Disciplinary Board Disciplinary Actions - Virginia State Bar

42. In late August 1994, Dynalectric filed a motion for judgement
on the pleadings for summary judgement to which
Respondent did not respond and filed a motion to compel
discovery which the Court granted. At that time,
Respondent informed Wright that Dynalectric had been
brought into the lawsuit, however, he did not inform her
that she had no legal recourse against Dynalectric or why.
43. Following the August motions, Respondent became even
more unresponsive to Wright’s case. He submitted interrogatory
answers that were not signed by his client; he
attended a scheduled mediation on November 8, 1994
without full preparation; he did not attend the second
deposition of Donahue, and he did not prepare and circulate
a pretrial statement to opposing counsel in January
1995 as required by the Court’s scheduling order.
44. The week before the pretrial conference set for Monday,
January 23, 1995, Respondent received notice of a hearing
scheduled for the same day in a case in federal court in
the Eastern District of Virginia.
45. On the Friday before the pretrial conference, Respondent
called opposing counsel and advised him that Wright
would provide him with her medical reports and that
Respondent would be unable to attend the pretrial conference.
46. He faxed a letter to Wright informing her that it was
appropriate for him to withdraw from the case, citing a
conflict in his schedule and the distant location of his
office.
47. On the morning of the pretrial conference, Respondent
placed a telephone call to the chambers of the presiding
judge and sought to withdraw from the case. When his
request was rejected by the Court, Respondent did not
appear for the pretrial conference.
48. The conference went forward resulting in the dismissal of
the case.
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 2-108. (C) and (D) * * *
DR 6-101. (A)(1) and (2), (B), (C) and (D) * * *
DR 7-101. (A) (1) and (3) * * *
VSB DOCKET NO. 00-031-2092 (Thomas)
49. Respondent represented Anthony Thomas (hereinafter
Thomas or Complainant) at a criminal trial in the
Petersburg Circuit Court in October 1998. Thomas was
found guilty, and on November 23, 1998, Respondent filed
a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals.
50. On March 24, 1999, Complainant wrote Respondent
requesting a copy of the petition for appeal. On April 1,
1999, Respondent wrote to Complainant advising him the
petition had not yet been prepared. On May 3, 1999,
disciplinary actions
Complainant wrote again to Respondent and asked for a
copy of the petition for appeal.
51. Respondent filed the petition on June 16, 1999, but did not
forward a copy of the petition to Complainant.
52. The Court of Appeals denied Complainant’s appeal on
September 9, 1999. On October 1, 1999, Respondent
attempted to send Complainant a copy of the notice at the
Mecklenburg Correctional Center, where he was no longer
housed. The letter was returned to Respondent notifying
him Respondent was no longer at that facility.
53. On October 7, 1999, Respondent filed a petition for appeal
with the Supreme Court of Virginia, which was denied on
January 14, 2000.
54. On February 18, 2000, Respondent once again wrote to
Complainant at the Mecklenburg Correctional Center to
advise him that his appeal to the Supreme Court was
denied. This letter was also returned to Respondent and
placed in Complainant’s file.
55. Respondent would argue that following the return of the
second letter, his office contacted the Department of
Corrections, which confirmed Complainant’s new address.
56. During the time he prepared Complainant’s appeals to the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, Respondent
failed to adequately communicate with Complainant.
57. Complainant discovered after eight (8) months and many
attempts to contact Respondent, that his appeal to the
Supreme Court had been denied.
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) and (D) * * *
Upon consideration hereof, it is ORDERED that
Respondent comply with the following terms:
1. Respondent shall be suspended from the practice of
law for a period of four (4) months beginning August
16, 2002, and shall not accept any new clients between
the date of the acceptance of this agreement by a panel of
the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board and August 16,
2002, who require anything more than consultations
and/or the preparation of documents.
2. Respondent agrees to hire a law office management consultant
(approved by the Virginia State Bar) to help organize
his practice. The consultant should be hired and
in a position to complete his/her work prior to
Respondent’s return from suspension. Respondent
shall pay all costs associated with the consultant.
3. Respondent shall enroll and attend four (4) hours of
Continuing Legal Education Credits in state Civil
Procedure, which four (4) hours shall not be applied
toward your annual Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
requirements. You are to certify in writing your com-
V i r g i n i a L a w y e r R e g i s t e r 5