Disciplinary Board Disciplinary Actions - Virginia State Bar

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 [Editor’s Note: Respondent has noted an appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court.] BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF BEVERLY DIANE CRAWFORD VSB Docket No. 98-032-1130 ORDER OF REVOCATION THIS MATTER came on January 25, 2002, and again for further proceedings on May 17, 2002, before a duly convened panel of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“Board”), comprised of John A. Dezio, Chair, Chester J. Cahoon, Jr., Lay Member, Bruce T. Clark, Richard J. Colten, and Peter A. Dingman, pursuant to a Subcommittee Determination (Certification) from the Virginia State Bar Third District, Section 2, Subcommittee. At the first hearing on this matter, on January 25, 2002, Beverly Diane Crawford (“Respondent”) appeared in person and at the hearing which was conducted on May 17, 2002, the Respondent did not appear after her request for a continuance had been denied. The Respondent, through these proceedings, has not been represented by counsel, with the exception that she had an attorney previously move for a continuance prior to the January hearing. That lawyer did not enter a general appearance on behalf of the Respondent. The Virginia State Bar appeared by counsel, Harry M. Hirsch, Deputy Bar Counsel. The matter was called for the first hearing on January 25, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., in the Supreme Court of Virginia Building, Hearing Room A, Richmond, Virginia. The Respondent did not answer the call of the docket, and the Clerk repaired to the hallway and called her name three times. There was no response from the Respondent or her representative. However, at 9:04 a.m., the Respondent entered the hearing room and was present until the hearing was continued during the proceedings. Respondent had filed two prior motions for a continuance of this hearing, one on January 22, 2002, and the second on January 24, 2002. Both motions were denied. The Respondent addressed the Board and stated that she had no witnesses and that she was prepared to proceed at that time. The Chair then swore the Court Reporter, Victoria V. Halasz, Chandler and Halasz, Inc., Post Office Box 9349, Richmond, Virginia 23227 (phone number: 804/730-1222), and polled the members of the Board sitting for this hearing as to whether any of them had any personal or financial interest which would interfere with or influence their unbiased determination of these matters. Each member of the Board, including the Chair, responded in the negative. Thereafter, the Bar called its first witness, Eric T. Hill, who submitted to direct examination. Part way through crossexamination, the Respondent asked for a recess and then moved for a continuance based upon her feeling ill. At 10:25 a.m., the matter was continued to May 17, 2002, at which time the Board reconvened with the same Board members present. The matter, after due notice, was again called on Friday, May 17, 2002, at the State Corporation Commission, Courtroom C, in Richmond, Virginia. There was no answer by the Respondent to the calling of the docket, and Respondent’s name was called three times in the hallway at 9:05 a.m. Again, there was no answer by the Respondent or a representative. A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 2 disciplinary actions The Clerk called the Respondent’s name in Courtroom B as well, and still there was no answer. Respondent’s Motion for a further continuance, filed with the Board on May 16, 2002, had been denied and the matter proceeded. The Bar’s witnesses returned and the Bar was again represented by Harry M. Hirsch, Deputy Bar Counsel. All exhibits submitted by the Bar were admitted into evidence, and further testimony and argument was taken before the identical members of the Board who were present at the January 25, 2002, hearing. At this time, the Court Reporter was Jennifer L. Hairfield, also employed by the registered professional reporting firm of Chandler and Halasz, Inc., located at Post Office Box 9349, Richmond, Virginia 23227 (phone number: 804/730-1222). Additional testimony was taken from Linda W. Carpenter, custodian of the Commissioner of Accounts’ records, Fletcher D. Watson, Commissioner of Accounts for the Allegheny County Circuit Court, William T. Stone and Eric T. Hill, who was briefly recalled for further testimony. It appeared from the testimony and the exhibits introduced into evidence that the Respondent, Beverly Diane Crawford, represented the Estate of George D. Hill, Jr., as well as the Executrix of the same Estate, Gladys Hill Johnson, now also deceased. It was also proved by the Bar, by clear and convincing evidence, that all accountings of the Estate, with the exception of the second such accounting, were filed late, incomplete, and each with numerous errors and/or omissions. The evidence further established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Commissioner of Accounts filed several delinquency reports with the Circuit Court. Three Show-Cause Rules were entered by the Circuit Court, and the Respondent failed to address or remedy the