On Thursday, August 21, 2025, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a ruling concerning the professional conduct of attorneys Amanda Haines and Fernando Campoamor-Sánchez. The court reviewed a recommendation from the Board on Professional Responsibility regarding allegations of ethical violations in the prosecution of Ingmar Guandique, who was convicted in the 2001 murder of Chandra Levy.
The case drew significant public interest when, in 2008, law enforcement began focusing on Guandique as a suspect. Key to the prosecution’s case was Armando Morales, a former inmate who claimed that Guandique confessed to him while they were incarcerated together. Morales had previously debriefed with law enforcement about his gang involvement, a fact that was not disclosed during Guandique’s trial in 2010. Haines served as the lead prosecutor, while Campoamor-Sánchez was also part of the prosecution team.
The court found that Haines failed to disclose exculpatory information regarding Morales’ prior debriefing. According to D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(e), prosecutors are required to
disclose all potentially exculpatory information. The Board concluded that Haines did not fulfill this obligation, while Campoamor-Sánchez was determined not to have violated his ethical duties related to the same conduct.
The ruling indicated that the existence of Morales’s prior debrief constituted exculpatory information that should have been disclosed to Guandique’s defense team. After the trial, in light of Morales’s undisclosed history of cooperation with law enforcement, Guandique’s counsel sought a new trial. The prosecution later withdrew its opposition to this motion, leading to the dismissal of the indictment against Guandique.
In addition to the failure to disclose exculpatory information, Haines was also charged with violating Rule 1.6(a) for improperly disclosing client confidences through personal emails to her boyfriend. The Hearing Committee recommended that Haines be suspended from practicing law for 90 days, while it found sufficient grounds to drop the charges against Campoamor-Sánchez.
On appeal, Haines contended that the information regarding Morales’s debrief was not exculpatory and argued that she was unaware of its significance. Disciplinary Counsel countered that Haines should have recognized its exculpatory nature and that her conduct warranted a more severe penalty.
The court ultimately determined that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, albeit concluding that the recommended suspension for Haines should be reduced. As a result, Haines was suspended from practicing law in the District of Columbia for 60 days, with the suspension stayed in favor of one year of probation. The court also upheld the Board’s decision to exonerate Campoamor-Sánchez, finding that he did not violate any rules of professional conduct.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
