Subsequently, in October 2024, following Complainant’s son’s disclosure of sexual abuse, all considerations of continued visitation were paused, a decision that was discussed and agreed upon between counsel and Ms. Sarris. Despite being fully aware of these facts, Ms. Gelmann has continued to falsely characterize the cessation of visits as evidence of Complainant’s noncompliance.
By misrepresenting these circumstances and withholding material facts from the court, Ms. Gelmann has attempted to secure contempt sanctions and even incarceration against Complainant through deceit. This behavior constitutes a serious abuse of process and clear violations of Rule 3.3(a)(1) (failure to disclose material facts), Rule 4.1(a) (misrepresentation), Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty), and Rule 8.4(d) (prejudicial to the administration of justice).
-
Fabrication of Parental Alienation Claims:
Throughout the case, Ms. Gelmann has chronically mischaracterized the history of the children’s visitations with their non-custodial parent and accused the Complainant of parental alienation. She presented inaccurate and exaggerated accounts to suggest that prior to the above noted pauses in visitation, the Complainant had a long pattern of denying or spoiling visitation. Despite this being meticulously documented as completely untrue, Attorney Gelmann worked with the reunification therapist to ignore the exculpatory documentation and instead present a completely false narrative to the Court. This deceitful maneuver was mutually beneficial for both Ms Sarris’s professional reputation as well as Attorney Gelmann’s client who stood to gain legal advantage through the false support of Attorney Gelmann’s baseless and slanderous accusation of parental alienation. Further, Attorney Gelmann also falsely accused the Complainant of coaching the children to resist visits, despite lack of evidence and the consistent history of compliance with requested visits/sessions between Ms Sarris and the children. These above fabrications were made in court filings and oral arguments with complete disregard for the truth, misleading the judge about the true causes of the family dynamics.
By misrepresenting material facts about visitation history, Ms. Gelmann violated Rule 3.3 and Rule 8.4(c) by lying to the tribunal. Additionally, by promulgating a false parental alienation theory, she acted without regard for the rights of the children and the Complainant, using inflammatory accusations to burden them with unjust proceedings and evaluations – conduct lacking substantial purpose other than to malign the Complainant, in violation of Rule 4.4(a) (which prohibits using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden a third person). The introduction of these false allegations severely prejudiced the custody proceedings, amounting to conduct that interfered with the administration of justice (Rule 8.4(d)).
-
False Representation to the Court Influencing Resulting Judicial Orders Regarding Therapeutic Appointments:
At an April 3, 2025 hearing, Attorney Gelmann further misled the court by asserting that both parties had spoken with Dr. Michelle Dodge and that a second therapist was needed to assist in the case. In fact, neither Defendant nor her counsel had ever spoken to Dr. Dodge. Only Attorney Gelmann had communicated with Dr. Dodge. Nevertheless, based on this false premise, the Court issued an order appointing Colleen Bokman to assist Dr. Dodge.
Defendant has documentation in which Dr. Dodge confirms that she never had any communication with the Defendant or her counsel, making it indisputable that the representations made by Attorney Gelmann to the Court were knowingly false and materially misleading.
Upon speaking directly with Dr. Dodge and Ms. Bokoman, Defendant learned that Ms. Bokman’s role had been instituted solely on the basis of Dr. Dodge’s conversations with Attorney Gelmann in which she received “guidance”. Ms. Bokman informed Defendant that her primary responsibility was to explain and justify the therapeutic directives to Defendant, particularly those that might be uncomfortable or distressing to the children. Furthermore, Defendant was told she would not have any access to speak with Dr. Dodge directly regarding what would be occurring in the sessions. This wholly unethical “arrangement” was again the direct result of Ms Gelmann’s dishonest and malicious actions, meant to impair Defendant’s ability to advocate for her children’s well-being or even to monitor the therapeutic appropriateness of interventions being administered under the Court mandate based on Ms Gelmann’s false statements to the Court.
This conduct violates D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 3.3(a)(1) (making false statements of fact to a tribunal), Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and Rule 8.4(d) (conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice).
-
Knowingly Misleading the Guardian ad Litems with Falsified “Gatekeeping” Documents
Attorney Emily Gelmann knowingly and deliberately misled the Guardian ad Litem by submitting selectively excerpted and chronologically manipulated text messages in order to fabricate a false narrative that the Defendant was engaging in “gatekeeping” by obstructing visitation. Specifically, she presented message fragments in which the Defendant declined several proposed visits—requests that were, in fact, outside the scope of the parties’ revised and mutually agreed-upon visitation schedule. To falsely imply that these declines violated the standing arrangement, Attorney Gelmann appended an outdated portion of the same text exchange that outlined the prior schedule, creating the appearance that it remained operative at the time of the communications.
