Docstoc

Disciplinary Actions Other Actions

Document Sample
Disciplinary Actions Other Actions Powered By Docstoc
					Disciplinary Actions
The following orders have been edited. Administrative language has been removed to make the opinions more readable.

Respondent’s Name                 Address of Record (City/County)   Action                                   Effective Date      Page

Disciplinary Board
Stuart Woodward Atkinson          Newport News                      Revocation                               June 25, 2004       n/a
Mac Andres Chambers               Roanoke                           1 Year Suspension w/Terms                September 1, 2004   20
James Kevin Clarke                Richmond                          Public Reprimand w/Terms                 May 24, 2004        22
Stanley Kirkland Foshee           Mitchellville, MD                 3 Year Suspension w/Terms                June 14, 2004       23
Sam Garrison                      Roanoke                           Revocation                               April 23, 2004      24
Vincent Napoleon Godwin           Carrollton                        Revocation                               December 12, 2006   26
                                                                    (currently serving 3 year suspension)
Jerry Wayne Harris                Lexington                         Revocation                               March 26, 2004      n/a
Robert Edward Howard              Alexandria                        Public Reprimand w/Terms                 April 19, 2004      26
Thomas Leroy Johnson Jr.          Richmond                          Suspension                               May 27, 2004        n/a
William Mills Krieger             Poquoson                          Admonition                               July 1, 2004        29
Tina Marie McMillan               Fairfax                           Revocation                               May 18, 2004        n/a
Jeffrey Bourke Rice*              Fairfax                           1 Year Suspension                        May 21, 2004        31
Steven Jeffrey Riggs              Santa Ana, CA                     Suspension                               June 25, 2004       n/a
William Mark Russell              Burke                             1 Year Suspension                        October 1, 2003     31
Timothy Warren Snyder             Springfield                       6 Month Suspension                       May 11, 2004        32
District Committees
Jeffrey Frederick Bradley         Harrisonburg                      Public    Admonition                     May 25, 2004        33
Francis Douglas Foord             Alexandria                        Public    Reprimand w/Terms              June 23, 2004       34
Jeffrey G. Haverson               Virginia Beach                    Public    Admonition w/Terms             June 15, 2004       35
Bradford Clark Jacob              Midlothian                        Public    Reprimand w/Terms              June 24, 2004       36
Tracey Alma Lenox                 Woodbridge                        Public    Reprimand w/Terms              April 30, 2004      38
John Edward Ryan Jr.              Fairfax                           Public    Reprimand                      June 28, 2004       39
Kenneth Hammond Taylor            Richmond                          Public    Reprimand w/Terms              June 29, 2004       40

Other Actions
Disability Suspensions
Respondent’s Name                     Address of Record             Jurisdiction                             Effective Date      Page
Margaret Ellen Hyland                 Fredericksburg                Disciplinary Board                       May 11, 2004        28
George Epperson Price                 Abingdon                      Disciplinary Board                       April 26, 2004      30

Cost Suspensions
Dianne Theresa Carter                 Newport News                  Failure   to   Pay   Costs               June 16, 2004       n/a
Edgar Hampton DeHart Jr.              Independence                  Failure   to   Pay   Costs               May 25, 2004        n/a
Luther Cornelious Edmonds             Norfolk                       Failure   to   Pay   Costs               May 18, 2004        n/a
Arthur C. Ermlich                     Virginia Beach                Failure   to   Pay   Costs               April 27, 2004      n/a
Vincent Napoleon Godwin               Carrollton                    Failure   to   Pay   Costs               April 22, 2004      n/a
Judith McClachlan Herndon             Charlottesville               Failure   to   Pay   Costs               May 18, 2004        n/a
Peter John LaMarca                    Fredericksburg                Failure   to   Pay   Costs               June 1, 2004        n/a
Frencis Gerard McBride                Fairfax                       Failure   to   Pay   Costs               June 2, 2004        n/a
Patrick Roger Owen                    Arlington                     Failure   to   Pay   Costs               May 19, 2004        n/a
Harrison Benjamin Wilson III          Richmond                      Failure   to   Pay   Costs               June 14, 2004       n/a
Eric Chong Yim                        Annandale                     Failure   to   Pay   Costs               May 4, 2004         n/a
Interim Suspensions
Frederick Lockhart Caldwell Sr.       Virginia Beach                Failure to Comply w/Subpoena             May 18, 2004        n/a
John Joseph Vavala                    Virginia Beach                Failure to Comply w/Subpoena             June 15, 2004       n/a

* Respondent has noted an appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court




                                                                                                 Virginia Lawyer Register               1
                                                    disciplinary actions

                Disciplinary Board                                   8.   The Respondent failed to contact the investigator as
VIRGINIA:                                                                 requested.
        BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
            DISCIPLINARY BOARD                                       As to VSB Docket No. 03-080-3704

IN THE MATTER OF                                                     9.   Complainant Joseph Davis (hereinafter the Complainant)
MAC ANDRES CHAMBERS                                                       injured his leg on July 15, 1999, while working with a
VSB Docket Nos:  03-080-0419                                              chain saw. He subsequently hired the Respondent to pros-
                 03-080-1249                                              ecute a personal injury action on his behalf. The
                 03-080-3704                                              Respondent filed a Motion for Judgment in the Circuit
                 04-080-0551                                              Court for Bedford County on July 16, 2001.

                             ORDER                                   10. On August 8, 2001, the Defendants mailed the Respondent
                                                                         discovery including Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories
     This matter came on the 10th day of June, 2004, to be               and First Request for Production of Documents. On August
heard on the Agreed Disposition of the Virginia State Bar and            9, 2001, counsel for the Defendants filed a Demurrer and
the Respondent, Mac Andres Chambers, Esquire, based on the               Grounds of Defense.
Certifications of Eighth District Subcommittees. The Agreed
Disposition was considered by a duly convened panel of the           11. Following the filing of the Motion for Judgment, the
Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board consisting of William C.           Respondent took no further action in the matter. The dis-
Boyce, Jr., Esquire, Robert E. Eicher, Esquire, Glenn M. Hodge,          covery propounded by the Defendants was never answered.
Esquire, Werner H. Quasebarth, lay member and Karen Gould,
Esquire, presiding.                                                  12. Numerous requests by the Complainant for information
                                                                         regarding the status of his case went unanswered by the
     Marian L. Beckett, Esquire, representing the Bar, and the           Respondent. The Complainant filed his complaint with the
Respondent, Mac Andres Chambers, Esquire, appearing pro se,              Virginia State Bar on May 9, 2003.
presented an endorsed Agreed Disposition, dated June 7, 2004,
reflecting the terms of the Agreed Disposition. * * *                13. On June 20, 2003, Assistant Bar Counsel, Claude V. Worrell
                                                                         II, sent a letter and a copy of the complaint to the
    Having considered the Certification and the Agreed                   Respondent informing him that the Bar was conducting a
Disposition, it is the decision of the Board that the Agreed             preliminary investigation of the matter. The June 20th cor-
Disposition be accepted, and the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary         respondence stated, inter alia, underlined and in bold, the
Board finds by clear and convincing evidence as follows:                 following directive: “please review the complaint and pro-
1.   At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Mac Chambers,         vide this office with a written answer, including an original
     Esquire (hereinafter “Respondent”), has been an attorney            and one copy of your response and all attached exhibits
     licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.           within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter.” In
                                                                         addition, the June 20th correspondence advised the
                                                                         Respondent that failure to provide a written answer would
As to Docket No. 03-080-0419
                                                                         result in the filing of the case with a district committee for
2.   For reasons stated in the Agreed Disposition and at oral            further action.
     argument presented by Bar Counsel, the Board finds by
                                                                     14. As of this date, the Respondent has made no written or
     clear and convincing evidence that the matter referred to
                                                                         other response to the Bar’s June 20, 2003 letter. On July
     as VSB Docket No. 03-080-0419 should be dismissed with
                                                                         21, 2003, Bar Counsel directed a letter of that date to the
     prejudice.
                                                                         Respondent, informing him that the matter had been
                                                                         referred to the Eighth District Committee for a more
As to VSB Docket No. 03-080-1249                                         detailed investigation. The matter was subsequently
                                                                         referred to Virginia State Bar investigator Clyde K. Venable.
3.   Complainant Lewis B. Rotenberry, Jr. retained the
     Respondent on or about April 5, 2002, to assist him in          15. Between August 18, 2003 and January 9, 2004, the
     obtaining visitation rights with his daughter in Florida, and       Respondent failed to return eight (8) telephone messages
     to seek a modification in child support to reflect his then         left by investigator Venable.
     income.
                                                                     16. On January 12, 2004, Assistant Bar Counsel Marian Beckett
4.   The Complainant paid the Respondent $750.00 in advance.             caused a subpoena to be served on the Respondent
                                                                         requesting the complete file relating to the Complainant’s
5.   As of October 25, 2002, the Respondent had not per-                 law case be delivered to VSB investigator Venable.
     formed any work on the Complainant’s behalf.
                                                                     17. While the investigator was on vacation, the Respondent
6.   On January 21, January 27, January 31 and February 4,               left the file unattended on the porch of Mr. Venable’s
     2003, Virginia State Bar investigator Clyde K. Venable              home, indicating that the file may be incomplete, as some
     attempted to call the Respondent and each time received a           of the documentation may have been lost in a flood.
     recorded message stating, “This mailbox is full.”
                                                                     18. The action in the County of Bedford, Law No.CL
7.   On January 29, 2003, investigator Venable went to the               01010154-00, is set to be purged as of August 9, 2004, pur-
     Respondent’s residence, did not find the Respondent there,          suant to the court’s policy of case removal after three years
     and left a note requesting the Respondent call him.                 of inactivity.



2                  August/September 2004
                                                     disciplinary actions


As to VSB Docket No. 04-080-0551                                     29. Mitigating factors recognized by the ABA include the
                                                                         following:
19. Complainant Timothy M. Barrett, Esquire, filed the com-
    plaint in this matter due to his inability to obtain his             B.    Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive.
    client’s file from her former attorney, the Respondent.
20. Marjorie Shears Moore retained the Respondent following              C.    Personal or emotional problems.
    a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 30,
    1996, to file and prosecute a personal injury action on her          H.    Physical or mental disability or impairment.
    behalf. As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident,
    Ms. Moore had in excess of forty (40) health care                30. Aggravating factors recognized by the ABA include the
    providers and voluminous medical records. It is not                  following:
    known whether a Motion for Judgment was ever filed in
    the case.                                                            A.    Prior disciplinary offenses.

21. Prior to the fall of 2002, Ms. Moore relocated to the                C.    A pattern of misconduct.
    Virginia Beach, Virginia area. On October 14, 2002, she
    terminated in writing the Respondent’s representation                D.    Multiple offenses.
    because of his failure to prosecute the case. Also on
    October 14, 2002, Ms. Moore’s new attorney, Complainant              E.    Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by
    Timothy Barrett, Esquire, informed the Respondent in writ-                 intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of
    ing that he had been retained by Ms. Moore, and                            the disciplinary authority.
    requested that the Respondent forward the entire file by
    overnight delivery. A portion of the file was shipped on         B. STIPULATION OF MISCONDUCT
    October 14, 2002.
                                                                         The aforementioned conduct on the part of the
22. Complainant filed his complaint on August 25, 2003, due          Respondent constitutes a violation of the following Virginia
    to the inability to obtain the entire file from Mr. Chambers.    Rules of Professional Conduct:
    The items missing included comprehensive medical
    records in excess of 1,000 pages.                                RULE 1.1 Competence
23. On September 17, 2003, Assistant Bar counsel Marian L.              ***
    Beckett sent a letter and a copy of the complaint to the
    Respondent informing him that the Bar was conducting a           RULE 1.3 Diligence
    preliminary investigation of the matter. The September              (a), (b), (c) * * *
    17th correspondence stated, inter alia, in bold, the follow-
    ing directive: “please review the complaint and provide          RULE 1.4 Communication
    this office with a written answer, including an original and        (a), (b), (c) * * *
    one copy of your response and all attached exhibits within
                                                                     RULE 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
    twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter.” In addition,
                                                                        (e) * * *
    the September 17th correspondence advised the
    Respondent that failure to provide a written answer would        RULE 8.1 Bar Admission And Disciplinary Matters
    result in the filing of the case with a district committee for      (c) * * *
    further action.
24. As of this date, the Respondent has made no written or           RULE 8.4 Misconduct
    other response to the Bar’s September 17, 2003 letter. On           (a), (b) * * *
    September 17th the matter was referred to the Eighth
    District Committee for a more detailed investigation, and             Upon consideration whereof, it is hereby ORDERED that
    the case was subsequently assigned to Virginia State Bar         the Respondent shall receive a SUSPENSION OF ONE (1) YEAR
    investigator Clyde K. Venable.                                   of his license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia,
                                                                     to commence on the 1st day of September, 2004.
25. Between October 15, 2003 and January 8, 2004, numerous
    attempts by investigator Venable to contact the Respondent            It is further Ordered that from the date of this hearing on
    by telephone, in person, and via correspondence yielded          June 10, 2004 up to and including August 31, 2004, the
    no response.                                                     Respondent shall not accept additional matters or cases for
                                                                     existing clients, and shall not accept matters or cases for new
26. On January 12, 2004 Assistant Bar Counsel Marian Beckett         clients. The Respondent is permitted to complete the represen-
    caused a subpoena to be served on the Respondent                 tation on pending matters for existing clients until the suspen-
    requesting the complete file relating to the Complainant’s       sion begins on September 1, 2004.
    law case be delivered to VSB investigator Venable.
27. In February of 2004, while the investigator was on vaca-             ***
    tion, the Respondent left the file unattended on the porch
    of Mr. Venable’s home.                                           ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2004.
                                                                     Karen A. Gould, First Vice Chair
28. Upon receipt of a medical release form signed by Ms.             Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board
    Moore, Investigator Venable forwarded the files in his pos-
    session to the Complainant on February 26, 2004.                                                ■■■


                                                                                        Virginia Lawyer Register                    3
                                                    disciplinary actions


VIRGINIA:                                                                Association, International and several individual defendants
        BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR                                    (“Delta litigation”).
            DISCIPLINARY BOARD
                                                                    8.   The Delta litigation alleged that the defendants had
IN THE MATTER OF                                                         breached contracts with the complainant, wrongfully dis-
JAMES KEVIN CLARKE                                                       charged and defamed him, and tortiously interfered with
VSB Docket No. 03-031-1625                                               his employment, thereby violating various federal laws.

