Disciplinary Board Disciplinary Actions - Virginia State Bar

2 6
20. On or about July 23, 1999, Mr. Van Horn submitted a
Final Account, which states that the balance in
Dominion Bank Account No. 74-346680446 of
$4,181.90 was “transferred to Terry L. Van Horn [in]
Satisfaction of Executor Fees, Attorneys Fees for
Services Rendered, Beneficiary Robert G. Groves, Jr.”
23. On July 23, 1999, Mr. Van Horn sent Bar Counsel a
letter stating his letter dated July 16, 1999, incorrectly
indicated that the required accounting had been filed
and approved.
24. On July 27, 1999, the Commissioner of Accounts
wrote Mr. Van Horn, seeking more information about
when, how and why the $4,181.90 fee was paid to
him, whether the beneficiary consented to the payment
and how it was documented.
25. Mr. Van Horn did not reply to the Commissioner of
Accounts’ letter dated July 27, 1999.
26. On or about August 16, 1999, after Mr. Van Horn filed
the final accounting, the Show Cause Order was dismissed
even though the accounting was deficient.
27. On September 14, 1999, the Commissioner of
Accounts again wrote Mr. Van Horn requesting information
necessary to resolve the accounting and advising
that the Commissioner would take formal
exception to the accounting filed with the court if Mr.
Van Horn failed to provide the requested information.
28. Mr. Van Horn did not reply to the Commissioner of
Accounts’s letter dated September 14, 1999.
29. On or about October 4, 1999, the Commissioner of
Accounts issued a report disallowing fees claimed by
Mr. Van Horn as executor in the amount of $4,181.90.
30. Mr. Van Horn received fees totaling $2,500.00 for his
work as executor and another $1,500.00 as attorney’s
fees, in addition to the $4,181.90 he claimed as fees.
31. The Groves believed that Mrs. Rosella Groves’s estate
was closed in 1994 and did not know $4,181.90
remained in the estate.
32. The Groves never approved disbursement of
$4,181.90 to Mr. Van Horn as fees.
B. Charges of Misconduct
The foregoing allegations give rise to the following
charges of misconduct under Code of Professional
Responsibility; each Disciplinary Rule (DR) allegedly violated is
set out separately:
DR 1-102. Misconduct.
(A A lawyer shall not:
(4) * * *
DR 2-105. Fees.
(A) * * *
DR 6-101. Competence and Promptness.
(C) * * *
A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 2
disciplinary actions
VSB Docket No. 00-033-3186
Complainant: Shirley R. Crittenden
A. Factual Allegations
1. In June 1996, Shirley R. Crittenden consulted Mr. Van Horn
about her marital situation.
2 . Mrs. Crittenden was subsequently served with divorc e
papers; and on or about October 13, 1999, she paid Mr. Va n
H o rn $3,500.00 to re p resent her in the divorce pro c e e d i n g s .
3. When Mr. Van Horn agreed to represent Mrs. Crittenden,
she had already been served with a bill of complaint,
interrogatories and requests for production, and a preequitable
distribution hearing had been noticed for
October 19, 1999.
4. At their October 13th meeting, Mrs. Crittenden reviewed
the outstanding discovery requests with Mr. Van Horn and
provided information responsive to the requests.
5. Mr. Horn made handwritten notes about the discovery
responses on a legal pad.
6. Mr. Van Horn told Mrs. Crittenden that McClanahan Ingles,
her husband’s counsel, would have to subpoena the information
she did not have and advised her not to attend the
pre-equitable distribution hearing on October 19th.
7. After the pre-equitable distribution hearing, Mr. Van Horn
advised Mrs. Crittenden that Mr. Ingles was unwilling to
discuss anything and that a commissioner would be
assigned to the case.
8. On or about October 21, 1999, Mr. Van Horn wrote Mr.
Ingles a letter, assuring him that Mrs. Crittenden’s discovery
responses, which were overdue, would be completed
no later than October 27, 1999.
9. Mrs. Crittenden was unaware that Mr. Van Horn had failed
to serve her discovery responses, or that on or about
November 8, 1999, Mr. Ingles had filed and served a
motion to compel and notice that a hearing on the motion
would be held on January 18, 2000.
10. Early in November 1999, after Mrs. Crittenden called to
inquire about the status of the divorce proceedings, Mr.
Van Horn told her that he had not heard from her husband’s
counsel, that he did not know whether a commissioner
had been assigned and that he would let Mrs.
Crittenden know when he heard something.
11. On or about November 15, 1999, after Mrs. Crittenden’s
husband complained that Mr. Van Horn was over-complicating
things and would not speak to his attorney, Mrs.
Crittenden advised Mr. Van Horn that her husband was
willing to negotiate and instructed Mr. Van Horn to arrange
a meeting.
12. Mr. Van Horn scheduled a meeting in December 1999, but
his secretary subsequently called Mrs. Crittenden and
informed her that her husband’s attorney had canceled the
meeting, stating that he did not have enough information
to conduct a meaningful meeting.