This calculated misrepresentation was not inadvertent. It was a knowing and intentional effort to mislead the Guardian ad Litem and the Court by suppressing critical context, altering the temporal sequence of events, and distorting the meaning of the Defendant’s responses. The result was a false portrayal of noncompliance where none existed.
Meanwhile, it was Ms. Gelmann’s client who repeatedly ignored the mutually agreed upon schedule, attempting to schedule visits at inappropriate times and in conflict with the children’s documented and developmentally appropriate needs.
By submitting a deceptive presentation of the communications, Attorney Gelmann intentionally misrepresented material facts to the GAL. This conduct violated multiple provisions of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 4.1(a) – Making false statements of material fact to a third person; Rule 8.4(c) – Engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; Rule 8.4(d) – Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
-
Unfounded Insinuations of Munchausen by Proxy to Manipulate the Court and Clinicians Resulting in Withheld Care and Further Enduring Harm to Children (documented and subject to damages filings):
Ms. Gelmann has repeatedly insinuated – in court pleadings, arguments, and communications with treatment providers – that the Complainant mother suffers from a mental health disorder known as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (also called Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another). She suggested that the Complainant was pathologically causing or fabricating the children’s medical or psychological issues to draw attention (a very serious accusation tantamount to claiming child abuse by medical deception). Ms. Gelmann had no medical or psychiatric evidence for this claim; it was a speculative and scurrilous allegation made solely to prejudice the court and justify removing the children from the Complainant’s care.
Further, during Ms. Gelmann’s intake conversation with the court-appointed therapist she maliciously and strategically suggested that the mother suffered from this rare disorder. By planting this unfounded narrative, Ms. Gelmann influenced clinical decisions and the court therapist was reluctant to credit the Complainant’s reports of the children’s escalating trauma symptoms, assuming they might be fabricated, leading to additional harm and suffering of the children.
Ms. Gelmann pushed this narrative and went so far as to attempt to limit the children’s access to essential medical and psychiatric care. One can only conclude that Ms. Gelmann’s malicious intent was to accelerate the children’s decline, thereby falsely blaming the mother for their worsening condition due to the father’s absence—an absence he had long chosen. The deeply troubling nature of Ms. Gelmann’s strategy has indeed culminated in her production of filings asserting that the children are deteriorating in their mother’s care and custody should be transferred to her client.
This tactic is grossly unethical: it constitutes a false statement of fact about the Complainant’s mental health, made knowingly and with intent to gain a litigation advantage, in violation of Rule 4.1 (truthfulness to others) and Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty). To the extent these claims were insinuated in court, it violates Rule 3.3 as well. Moreover, it shows a complete lack of respect for the rights of the Complainant as a third party – the accusation had no substantial purpose except to embarrass and burden the Complainant with defending her sanity and reputation, implicating Rule 4.4(a). Introducing such baseless and prejudicial mental health accusations also obstructed justice by diverting the court’s focus from credible evidence to salacious, unfounded claims (Rule 8.4(d)).
-
False Accusation of Coaching a Child’s Sexual Assault Disclosure:
In a particularly egregious act, Ms. Gelmann falsely alleged that the Complainant coached their minor child to fabricate a disclosure of sexual abuse. The minor child in question had reported a sexual assault incident to a school social worker on their own initiative – a report which triggered mandatory reporting procedures independent of the Complainant. Despite knowing (or having reason to know) that the child’s disclosure originated with school authorities, Ms. Gelmann asserted to the court and in case meetings that the Complainant orchestrated or planted the abuse allegations in the child’s mind. This claim was utterly unfounded and knowingly false, as evidenced by school records and the social worker’s statements confirming that the child approached school staff directly. Ms. Gelmann’s accusation had the effect of discrediting the child’s legitimate disclosure and diverting attention away from the abuse allegations, causing the child further harm and potentially impeding a proper investigation into the abuse. Such conduct is profoundly dishonest and violates Rule 8.4(c)’s prohibition on deceit and misrepresentation. If these statements were made in court, they also violated Rule 3.3. If made to child services personnel, evaluators, or therapists, they violated Rule 4.1(a) by conveying false material facts to third parties. Importantly, accusing a parent of coaching a false sexual abuse claim without evidence is not only reckless but prejudicial to the administration of justice, Rule 8.4(d), because it undermines the integrity of abuse proceedings and could chill the truthful reporting of abuse by children.