                            ORDER                                   10. On February 27, 2002, the federal district court ordered
                                                                        that if Mr. Clarke did not withdraw from the Delta litiga-
      This matter came before the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary       tion, his name was to be removed from the docket on
Board upon certification from the Third District Committee,             March 19, 2002, unless he submitted a pro hac vice appli-
Section I. On May 21, 2004, a proposed Agreed Disposition               cation as the Clerk’s Office had directed him to do on
was presented to a duly convened panel consisting of Chester            January 14, 2002.
J. Cahoon, Jr., lay member, Robert E. Eicher, Joseph R. Lassiter,
Jr., H. Taylor Williams IV, and Roscoe B. Stephenson III, Chair.    11. Mr. Clarke subsequently retained an Atlanta law firm to
The Respondent, James Kevin Clarke, was present, and Barbara            assist him as local counsel in the Delta litigation.
Ann Williams, Bar Counsel, represented the Virginia State Bar.      12. The defense moved to dismiss the Delta litigation in late
                                                                        July and early August 2002, because, among other things,
      The Chair polled the panel members to determine whether           Mr. Clarke had allegedly failed to file and serve the lawsuit
any member had a personal or financial interest in this matter          in a timely manner.
that might affect or reasonably be perceived to affect his or her
ability to be impartial in this proceeding. Each member, includ-    13. By letter dated July 30, 2002, local counsel advised Mr.
ing the Chair, verified that he had no conflicts.                       Clarke that his firm planned to move to withdraw as local
                                                                        counsel due to a breakdown in communications with Mr.
     Having considered the proposed Agreed Disposition and              Clarke and because the Delta litigation appeared to be
the representations of counsel, the Disciplinary Board accepted         time barred.
the Agreed Disposition and finds by clear and convincing evi-
dence as follows:                                                   14. On September 11, 2002, local counsel filed a motion for
                                                                        leave to withdraw.
I. Findings of Fact                                                 15. On October 18, 2002, after Mr. Clarke failed to file any
                                                                        response to the motions to dismiss, the court dismissed the
1.   Mr. Clarke was admitted to the practice of law in the              complainant’s claims against all the defendants in the Delta
     Commonwealth of Virginia on May 3, 1994.                           litigation.
2.   At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Clarke was      16. Because Mr. Clarke had stopped communicating with his
     active and in good standing to practice law in Virginia.           client, the complainant did not learn that the Delta litiga-
                                                                        tion had been dismissed until he contacted the federal
3.   On or about November 11, 1999, the complainant engaged             court on December 2, 2002.
     Mr. Clarke to represent him in connection with the com-
     plainant’s claim that Delta Air Lines wrongfully terminated    17. The complainant paid Mr. Clarke $6,000 in fees for the
     his employment as a commercial airline pilot.                      Delta litigation, plus $3,000 in fees and a $1,000 bonus in
                                                                        connection with the ATA lawsuit.
4.   By letter dated December 9, 1999, Mr. Clarke proposed          18. Mr. Clarke did not deposit any of the money the com-
     expanding the scope of the representation to include “any          plainant paid him in his attorney trust account and did not
     claim against any individual or entity, including but not          maintain subsidiary ledgers reflecting any disbursements
     limited to Value Jet, Inc., for any interference with Aaron        for fees, costs or expenses.
     T. Guess’s pursuit of, attainment of, or continuance in
     employment with Delta Air Lines.”                              19. After the Delta litigation concluded, the complainant
                                                                        requested Mr. Clarke to provide him a copy of his file; Mr.
5.   On or about January 2, 2000, the complainant engaged Mr.           Clarke did not honor the complainant’s request.
     Clarke to defend him in a lawsuit American Trans Air
     (ATA) filed in a North Carolina court to recover $17,000 of    B. Findings of Misconduct
     the $25,000 ATA paid for the complainant to be trained as
                                                                         The foregoing findings of fact give rise to the following
     a commercial airline pilot.
                                                                    findings of misconduct:
6.   The ATA lawsuit was mediated, and on or about
                                                                    RULE 1.3 Diligence
     November 8, 2000, the ATA lawsuit was dismissed without
                                                                       (a) * * *
     prejudice by stipulation of the parties.
                                                                    RULE 1.4 Communication
7.   More than two years passed before, on January 9, 2002,            (a), (b) (c) * * *
     Mr. Clarke filed the wrongful discharge action on the com-
     plainant’s behalf in federal court in Atlanta against Delta    RULE 1.15 Safekeeping Property
     Airlines, Inc., AirTran Airways, Inc., the American Pilots        (e) (1) (i), (ii) and (iii) * * *




4                 August/September 2004
                                                     disciplinary actions


     ***                                                              VIRGINIA:
                                                                             BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
RULE 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation                               OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
   ***
   d) (e) * * *                                                       IN THE MATTER OF
                                                                      STANLEY KIRKLAND FOSHEE, ESQUIRE
III. Disposition                                                      VSB Docket No. 02-042-2942

    The Disciplinary Board, Respondent and Bar Counsel                                            ORDER
agree that a public reprimand with the following terms is an
appropriate disposition of this matter:                                     This matter came on to be heard on June 10, 2004, upon
                                                                      the Agreed Disposition of the Virginia State Bar and the
1.   Mr. Clarke shall comply fully with the terms of his current      Respondent, based upon the Certification of a Fourth District B
     Rehabilitation/Monitoring Agreement with Lawyers Helping         Section II Subcommittee. The Agreed Disposition was consid-
     Lawyers, and that agreement shall be extended to                 ered by a duly convened panel of the Virginia State Bar
     December 31, 2006.                                               Disciplinary Board consisting of Janipher W. Robinson, Esquire,
                                                                      David R. Schultz, Esquire, Theophlise L. Twitty, Esquire,
2.   No later than July 1, 2004, Mr. Clarke will deliver to Bar       Thaddeus T. Crump, lay member, and Roscoe B. Stephenson
     Counsel an executed copy of the extended Rehabilitation/         III, Esquire, presiding.
     Monitoring Agreement.
                                                                          Seth M. Guggenheim, Esquire, representing the Bar, the
3.   Mr. Clarke will execute whatever releases are necessary for
                                                                      Respondent, Stanley Kirkland Foshee, Esquire, and his counsel,
     “Lawyers Helping Lawyers” to communicate with the
                                                                      Edwin C. Brown, Jr., Esquire, presented an endorsed Agreed
     Virginia State Bar on a quarterly basis through December
                                                                      Disposition, dated May 26, 2004, reflecting the terms of the
     31, 2006, and for any therapists,counselors or medical
                                                                      Agreed Disposition.
     providers with whom he consults or by whom he is
     treated to, upon request, produce his records and commu-             Having considered the Certification and the Agreed
     nicate with the Virginia State Bar.                              Disposition, it is the decision of the Board that the Agreed
                                                                      Disposition be accepted, and the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary
4.   No later than July 1, 2004, Mr. Clarke will deliver to Bar       Board finds by clear and convincing evidence as follows:
     Counsel a written certification that he has put in place a
     trust account record keeping system.                             1.   At all times relevant to the matters set forth herein, Stanley
5.   Mr. Clarke shall be on disciplinary probation with respect            Kirkland Foshee, Esquire (hereafter “Respondent”), was an
     to his conduct as an attorney after December 1, 2002, and             attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of
     before December 31, 2006, and warrants that he has no                 Virginia, although not always in good standing.
     reason to believe that he will be found to have engaged in       2.   On or about September 18, 1996, Sylvia W. Hairston (here-
     any additional misconduct arising during that period.                 after “Complainant”) was involved in a motor vehicle acci-
                                                                           dent and sustained personal injuries. On or about October
     Upon satisfactory proof that all terms and conditions of the          22, 1996, the Complainant retained the Respondent to rep-
Agreed Disposition have been met, this matter shall be closed.             resent her in her personal injury claim.
Mr. Clarke’s failure to comply with any one or more of the
agreed terms and conditions, including a finding that he              3.   Although the fee agreement presented to the Complainant
engaged in attorney misconduct between December 1, 2002                    by the Respondent, and signed by the Complainant, was a
and December 31, 2006, will result in the imposition of the                ten page document citing disciplinary rules and legal
alternate sanction of an eighteen month suspension.                        ethics opinions relating to attorneys’ fees, the agreement
                                                                           nonetheless failed to state whether expenses were to be
     If the Virginia State Bar discovers that Mr. Clarke has failed        deducted before or after the contingent fee was calculated;
to comply with any of the agreed terms or conditions, imposi-              contained hourly rate provisions ostensibly inapplicable to
tion of the alternate sanction shall not require a hearing on the          the Complainant’s matter; and included confusing, unrea-
underlying charges of Misconduct. In that event, the Virginia              sonable, and oppressive attorney’s lien, arbitration, and
State Bar shall issue and serve upon Mr. Clarke a Notice of                confession of judgment provisions.
Hearing to Show Cause why the alternative sanction should not
be imposed. The sole factual issue will be whether Mr. Clarke         4.   On September 18, 1998, the Respondent filed suit on
has violated one or more of the terms of the Public Reprimand              Complainant’s behalf in the Circuit Court for the City of
without legal justification or excuse. The imposition of the               Alexandria, Virginia. Counsel for the defendant in the
alternative sanction shall be in addition to any other sanction            action propounded discovery to the Complainant through
imposed for misconduct during the probationary period.                     Respondent, to which Respondent made no response.
                                                                           Defense counsel thereafter, in March of 1999, filed a
     ***                                                                   motion to compel discovery, to which the Respondent
                                                                           made no response. On or about April 19, 1999, defense
Enter this Order this 24th day of May, 2004.                               counsel filed a motion in limine. On May 3, 1999, the
VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD                                      Respondent filed a “Motion for Nonsuit,” stating therein:
By: Roscoe B. Stephenson, III, Chair
                                                                           1.   Counsel for plaintiff was assigned a Federal Capitol
                              ■■■                                               [sic] murder case in the District of Columbia Federal




                                                                                         Virginia Lawyer Register                       5
                                                    disciplinary actions


         Circuit which precluded counsel from timely complet-        constitutes a violation of the following provisions of the revised
         ing discovery in the above captioned case.                  Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility and Rules of
                                                                     Professional Conduct:
    The nonsuit motion was granted by the Court on May 6,
1999.                                                                DR 1-102. Misconduct.
                                                                        (A) (3), (4) * * *
5.   The Respondent neither secured the Complainant’s prior
     authority to nonsuit her case, nor did he advise her that he    DR 2-105. Fees.
     had taken such action on her behalf. Moreover, the                 (A), (C) * * *
     Respondent did not reinstitute the Complainant’s lawsuit
     within the period permitted by the nonsuit statute and the      DR 6-101. Competence and Promptness.
     applicable statute of limitation, or at any time thereafter.       (A) (1), (2), (B), (C), (D) * * *

6.   Although the Motion for Judgment alleged that “while sit-       DR 7-101. Representing a Client Zealously.
     ting in her car at a red traffic light . . . Ms. Hairston was      (A) (1), (2), (3) * * *
     struck from behind by the defendant . . .,” the Respondent
     advised the Complainant in or around February of 2002           RULE 1.3 Diligence
     that opposing counsel claimed that the Complainant was at          (a), (b), (c) * * *
     fault in the accident, that to proceed would require expert
     witnesses, that in his opinion the case could not be won,       RULE 1.4 Communication
     and that there was nothing more that he, the Respondent,           (a), (b), (c) * * *
     could do for her.
                                                                     RULE 5.5 Unauthorized Practice Of Law
7.   The Complainant had an outstanding health care bill                (a) (1) * * *
     related to her personal injury claim in the sum of
     $2,920.81 as of the time that the Respondent nonsuited her      RULE 8.4 Misconduct
     case. The health care provider threatened the Complainant          (b), (c) * * *
     with collection action as of November, 2001. The
     Respondent contacted the health care provider on                      Upon consideration whereof, it is ORDERED that:
     November 5, 2001, and stated that he was not successful
     in settling the Complainant’s claim, and that he would          1.    Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 3 set forth below, the
     have to “eat this bill.”                                              Respondent shall receive a three (3) year suspension of his
                                                                           license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia, to
8.   On April 25, 2002, the Respondent promised the health care            commence upon entry of this Order, as representing an
     provider with a payment of $500.00 on May 1, 2002, and                appropriate sanction if this matter were to be heard.
     every month thereafter until the outstanding balance was
     paid in full. He also promised to furnish the provider with a   2.    Respondent shall pay by certified, cashier’s, or treasurer’s
     promissory note respecting the outstanding balance due.               check, made payable to the order of Cornerstone
                                                                           Complete Care, the sum of $3,200.00. * * *
9.   The Respondent never furnished the health care provider
     with a promissory note and he never made any payments           3.    If the Respondent fails to comply with any of the terms set
     to the health care provider on the Complainant’s behalf.              forth in the preceding Paragraph 2 in the manner and at
                                                                           the time compliance with any such term is required, then,
10. On October 15, 2001, the Respondent’s license to practice              and in such event, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary
    law in Virginia was suspended for his failure to comply                Board shall, as an alternative disposition to the three (3)
    with Paragraphs 11, 18 and/or 19, Part Six, Section IV, of             year license suspension otherwise provided for herein,
    the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and he was so              REVOKE the Respondent’s license to practice law in the
    notified by a certified letter delivered to and accepted at            Commonwealth of Virginia
    his address of record with the Virginia State Bar on
    October 16, 2001.                                                ***
11. The Respondent’s license suspension remained in force
    and effect during the period that he was in contact with         ENTER this Order this 14th day of June, 2004.
    and negotiating the resolution of Complainant’s health           VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD
    care bill, as aforesaid. The Respondent was also in contact      Roscoe B. Stephenson, III, Chair
    with the Complainant during that period, and counseled
    her respecting the outstanding bill. The Respondent failed                                      ■■■
    to notify either the Complainant or the health care
    provider that his license was suspended and that he was          VIRGINIA:
    not authorized to practice law in Virginia at the time he                BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
    counseled the Complainant and negotiated with the health                     DISCIPLINARY BOARD
    care provider.
                                                                     IN THE MATTER OF
    The Board finds by clear and convincing evidence that            SAM GARRISON
such conduct on the part of Stanley Kirkland Foshee, Esquire,        VSB Docket No. 02-080-3027




