Disciplinary Board Disciplinary Actions - Virginia State Bar

2. Mr. Barry shall comply fully with the terms of a
Rehabilitation/Monitoring Agreement that he entered into
with Lawyers Helping Lawyers on June 17, 2002.
3. Mr. Barry will execute whatever releases are necessary for
Lawyers Helping Lawyers to communicate with the
Virginia State Bar on a quarterly basis through June 19,
2003, and for any therapists, counselors or medical
providers with whom he consults or by whom he is
treated to, upon request, produce his records and communicate
with the Virginia State Bar.
Upon satisfactory proof that such terms and conditions
have been met, this matter shall be closed. As part of the necessary
proof, Mr. Barry shall present to the Virginia State Bar
evidence in writing that the petit larceny charge has been nol
prossed. Mr. Barry’s failure to comply with any one or more of
the agreed terms and conditions will result in the imposition of
the alternative sanction of a two year suspension. The imposition
of the alternative sanction shall not required any hearing
on the underlying charges of Misconduct, if the Virginia State
Bar discovers that Mr. Barry has failed to comply with any of
the agreed terms or conditions. In that event, the Virginia State
Bar shall issue and serve upon Mr. Barry a Notice of Hearing to
Show Cause why the alternative sanction should not be
imposed. The sole factual issue will be whether Mr. Barry has
violated one or more of the terms of the Public Reprimand
without legal justification or excuse. The imposition of the
alternative sanction shall be in addition to any other sanction
imposed for misconduct during the probationary period.
THIRD DISTRICT SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
By Cynthia A. S. Cecil
Subcommittee Chair
3 2
■ ■ ■
BEFORE THE FIFTH DISTRICT COMMITTEE
SECTION III
OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
IN THE MATTER OF
WILLIAM AUGUST BOGE, ESQ.
VSB Docket # 00-053-3052
DISTRICT COMMITTEE DETERMINATION
(PUBLIC REPRIMAND)
On May 28, 2002, a hearing in this matter was held before
a duly convened Fifth District Committee, Section III, panel
consisting of Claiborne T. Richardson II, Esq., Joyce Ann N.
Massey, Esq., Gregory Allen Porter, Esq., Elizabeth M. von
Keller, Esq., H. Jan Roltsch-Anoll, Esq., E. Allen Newcomb,
Esq., Charles M. Hunter, James G. Moran, Dr. Theodore Smith,
and John D. Primeau, Esq., presiding. The Respondent, William
August Boge, Esq., did not appear. Seth M. Guggenheim,
Assistant Bar Counsel, appeared as counsel for the Virginia
State Bar.
Previously, on March 16, 2001, a subcommittee imposed a
Private Reprimand with Terms in accordance with an agreed
disposition reached between the Respondent and Bar Counsel.
Pursuant to Council Rule of Disciplinary Procedure IV (C), this
A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 2
disciplinary actions
hearing was held to require the Respondent to show cause
why the alternative disposition should not be imposed for his
failure to comply with the terms imposed by the aforesaid subcommittee
determination. Upon evidence and argument presented,
the Fifth District Committee, Section III, finds that the
Respondent was duly noticed of this hearing by a certified
mailing, return receipt requested, to his address of record with
the Virginia State Bar, and that he failed to comply with the
terms of the subcommittee determination. Accordingly, the
Committee hereby issues the following Public Reprimand:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, William
August Boge, Esq. (hereinafter the Respondent), has been
an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
2. Commencing in 1998, Respondent acted as co-counsel for
Eduardo Gutierrez (hereafter “Complainant”) in the
defense of criminal charges pending before the Circuit
Court for Prince William County, Virginia.
3. On or about November 19, 1998, Complainant was sentenced
upon conviction of two criminal charges to ten
years of incarceration, with five years suspended, respectively,
on each charge, to run consecutively, for a total
term of imprisonment of ten years.
4. Respondent promised Complainant that he would file a
Motion for Reconsideration of Complainant’s sentence
with the court. On or about December 4, 1998,
Respondent filed such a motion, but the Complainant did
not receive a copy at that time, nor did Respondent
i n f o rm Complainant that such motion was denied by the
court. Complainant first learned, in or around August of
2000, and from a source other than Respondent, that such
motion had been denied.
5. Despite numerous requests made directly to Respondent
by Complaint, Complainant’s other counsel, and the
Virginia State Bar’s Intake Office, commencing as early as
January 26, 2000, the Respondent failed to return
Complainant’s file to him until September 5, 2000. Such
requests were made by telephone, facsimile transmission,
and mail on numerous occasions.
6. Respondent failed to respond to the Virginia State Bar’s
lawful demands for information concerning Complainant’s
case made in writing on April 21, 2000, May 11, 2000, and
June 6, 2000, and he failed to accept and return a Virginia
State Bar investigator’s telephone calls concerning
Complainant’s case placed to him on a daily basis on business
days for a period of approximately one month.
II. NATURE OF MISCONDUCT
Such conduct by the Respondent, as set forth above, constitutes
Misconduct in violation of the following Disciplinary
Rules of the Revised Virginia Code of Professional
Responsibility:
DR 6-101. Competence and Promptness.
(B) and (C) * * *
RULE 1.4 Communication
(a) * * *