Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
To the editor: As an attorney representing Willis Limited Partnership, I am writing in response to your July 16 article “ No Relief for D.C. Tenants.” Willis Limited Partnership has, for decades, sought to provide quality, affordable rental facilities for low- and middle-income families without subsidy. Professional management personnel at Dahlgreen Courts, which is owned by Willis Limited, are responsive to tenant reports and always seek to address concerns in a prompt fashion. Even those issues raised by tenants who chose to bypass the management office and report complaints directly to the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs have always been resolved in an expedited manner. It is my belief that the owners had a very laudatory record for no violations until the inspections of October 2006. Moreover, I have been advised that the management firm abated all violations in a timely manner from the October 2006 and March 2007 DCRA inspections, except for some very minor exterior brick point-up that is currently being assessed and repaired. It should also be noted that, as this story was being prepared, DCRA inspectors visited Dahlgreen Courts again on July 13 and found little that had not been abated. Rather than an example of DCRA laxness, as the article implies, Dahlgreen Courts may well be an example of DCRA aggressiveness on behalf of tenants. Although I am not an attorney of record in the case, I am familiar with Charles Smith’s suit relating to a 2003 alleged incident. Mr. Smith’s complaint is being strongly and vigorously defended. The defendant feels that many of the allegations are totally without merit and has filed an extensive motion for summary judgment. The publication of the plaintiff’s assertions before judicial determination is premature and might create an unfair atmosphere that would be prejudicial to the highest degree. Was the article one-sided? In the opinion of many lawyers, a journalistic presentation must be approached with extreme caution to avoid harm to pending litigation. Courts are designed to resolve disputes. Is it not the obligation of the press to present facts in an equitable fashion? John J. O’Neill Jr. Rockville, Md.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.