6                  August/September 2004
                                                    disciplinary actions


                   ORDER OF REVOCATION                               RULE 8.4 Misconduct
                                                                        (b) * * *
      On April 23, 2004 this matter came on for hearing upon
certification by the Eighth District Subcommittee of the Virginia         The Respondent, in his testimony, admitted that he had
State Bar dated December 12, 2002. The hearing was held              engaged in similar check kiting activity prior to 2000 but this
before a duly convened panel of the Virginia State Bar               prior activity had not resulted in any overdrafts and had not
Disciplinary Board consisting of Theophlise T. Twitty, acting        been detected.
chair, James L. Banks, Jr., Carl Arthur Eason, Glenn M. Hodge
and Chester J. Cahoon, Jr., lay member.                                                CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT

     All notices required by law were sent by the Clerk of the            The VSB alleged the forgoing facts give rise to the follow-
Disciplinary System.                                                 ing charges of misconduct under the Disciplinary Rules and the
                                                                     Rules of Professional Conduct:
    The Respondent, Sam Garrison appeared in person and
represented himself. Claude V. Worrell II, Esquire, appeared as      DR 1-102 Misconduct.
counsel for the Virginia State Bar (“VSB”).                             (A) (1), (2), (3), (4) * * *

     ***                                                             RULE 8.4 Misconduct
                                                                        (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) * * *
     The Chair opened the hearing by polling all members of
the panel as to whether there existed any conflict or other rea-         At the conclusion of the evidence, the VSB withdrew
son why any member should not sit on the panel. Each,                charges of violation of DR 1-102 (A) (2) and Rule 8.4 (d) & (e).
including the Chair, responded in the negative.
                                                                          Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Board, in closed
    VSB Exhibits 1–8, including a Stipulation of Facts, were         session, unanimously found by clear and convincing evidence
admitted without objection. The Respondent offered no exhibits.      that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes a violation of the
                                                                     following:
                      STIPULATED FACTS
                                                                     DR 1-102 Misconduct
1.   At all times relevant hereto, Sam Garrison, Esquire, (here-        (A) (1), (3), (4) * * *
     inafter the Respondent), has been an attorney licensed to
     practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia, though not        RULE 8.4 Misconduct
     always in good standing.                                           (a), (b) * * *
2.   Beginning in December 2000, the Respondent wrongfully               The Board found there was no violation of Rule 8.4 (c)
     obtained $6,728.84, ($607 in fees included in that number),     because Respondent’s actions did not involve professional
     from Wachovia Bank through a check fraud or check kit-          conduct.
     ing scheme. The Respondent confirmed the fact of the
     scheme and his participation in it in his May 14, 2002 let-         After the Board announced its findings, the VSB intro-
     ter to the Virginia State Bar.                                  duced the Respondent’s prior disciplinary record to be consid-
                                                                     ered by the Board in imposing sanctions. The prior disciplinary
3.   In his letter to the Bar, the Respondent explained that he      record consisted of a Disability Suspension effective April 29,
     and his domestic partner always had separate personal           1980; Virginia Supreme Court Revocation effective July 18,
     checking accounts and each would make loans to the              1980; Virginia Supreme Court Reinstatement effective March 11,
     other. In this instance, the Respondent’s law practice was      1993; Private Reprimand effective November 8, 2000; Private
     not generating the income necessary to support him and          Reprimand w/ terms effective December 20, 2002, and
     his partner so he wrote checks on his partner’s First Union     Dismissal w/ terms effective April 9, 2004.
     account and deposited those checks into his Wachovia
     checking account and vice versa. This activity created an                          IMPOSITION OF SANCTION
     artificially inflated account balance in both accounts. The
     Respondent withdrew funds, used his debit card and/or                The Board, having considered all the evidence before it,
     wrote checks against the artificially high balances in each     the nature of the Respondent’s actions and the Respondent’s
     account                                                         prior disciplinary record, hereby ORDERS that the license of
                                                                     the Respondent, Sam Garrison, to practice law in the
4.   The Respondent has repaid the wrongfully obtained funds.        Commonwealth of Virginia be, and the same is hereby,
     The United States Attorney’s office declined prosecution,       REVOKED effective April 23, 2004, a summary order having
     as did the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office.                    been entered that date; and

5.   The parties stipulate to the admissibility of the exhibits           It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to Part Six, § IV,
     filed by the Virginia State Bar and ask that the exhibits be    Paragraph 13(M) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia,
     admitted without objection.                                     Respondent shall forthwith give notice by certified mail, return
                                                                     receipt requested, of this revocation of his license to practice
6.   The Respondent stipulates that the conduct described            law in the Commonwealth of Virginia to all clients for whom
     herein violates the following disciplinary rules and rules of   he is currently handling any matters, to all Judges and the
     professional conduct:                                           clerks of the courts before which Respondent may have any




                                                                                         Virginia Lawyer Register                      7
                                                     disciplinary actions


pending cases and to all opposing counsel on all such cases.          on May 21, 2004. A copy was also sent to his current place of
Respondent shall also make appropriate arrangements for the           incarceration on May 14, 2004.
disposition of matters now in his care, in conformity with the
wishes of his client. Respondent shall give such notice within              Each member of the panel was requested by the Chair to
fourteen (14) days of the effective date of the Revocation, and       state whether he was aware of any personal or financial inter-
make such arrangements as are required herein within forty-           est which would affect or reasonably be perceived to affect his
five (45) days of the effective date of the Revocation. The           ability to be impartial in this case, all members responding in
Respondent shall also furnish proof to the Bar within sixty (60)      the negative. The Virginia State Bar (the “Bar”) was represented
days of the effective date of the Revocation that such notices        by Edward L. Davis, Assistant Bar Counsel. The Bar then
have been timely given and such arrangements made for the             moved into evidence three exhibits consisting of an Affidavit
disposition of matters.                                               from Diana L. Balch, custodian of membership records for the
                                                                      Bar, pertaining to Respondent’s membership status, the entire
    ***                                                               record to date, and a certification of Respondent’s disciplinary
                                                                      record. The three exhibits were admitted without objection.
ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2004.
Theophlise T. Twitty, Acting Chair                                         The record (Bar Exhibit 2) shows that on or about
Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board                                 February 26, 2002, Respondent was convicted of seven felony
                                                                      counts of stealing property from Framingham Cooperative Bank
                              ■■■                                     (“Bank”) totaling $246,400. Specifically, Respondent was
                                                                      charged with four counts of forging and altering checks, and
VIRGINIA:
                                                                      seven counts of stealing cash from Framingham Cooperative
        BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
                                                                      Bank, said offenses arising from depositing the forged checks
            DISCIPLINARY BOARD
                                                                      into an account at the Bank. Defendant was found guilty by
                                                                      jury verdict on the seven counts of stealing cash from the
IN THE MATTER OF:
VINCENT NAPOLEON GODWIN                                               Bank, to wit: $70,000 and $10,500 on June 4, 2001; $1,200,
VSB Docket No. 02-000-2789                                            $7,400, $2,500, and $4,000 on divers dates between June 5 and
                                                                      13, 2001, and $150,000 on or about June 18, 2001. Respondent
                   ORDER OF REVOCATION                                appealed the guilty verdicts to the Massachusetts Appeals
                                                                      Court, which appeal was ultimately denied. Upon this record,
     THIS MATTER came before the Virginia State Bar                   the Board finds that the Bar has proven by clear and convinc-
Disciplinary Board for hearing pursuant to a Rule to Show             ing evidence that Respondent has been convicted of a “Crime”
Cause and Order of Suspension and Hearing entered March 29,           as defined by Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part 6,
2002 (the “Order of Suspension”), requiring that Vincent              Section IV, Paragraph 13.A.
Napoleon Godwin (“Respondent”) appear before the Virginia
State Bar Disciplinary Board (the “Board”) on April 26, 2002, to            Thereupon, the Board considered the appropriate sanction
show cause why his license to practice law within the                 and unanimously determined that Respondent’s license to prac-
Commonwealth of Virginia should not be suspended or                   tice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia should be revoked,
revoked based upon conviction of a “Crime”, as defined by the         with the effective date of the revocation to be at the end of
Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia (“Rules”), Part 6, Section     Respondent’s current suspension for other findings of miscon-
IV, Paragraph 13.A. The official file in the Office of the Clerk of   duct, as hereinafter set out, so that the revocation will run con-
the Disciplinary System documents that the order of suspen-           secutive to said suspension.
sion, notice of the hearing and a copy of the criminal convic-
tion order from the court entering same was served on                      It is accordingly, ORDERED that, pursuant to Part 6,
Respondent, by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his       Section IV, Paragraph 13.I(5)(c)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme
address of record with the Virginia State Bar as required by the      Court of Virginia, the license of Vincent Napoleon Godwin to
Rules, on January 25, 2002. On said hearing date Respondent           practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia be, and the
appeared pro se before a duly convened panel of the Board             same hereby is, REVOKED effective December 12, 2006.
and filed a written request for a continuance, advising the           Respondent’s license is currently under a three-year suspension
panel that his sentencing for his convictions had been stayed         for prior disciplinary action, which suspension runs until
pending appeal. By order entered May 1, 2002 the Board con-           December 12, 2006.
tinued the hearing generally until such time as Respondent
might be sentenced, during which time summary suspension of           So ordered this 10th day of June, 2004.
Respondent’s license remained in full force and effect.               VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD
                                                                      By: Roscoe B. Stephenson, III, Chair
     On May 21, 2004, a panel of the Board, consisting of
Roscoe B. Stephenson III, Chair, Chester J. Cahoon, Jr., lay                                       ■■■
member, Robert E. Eicher, Joseph R. Lassiter, Jr. and H. Taylor
Williams IV was duly convened and, after other preliminary            VIRGINIA:
business and hearings, at or about 10:30 a.m. this case was                   BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
thrice called in the hallway adjacent to the hearing room, the                    DISCIPLINARY BOARD
Respondent failing to appear. The Respondent was duly noti-
fied of the hearing by letter mailed May 5, 2004 by certified         IN THE MATTER OF
mail, return receipt requested, to his address of record, enclos-     ROBERT EDWARD HOWARD, ESQUIRE
ing an order entered May 5, 2004 setting the case for a hearing       VSB Docket Number 99-042-0950




8                  August/September 2004
                                                   disciplinary actions


                            ORDER                                       ingly, the Respondent assigned a member of the Virginia
                                                                        State Bar associated with his firm to represent the
      This matter came on to be heard on April 16, 2004, upon           Complainant and her parents, all of whom were named as
the Agreed Disposition of the Virginia State Bar and the                respondents in the petition filed in the Circuit Court.
Respondent, based upon the Certification of a Fourth District B
Section II Subcommittee. The Agreed Disposition was consid-        5.   A “Final Order” was entered by the Circuit Court on
ered by a duly convened panel of the Virginia State Bar                 January 13, 1993, which, inter alia, provided that “Robert
Disciplinary Board consisting of Peter A. Dingman, Esquire,             Howard, Esquire, as counsel for the Respondents, shall
Bruce T. Clark, Esquire, Chester J. Cahoon, lay member, and             promptly pay the aforesaid sums to the aforementioned
Robert L. Freed, Esquire, presiding. The convened Board mem-            individuals as set forth in this Order”. Inter alia, the Final
bers, Bar Counsel, and the Respondent were advised at the               Order provided that Complainant’s parents were to receive
inception of the hearing that one of the Board members sched-           the sum of $2,904.54 “for reimbursement or payment of
uled to participate was unavailable. With the approval of the           expenses incurred” for their daughter and the sum of
Board, Bar Counsel and the Respondent stipulated on the                 $6,762.13 “for the education, maintenance and support” of
record that they were willing to proceed in the absence of the          the Complainant.
fifth Board member, and to accept the four-member panel as
duly constituted for the purpose of considering the proposed       6.   On or about February 25, 1993, the Respondent signed
Agreed Disposition.                                                     and issued two checks, in the aforesaid amounts, to the
                                                                        Complainant’s parents, consistent with the directives con-
     Seth M. Guggenheim, Esquire, representing the Bar, and             tained in the Final Order.
the Respondent, Robert Edward Howard, Esquire, appearing
pro se, presented an endorsed Agreed Disposition, dated April      7.   On August 30, 1994, the Respondent wrote to the
8, 2004, reflecting the terms of the Agreed Disposition.                Complainant’s parents, stating, inter alia, as follows:
     The Panel was somewhat reluctant to accept this Agreed                 Unfortunately, instead of treating Amanda’s unpaid
Disposition. While we are hopeful that the Agreed Disposition               medical bills as expenses incurred by you, on her
will have substantial rehabilitative effects on the Respondent’s            behalf, a check was issued directly to you for
use and maintenance of his trust fund, we are not usually so                $2,904.54, as per the court order. [Emphasis in original.]
lenient in the imposition of a public reprimand for trust
account violations. However, in reaching our decision to accept             Consequently, after paying some medical bills in
this Agreed Disposition, we relied heavily on Bar Counsel’s                 Amanda’s case, we have a balance of $1,660.46
representations that the particular facts present in this matter            remaining from the settlement, but $4,565.00 in
make this Agreed Disposition appropriate. Accordingly, this                 unpaid bills, which represents the $1,660.46 balance
Order should be read as strictly limited to the particular facts            and the $2,904.54 paid directly to you. In an effort to
present in this matter.                                                     resolve this situation in a manner that is both fair and
                                                                            reasonable to everyone, we have negotiated an agree-
    Having considered the Certification, and the Agreed                     ment with the remaining medical care providers
Disposition, it is the decision of the Board that the Agreed                whereby they will accept reduced payments totalling
Disposition be accepted, and the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary            $3,112.00, resulting in a saving of $1,453.00.
Board finds by clear and convincing evidence as follows:
                                                                            Therefore, instead of having to refund the full amount
1.   As of April 20, 1995, Robert Edward Howard, Esquire                    of $2,904.54, you will only have to contribute
     (hereafter “Respondent”), has been an attorney licensed to             $1,452.00, which will settle Amanda’s bills in full. If
     practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.                          you cannot reimburse the account in full at this time,
                                                                            the medical providers are willing to accept a payment
2.   Amanda P. Ly (hereafter “Complainant”) was involved in a               arrangement.
     motor vehicle accident on or about March 27, 1992, and
     sustained personal injuries. The Complainant and her par-     8.   The Respondent thereafter made, or authorized others in his
     ents were referred to the Respondent for legal representa-         law office to make, certain disbursements to Complainant’s
     tion, and the Complainant’s parents retained the                   health care providers, and he collected a “reimbursement”
     Respondent and his law firm, Howard & Howard, for that             of $835.82 from the Complainant’s parents. However, he
     purpose, inasmuch as the Complainant was only fourteen             then closed the file on the Complainant’s legal matter, and
     (14) years old at the time of the accident.                        took no further action on Complainant’s or her parents’
                                                                        behalf, leaving the sum of $3,689.53 in his attorney trust
3.   The Complainant’s claim was cognizable under the laws              account, and failing to pay $3,489.53 to five health care
     and by the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia.                 providers who had rendered care to Complainant in con-
     Accordingly, following a negotiated settlement on behalf           nection with her personal injury claim.
     of the Complainant, the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier,
     through counsel, petitioned the Circuit Court of the City     9.   The Virginia State Bar received a letter from Complainant
     of Alexandria, Virginia, for approval of the proposed              on September 11, 1998, stating that she continued to receive
     settlement.                                                        bills, including one from a collection agency, for sums
                                                                        that Respondent was to have paid on her behalf. The
4.   The Respondent was not licensed to practice law in the             Complainant also engaged counsel to recover sums that
     Commonwealth of Virginia prior to and as of the time the           Respondent failed to disburse on her behalf and any dam-
     Court was petitioned to approve the settlement; accord-            ages flowing therefrom. Complainant’s counsel sent a letter




