Disciplinary Board Disciplinary Actions - Virginia State Bar

13. Mrs. Crittenden followed up with Mr. Van Horn the same
day, and Mr. Van Horn assured her that Mr. Ingles had
everything he needed to know.
14. Early in January 2000, Mrs. Crittenden called Mr. Van Horn
to inquire about the status of the divorce proceedings; Mr.
Van Horn told her that no date had been set with the
commissioner and not to worry.
15. Mr. Van Horn did not appear at the hearing on January 18,
2000, at which time the court ordered Mrs. Crittenden to
file full responses to the outstanding discovery requests no
later than February 1, 2000, and to pay Mr. Ingles $450.00.
16. The court entered an order to this effect on January 24,
2000; Mrs. Crittenden knew nothing about the hearing or
the order.
17. On or about February 15, 2000, Mrs. Crittenden was served
with a motion for sanctions for failing to abide by the
court order and notice of a hearing to be held on the
sanctions motion on April 11, 2000.
18. After she was served with the motion and notice, Mrs.
Crittenden tried unsuccessfully to contact Mr. Van Horn
over a three-day period.
19. Finally, Mr. Van Horn directed his secretary tp set up a
meeting with Mrs. Crittenden on or about February 18,
2000, at which time, Mrs. Crittenden again reviewed her
responses to the outstanding discovery requests with Mr.
Van Horn.
20. On February 29, 2000, Mrs. Crittenden executed responses
that Mr. Van Horn had prepared to the outstanding discovery
requests.
21. On or about March 10, 2000, Mrs. Crittenden sought a second
opinion about the seriousness of the sanctions motion
from attorney Susanne Schilling, who advised Mrs.
Crittenden that she was in big trouble and that Mr. Van
Horn would have to get the contempt matter dismissed
before Ms. Schilling would get involved.
22. On or about March 13, 2000, Mrs. Crittenden met with Mr.
Van Horn, who assured her that he would take care of the
contempt matter, stating that he was in trouble, not her.
23. Mr. Van Horn told Mrs. Crittenden that Mr. Ingles had all
the information he needed and that it would not be necessary
for Mrs. Crittenden to appear at the contempt hearing,
asking her to “trust him.”
24. During the weeks of March 20 and 27, Mrs. Crittenden
called Mr. Van Horn several times to find out whether the
contempt matter had been dismissed and spoke to Mr. Van
Horn’s secretary.
25. On April 7, 2000, Mr. Van Horn’s secretary left Mrs.
Crittenden a voice mail message, confirming that she did
not have to go to court because Mr. Van Horn said he
would go to court and “get his wrist slapped.”
26. Worried about the gravity of the situation, on April 11,
2000, Mrs. Crittenden appeared in court, only to learn that
disciplinary actions
Mr. Van Horn had failed to advise her that the hearing had
been continued.
27. When Mrs. Crittenden spoke to Mr. Van Horn the next
day, he told her that she did not have to attend the hearing,
which had been continued to April 14, 2000.
28. M r. Van Horn did not tell Mrs. Crittenden that he had not
p rovided the discovery responses she executed on
February 29, 2000, to opposing counsel until April 11, 2000.
29. On April 14, 2000, Mrs. Crittenden appeared in court with
Mr. Van Horn and was shocked when Mr. Van Horn
answered “both” in response to the court’s question as to
whether she or Mr. Van Horn were responsible for the failure
to respond to the outstanding discovery requests.
30. After hearing the evidence, the court struck Mrs.
Crittenden’s answer and cross-bill, barred from presenting
any evidence in the divorce proceedings and ordered her
to pay Mr. Ingles another $450.00 by May 1, 2000.
31. Mrs. Crittenden obtained new counsel, Terrence R. Batzli,
who was substituted as her counsel in the divorce action
and filed a motion for reconsideration.
32. The hearing on the motion for reconsideration was set for
June 6, 2000; on or about that date, the parties entered
into a Memorandum of Agreement.
33. The Final Decree of Divorce was entered on June 20, 2000.
34. After Mrs. Crittenden filed a bar complaint against him, Mr.
Van Horn sent her an itemized statement and a $355.00
refund from the $3,500.00 retainer she had paid him.
B. Charges of Misconduct
The foregoing allegations give rise to the following
charges of misconduct under the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Each DR
relates to misconduct that occurred before January 1, 2000, and
each Rule of Professional Conduct (“ARPC”) relates to misconduct
that occurred after that date:
DR 2-105. Fees.
(A) * * *
DR 6-101. Competence and Promptness.
(A) (1) and (2) * * *
(B), (C) and (D) * * *
DR 7-101. Representing a Client Zealously.
(A) (1), (2) and (3) * * *
RULE 1.3 Diligence
(a), (b) and (c)
RULE 1.4 Communication
(a), (b) and (c) * * *
RULE 1.5 Fees
(a) (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) (b) * * *
V i r g i n i a L a w y e r R e g i s t e r 2 7