-
Improper and Harassing Service of Process at Complainant’s Residence Further Traumatizing Children:
At a time when Complainant was actively attempting to proceed as a self-represented litigant (pro se) but still had counsel of record whose withdrawal had neither been filed nor granted by the court, Attorney Gelmann arranged for personal service of process at Complainant’s residence twice while simultaneously successfully serving counsel of record via CaseFileExpress. The first service occurred during the evening hours, frightening the Complainant’s children and causing acute trauma, including a stress-induced medical episode for one child. The second service occurred on the morning of May 28th when the child that is suffering from acutely severe trauma symptoms, and is being homeschooled, was again frightened into dissociative flashbacks with seizures, periods of breathlessness, and an intermittent paralyzed state of fear.
Although Complainant’s intent to appear pro se had been made known, the official record still reflected legal representation, and no motion to withdraw had been submitted by counsel. Therefore, Ms. Gelmann’s decision to serve Complainant personally at home was unnecessary and inappropriate under the circumstances. This act lacked any legitimate purpose beyond intimidation, especially given that proper legal service could have been coordinated through counsel of record who was a recipient of both filings on CaseFileExpress.
This conduct violated Rule 4.4(a) (prohibiting the use of means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person) and Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Fully Documented Pattern of Dishonesty and Abuse Prejudicial to Justice, Resulting in Medically Documented Harm to Minor Children:
The aforementioned acts are not isolated incidents, but part of an overall pattern of misconduct by Ms. Gelmann. She has repeatedly resorted to dishonest, fraudulent, and deceitful tactics throughout the case, in violation of Rule 8.4(c). This pattern included misrepresenting facts to judges and professionals, falsely attacking the Complainant’s credibility and mental health, and manipulating proceedings to gain advantage at the expense of truth and the children’s wellbeing. Such conduct, taken in its entirety, demonstrates a knowing and systematic disregard for the truth and for Ms. Gelmann’s obligations as an officer of the court. The cumulative effect was profoundly prejudicial to the administration of justice, violating Rule 8.4(d). Court decisions were skewed by false information, the Complainant’s rights were trampled by unethical tactics, and most tragically, the minor children suffered real harm. The children’s emotional and mental health has deteriorated due to unwarranted interventions and stressors created by Ms. Gelmann’s actions (as detailed above and supported by documentation such as therapist reports and medical evaluations). This pattern of misconduct reflects adversely on the legal profession and calls for the most serious remedial action by disciplinary authorities.
A formal complaint will be submitted to the Maryland Board of Social Work Examiners against Michele R. Sarris, LCSW-C, for serious ethical violations, including but not limited to: collusion with Attorney Emily Gelmann in advancing a knowingly false and defamatory diagnosis of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy against the protective parent; dissemination of materially misleading clinical statements to the Court; professional negligence in the assessment and handling of the children’s medical and psychological conditions; and the issuance of unsupported treatment recommendations that directly contradicted the children’s documented medical and psychiatric needs. Ms. Sarris’s actions resulted in the deprivation of critical medical care, contributed to the deterioration of the children’s health, and continues to materially mislead the Court through interactions with collateral contacts and communications with authorities posing an ongoing risk to the integrity of the proceedings and the children’s safety. Moreover, her unilateral implementation of a non-court-ordered form of reunification therapy, despite clinical contraindications and documented trauma, constitutes reckless professional misconduct which resulted in grievous harm to the children including hospitalization for acute suicidal ideation in one child. If left unmitigated, her unethical actions would have led to foreseeably grave consequences for both children.
Violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct
Ms. Gelmann’s actions, as detailed in the allegations, violate numerous provisions of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. The specific rules and their application here are as follows:
- Rule 3.3 – Candor to Tribunal: Rule 3.3(a)(1) forbids a lawyer from knowingly making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal. Ms. Gelmann violated this rule by presenting false information and narratives to the court (e.g., misrepresenting supervised visitation as reunification therapy, falsely accusing the Complainant of interference and coaching). An attorney’s duty of candor is fundamental; Ms. Gelmann breached it repeatedly, thereby misleading the judge and perverting the course of the proceedings.
- Rule 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others: Rule 4.1(a) provides that in the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to a third person. Ms. Gelmann violated Rule 4.1 by lying to third parties integral to the case – notably therapists and evaluators – about material facts (for example, misrepresenting court orders or the Complainant’s actions). These false statements were intended to influence those professionals’ opinions and recommendations, compounding the deception outside the courtroom.