                                                                                      Virginia Lawyer Register                       9
                                                      disciplinary actions


     to Respondent, in response to which Respondent sent a              ance, as required. Ms. Johnston shall thereafter certify in
     letter and check in the sum of $3,689.53 directly to the           writing to the Virginia State Bar and to the Respondent
     Complainant on or about February 28, 1999, notwith-                either that the Respondent has brought himself into com-
     standing the fact that he knew Complainant was repre-              pliance with the said Rule within the sixty day (60)
     sented by counsel in the matter to which Respondent’s              period, or that he has failed to do so. Respondent’s fail-
     letter pertained.                                                  ure to bring himself into compliance with Rule 1.15 as of
                                                                        the conclusion of the aforesaid sixty (60) day period shall
10. The sum of $3,689.53 remained undetected by Respondent              be considered a violation of the Terms set forth herein.
    in Respondent’s attorney trust account for a period of years.       Upon satisfactory proof that the above Terms have been
     The Board finds by clear and convincing evidence that              complied with, in full, a PUBLIC REPRIMAND, WITH
such conduct on the part of Robert Edward Howard, Esquire,              TERMS, shall then be imposed. If, however, Respondent
constitutes a violation of the following Disciplinary Rules of          fails to comply with any of the Terms set forth herein, as
the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility:                       and when his obligation with respect to any such Term
                                                                        has accrued, then, and in such event, the Virginia State
DR 6-101. Competence and Promptness.                                    Bar Disciplinary Board shall be authorized, by agreement
   (B) * * *                                                            of the parties, to conduct a show cause hearing to deter-
                                                                        mine if a one (1) year suspension of Respondent’s license
DR 7-103. Communicating with One of Adverse Interest.                   to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia should
   (A) (1) * * *                                                        be imposed as an alternative disposition to the Public
                                                                        Reprimand, with Terms provided for herein. In the event
DR 9-102. Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of a                a show cause hearing is conducted before the Board, the
Client.                                                                 sole issue for consideration by the Board shall be
    (B) (4) * * *                                                       whether or not the Respondent has complied with the
                                                                        Terms hereof, and it shall be the Respondent’s burden,
DR 9-103. Record Keeping Requirements.                                  by clear and convincing evidence, to establish his com-
   (B) (4) (a) and (b); (5) (a), (b) and (c); (6) * * *                 pliance with the Terms hereof.; and it is further
     Upon consideration whereof, it is ORDERED that the
Respondent shall receive a PUBLIC REPRIMAND, WITH                       ***
TERMS effective upon entry of this order, and subject to
the imposition of the sanction referred to below as an alterna-     ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2004.
tive disposition of this matter should Respondent fail to comply    Robert L. Freed, Esquire
with the Terms referred to herein. The Terms which shall be         Chair of Panel
met in accordance with the deadlines set forth below are:           Second Vice-Chair of the
                                                                    Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board
1.   The Respondent shall promptly engage the services of
     law office management consultant Janean S. Johnston,
                                                                                               ■■■
     250 South Reynolds Street, #710, Alexandria, Virginia
     22304-4421, (703) 567-0088, to review Respondent’s cur-
     rent attorney trust account record-keeping, accounting,        VIRGINIA:
     and reconciliation methods and procedures to ensure                    BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
     compliance with Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional                     DISCIPLINARY BOARD
     Conduct. In the event Ms. Johnston determines that
     Respondent is in compliance with the said Rule, she shall      IN THE MATTERS OF
     so certify in writing to the Respondent and the Virginia       MARGARET ELLEN HYLAND
     State Bar. In the event Ms. Johnston determines that           VSB Docket Nos. 01-060-2781 [Scenters]
     Respondent is not in compliance with Rule 1.15, then, in                        01-060-2847 [Mummert (Keith
     that event, she shall notify the Respondent and the                                          Mummert)]
     Virginia State Bar, in writing, of the measures that                            01-060-2851 [Mummert
     Respondent must take to bring himself into compliance                                       (Scenters)]
     with the said Rule.                                                             03-060-0701 [Daniel]
                                                                                     03-060-1148 [Craig]
2.   The Respondent shall be obligated to pay when due Ms.
                                                                                     03-060-1631 [Wilson]
     Johnston’s fees and costs for her services (including pro-
                                                                                     03-060-1657 [Jackson]
     vision to the Bar and to Respondent of information con-
                                                                                     03-060-1787 [Washington]
     cerning this matter).
                                                                                     03-060-1812 [Bowman]
3.   In the event the Respondent is determined by Ms.                                03-060-2378 [Bicknell]
     Johnston to be not in compliance with Rule 1.15, he shall                       03-060-2194 [Krpata]
     have sixty (60) days following the date Ms. Johnston                            03-060-2715 [Coppage]
     issues her written statement of the measures Respondent                         03-060-3034 [Dulaney]
     must take to comply with Rule 1.15 within which to bring                        03-060-3888 [McCreless]
     himself into compliance. Ms. Johnston shall be granted                          04-060-0638 [VSB/Deneke]
     access to Respondent’s office, books, and records follow-
     ing the passage of the sixty (60) day period to determine                              ORDER
     whether Respondent has brought himself into compli-                       INDEFINITE DISABILITY SUSPENSION



10                 August/September 2004
                                                    disciplinary actions


     These matters came on to be heard on May 11, 2004,             Board, are admissible in said proceedings and shall be incorpo-
upon an Agreed Disposition between the Virginia State Bar and       rated into the Disciplinary Board’s file.
the Respondent, Margaret Ellen Hyland.
                                                                         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with Rules
     A duly convened panel of the Virginia State Bar                of Court, Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13.M., Margaret Ellen
Disciplinary Board consisting of W. Jefferson O’Flaherty, lay       Hyland, shall forthwith give notice by certified mail, return
member; James L. Banks, Jr., Esq.; William C. Boyce, Jr., Esq.;     receipt requested, of the suspension of her license to practice
Bruce T. Clark, Esq. and Peter A. Dingman, Esq., acting chair,      law in the Commonwealth of Virginia, to all clients for whom
presiding, considered the matters by telephone conference. The      she is currently handling matters and to all opposing attorneys
Respondent, Margaret Ellen Hyland, did not appear. Marvin D.        and presiding judges in pending litigation. Margaret Ellen
Miller, Esq., appeared as counsel for Respondent Margaret Ellen     Hyland shall also make appropriate arrangements for the dispo-
Hyland. Deputy Bar Counsel Harry M. Hirsch appeared for the         sition of matters then in her care in conformity with the wishes
Virginia State Bar.                                                 of her clients. Margaret Ellen Hyland shall give such notice
                                                                    within fourteen (14) days of the effective date of the suspension
    The Disciplinary Board panel was polled to determine            and make such arrangements as are required herein within
whether any member had any personal or financial interest that      forty-five (45) days of the effective date of the suspension.
may affect, or be reasonably perceived to affect, his ability to    Margaret Ellen Hyland shall furnish proof to the bar within sixty
be impartial. Each panel member responded negatively.               (60) days of the effective date of the suspension that such
     Deputy Bar Counsel Hirsch announced the deletion of cer-       notices have been timely given and such arrangements for the
tain language from the Agreed Disposition due to newly              disposition of matters made. Issues concerning the adequacy of
received exculpatory evidence, which deletions were agreed to       the notice and arrangements required herein shall be deter-
by Respondent’s Counsel Miller on behalf of his client.             mined by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, which may
                                                                    impose a sanction of revocation or suspension for failure to
     IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall substitute new pages of       comply with the requirements of Paragraph 13.M.
the Agreed Disposition, page for page, to reflect the deletions,
such that the Agreed Disposition filed with the Clerk of the        ENTERED THIS 17th DAY OF May, 2004
Disciplinary System constitutes the Agreed Disposition, as          VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD
amended herein.                                                     By Peter A. Dingman, Acting Chair
     Upon due deliberation, it is the decision of the Virginia      [Editor’s Note: The agreed disposition in this matter may be
State Bar Disciplinary Board to accept the Agreed                   found at www.vsb.org/profguides/actions_jan04-jun04/hyland_opinion.pdf.]
Disposition, as amended. A copy of the Agreed Disposition,
as amended, shall be attached hereto and is incorporated
herein by reference.                                                                                 ■■■
     The Disciplinary Board finds by clear and convincing evi-
dence the Stipulations of Facts and the Stipulated Misconduct       VIRGINIA:
set forth in the Agreed Disposition, as amended.                            BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
                                                                                DISCIPLINARY BOARD
     The Disciplinary Board further finds by clear and convinc-
ing evidence that Respondent Margaret Ellen Hyland has had,         IN THE MATTER OF
and continues to suffer, from a disability which materially pre-    WILLIAM MILLS KRIEGER
vented her from, and impairs her ability to, practice law.          VSB Docket No. 03-010-2015

     IT IS ORDERED, effective May 11, 2004, that the license to                                 ADMONITION
practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia of Respondent
Margaret Ellen Hyland, is indefinitely Suspended pursuant to            This matter came to be heard on June 15, 2004, upon an
Rules of Court, Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13.I.6. on the      Agreed Disposition between the Virginia State Bar, the
basis of the existence of a disability. The Respondent, Margaret    Respondent, William Mills Krieger, and his counsel, Richard Y.
Ellen Hyland, may seek to terminate the Disability Suspension       AtLee, Esquire.
upon application to the Disciplinary Board; however, the bur-
den of proving the termination of the disability shall be on the          A duly convened panel of the Virginia State Bar
Respondent. Upon receipt of a request from the Respondent to        Disciplinary Board consisting of Glenn M. Hodge, Esquire,
do so, the Disciplinary Board shall hold a hearing on the issue     Joseph R. Lassiter, Esquire, James L. Banks, Jr., Esquire,
of termination of the disability. The Disability Suspension shall   Thaddeus T. Crump, lay member, and Roscoe B. Stephenson
be terminated only upon a determination by the Disciplinary         III, Esquire, chair, considered the matter by telephone confer-
Board that the disability no longer exists. Upon the termination    ence. The Respondent, William Mills Krieger, Esquire, appeared
of the Disability Suspension, the bar may proceed on the            through his counsel, Richard Y. AtLee, Esquire. Edward L.
instant cases in accordance with the provisions of the Agreed       Davis, Assistant Bar Counsel, appeared on behalf of the
Disposition, as amended; this Order and applicable rules.           Virginia State Bar.

     The Respondent, Margaret Ellen Hyland, has agreed that in           Upon due deliberation, it is the unanimous decision of the
all proceedings pertaining to the existence of a disability and     board to accept the Agreed Disposition. The Stipulations of
the determination of rule violations and sanctions for rule vio-    Fact, Disciplinary Rule Violations, and Disposition agreed to by
lations, that all of her records pertaining to her disability and   the Virginia State Bar, the Respondent and his counsel are
treatment shall be available to the bar and the Disciplinary        incorporated herein as follows:



                                                                                         Virginia Lawyer Register                          11
                                                      disciplinary actions


                   I. STIPULATIONS OF FACT                            11. The encounter between Mr. Krieger and the complainant
                                                                          at most covered the time span of a few seconds.
1.   During all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, William
     Mills Krieger (hereinafter Respondent or Mr. Krieger) was                    II. DISCIPLINARY RULE VIOLATIONS
     an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth
     of Virginia.                                                          The parties agree that the foregoing facts give rise to viola-
                                                                      tions of the following Disciplinary Rules and Rules of
2.   From 2001 to January 2002, Mr. Krieger represented Leo J.        Professional Conduct:
     Perk in his divorce from Yvonne E. Perk, the complainant
     in the instant matter. Between June and November 2001            RULE 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
     counsel for the parties filed various pleadings in the matter.      (i) * * *

