Disciplinary Board Disciplinary Actions - Virginia State Bar

(9) On February 3, 2000, Ms. Martelino sent Ms. Meade a letter
in which she notified Ms. Meade that the file was being
referred to Assistant Bar Counsel Noel D. Sengel for further
investigation (VSB Exhibit #C-5).
(10) On February 16, 2000, the Bar received a letter from the
Law Offices of Mary S. Meade, Esquire, dated December
28, 1999, and addressed to Mary W. Martelino in which
Ms. Meade states, among other things, that she had “sent
Ms. Ronay no less than three separate checks for her
invoice in the amount of $505.00” (VSB Exhibit #C-6). Ms.
Meade claimed that Ms. Ronay asserted that she did not
receive the first two checks and that the third check was
marked “refused.” Ms. Meade further stated that she
finally caused a check to be hand-delivered to Ms. Ronay.
Ms. Meade asserted that Ms. Ronay accepted the third
check but never cashed it. Enclosed in the letter to Ms.
Martelino was yet another check in the amount of $505.00
made payable to Patricia Ronay. This check was taped to
the letter in such a fashion that it could not be separated
from the paper without mutilating it and, therefore, in the
opinion of the Virginia State Bar was not negotiable. The
letter from Ms. Meade to Ms. Martelino was postmarked
December 28, 1999, but was apparently mis-delivered by
the Post Office and not received by the Virginia State Bar
until February 16, 2000.
(11) Upon being assigned the case, Noel D. Sengel, Senior
Assistant Bar Counsel, sent Respondent a letter dated
February 9, 2000, informing her of the complaint and
requesting that she answer the complaint within twentyone
days. This letter was returned to Ms. Sengel with
stamped notations on the envelope of “no longer at this
address” and “unable to forward” (VSB Exhibit #C-7). The
Bar had received no notice of a change of address of
record, as required by the rules of court.
(12) Ms. Sengel sent a second letter on March 1, 2000, which
was returned for the same reasons (VSB Exhibit #C-8).
(13) As a result of the return of the second letter to Ms.
Meade, Ms. Sengel sent Bar Investigator James W.
Henderson to determine if Ms. Meade’s office was still
located at her address of record. Mr. Henderson determined
that Ms. Meade’s office was actually located at the
address on the letters.
(14) Finally, Ms. Sengel sent a certified letter on March 10,
2000, which was received and signed for by Nancy A.
Gross on March 13, 2000 (VSB Exhibit #C-9).
(15) Receiving no response from Ms. Meade, Ms. Sengel
referred the matter to Mr. Henderson for further investigation.
Investigator Henderson interviewed Ms. Meade on
November 7, 2000. During the interview, Ms. Meade said
she issued four checks to Ms. Ronay, two were mailed
and the third was picked up at Ms. Meade’s office by Ms.
Ronay. She said that the one she sent to the Bar with her
December 28, 1999, letter was the fourth check she had
issued to Ms. Ronay.
(16) For reasons not explained to Mr. Henderson during the
November 7, 2000, interview, Ms. Meade was unable to
show Mr. Henderson the check register, the ledger card,
copies of the checks, or the receipt for the check which
1 8
A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 2
disciplinary actions
was allegedly picked up by Ms. Ronay. Ms. Meade said it
would take her ten days to produce these items. These
materials were not provided to Mr. Henderson.
(17) As a result, on February 6, 2001, Ms. Sengel wrote Ms.
Meade a letter reiterating the request for the materials
previously requested by Investigator Henderson. Ms.
Sengel requested that they be produced no later than
March 1, 2001. No response was received from Ms.
Meade.
(18) Subsequent to the February 6, 2001, letter, Ms. Sengel
began to attempt to reach Ms. Meade by telephone. Ms.
Sengel estimates that on her twentieth attempt, on May
21, 2001, Ms. Meade answered.
(19) As a result of the May 21, 2001, conversation, Ms. Sengel
faxed to Ms. Meade a copy of the February 6, 2001 letter
at the fax number provided by Ms. Meade. Still no
response was forthcoming.
(20) This matter was heard by a panel of the Fifth District
Disciplinary Committee, Section I, on October 9, 2001.
(21) Ms. Meade testified, under oath, that, as previously stated,
she sent Ms. Ronay two checks through the mail, and the
third was picked up by Ms. Ronay at Ms. Meade’s office.
(22) At the hearing, Ms. Meade introduced into evidence a
document which she claimed was a receipt which Ms.
Ronay signed when she picked up the third check. None
of the other documents previously requested by the Bar
were produced by Ms. Meade at the hearing. Ms. Ronay
testified at the District Committee hearing that she never
received the two checks which were mailed, and that she
never picked up a check at Ms. Meade’s office. When
shown the receipt with the signature “Pat Ronay” displayed
thereon, Ms. Ronay testified that the signature was
not hers and that, furthermore, she would not sign “Pat”
but would sign “Patricia”.
(23) The Board finds that Ms. Ronay’s signature on the receipt
was forged, but is unable to determine, by clear and convincing
evidence, by whom.
(24) At the hearing of this matter before the Board, Ms. Ronay
reiterated her testimony before the District Committee.
Ms. Meade did not testify at the hearing before this
Board, but her testimony before the District Committee
came into evidence through the transcript of the District
Committee hearing (VSB Exhibit #C ).
(25) The Board finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that
Ms. Meade’s statements/testimony to Ms. Martelino, Mr.
Henderson, Ms. Sengel, and the Fifth District Committee,
regarding the mailing of first two checks to Ms. Ronay,
the delivery of the third check to Ms. Ronay, and the
existence of related records were false.
The Board finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that
the following Rules have been violated:
DR 1-102. (A) (3) and (4) * * *
RULE 8.1 Bar Admission And Disciplinary Matters
* * * (c) and (d)