Disciplinary Board Disciplinary Actions - Virginia State Bar

Disciplinary Procedure V, the Second District Committee,
Section I, of the Virginia State Bar hereby serves upon the
Respondent, Patricia Maria Wright, the following Public
Reprimand.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times material to these allegations, the Respondent,
Patricia Maria Wright, hereinafter “Respondent”, has been
an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
2. On or about March 11, 1998, Carolyn S. Cuffee retained
Respondent to draft a petition to terminate a guardianship.
Cuffee had been referred to Respondent by a pre-paid
legal services plan administrator. At that time, Respondent
agreed to accept $100.00 towards her fee. Accordingly,
Cuffee paid Respondent $100 to commence representation
in the matter.
3. In the ensuing two months, Cuffee attempted to contact
Respondent by telephone and left messages of inquiry as
to the status of the petition drafting. At the initial meeting
of Respondent and Cuffee, Respondent had invited Cuffee
to call one week after Cuffee paid her the initial $100 payment.
Neither Respondent nor Respondent’s office
responded to Cuffee by giving her any information about
the status of the matter.
4. Over the two months of representation, Respondent in fact
had not performed any work on the guardianship petition,
although Cuffee had paid Respondent to begin said work.
II. NATURE OF MISCONDUCT
Such conduct on the part of Respondent constitutes misconduct
in violation of the following Disciplinary Rules of the
Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility:
DR 6-101. Competence and Promptness.
(B) and (C) * * *
III. IMPOSITION OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND
Accordingly, it is the decision of the committee to impose
a Public Reprimand on Respondent, Patricia Maria Wright, and
she is so reprimanded.
Pursuant to Virginia Supreme Court Rules of Court Part 6,
Section IV 13(K)(10), the Clerk of the Disciplinary System
shall assess costs.
Second District Committee-Section I of
The Virginia State Bar
By William Hanes Monroe, Jr.
Chair Presiding
■ ■ ■
District Committees
BEFORE THE THIRD DISTRICT, SECTION III
SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
IN THE MATTER OF
LEARNED DAVIS BARRY
VSB Docket No. 02-033-3307
disciplinary actions
SUBCOMMITTEE DETERMINATION
(PUBLIC REPRIMAND WITH TERMS)
On June 19, 2002, a meeting in this matter was held
b e f o re a duly convened Third District Subcommittee consisting
of Barbara Ann Williams, Bar Counsel for the Vi rginia State
B a r, Craig S. Cooley, Respondent’s counsel, Thomas O.
Bondurant, Jr., Esquire, Andrew J. Gibb, and Cynthia A. S.
Cecil, Esquire, pre s i d i n g .
Pursuant to Part 6, §IV, 13(B)(5)(c)(ii)(d) of the Rules of
the Supreme Court, the Third District Subcommittee of the
Virginia State Bar hereby served upon the Respondent the following
Public Reprimand with Terms:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The respondent Learned Davis Barry was admitted to
the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Vi rginia on
May 21, 1974.
2. At all relevant times to this proceeding, Mr. Barry was an
attorney licensed and in good standing to practice law in
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
3. On April 10, 2002, in Henrico County, Vi rginia, Mr. Barry
e n t e red Tower Books at the Willow Lawn Shopping Center.
4. While Mr. Barry was in the bookstore, he intentionally
took a book valued at $12.95 and left the store without
paying for it.
5. Mr. Barry pled guilty to a charge of petit larceny.
6. Upon tender of the plea, the General District Court of the
County of Henrico made no finding and continued the
case for one year, conditioned upon Mr. Barry’s uniform
good behavior and Mr. Barry’s immediate, final and irrevocable
resignation of his position as a judge of the Circuit
Court of the City of Richmond.
7. If at the conclusion of the one year period, Mr. Barry has
complied with the conditions set out above, the
Commonwealth will move the court to nol pro s the warrant.
II. NATURE OF MISCONDUCT
Bar Counsel, the respondent, and respondent’s counsel
agree that the above findings of fact gave rise to a finding of
violation of the following Rule of Professional Conduct:
RULE 8.4 Misconduct
(b) * * *
III. PUBLIC REPRIMAND WITH TERMS
Accordingly, it is the decision of the subcommittee to off e r
the Respondent an opportunity to comply with certain terms and
conditions, compliance with which will be a predicate for the
disposition of a Public Reprimand with Te rms of this complaint:
1. Mr. Barry shall comply fully with the terms of the Plea
Agreement that he entered into on June 19, 2002, in
Commonwealth v. Learned D. Barry, Case No. GC
02022057 (Henrico Gen. Dist. Ct).
V i r g i n i a L a w y e r R e g i s t e r 3 1