3.   On January 15, 2002, Ms. Perk’s counsel, McClanahan              RULE 4.2 Communication With Persons Represented
     Ingles, filed a motion to disqualify Mr. Krieger. He alleged     By Counsel
     that Mr. Krieger or his former law firm had represented              ***
     Ms. Perk in the past in substantially related matters. The       RULE 8.4 Misconduct
     Court heard the motion on January 22, 2002, and disquali-           (b) * * *
     fied Mr. Krieger. Mr. Krieger complied with the order and
     removed himself from the case.                                                          III. DISPOSITION
4.   On January 22, 2002, prior to the hearing, Ms. Perk met               In accordance with the Agreed Disposition, it is the deci-
     with her lawyer, Mr. Ingles, in the courthouse conference        sion of the Disciplinary Board to Issue an Admonition, and the
     room. She then left the conference room and saw Mr.              Respondent, William Mills Krieger, is hereby admonished.
     Krieger in the hallway. According to Ms. Perk, Mr. Krieger
     walked up to her and started discussing the issues in the        ENTERED THIS 1st day of July, 2004
     case. She said that he grabbed her by the arm, screamed          THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD
     profanity at her, and prevented her from returning to the        By Roscoe B. Stephenson III Chair
     conference room.                                                                               ■■■
5.   Mr. Ingles said that he could hear the incident from the
                                                                      VIRGINIA:
     conference room, and that he heard Mr. Krieger say “God
                                                                             BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
     damn, Yvonne,” and something to the effect that she was
                                                                                OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
     a liar.
                                                                      IN THE MATTER OF
6.   Mr. Ingles did not give Mr. Krieger permission to discuss        GEORGE EPPERSON PRICE
     the case with his client.                                        VSB Docket No. 04-000-3015
7.   One of Ms. Perk’s witnesses, Charles Monahan, also heard                                      ORDER
     the incident from the witness room. He said that he recog-
     nized Mr. Krieger’s voice, and that he heard him yelling,             On the 21st day of April, 2004, Respondent George
     cursing, and using threatening language toward Ms. Perk.         Epperson Price (“Respondent”), by his counsel, Michael L.
     He said that when he left the witness room to look in the        Rigsby, and Kathryn A. Ramey, Assistant Bar Counsel, appeared
     hallway, he saw Ms. Perk pulling away from Mr. Krieger,          before the Honorable Peter A. Dingman, presiding Board mem-
     but did not see any actual contact between the two.              ber, by telephone conference call.
8.   Claudia Cole, the adult daughter of the complainant Perk,             With the agreement of Respondent and the Bar, finding
     related that her mother and Mr. Perk had ongoing friction,       clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is currently suf-
     and that her mother was underhanded and resented Mr.             fering from a disability, it is hereby
     Krieger, and did not want him to represent Mr. Perk.
                                                                           ORDERED that, upon entry of this Order, Respondent
9.   Deputy Sheriff Robert Coleman, a courtroom bailiff, also         George Epperson Price is suspended from the practice of law
     said that he heard the incident, and that it caused him to       in the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to Part Six, Section
     be concerned for Ms. Perk’s safety. He handed her a note         IV, Paragraph 13.I.6.e(1) of the Rules of Court;
     in the courtroom asking her not to leave without him, and
     escorted her to her car after the hearing out of concern for          It is further ORDERED that Respondent’s summary suspen-
     her safety. Deputy Sheriff Coleman could not remember            sion imposed by the Board’s December 15, 2003 order is
     any specifics and there was no confrontation in his pres-        hereby lifted;
     ence or during the hearing.
                                                                          It is further ORDERED that all cases and matters currently
10. Mr. Krieger would say that in the hallway outside the             pending against Respondent shall be generally continued;
    courtroom Ms. Perk walked up to him with her hand out,
    that he ignored her outstretched hand, and might have                 ***
    said something to the effect for Ms. Perk to “get out.” He
                                                                      ENTER THIS ORDER THIS 26th DAY OF April, 2004
    denies touching her. He described himself as being loud,
                                                                      VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD
    but not threatening, and would say that he did not make
                                                                      Peter A. Dingman, Acting Chair
    any threat toward Ms. Perk. Moreover, he did not speak
    with her about any legal matter at issue.                                                       ■■■



12                 August/September 2004
                                                      disciplinary actions


VIRGINIA:                                                              Supreme Court of Virginia, a transcript of the prior proceedings in
        BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR                                  this matter was furnished to Robert E. Eicher, Esquire, the mem-
            DISCIPLINARY BOARD                                         ber of the Board substituted to sit in the place of Larry B.
[Note: The Respondent has noted an appeal to the VA Supreme Court.]    Kirksey, Esquire, who is no longer a member of the Board.

IN THE MATTER OF                                                             The Board heard argument from the Bar and Respondent,
JEFFREY BOURKE RICE                                                    and then recessed to deliberate what sanction to impose upon
VSB Docket No. 02-052-0197                                             its finding of misconduct by Respondent for his violation of
                                                                       Rule 1.3(a). After due deliberation, the Board unanimously
                             ORDER                                     determined that the Rule 1.3(a) violation, standing alone, merits
                                                                       a one-year suspension of Respondent’s license to practice law
     THIS MATTER came on to be heard on March 28, 2003,                in the Commonwealth of Virginia, effective May 21, 2004. In
before a panel of the Disciplinary Board consisting of Roscoe          making this determination the Board placed great emphasis on
B. Stephenson, III, Esquire, first vice chair, Larry B. Kirksey,       Respondent’s lengthy prior disciplinary record, with prior find-
Esquire, Chester J. Cahoon, lay member, Joseph R. Lassiter, Jr.,       ings of similar types of misconduct. The Board also recognized
Esquire, and H. Taylor Williams, IV, Esquire. The Virginia State       the existence of numerous aggravating factors as identified by
Bar was represented by Noel D. Sengel, Senior Assistant Bar            the American Bar Association, Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Counsel. The respondent, Jeffrey Bourke Rice, appeared in per-         Sanctions and the general lack of mitigating circumstances.
son and represented himself. * * *
                                                                            Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the license to practice law
     The findings of fact are set forth in the order of the            in the Commonwealth of Virginia of Respondent, Jeffrey
Disciplinary Board entered May 5, 2003. The Panel determined           Bourke Rice, shall be suspended for one (1) year effective May
that the Bar proved by clear and convincing evidence the               21, 2004.
Respondent violated Rule 1.3(a) for failing to act with reason-
able diligence and promptness in representing a client, and that           ***
the Bar proved by clear and convincing evidence the
Respondent violated Rule 8.1(a) for his failure to respond to a             It is further ORDERED that pursuant to Part Six, § IV,
lawful demand for information from disciplinary authority.             ¶ 13.B.8.c. of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the
Based upon its findings that Respondent was in violation of            Clerk of the Disciplinary System shall assess all costs against
Rule 1.3(a) and Rule 8.1(a) the Disciplinary Board suspended           the Respondent.
Respondent’s license to practice law in the Commonwealth of
                                                                            It is further ORDERED that, as directed in the Panel’s May
Virginia for one year, effective March 28, 2003. These determi-
                                                                       21, 2004, Summary Order in this matter, Respondent must com-
nations by the Panel were appealed by Respondent to the
                                                                       ply with the requirements of Part Six, § IV, ¶ 13(M) of the
Supreme Court of Virginia.
                                                                       Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. All issues concerning
     The Supreme Court of Virginia rendered its opinion by             the adequacy of the notice and arrangements required by the
entry of an order on February 20, 2004. The Court’s opinion            Summary Order shall be determined by the Board, which may
upheld the finding of the Disciplinary Board that Respondent           impose a sanction of revocation or suspension for failure to
failed to exercise proper diligence as required by Rule 1.3(a).        comply with the requirements of this subparagraph.
The Court’s opinion reversed the finding of the Disciplinary
                                                                       ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2004.
Board that Respondent violated Rule 8.1(a) by failing to
                                                                       By Roscoe B. Stephenson, III, First Vice Chair
respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary
                                                                       Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board
authority. Because the Supreme Court’s opinion upheld in part
and reversed in part the decision of the Disciplinary Board, it
remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Board to recon-                                         ■■■
sider the sanctions imposed by the Disciplinary Board upon             VIRGINIA:
Respondent for a one-year suspension for violation of Rule                    BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
1.3(a) and Rule 8.1(a).                                                          OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
     On May 21, 2004, this matter came to be heard solely on           IN THE MATTER OF
the issue of what sanction to impose upon Respondent for the           WILLIAM MARK RUSSELL
violation of Rule 3.1(a). The Panel of the Disciplinary Board          VSB Docket No. 04-000-2446
consisted of Roscoe B. Stephenson III, Esquire, Chair; Robert E.
Eicher, Esquire; Chester J. Cahoon, lay member; Joseph R.                                           ORDER
Lassiter Jr., Esquire and H. Taylor Williams IV, Esquire. The bar           This matter came on to be heard before the Virginia State
was represented by Noel D. Sengel, senior assistant bar counsel.       Bar Disciplinary Board on March 26, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., in
The Respondent appeared in person and was represented by               Courtroom A of the State Corporation Commission, 1300 East
Michael L. Rigsby, Esquire. The Chair polled the members of the        Main Street, Second Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219, pursuant to
panel as to whether any of them was conscious of any personal          a Rule to Show Cause why the license of William Mark Russell
or financial interest or bias which would preclude any of them         (the “Respondent”) to practice law in the Commonwealth of
from fairly hearing this matter and serving on the panel, to           Virginia should not be suspended due to the disciplinary suspen-
which inquiry each member responded in the negative. * * *             sion of his license to practice law in the State of Tennessee for a
                                                                       period of one year effective October 1, 2003.
     The remand being for the determination of sanction only, no
additional evidence was received by the Board. In accordance                The members of the Board were Karen A. Gould, first vice
with Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13.I.2.h(2) of the Rules of the   chair, Peter A. Dingman, Ann N. Kathan, Robert E. Eicher, and



                                                                                          Virginia Lawyer Register                    13
                                                    disciplinary actions


Chester J. Cahoon, Jr., lay member. Richard E. Slaney, Assistant    tified mail to him at his address of record with the Bar. All
Bar Counsel, represented the Virginia State Bar. The respondent     issues concerning the adequacy of notice and arrangements
was not represented by counsel. * * *                               required by the Order of Suspension and Hearing shall be
                                                                    determined by the Board.
     Neither the Respondent nor any one for him responded
when the matter was called to be heard. The Clerk entered the            ***
corridor adjacent to the courtroom and called the Respondent’s
name three times; she did not receive a response.                   ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2004.
                                                                    VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD
     The Rule to Show Cause, mailed by certified mail on            By Karen A. Gould
February 27, 2004, to the Respondent at his address of record       First Vice Chair
with the Bar, designated the place of the hearing as Hearing
Room A at the Supreme Court of Virginia. An Order changing                                        ■■■
the place of hearing was mailed by certified mail and UPS
Overnight on March 23, 2004, to the Respondent at his address       VIRGINIA:
of record with the Bar. Because of the change in the place of               BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
hearing, a member of the Clerk’s Office of the Disciplinary                     DISCIPLINARY BOARD
System went to the Virginia Supreme Court, remained past 9:00       IN THE MATTER OF
a.m., and reported that, based on her observation and confir-       TIMOTHY WARREN SNYDER, ESQUIRE
mation by the Security Officer at the entrance to the building,     VSB Docket No. 03-053-1233
the Respondent had not appeared there.
                                                                                                 ORDER
    The Chair inquired of the members of the Board whether
any of them had personal or financial interest or bias that              This matter came on to be heard on May 7, 2004, upon
would affect, or could be perceived to affect, his/her ability to   the Agreed Disposition of the Virginia State Bar and Timothy
hear the matter fairly and impartially. All members and the         Warren Snyder, based upon the Certification of a Fifth District
Chair answered in the negative.                                     B Section III Subcommittee. The Agreed Disposition was con-
                                                                    sidered by a duly convened panel of the Virginia State Bar
    Bar Counsel made an opening statement and offered Bar           Disciplinary Board consisting of Robert E. Eicher, Esquire,
Exhibits 1 and 2, which were received in evidence.                  Joseph R. Lassiter, Jr., Esquire, H. Taylor Williams, IV, Esquire,
                                                                    V. Max Beard, lay member, and Roscoe B. Stephenson III,
     The Board notes that it is required to issue a Rule to Show    Esquire, presiding.
Cause upon a notification that another jurisdiction has sus-
pended or revoked the license to practice law of a member of             Seth M. Guggenheim, Esquire, representing the Bar, and
the Virginia State Bar. Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia,     the Respondent, Timothy Warren Snyder, Esquire, appearing
Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 13.I.6.a. The Rule to Show Cause was duly        pro se, presented an endorsed Agreed Disposition, dated April
served on the Respondent. The Board also notes that if the          19, 2004, reflecting the terms of the Agreed Disposition.
Respondent does not file a timely written response to the Rule
                                                                         ***
to Show Cause, or does not appear at the hearing on the Rule
to Show Cause, the Board is required to impose the same disci-          Having considered the Certification and the Agreed
pline as was imposed in the other jurisdiction. Rules of the        Disposition, it is the decision of the Board that the Agreed
Supreme Court of Virginia, Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 13.6.f.               Disposition be accepted, and the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary
                                                                    Board finds by clear and convincing evidence as follows:
     Bar Exhibit 1 established that the Respondent’s license to
practice law in Tennessee was suspended for a period of one         1.   At all times relevant to the matters set forth herein,
year effective October 1, 2003, for misconduct, subject to rein-         Timothy Warren Snyder, Esquire (hereafter “Respondent”),
statement upon satisfaction of certain conditions imposed. The           was an attorney licensed to practice law in the
Respondent has filed no response to the Rule to Show Cause               Commonwealth of Virginia.
and has failed to appear, in person or by counsel, before this
Board.                                                              2.   On December 5, 2001, Young C. Cheon (hereafter
                                                                         “Complainant”) retained the Respondent to recover dam-
     Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Respondent’s license
                                                                         ages from third parties occasioned by an alleged assault
to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia be and
                                                                         and battery.
hereby is SUSPENDED for a period of one year effective
October 1, 2003, and continuing until verification of his compli-   3.   On the following day the Respondent filed a two-count
ance with the conditions for reinstatement contained in the              Motion for Judgment in the Circuit Court for Fairfax
Order of Enforcement of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, filed            County, Virginia, against both the alleged perpetrator of
December 30, 2003, in BOPR No. 2003-1359-4-JV, No. M2002-                the assault and battery and the proprietors of the establish-
026707-SC-BPR-BP.                                                        ment in which the alleged assault and battery occurred.
     It is further ORDERED that the Respondent shall comply         4.   On or about January 19, 2002, one of the defendants in
with the requirements of Part 6, Section IV, Paragraph 13M of            the suit served a Counterclaim and discovery requests
the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. The time for com-            upon the Respondent, to which the Respondent filed no
pliance with such requirements runs from February 27, 2004,              responses within the time prescribed by law, although the
the effective date of the Order of Suspension and Hearing, a             Court later granted Complainant’s “Motion for Enlargement
copy of which was properly served on the Respondent by cer-              of Time in Which to File Answer Nunc Pro Tunc.”




