Disciplinary Board Disciplinary Actions - Virginia State Bar

sidered by a duly convened panel of the Virginia State Bar
Disciplinary Board consisting of Anthony J. Trenga, Theophlise
L. Twitty, Robert L. Freed, Chester J. Cahoon, Jr., and Randy I..
Bellows, presiding.
Charlotte P. Hodges, representing the Bar and Respondent,
Paul C. Bland, appearing pro se, presented an endorsed
Agreed Disposition reflecting the terms of the Agreed
Disposition. The Board incorporated two changes which
included the stipulation of facts and rule violations pertaining
to VSB Docket #00-031-3456 (Anthony Thomas), as they were
outlined in the Certification dated and the alternate disposition
should Respondent fail to fulfill any of the terms, which were
ratified by Assistant Bar Counsel and Respondent.
Having considered the Agreed Disposition, it is the decision
of the board that the Agreed Disposition be accepted with
the two changes incorporated herein, and the Virginia State Bar
Disciplinary Board finds by clear and convincing evidence as
follows:
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Paul
Cornelius Bland (hereinafter Bland or Respondent), has
been an attorney licensed to practice law in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
VSB DOCKET NO. 99-031-0907 (Birchett)
2. On August 14, 1996, Complainant met with Beverly
McLean Murray (hereinafter Murray) at Respondent’s law
office. On that day he signed a fee agreement to have
Respondent’s law firm represent him in a divorce. On
August 19, 1996, Complainant wired $1,000 to
Respondent’s escrow account per instructions he was
given.
3. On August 22, 1996, and September 23, 1996, Respondent
received two $500 checks made payable to him from
funds held in escrow for Complainant before some or all
of the fee had been earned.
4. At the time Respondent withdrew the money, the only
entry on the work sheet for Complainant’s case was for
the preparation of the Bill of Complaint on September 11,
1996.
5. Depositions were scheduled for August 25, 1997, at opposing
counsel’s office. Murray, who could not make the
depositions, made arrangements for Bland to handle them
in her absence. Bland, however, failed to show for the
depositions and did not advise Complainant that he would
not be attending. Thereafter, he told Complainant he knew
nothing about the scheduled depositions. A notation in
opposing counsel’s file indicates Bland called to advise
opposing counsel he might have to continue the deposition
that day.
6. A short time after the aborted depositions, Murray left
Respondent’s law office and he became solely responsible
for handling Complainant’s divorce matter.
7. On several occasions, Complainant attempted to contact
Respondent about his case via letter and phone. However,
he was unsuccessful in reaching Respondent.
disciplinary actions
8. Respondent did not refund any money to Complainant in
this matter.
The Disciplinary Board finds by clear and convincing evidence
that such conduct on the part of Paul Cornelius Bland
constitutes a violation of the following Rules of the Virginia
Code of Professional Responsibility:
DR 6-101. (C) * * *
DR 9-102. (A)(1) and (2), (B)(3) and (4) * * *
VSB DOCKET NO. 99-031-0921 (Moorer)
11. Sometime around mid 1987, Bessie Moorer (hereinafter
Moorer or Complainant) hired Respondent to help settle
her late uncle’s estate.
12. The initial work Respondent handled for Complainant
involved a partition suit, which took place approximately
three years after she hired him.
13. After the sale of the home was accomplished, Respondent
disbursed the proceeds to the heirs with the exception of
Milton Scott (hereinafter Scott), a brother of the deceased.
Family members advised Respondent that Scott had disappeared
some 18-20 years earlier.
14. In 1991, Bland advised Moorer that he would file a Bill of
Complaint to declare Scott legally dead, at which point he
would be able to make the disbursements of Scott’s share
of the uncle’s estate.
15. Thereafter, Respondent neglected to diligently pursue the
suit to declare Milton Scott legally dead. Although the partition
suit and sale of the home was concluded in 1991,
the Bill of Complaint Respondent advised Moorer he
would file was not filed until sometime in 1995.
16. Following the filing of the suit, there were inordinately
lengthy gaps of time between each of the steps
Respondent took to move the suit along.
17. Complainant and other heirs of the estate Respondent
was handling attempted to contact Respondent on numerous
occasions over the eight year period in which he was
supposedly working on the Bill of Complaint to declare
Scott dead.
18. Respondent failed to adequately communicate with Moorer
or any of the other heirs about the status of the case he
was handling despite numerous phone calls and letters by
the Complainant and her siblings.
19. During the representation of Moorer, Respondent loaned
Complainant approximately $650 to pay bills and have her
car repaired.
The Disciplinary Board finds by clear and convincing evidence
that such conduct on the part of Paul Cornelius Bland
constitutes a violation of the following Rules of the Virginia
Code of Professional Responsibility:
DR 5-103. (B) * * *
V i r g i n i a L a w y e r R e g i s t e r 3