Disciplinary Board Disciplinary Actions - Virginia State Bar

DR 6-101. (B) and (C) * * *
4
VSB DOCKET NO. 99-031-1708 (Charles)
20. On January 13, 1997, Respondent was appointed to represent
James Charles (hereinafter Charles or Complainant) on
a delayed appeal of convictions in the Petersburg Circuit
Court, after his previous attorney failed to file the appeal.
21. Respondent properly and timely filed the Appeal to the
Court of Appeals of Virginia and a Motion for
Reconsideration by three judge panel on behalf of
Complainant. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for
appeal on October 1, 1997, and the request for three judge
panel was denied on October 29, 1997.
22. On November 1, 1997, Complainant sent Respondent a letter
requesting that he appeal his case to the Supreme
Court of Virginia.
23. Respondent failed to appeal Complainant’s case to the
Supreme Court of Virginia.
24. During the time Respondent represented Complainant, he
failed to adequately communicate with him regarding the
status of his case, despite Complainant’s attempts to contact
him.
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. (B) and (C) * * *
VSB DOCKET NO. 00-031-2092 (VSB/DC Bar)
25. In June 1990, Respondent began handling a case for his
cousin, Gloria Wright (hereinafter Wright), who had been
injured on her job in Washington, D.C.
26. Respondent, who is also licensed to practice in the District
of Columbia, took the case believing it would settle.
27. Wright provided Respondent with the name and address of
Dynaelectric as the responsible party for her injuries, as
well as a contact person with the FECA division at the
Department of Labor (DOL).
28. In August 1990, Wright wrote to DOL and identified
Respondent as her attorney. In February, 1991, DOL
responded by letter, sending information about Wright’s
claim, including information about her medical providers,
and offering additional assistance if needed.
29. Respondent did not respond to DOL until August 21, 1991,
when he sent a one line letter identifying himself as
Wright’s attorney.
30. By April of 1992, Respondent had taken no action on
Wright’s claim. He had not filed a lawsuit, nor had he
attempted to contact her medical providers.
31. Respondent was unsure of the address, and the spelling of
the defendant company’s name. Therefore, he filed suit in
A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 2
disciplinary actions
the Circuit Court for Fairfax County on May 6, 1992, and in
the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond on May 18,
1992. He then advised Wright and DOL that the lawsuits
had been filed.
32. At the request of Dynalectric’s counsel and without first
consulting his client, Respondent agreed to non-suit the
Richmond lawsuit in August 1992 and proceed with the
Fairfax case. Afterward, he did not inform his client about
the dismissal.
33. Dynalectric’s counsel represented to Respondent that
Dynalectric was not present at the time of the accident
and pressed Respondent to dismiss the lawsuit against
Dynalectric. A representative from Cafritz Management
Company, the building manager made a similar representation
to Respondent.
34. In October, without conducting further discovery and fearing
sanctions, Respondent sent a pleading to non-suit the
Fairfax action to Dynalectric’s counsel, who refused to sign
it, because he believed that plaintiff was only entitled to
one non-suit by right, and that one had already been
granted in the Richmond case.
35. Defense counsel insisted upon a dismissal of the case with
prejudice. Respondent agreed, again without seeking his
client’s permission or informing her about the dismissal.
36. In April 1993, Respondent informed his client that the
Fairfax action had been non-suited because Dynalectric
was not present on the date of the accident. He advised
her that he would file a new lawsuit in Superior Court in
the District against Donahue, the contractor renovating the
office, and Cafritz. The lawsuit was filed in May 1993.
37. Defendant Cafritz sought discovery in the form of requests
for production of medical records and interrogatories from
Wright in August 1993.
38. Respondent filed incomplete and unverified answers and
failed to produce the requested medical reports. He did
not advise his client the information had been requested,
nor did he seek her help in obtaining it.
39. In January 1994, after deposing Wright, Defendant Cafritz
threatened to seek sanctions if the case was not dismissed.
Therefore, without his client’s knowledge or consent,
Respondent agreed to a dismissal of Cafritz with prejudice.
40. In late 1993, and early 1994, Respondent communicated
with Wright infrequently. He gave her last minute notice
of a scheduled independent medical exam and of her
need to obtain her medical records. He did not inform her
that defendant Donahue moved for summary judgement or
that Respondent had filed a response on her behalf one
month late.
41. Defense counsel for both defendants (Donahue &
Dynalectric) continued to press Respondent to no avail for
complete interrogatory answers from Wright and for medical
reports so that the nature of their client’s involvement
and the extent of plaintiff’s medical damages could be
determined.