14                August/September 2004
                                                    disciplinary actions


5.   The litigation progressed to a point where the defendant      RULE 1.1 Competence
     referred to in the preceding paragraph filed a “Motion In        ***
     Limine” seeking to exclude expert testimony and testi-
     mony or evidence related to medical damages. The motion       RULE 1.2 Scope of Representation
     was based upon Complainant’s alleged failure to comply           (a) * * *
     with discovery requests and certain terms of a scheduling
     order that the Court had entered.                             RULE 1.3 Diligence
                                                                      (a), (b), (c) * * *
6.   Without the prior knowledge or consent of the
     Complainant, the Respondent endorsed an Order, entered        .
                                                                   RULE 1.4 Communication
     by the Court on October 18, 2002, which:
                                                                      (a), (b), (c) * * *
     a.   dismissed Complainant’s claim against the defendant
          who was the alleged perpetrator of the assault and       RULE 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation
          battery, “with prejudice, as settled”;                      (d) * * *
     b.   dismissed that same defendant’s counterclaim against          Upon consideration whereof, it is ORDERED that the
          the Complainant, “with prejudice, as settled”;           Respondent shall receive a six (6) month suspension of his
     c.   nonsuited the Complainant’s claims against the           license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia, to
          remaining defendants.                                    commence upon entry of this Order, as representing an appro-
                                                                   priate sanction if this matter were to be heard;
7.   A Bar Complaint was filed in this matter, claiming, inter     and it is further
     alia, that Respondent “ha[d] not taken any action in the
     case and his telephones have been disconnected.” In           ***
     response to the Complaint, the Respondent wrote the
     Complainant a letter, which stated as follows:                ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2004.
          The Virginia State Bar has forwarded to me a             Roscoe B. Stephenson, III, Chair
     copy of your complaint regarding the way your case            Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board
     was handled, and your request for a refund. I’m sorry
     that I wasn’t able to do more for you, but numerous                                         ■■■
     circumstances regarding my practice required that I
     close down the office in the spring of 2002.                                  District Committees
          I am enclosing a check for $1,000, refunding the
                                                                   VIRGINIA:
     amount of your deposit, and am waiving any charges
                                                                      BEFORE THE SEVENTH DISTRICT COMMITTEE
     incurred against your case. I have reviewed my file,
                                                                             OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
     and as I have only my notes, I believe there is noth-
     ing to return to you. If you have any further ques-
     tions, please contact me at the telephone no. above.          IN THE MATTER OF
                                                                   JEFFREY FREDERICK BRADLEY, ESQUIRE
8.   During an investigation of this matter conducted by the       VSB Docket No. 03-070-2629
     Virginia State Bar, the Respondent stated or admitted to an
     investigator that:                                                             COMMITTEE DETERMINATION
                                                                                      (PUBLIC) ADMONITION
     a.   following the granting of Complainant’s motion to
          enlarge time on March 29, 2002, he neglected the              On May 12, 2004, a hearing in this matter was held
          Complainant’s case;                                      before the duly convened Seventh District Committee of the
     b.   from April through July, 2002, when he closed his law    Virginia State Bar, consisting of Thomas Chasler, Esquire,
          practice, he did not communicate with the                Steven H. Gordon, Anne C. Hall, Grant A. Richardson,
          Complainant;                                             Esquire, Joseph W. Richmond, Jr., Esquire, Frederick Warren
                                                                   Payne, Esquire, presiding.
     c.   that the Complainant could have probably found
          another attorney if he had told the Complainant what          Pursuant to Part 6, § IV, ¶ 13(H) of the Rules of the
          was going on;                                            Supreme Court of Virginia, the Seventh District Committee of
                                                                   the Virginia State Bar hereby serves upon the Respondent the
     d.   he did not have the experience to do personal injury     following (Public) Admonition, as follows:
          cases; and
     e.   he endorsed the order referred to in Paragraph 6                               I. FINDINGS OF FACT
          hereof because he was not prepared, and that he left
          the Complainant “hanging.”                               1.    At all times relevant hereto Jeffrey Frederick Bradley,
                                                                         Esquire, (hereafter “Respondent”) is an attorney licensed to
    The Board finds by clear and convincing evidence that                practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
such conduct on the part of Timothy Warren Snyder,
Esquire, constitutes a violation of the following Rules of         2.    The Respondent represented Starlet Angel Hart (hereafter
Professional Conduct:                                                    the Complainant) in her criminal trial and on appeal. The




                                                                                      Virginia Lawyer Register                   15
                                                    disciplinary actions


     Respondent noticed the appeal but failed to perfect it. The          shall be sufficient to provide reasonable and adequate
     Respondent has told Ms. Hart that he did not file the peti-          protection for his present and future clients with respect to
     tion for appeal because he never received a scheduling               case management, scheduling and maintaining communi-
     letter from the Court of Appeals. The appeal was dis-                cations with his clients, opposing counsel and the courts.
     missed on February 26, 2003.                                         The provision of such controls and practices may be pro-
                                                                          vided by the Respondent’s terminating his individual pri-
3.   On March 1, 2003, the Respondent informed the                        vate practice and accepting employment with a law firm,
     Complainant that her appeal had been dismissed and                   a government agency or a private entity, but may be pro-
     advised the Complainant that she should petition for a writ          vided by other measures, which shall be determined by
     of habeas corpus. The Complainant filed a petition for a             the Assistant Bar Counsel handling this case to be suffi-
     habeas relief around April 1, 2003.                                  cient for such purposes. The Respondent shall report to
                                                                          the Assistant Bar Counsel handling this case not less fre-
4.   The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s let-
                                                                          quently than semi-monthly as to the status of such admin-
     ters after his letter of March 1, 2003. The Complainant also
                                                                          istrative controls and practices.
     alleges that the Respondent failed to keep her informed
     during the appellate process. The Complainant apparently
                                                                     4.   The Respondent shall, as soon as possible, enter into a
     wrote the Respondent several letters and received no
                                                                          contract with Lawyers Helping Lawyers and successfully
     response from the Respondent.
                                                                          fulfill and complete his obligations under that contract.
                                                                          Among other things, the contract with Lawyers Helping
                 II. NATURE OF MISCONDUCT
                                                                          Lawyers should require the Respondent to remain compli-
     (a) * * *                                                            ant with all medications for a period of two years from the
                                                                          date of signing of the contract and to participate success-
                  III. (PUBLIC) ADMONITION                                fully in personal counseling. The Respondent shall waive
                                                                          confidentiality with regard to treatment and his compliance
     Accordingly, it is the decision of the Committee to impose           with Lawyers Helping Lawyers so that the Bar can receive
an Admonition with Terms, compliance with which by                        reports concerning the Respondent’s compliance with his
November 1, 2004, shall be a predicate for the disposition of             contract with Lawyers Helping Lawyers.
this complaint by imposition of an Admonition with terms. The
terms and conditions, which shall be met by November 1,              5.   If the Respondent fails to comply with the above listed
2004, are:                                                                terms at anytime during the six month period, this matter
                                                                          will be returned to the Committee for further action con-
1.   The Respondent shall complete 3 hours of continuing legal            sistent with the alternative disposition indicated below.
     education credits by attending courses approved by the
     Virginia State Bar in the areas criminal law or appellate            Upon satisfactory proof that the above noted terms and con-
     practice. His Continuing Legal Education attendance oblig-      ditions have been met, an Admonition with Terms shall then be
     ation set forth in this paragraph shall not be applied          imposed. If however, the Respondent fails to meet the
     toward his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education require-        terms and conditions of this order by November 1, 2004, the mat-
     ment in Virginia or any other jurisdictions in which he may     ter shall be certified to the Disciplinary Board for further action.
     be licensed to practice law. He shall certify his compliance
     with the terms set forth in this paragraph by delivering a           ***
     fully and properly executed Virginia MCLE Board
     Certification of Attendance Forms (Form 2) to Claude V.         SEVENTH DISTRICT COMMITTEE
     Worrell, II, Assistant Bar Counsel, at 100 North Pitt Street,   OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
     Suite 310, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, promptly following       By Frederick Warren Payne, Esquire
     his attendance of such CLE program(s).                          Chair, Seventh District Committee
2.   The Respondent shall maintain a mentor relationship with
     a local attorney of the Bar’s choosing. The Respondent                                        ■■■
     shall meet with the mentor at least semi-monthly for a
     period of six months after establishment of the relation-       VIRGINIA
     ship, and monitor whether the Respondent’s practice com-            BEFORE THE FOURTH DISTRICT SECTION I
     plies with the rules and opinions of the Virginia State Bar        SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
     and provide support and advice to the Respondent in the
     area of law office management. The Respondent shall pro-        IN THE MATTER OF
     vide satisfactory evidence of his meetings with his mentor.     FRANCIS DOUGLAS FOORD, ESQUIRE
     The Assistant Bar Counsel handling this case shall confer       VSB Docket No. 02-041-2372
     with the mentor on a semi-monthly basis whether the
     Respondent has cooperated fully with the mentor in ensur-
     ing the Respondent’s compliance with rules and opinions                       SUBCOMMITTEE DETERMINATION
     of the Virginia State Bar. The Respondent shall also report                   PUBLIC REPRIMAND WITH TERMS
     to Bar Counsel semimonthly to report on his meetings
     with his mentor.                                                     On the 7th Day of May, 2004, a meeting in this matter was
                                                                     held before a duly convened subcommittee of the Fourth District
3.   The Respondent shall promptly adopt and implement               Section I Committee consisting of Debra Fitzgerald O’Connell,
     administrative controls and practices for his practice, which   Esq., Jody D. Katz, and John M. Powell, Esq., presiding.




16                 August/September 2004
                                                      disciplinary actions


     Pursuant to Part 6 § IV, ¶ 13(G)(1)(c) of the Rules of                Upon satisfactory proof that the above noted terms and
Virginia Supreme Court, a subcommittee of the Fourth District        conditions have been met, a Public Reprimand with Terms
Section I Committee of the Virginia State Bar hereby serves upon     shall then be imposed. If, however, the terms and conditions
the Respondent the following Public Reprimand With Terms:            have not been met by October 1, 2004, this matter shall be cer-
                                                                     tified to the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board upon an
                      I. FINDINGS OF FACT                            agreed stipulation of facts and misconduct as the facts and mis-
                                                                     conduct are set forth herein for the sole purpose of imposition
                                                                     of a sanction deemed appropriate by the Virginia State Bar
1.   At all times relevant hereto the Respondent, Francis
                                                                     Disciplinary Board.
     Douglas Foord, Esq. (hereinafter the Respondent), has
     been an attorney licensed to practice law in the                FOURTH DISTRICT SECTION I SUBCOMMITTEE
     Commonwealth of Virginia.                                       OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
                                                                     By John M. Powell
2.   The Respondent represented the Complainant on charges           Chair/Chair Designate
     of three counts of forging a public document, for which the
     Complainant was tried and convicted. The Respondent                                           ■■■
     believes that immediately following the trial, while he and
     the Complainant were still standing in the courtroom, the       VIRGINIA:
     Complainant requested that the Respondent perfect and file         BEFORE THE SECOND DISTRICT—SECTION I
     an appeal. No appeal was ever filed by the Respondent.             SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
                                                                     IN THE MATTER OF
3.   The Complainant’s complaint was received at the Virginia        JEFFREY G. HAVERSON
     State Bar on February 7, 2002. On February 25, 2002,            VSB Docket No. 02-021-2643
     Assistant Bar Counsel Seth Guggenheim forwarded a copy          (Thesier)
     of the complaint to the Respondent which included the
     following request for information:                                            SUBCOMMITTEE DETERMINATION
                                                                                 (PUBLIC ADMONITION WITH TERMS)
     “Please review the complaint and provide this office
      with a written answer, including an original and one                On January 28, 2004, a meeting in this matter was held
      copy of your response and all attached exhibits, within        before a duly convened Subcommittee of the Second District
      twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter;” [bolded      Committee—Section I, consisting of Afshin Farashahi, Esquire,
      and underscored in original]. No response to the com-          Mr. Robert W. Carter (lay member), and Robert William
      plaint was ever received by the Virginia State Bar.            McFarland, Esquire, Chair presiding.

                                                                          Pursuant to an Agreed Disposition of the parties and to
                 II. NATURE OF MISCONDUCT
                                                                     Part 6, § IV, ¶ 13G1(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, the
RULE 1.3 Diligence                                                   Second District—Section I Subcommittee of the Virginia State
   (a) * * *                                                         Bar hereby serves upon the Respondent, Jeffrey G. Haverson,
                                                                     the following Public Admonition with Terms:
RULE 8.1 Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters
   (c) * * *                                                                              I. FINDINGS OF FACT
                                                                     1.   At all times material to these allegations, the Respondent,
            III. PUBLIC REPRIMAND WITH TERMS                              Jeffrey G. Haverson, hereinafter “Respondent”, has been
                                                                          an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth
     Accordingly, it is the decision of the Subcommittee to offer         of Virginia.
the Respondent an opportunity to comply with certain terms
and conditions, compliance with which by October 1, 2004,            2.   On October 22, 1998, Sharon Allen and Margaret Owens
shall be a predicate for the disposition of this complaint by             retained Respondent for personal injuries suffered in a
imposition of a Public Reprimand with Terms. The terms and                motor vehicle accident on September 30, 1998.
conditions which shall be met by October 1, 2004, are:
                                                                     3.   On October 27, 1998, Respondent received from William
1.   The Respondent shall complete twelve (12) hours of con-              R. Thesier, D.C. copies of Assignments of Benefits and
     tinuing legal education in the areas of ethics, and/or com-          liens executed by both Allen and Owens for the costs of
     munication and/or appellate practice. His continuing Legal           their continuing treatment for injuries suffered in the sub-
     Education attendance obligation set forth in this paragraph          ject motor vehicle accident.
     shall not be applied toward his Mandatory Continuing
                                                                     4.   On or about August 15, 2001, GEICO Insurance Company
     Legal Education requirement in Virginia or any other juris-
                                                                          forwarded and Respondent received settlement checks in
     dictions in which he may be licensed to practice law. He
                                                                          the amount of $9,500 for Allen’s claims, and $8,000 for
     shall certify his compliance with the terms set forth in this
                                                                          Owens’ claims.
     paragraph by delivering a fully and properly executed
     Virginia MCLE Board Certification of Attendance Form            5.   Thereafter, Respondent met with Allen and Owens to
     (Form 2) to Marian L. Beckett, Assistant Bar Counsel, 100            review proposed disbursements of the settlement funds,
     N. Pitt Street, Suite 310, Alexandria, VA 22314, promptly            including sums owed to third parties such as Dr. Thesier.
     following the attendance of such CLE program(s).                     Allen disputed Dr. Thesier’s bill of $2,560.00 as too high,




                                                                                        Virginia Lawyer Register                    17
                                                    disciplinary actions


     did not give Respondent permission to pay this amount,          violation. It shall dismiss this matter conditioned upon his com-
     and agreed with Respondent’s suggestion that he attempt         pliance with the following terms:
     to negotiate the amount due. Owens, at this time also
     agreed with Respondent’s suggestion to attempt to negoti-            The terms, to be completed on or before July 31, 2004, are
     ate the sum claimed by Dr. Thesier of $1,878.74                 that Respondent shall

