Disciplinary Board Disciplinary Actions - Virginia State Bar

3 8
I. STIPULATIONS OF FACT
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Isaac Scott
Pickus (hereinafter Pickus or Respondent) has been an
a t t o rney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth
of Vi rginia.
2. In 1993, the Complainant, Vernon Allen (hereinafter
Complainant or Allen) hired Respondent to file a petition
for writ of habeas corpus.
3. Complainant’s mother, Gloria Fielder (hereinafter Fielder)
initially contacted Respondent and asked if he could help
her son (Complainant) who was incarcerated at the
Southampton Correctional Center.
4. Respondent advised Fielder to forward him a copy of the
transcript along with an initial payment of $750.
5. After Fielder provided the transcript and the $750 dollars,
Respondent advised Fielder that her son’s only option was
to file a habeas corpus petition based upon ineffective
assistance of counsel.
6. Respondent sent Fielder a contract for services which she
signed and returned to him. In March 1993, a check for
$3,750 was forwarded to Respondent.
7. The $3,750 was placed in whole, or in part into an
account that was not a trust account before some or all of
the money had been earned.
8. In August 1994, Respondent wrote Fielder advising her
that he needed the transcripts of Complainant’s co-defendants,
and he would need the money for the transcripts.
Fielder paid the costs for these transcripts on October 17,
1993 by cashier’s check.
9. After waiting a period of time to have the documents
p re p a red and filed, Complainant and Fielder attempted
to contact Respondent regarding the status of
Complainant’s habeas petition when they heard nothing
f rom Respondent.
10. Fielder attempted to reach Respondent approximately 7 or
8 times a year between 1993 and 1998. In most instances
she left a message with the secretary, as she was unable to
reach him.
11. Between 1993 and 1998, Fielder and Complainant were
under the impression Respondent was continuing to work
on the habeas corpus petition. They were unaware of any
deadline for filing the habeas petition.
13. In 1999, Fielder spoke with a friend, who wanted to give
an attorney a copy of her son’s transcript to see if the
attorney could offer suggestions to Respondent.
14. At that time, Fielder contacted Pickus and requested a
copy of the transcript in her son’s case, so that another
lawyer could look at it. Fielder did not indicate to Pickus
at that time that she was terminating his representation,
nor was she interested in terminating his representation.
15. Pickus eventually forwarded a copy of the transcript to
Fielder, who, thereafter, was unable to reach him at all by
phone or correspondence, despite many attempts to do so.
A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 2
disciplinary actions
16. Despite the fact that Respondent was well aware that
Fielder was attempting to contact him, he refused to communicate
with her and failed to advise her that the statute
of limitations had run on filing her son’s habeas petition.
17. During the time Respondent represented Complainant, he
did a minimal amount of research in the case, and never
filed the habeas petition.
18. During the investigation of this matter, Respondent’s file
was reviewed, and it showed that in 7 years, Respondent
had collected 7 research cases. The file did not contain a
draft habeas petition or transcripts.
19. Despite not having done the work he was hired to do,
Respondent did not return any portion of the $3,750 to
Complainant or Fielder.
20. Respondent was unfamiliar with habeas work when he
agreed to represent Complainant.
21. On October 31, 2000, Respondent forwarded Complainant
a letter which misrepresented the work he did for
Complainant. He erroneously advised him that he had
spoken to his mother on several occasions, that he conducted
a significant amount of legal research in his case,
and that his mother had terminated their representation
and had retained new counsel for Complainant.
Furthermore, Respondent did not advise Complainant in
this letter that the statute of limitations had run on his time
to file a habeas petition.
II. DISCIPLINARY RULES
Assistant Bar Counsel Hodges and the Respondent agree
that the above factual stipulations could give rise to a finding
of a violation of the following Disciplinary Rule(s):
DR 2-105. Fees.
(A) * * *
DR 2-108. Terminating Representation.
(B)(1) * * *
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) * * *
DR 9-102. Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of
a Client.
(A)(1) and (2) * * *
III. PUBLIC REPRIMAND WITH TERMS
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Subcommittee to offer
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 Terms of this complaint.
The terms and conditions shall be met by the specified
deadline(s):