- Rule 4.4(a) – Respect for Rights of Third Persons: Rule 4.4(a) prohibits using methods of representation that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person. Ms. Gelmann’s conduct in arranging an aggressive home service of process (Allegation 7) and her relentless personal attacks on the Complainant’s mental health (Allegation 6) were tactics devoid of legitimate purpose, serving only to harass and burden the Complainant. Such actions demonstrate a disregard for the rights and well-being of others beyond any bona fide advocacy.
- Rule 8.4(c) – Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, Misrepresentation: Rule 8.4(c) declares that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. This provision encapsulates much of Ms. Gelmann’s misconduct. The record of this case shows a litany of dishonest behaviors: false statements to the court, fabricated accusations, and misleading of professionals.
Each instance was a violation of 8.4(c), and collectively they reveal a lawyer who operated in bad faith with intent to deceive.
- Rule 8.4(d) – Serious Interference with the Administration of Justice: Rule 8.4(d) provides that it is misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice. By poisoning the court process with falsehoods and causing unjust outcomes, Ms. Gelmann gravely interfered with the proper administration of justice. The court was led to issue orders on a false factual basis, the truth-finding process was subverted, and the welfare of the children – which the justice system is bound to protect – was compromised. Such results are the epitome of prejudicing the administration of justice, squarely violating Rule 8.4(d).
Each of the above rules carries the weight of fundamental ethical duties for attorneys. Ms. Gelmann’s pattern of conduct breached all of them. Notably, these violations were not technical or borderline – they were flagrant and knowing. An attorney who habitually lies to courts and third parties, weaponizes baseless allegations, and inflicts harm on children for litigation advantage represents a profound threat to the integrity of the legal profession and the public’s trust in it.
Requested Sanction – Disbarment (Applicability of Standards 5.11 and 6.11)
In light of the severity and persistence of Ms. Gelmann’s misconduct, the Complainant urges that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. Under D.C. law, the purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public, the courts, and the profession’s integrity – not to punish the attorney. Here, protecting the public and the justice system requires permanently removing an attorney who has demonstrated such a disregard for ethical obligations.
The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions provide guidance in determining the proper sanction for misconduct. Standard 5.11 states that disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice. Ms. Gelmann’s conduct fits squarely within this description: her intentional deceit and pattern of false statements directly call into question her fitness to practice law. Likewise, Standard 6.11 provides that disbarment is warranted when a lawyer, with intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement or withholds material information, causing serious or potentially serious injury to a party or a significant adverse effect on a legal proceeding. This is precisely what occurred here – Ms. Gelmann intentionally deceived the court, and her lies caused serious injury to the Complainant and the children, and a significant adverse effect on the proceeding’s fairness.
Furthermore, the District of Columbia’s own disciplinary precedents hold that repeated dishonesty and litigation misconduct will result in harsh discipline, up to disbarment, especially where vulnerable individuals (such as children) are harmed. Ms. Gelmann’s multiple violations were not isolated mistakes but a deliberate litigation strategy, which is an aggravating factor. There are no known mitigating factors in this case that could justify leniency; on the contrary, the record shows that even after interventions and warnings during the case, Ms. Gelmann persisted in her unethical course.
Disbarment under D.C. Bar R. XI § 3 and the relevant rules is appropriate to protect the public from any future misconduct by Ms. Gelmann, to deter other attorneys from similar behavior, and to affirm the principle that truthfulness and integrity are paramount in the practice of law. Lesser sanctions (such as suspension) would be insufficient given the scope of harm and the apparent intentionality behind these violations. The magnitude of the misconduct – involving deceit of a court and harm to minor children – demands the most severe response.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Complainant respectfully requests that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel take prompt action on this complaint. The factual allegations are grave and supported by evidence, and they demonstrate clear and multiple violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct by Attorney Emily Gelmann. Ms. Gelmann’s actions have undermined the administration of justice, inflicted trauma on innocent children, and flagrantly breached the trust that the courts and the public place in members of the Bar.
Complainant asks that a formal investigation be opened and, upon confirmation of the facts, that a petition for discipline be pursued against Ms. Gelmann. Given the deliberate and egregious nature of the misconduct, the appropriate result is a recommendation of disbarment. This will serve to remove an unethical practitioner from the ranks of the profession and uphold the standards that ensure fairness and honesty in our legal system.
The voluminous evidence and documentation supporting all of the above allegations is available to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel upon request.
In Prayer for Justice,
Victoria Lloyd Scallan (Complainant)
Date: June 21, 2025