6.   On September 19, 2001, Dr. Thesier wrote Respondent to          1)   Consult with VSB Risk Manager John Brandt, Esquire at
     demand payment from Respondent for services rendered                 800-215-7854 regarding an attorney’s duties and appropri-
     to Allen in the amount of $2,560.00 and $1,878.74 for ser-           ate procedures for handling healthcare provider liens and
     vices to Owens. Dr. Thesier also included a statement of             communicating with clients regarding disbursements of set-
     account and copies of the Assignments of Benefits and                tlement funds.
     liens. Finally, Dr. Thesier advised that should he not
     receive payment within 72 hours, he would take steps            2)   Respondent shall report in writing by letter to Assistant Bar
     including filing suit to collect these amounts.                      Counsel Georgiadis, or his designee, briefly setting forth
                                                                          the date and substance of said telephone consultation with
7.   On October 5, 2001, counsel for Dr. Thesier wrote                    Mr. Brandt and the resulting changes in Respondent’s poli-
     Respondent renewing demand for payment for services to               cies and procedures.
     Allen and Owens. This demand was renewed in a further
     letter to Respondent dated November 8, 2001. Litigation               In the event of alleged failure to meet the terms as set
     ensued in Virginia Beach General District Court which           forth above, the Virginia State Bar shall issue and serve upon
     resulted in a judgement being obtained against                  the Respondent a Notice of Hearing to Show Cause why the
     Respondent on or about May 14, 2001, which was                  alternate sanction of Public Reprimand should not be imposed.
     appealed to Circuit Court. During this time, Respondent         The sole factual issue will be whether the Respondent has vio-
     interpled the funds in question to the Court. Respondent        lated the terms of this Agreed Disposition without legal justifi-
     continued to negotiate with Dr. Thesier’s counsel, who at       cation or excuse. At said hearing, the burden of proof shall be
     the time was demanding interest and attorney’s fees.            on the Respondent to show timely compliance and timely certi-
                                                                     fication of such compliance by clear and convincing evidence.
8.   Learning of the suit against Haverson, Owens advised
     Respondent to pay Dr. Thesier the amounts Dr. Thesier               The Public Admonition with Terms, shall remain a perma-
     claimed she owed him, so long as her funds on hand with         nent part of Respondent’s record with the Virginia State Bar.
     Respondent were sufficient. Respondent did not make the
     requested pay-off.
                                                                     SECOND DISTRICT—SECTION I SUBCOMMITTEE
                                                                     OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
9.   During the pendency of the Thesier v Haverson litigation,
                                                                     By Robert William McFarland
     both Allen and Owens contacted Respondent’s office for
                                                                     Subcommittee Chair
     information regarding Respondent’s efforts to settle the dis-
     pute with Dr. Thesier and to learn about the disposition of
     their funds. Notwithstanding such requests, Respondent                                       ■■■
     failed to fully respond to Allen and Owens and failed to
     fully keep them advised of the status of negotiations and       VIRGINIA:
     the litigation.                                                     BEFORE THE THIRD DISTRICT COMMITTEE,
                                                                          SECTION II, OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
10. During the course of ensuing litigation by Dr. Thesier
    against Respondent for both such sums, Dr. Thesier filed         IN THE MATTER OF
    suit against Allen and Owens in separate suits on or about       BRADFORD CLARK JACOB
    August 11, 2002.                                                 VSB Docket No. 03-032-4018

11. On or before December 2, 2002, Respondent settled                          DISTRICT COMMITTEE DETERMINATION
    the litigation by paying Thesier the full amounts claimed,                    PUBLIC REPRIMAND WITH TERMS
    less the claimed interest and attorney’s fees. In reaching
    this settlement, Respondent failed to advise Allen of                On April 9, 2004, a hearing in this matter was held
    the settlement.                                                  before a duly convened Third District Committee, Section II,
                                                                     panel consisting of Mary B. Owens, attorney member; John
                II. NATURE OF MISCONDUCT                             Tracy Walker IV, attorney member; Cary A. Ralston, attorney
                                                                     member; John B. Daly, lay member and William S. Francis, Jr.,
    The following Rule of Professional Conduct has been              Esquire, chair.
found to have been violated:
RULE 1.4 Communication                                                    Bradford Clark Jacob appeared with counsel, Michael L.
   (a) * * *                                                         Rigsby, and Linda Mallory Berry, appeared as counsel for the
                                                                     Virginia State Bar.
           III. PUBLIC ADMONITION WITH TERMS
                                                                         Pursuant to Part 6, Section IV, Paragraph 13.H.2.n. of
    With the agreement of the Respondent in an Agreed                the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court, the Third District
Disposition finalized on June 4, 2004, the Subcommittee has          Committee, Section II, of the Virginia State Bar hereby
decided to impose a Public Admonition with Terms. The                serves upon the Respondent the following Public Reprimand
Subcommittee hereby admonishes Respondent for the aforesaid          with Terms:



18                 August/September 2004
                                                    disciplinary actions


                     I. FINDING OF FACTS                           8.   Following Mr. Jacob’s arrest, his employment was terminated
                                                                        by his employer, a Richmond law firm. In seeking employ-
1.   At all times relevant hereto, Bradford Clark Jacob (“Mr.           ment at another firm, Mr. Jacob misrepresented the circum-
     Jacob”) has been an attorney licensed to practice law in           stances of his termination from the prior firm, failed to
     the Commonwealth of Virginia.                                      disclose his arrest and made other misleading statements.
                                                                        The material misrepresentations were made by Mr. Jacob
2.   On or about June 4, 2003, Mr. Jacob began communicating            during an extensive interview process over a period of
     with a woman over the internet. Mr. Jacob and the woman            weeks as the prospective employer considered employment
     arranged to meet on June 5, 2003, for a sexual activity            and/or partnership with Mr. Jacob. The truth became known
     between himself, the woman and another female. During              only after circumstances of Mr. Jacob’s arrest were made
     the internet communication between Mr. Jacob and the               public in a news broadcast by a Richmond television station.
     woman, she inquired as to the availability of drugs at the
     meeting, and Mr. Jacob replied and inferred that he would     9.   Following his arrest, Mr. Jacob did not accurately report the
     bring “E” to the meeting. It is understood that “E” meant          circumstances of his arrest, interview or attendant actions to
     the drug Ecstasy. The woman involved was an informant              the Virginia State Bar, nor did he attempt to correct the
     for the King George County Sheriff’s Department in whose           misconceptions he knew had arisen from his inaccurate
     jurisdiction the planned meeting was to take place.                reporting of his arrest, interview or attendant actions.
3.   Mr. Jacob met the woman on June 5, 2003, in a pre-            10. It was determined that Mr. Jacob’s conduct constitutes
     selected location in King George County where they                Misconduct in violation of Rule 8.1(a) and (b) of the Rules
     engaged in brief conversation. That conversation was              of Professional Conduct.
     recorded by the police. The woman asked Mr. Jacob about
     the quality of the drugs he brought. Mr. Jacob responded,                      II. NATURE OF MISCONDUCT
     “It’s pretty good stuff, my friend does it, he’s a pharma-
                                                                       The foregoing facts give rise to violations of the following
     cist.” Mr. Jacob showed the woman two lemon shaped
                                                                   Rules of Professional Conduct:
     pills. The pills actually were a mint known as Altoids that
     Mr. Jacob had placed in his eyeglass case. Mr. Jacob
                                                                   RULE 8.1 Bar Admission And Disciplinary Matters
     agreed to follow the woman to a motel room. However,
                                                                      (a), (b) * * *
     the King George County Sheriff’s Department arrested him
     as he left the King George County location.                   RULE 8.4 Misconduct
                                                                      (b), (c) * * *
4.   Mr. Jacob was charged with criminal violation of each of
     the following sections of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as                  III. PUBLIC REPRIMAND WITH TERMS
     amended: § 18.2-248, possession, manufacture, sale of a
                                                                        Accordingly, it is the decision of the committee to offer the
     controlled substance, felony; § 18.2-308, carrying a con-
                                                                   Respondent an opportunity to comply with certain terms and
     cealed weapon (Kabar knife), first offense, misdemeanor;
                                                                   conditions with which he, his counsel and the Committee Chair
     and § 18.2-346, solicitation of a prostitute, misdemeanor.
                                                                   did agree and sign, compliance with which will be a predicate
                                                                   for the disposition of a Public Reprimand with Terms of this
5.   On September 18, 2003, in the Circuit Court of King           complaint. The terms and conditions shall be met by the dates
     George County, upon motion of the Commonwealth, the           specified in each of the numbered paragraphs below.
     felony drug charge was amended to misdemeanor posses-
     sion of an imitation controlled substance. Mr. Jacob signed
                                                                                AGREED TERMS AND CONDITIONS
     a Waiver of Indictment in both the drug case and in the
     solicitation case and pled no contest to both. The matters    1.   The following terms and conditions shall be met as follows:
     were prosecuted before the court and Mr. Jacob was found
     guilty of misdemeanor possession of an imitation controlled        a.   No later than April 9, 2004, Respondent shall take
     substance and a misdemeanor solicitation of a prostitute.               associate status with the Virginia State Bar. [Associate
                                                                             members may not practice law, vote or hold office in
6.   The court sentenced Mr. Jacob to a jail sentence of twelve              the Virginia State Bar.] Thereafter, Respondent shall
     (12) months on each charge and suspended all jail time on               not change his status from associate to active until
     the following conditions:                                               such time as he receives written authorization from
                                                                             the Third District Committee, Section II, to do so.
     a.   payment of a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) and court              Authorization shall be given, at the sole discretion of
          costs, which were paid on September 18, 2003;                      the Third District, Section II, Committee, upon
                                                                             Respondent’s successful completion of the terms and
     b.   supervision by Community Based Probation or (at                    conditions that follow concerning Respondent’s proba-
          the discretion of the Probation Officer) private coun-             tion and counseling, but no sooner than September
          seling; and                                                        18, 2005, unless good cause is shown to the Third
                                                                             District Committee, Section II, prior to that date.
     c.   completion of drug and sex offender evaluations,
          treatment and counseling, as recommended.                     b.   Respondent shall certify to the Third District
                                                                             Committee, Section II, that he has been successfully
7.   It was determined that Mr. Jacob’s conduct in King George               terminated from probation and shall provide the
     County constitutes Misconduct in violation of Rule 8.4 (b)              Virginia State Bar with paperwork directly from the
     and (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.                           probation officer and/or the court signifying the same.



                                                                                      Virginia Lawyer Register                    19
                                                     disciplinary actions


     c.    The Respondent shall certify to the Third District        4.   Thereafter, Respondent’s partner re-filed the suit, made a set-
           Committee, Section II, that he has successfully com-           tlement demand which the Complainant claims was not
           pleted counseling. Respondent shall provide the                authorized, and settled the case in January of 2000 for a sum
           Committee a notarized statement directly from the              which the Complainant has since stated to the Bar that she
           therapist/counselor/licensed clinical social worker(s)         had refused to accept at the time it was offered. Although a
           signifying successful completion of services.                  check was issued on or about February 15, 2000, by the
                                                                          alleged tortfeasor’s insurance carrier, was made jointly
    Upon satisfactory proof that such terms and conditions                payable to the order of the Complainant and Respondent’s
have been met as stated, this matter shall be closed.                     law firm, and was sent to the law firm, the Complainant was
                                                                          not made aware of those facts at that time.
      If, however, the terms and conditions are not met, the
Respondent agrees that the Third District Committee, Section         5.   Following the time that the original case was nonsuited, as
II, shall certify this matter to the Disciplinary Board for a             aforesaid, the Respondent had no further direct contact
sanction determination only, based upon the agreed stipu-                 with the Complainant, despite the fact that the Complainant
lated facts and agreed disciplinary rules recited in the District         left numerous telephone messages for the Respondent after
Committee Determination.                                                  that time and made known to others in Respondent’s law
                                                                          firm that she, the Complainant, wanted the Respondent to
     ***                                                                  contact her and to handle her legal matter.
                                                                     6.   In or around July, 2001, the Respondent’s law firm was dis-
THIRD DISTRICT COMMITTEE, SECTION III,                                    solved, and she established herself as a sole practitioner.
OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR                                                 The Respondent received a call from the Complainant in
By William S. Francis, Jr., Chair                                         October of 2002, wherein the Complainant advised her that
                                                                          the Complainant had been served with a warrant in debt
                               ■■■                                        filed on behalf of the hospital which had provided care
                                                                          associated with Complainant’s personal injury, and as to
      BEFORE THE FIFTH DISTRICT — SECTION III                             which both the Complainant and Respondent had executed
     SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR                               an assignment of funds in June of 1996.

IN THE MATTER OF                                                     7.   When the Respondent retrieved her closed file in the
TRACEY ALMA LENOX, ESQ.                                                   Complainant’s matter following the October, 2002, call, the
VSB Docket No. 03-053-1207                                                Respondent discovered therein the original settlement
                                                                          check, which had never been negotiated. The Respondent
                                                                          wrote to the Complainant on November 25, 2002, after a
               SUBCOMMITTEE DETERMINATION                                 Bar Complaint had been filed in this matter, stating, among
               PUBLIC REPRIMAND, WITH TERMS                               other things, that
      On April 23, 2004, a meeting in this matter was held before              I regret to tell you that it appears that I was
a duly convened Fifth District—Section III Subcommittee con-                   waiting to hear from you about setting an in-
sisting of E. Allen Newcomb, Esq., James G. Moran, CPA, lay                    office conference to discuss the merits of your
member, and Gregory Allen Porter, Esq., presiding.                             case and the settlement offer, and the case was
                                                                               allowed to lapse as a result.
     Pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of the Supreme
Court of Virginia, Part 6, § IV, ¶ 13(G), the Fifth District—        8.   An investigation conducted by the Virginia State Bar
Section III Subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar hereby serves          revealed that following service upon her on or about June
upon the Respondent the following Public Reprimand, with                  17, 2000, of a Notice and Motion by defense counsel in
Terms, as set forth below:                                                the re-filed suit, the Respondent authorized defense coun-
                                                                          sel on June 27, 2000, to endorse Respondent’s name to an
                      I. FINDINGS OF FACT                                 Order of Dismissal, entered by the Court on June 30, 2000,
                                                                          which provided for dismissal of the Complainant’s case,
1.   At all times relevant hereto, Tracey Alma Lenox, Esq.,               with prejudice, upon “joint motion” of the parties upon
     (hereafter “Respondent”), has been an attorney licensed to           their representation that matters between them had “been
     practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.                        settled and compromised.”
                                                                     9.   With respect to entry of the Order of Dismissal, the
2.   On November 7, 1995, Jennie L. Christiansen, now known               Respondent stated to a Virginia State Bar investigator that
     as Jennie L. DelVecchio (hereafter “Complainant”) engaged            when she was contacted by defense counsel respecting
     the Respondent on a contingent fee basis to represent her            the matter, she assumed that her former partner had com-
     in a slip and fall personal injury claim.                            pleted all of the necessary procedures to close the case,
                                                                          and that she authorized the dismissal of the case without
3.   After the alleged tortfeasor denied liability, the Respondent        first reviewing the file.
     filed suit on the Complainant’s behalf. Litigation proceeded
     and discovery was conducted. On May 22, 1998, the court         10. During the pendency of the Bar Complaint, the
     entered a nonsuit order at Respondent’s request, which the          Respondent took steps to rectify the matters set forth
     Respondent has claimed to the Bar was occasioned by the             above by causing the insurance settlement check to be
     need to gather additional evidence in support of the                reissued and by making a voluntary payment to the
     alleged tortfeasor’s liability.                                     Complainant as additional restitution.



20                  August/September 2004
                                                    disciplinary actions


                II. NATURE OF MISCONDUCT                            Respondent shall be limited from presenting any such evidence
                                                                    and/or argument as would otherwise be permitted by the
    The Subcommittee finds that the following Rules of              Board at the sanctions phase of a Board hearing.
Professional Conduct have been violated:
                                                                         ***
RULE 1.2 Scope of Representation
                                                                    FIFTH DISTRICT—SECTION III SUBCOMMITTEE
   (a) * * *
                                                                    OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
                                                                    By Gregory Allen Porter, Esq Chair/Chair Designate
RULE 1.3 Diligence
   (a) * * *
                                                                                                  ■■■
RULE 1.4 Communication
   (a), (b), (c) * * *                                              VIRGINIA
                                                                        BEFORE THE FIFTH DISTRICT—SECTION III
RULE 1.5 Fees                                                          SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
   (c) * * *
                                                                    IN THE MATTER OF
RULE 1.15 Safekeeping Property                                      JOHN EDWARD RYAN JR., ESQ.
   (c) (1), (2), (3), (4) * * *                                     VSB Docket No. 03-053-0988
RULE 5.1 Responsibilities Of A Partner Or Supervisory
         Lawyer                                                                   SUBCOMMITTEE DETERMINATION
   (a) * * *                                                                           PUBLIC REPRIMAND

           III. PUBLIC REPRIMAND, WITH TERMS                              On June 17, 2004, a meeting in this matter was held before
                                                                    a duly convened Fifth District—Section III Subcommittee con-
     Accordingly, it is the decision of the Subcommittee to         sisting of H. Jan Roltsch-Anoll, Esq., Berchard Lee Hatcher, lay
offer the Respondent an opportunity to comply with certain          member and Elizabeth M. vonKeller, Esq., presiding.
terms and conditions, compliance with which shall be a pred-
icate for the disposition of this complaint by imposition of a           Pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of the Supreme
PUBLIC REPRIMAND, WITH TERMS. The terms and condi-                  Court of Virginia, Part 6, § IV, ¶ 13(G), the Fifth District —
tions are as follows:                                               Section III Subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar hereby
                                                                    serves upon the Respondent the following Public Reprimand,
      Respondent shall accrue at least twelve (12) credit hours     as set forth below:
by enrolling in and attending Virginia State Bar approved
Continuing Legal Education program(s) in legal ethics prior to                           I. FINDINGS OF FACT
May 1, 2005; Respondent’s Continuing Legal Education atten-
dance obligation set forth in this paragraph shall not be           1.   At all times relevant hereto, John Edward Ryan, Jr., Esq.,
applied toward Respondent’s Mandatory Continuing Legal                   (hereinafter “Respondent”), has been an attorney licensed
Education requirement in Virginia and any other jurisdictions in         to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
which she may be licensed to practice law. Respondent shall
certify her compliance with the terms set forth in this para-       2.   As Executor for the Estate of Florence T. Stevenson, The
graph by delivering a fully and properly executed Virginia               Respondent filed a “Final Accounting” with the Office of
MCLE Board Certification of Attendance Form (Form 2) to Seth             the Commissioner of Accounts for the Circuit Court of
M. Guggenheim, Assistant Bar Counsel, at 100 North Pitt Street,          Arlington County, Virginia on or about February 1, 2002.
Suite 310, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, promptly following her
attendance of such CLE program(s).                                  3.   Disbursements were not made by the Respondent to
                                                                         estate beneficiaries pursuant to the Final Accounting, nor
     Upon satisfactory proof furnished by Respondent to the              were canceled checks and bank statements furnished to
Virginia State Bar that the above Terms have been complied               the Commissioner, as required.
with, in full, a PUBLIC REPRIMAND, WITH TERMS shall then
be imposed. If, however, Respondent fails to comply with any        4.   After requests for required documents made by the
of the Terms set forth herein, as and when compliance with               Commissioner’s office, the Respondent filed a Fourth and
such Term is due, then, and in such event, the Committee                 Final Account for the Estate in January of 2003. Thereafter,
shall, as an alternative disposition to a Public Reprimand, with         the Commissioner’s office made at least two requests of
Terms, certify this matter to the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary        the Respondent that he submit canceled checks and bank
Board for the purpose of the Board’s imposition of a sanction            statements so as to allow the Commissioner’s office to
against the Respondent. Upon certification, the parties shall be         complete its audit of the Account.
deemed to have stipulated to the admissibility into evidence by
the Board of the “Findings of Fact” appearing above, and the        5.   It was not until April 7, 2003, that Respondent submitted
Respondent shall be deemed to have admitted before the                   the documents required by the Commissioner’s Office.
Board to violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct set
forth above under the heading “Nature of Misconduct.”               6.   A Dismissal with Terms was issued to the Respondent on
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions respecting stipula-             February 15, 2001, for prior violations of disciplinary rules
tions upon certification, neither the Virginia State Bar nor the         concerning his handling of the same estate matter.



                                                                                       Virginia Lawyer Register                    21
                                                      disciplinary actions


                  II. NATURE OF MISCONDUCT                            3.   On May 13, 2001, at the urging of his (Taylor’s) wife, Mr.
                                                                           Taylor met on his own initiative with M. Hunt After a dis-
    The Subcommittee finds that the following Rules of                     cussion of the gravity and quantity of the criminal charges
Professional Conduct have been violated:                                   as well as Mr. Taylor’s criminal defense experience and
                                                                           expertise, M. Hunt agreed with Mr. Taylor that he should
RULE 1.3 Diligence                                                         have legal representation for the pending temporary
   (a) * * *                                                               detention order (TDO) hearing and the criminal charges
                                                                           in Goochland.
RULE 1.15 Safekeeping Property
   (c) (4) * * *                                                      4.   On May 14, 2001, a TDO hearing took place and the Special
                                                                           Justice ruled that Mr. Hunt was suffering from mental illness
                     III. PUBLIC REPRIMAND                                 (depression) and that he was imminently dangerous to him-
    Accordingly, it is the decision of the Subcommittee to                 self. M. Hunt was committed by the Prince George General
impose a PUBLIC REPRIMAND on Respondent, John Edward                       District Court for psychiatric treatment at Liberty Forensic
Ryan, Jr., Esquire, and he is so reprimanded.                              Unit of Riverside Hospital by the Special Justice for a period
                                                                           not to exceed 30 days. No ruling was made at the TDO
                                                                           hearing as to M. Hunt’s competency to stand trial or sanity at
***                                                                        the time of the offenses of May 10, 2001.
FIFTH DISTRICT—SECTION III SUBCOMMITTEE                               5.   Mr. Taylor appeared at the Goochland General District
OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR                                                  Court on M. Hunt’s behalf on May 16, 2001. Mr. Taylor
By Elizabeth M. vonKeller, Esq.                                            made a motion to continue the arraignment and a motion
Chair/Chair Designate                                                      for an evaluation of M. Hunt’s competency and sanity at the
                                                                           time of the offense. The Court, “upon hearing evidence or
                               ■■■                                         representations of counsel for M. Hunt, that there is proba-
                                                                           ble cause to believe that the defendant’s sanity may be a
VIRGINIA:                                                                  significant factor in his defense,” appointed an evaluator to
    BEFORE THE THIRD DISTRICT COMMITTEE,                                   evaluate the defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense
    SECTION III, OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR                                 and, if appropriate, to assist in the development of an insan-
                                                                           ity defense.
IN THE MATTER OF
KENNETH HAMMOND TAYLOR                                                6.   M. Hunt was returned to the Henrico County Jail and was
VSB Docket No. 02-033-2910                                                 held there without bail after he was discharged from the
                                                                           Liberty Forensic Unit in May 2001, because it was deter-
           DISTRICT COMMITTEE DETERMINATION                                mined that he was not mentally ill and not an imminent
             (PUBLIC REPRIMAND WITH TERMS)                                 danger to himself.
     On June 8, 2004, a hearing in this matter was held before        7.   On June 2, 2001, at the Henrico County Jail, M. Hunt signed
a duly convened Third District Committee, Section III, panel               a formal Engagement Letter with Mr. Taylor for legal repre-
consisting of Joyce Rene Hicks, attorney member; Cullen D.                 sentation. M. Hunt did not have access to his resources to
Seltzer, attorney member; John D. Sharer, attorney member;                 pay legal fees or other personal expenses. An appeal by Mr.
Dr. Frederick Rahal, lay member and Charlotte Peoples                      Taylor, on M. Hunt’s behalf, was made to M. Hunt’s brother
Hodges, Esquire, chair designate.                                          for financial assistance. M. Hunt’s brother referred the
     Kenneth Hammond Taylor appeared in person pro se                      appeal for funds for legal fees or other personal expenses
and Linda Mallory Berry, appeared as counsel for the Virginia              to his own attorney.
State Bar.
                                                                      8.   On June 4, 2001, M. Hunt signed a General Durable Power
    Pursuant to Part 6, Section IV, Paragraph 13.H.2.n. of                 of Attorney (POA) drafted by Mr. Taylor giving Mr. Taylor
the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court, the Third District                power to act as his attorney-in-fact. The POA authorized
Committee, Section III, of the Virginia State Bar hereby                   Mr. Taylor to have access to all of M. Hunt’s assets by
serves upon the Respondent the following Public Reprimand                  means of the POA and to use M. Hunt’s available
with Terms:                                                                resources for his defense.

                      I. FINDINGS OF FACT                             9.   Under the terms of the POA, Mr. Taylor sold M. Hunt’s
                                                                           Mustang Saleen automobile, withdrew substantial amounts
1.    Kenneth Hammond Taylor (Mr. Taylor) was licensed to                  of cash from M. Hunt’s bank accounts and cashed in an IRA
      practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia on                      account.
      September 27, 1974, and at all times relevant to these pro-
      ceedings, Mr. Taylor was an attorney in good standing to        10. On June 12, 2001, a true bill was returned on a 14-count
      practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.                       indictment of M. Hunt, and on June 22, 2001, Mr. Taylor
                                                                          appeared for the arraignment of M. Hunt and for discovery
2.    On May 10, 2001, M. Hunt was arrested by the Virginia               motions. On July 9, 2001, Mr. Taylor submitted a Motion for
      State Police. M. Hunt was charged with 14 felony counts             Competency in the Goochland Circuit Court.
      including four counts of attempted capital murder of a
      police officer and multiple counts of use of a firearm in the   11. On August 7, 2001, Mr. Taylor withdrew the Motion for M.
      commission of a felony.                                             Hunt’s Competency Evaluation.




22                  August/September 2004
                                                   disciplinary actions


12. M. Hunt executed a separate POA to his brother on August        1.   Mr. Taylor shall continue with the Lawyers Helping Lawyers
    9, 2001. M. Hunt’s brother had his attorney send Mr. Taylor          Program until such time as his contract with the program is
    a letter, dated August 13, 2001, advising Mr. Taylor that his        successfully completed.
    POA had been revoked and that a full accounting for any
    monies he spent or paid out on behalf of M. Hunt was due.       2.   Within five days of employment, Mr. Taylor shall certify to
                                                                         the Virginia State Bar, Office of Bar Counsel, the place and
13. On August 20, 2001, Mr. Taylor traveled to Goochland                 nature of his employment.
    Circuit Court to argue defense motions he had researched
                                                                    3.   During the five year period beginning upon the date of
    and drafted. He was unable to argue the Motion to Compel
                                                                         entry of the final order in the instant case, Mr. Taylor shall
    Discovery, Motion in Limine, and Motion to Dismiss as the
                                                                         not practice law as a solo practitioner.
    Court entered an order substituting Todd Stone, Esquire for
    Mr. Taylor in all of M. Hunt’s matters. On August 23, 2001,     4.   During the five year period beginning upon the date of
    the documents in Mr. Taylor’s file were hand-delivered to            entry of the final order in the instant case, Mr. Taylor shall
    Attorney Stone.                                                      not practice law unless he is under the direct supervisory
                                                                         authority of a Virginia licensed attorney. Reference is made
14. On or about September 4, 2001, Mr. Taylor acknowledged               to Rule 5.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct with
    the August 13, 2001 letter from the attorney for M. Hunt’s           respect to supervision.
    brother, and Mr. Taylor made his accounting on October 4,
    2001.                                                           5.   If Mr. Taylor ever suffers the imposition of public discipline
                                                                         for violation(s) of the Virginia Rules of Professional
15. On March 27, 2002, the attorney for M. Hunt’s brother                Conduct, or any disciplinary code or disciplinary rules of
    sent to the Virginia State Bar a bar complaint on behalf of          any jurisdiction, for misconduct occurring on or after the
    his client.                                                          date of the final order in the instant case, such violation
16. Mr. Taylor also admitted that, despite the fact that he pro-         shall constitute a breach of these terms.
    vided to the attorney for M. Hunt’s brother what appeared            Upon satisfactory proof that such terms and conditions
    to be monthly billing statement addressed to M. Hunt at his     have been met, this matter shall be closed. If the terms and
    home address, Mr. Taylor actually did not provide his client    conditions are not met, a Show Cause will be issued and,
    with monthly billing statements as called for in the            upon a finding that Mr. Taylor failed to comply with any of
    Engagement Agreement.                                           these terms, the Third District Committee, Section III, shall
                                                                    direct a Certification for Sanction Determination to the
                II. NATURE OF MISCONDUCT                            Disciplinary Board.
RULE 8.4 Misconduct                                                      ***
   (c) * * *                                                        THIRD DISTRICT COMMITTEE, SECTION III,
            III. PUBLIC REPRIMAND WITH TERMS                        OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
                                                                    By Charlotte Peoples Hodges, Chair Designate
     Accordingly, it is the decision of the Third District
Committee, Section III, to offer Mr. Taylor an opportunity to                                     ■■■
comply with certain terms and conditions, compliance which
will be a predicate for the disposition of a Public Reprimand
with Terms of this complaint. The terms and conditions are
as follows:




                                                                                       Virginia Lawyer Register                     23

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Stats:
views:66
posted:7/11/2011
language:English
pages:23