exceptions to the accountings filed by the Commissioner of Accounts. The exceptions included issues involving attorneys’ fees found to be unreasonable and excessive, based on services rendered, Executrix fees, which were unjustified, and failure to account for estate property having a balance of approximately $80,000 in value. The evidence further established that the final accounting was defective, and there has not yet, nine and three-quarters years after the qualification of the Executrix (August 6, 1992), been a final distribution of the estate to Eric T. Hill. It should be noted that in or about October 1996, the Circuit Court for Allegheny County ordered that the remaining assets of the Estate of George D. Hill, Jr., be distributed to Eric T. Hill. As of May 17, 2002, Mr. Hill testified he has not yet received the residual of the estate. The Board unanimously finds that the Bar failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent, Beverly Diane Crawford, violated DR7-105(A) and that charge is therefore dismissed. The Board unanimously found that the Bar sustained its burden, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Respondent, Beverly Diane Crawford, violated DR2-105(A)-A lawyer’s fees shall be adequately explained to the client. Although the Respondent had been admonished numerous times by the Commissioner of Accounts regarding the unreasonableness of the fees charged by the Respondent to the Estate, she ignored the admonitions and failed to respond or remedy the problem. The Commissioner of Accounts testified that the fees charged, in excess of $21,000, were “unconscionable.” The Board further unanimously finds that the Respondent, Beverly Diane Crawford, violated DR6-101(B)-A lawyer shall attend promptly to matters undertaken for a client until completed or until the lawyer has properly and completely withdrawn from representing the client. It is obvious from the testimony and exhibits that the evidence clearly and convinc
ingly established that the Estate has not yet been properly administered and distributed. The administration of the Estate has been pending for nine and three-quarters years. Throughout the handling of the administration of the Estate, the Respondent failed to file accurate or timely accountings. Property remains unaccounted for, and the October 19, 1996, Order from the Allegheny Circuit Court has not yet been complied with. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS The Board took into consideration all of the evidence in the instant matter as well as the prior disciplinary record of the Respondent. There have been two prior private reprimands and two prior public reprimands issued against the Respondent. The Board further took into consideration the ABA sanction guidelines as well as the Respondent’s unwillingness to cooperate with the disciplinary system, and specifically the Board, in this instant matter. The Show Cause Rule entered on January 29, 2002, by this Board based upon Respondent’s failure to comply with a prior Order entered by the Board is found to be moot and is thereby dismissed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the license to practice law in the Courts of this Commonwealth heretofore issued to Beverly Diane Crawford be, and the same hereby is REVOKED effective May 17, 2002. It is further ORDERED that costs shall be assessed against the Respondent in accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13(k)(10), and the Respondent shall comply therewith. ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2002. VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD By: John A. Dezio, First Vice Chair ■ ■ ■ BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF LUTHER CORNELIUS EDMONDS VSB Docket No. 98-022-2497 ORDER AND OPINION This matter came before the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board for hearing on April 26, 2002, before a duly convened panel of the Board consisting of Thaddeus T. Crump, Lay Member, J. Rudy Austin, Robert L. Freed, Joseph R. Lassiter Jr., and William M. Moffet, presiding, pursuant to a certification of the Second District, Section II Subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar served on the Respondent, Luther Cornelius Edmonds (the “Respondent”), on August 1, 2001. Richard E. Slaney (“Assistant Bar Counsel”) appeared as Counsel for the Vi rginia State Bar (the “VSB”). Respondent a p p e a red p ro se. The court reporter for the proceeding, Va l e r i e L. Schmit, RPR, of Chandler and Halasz, Post Office Box 9349, Richmond, Vi rginia 23227, (804) 730-1222, was duly sworn by M r. Moffet, the Chair of the Board. All legal notices of the date and place of this hearing were timely sent by the Clerk of the Disciplinary System in the manner prescribed by law. The Chair disciplinary actions polled the Board members and determined that no member had a conflict of interest that would preclude him from serving. The exhibits presented by Assistant Bar Counsel on behalf of the VSB were admitted into evidence as Exhibits 1 through 17 without objection. The exhibits presented by Respondent were admitted as Exhibits 2 through 4 without objection and 5 over objection. As Respondent’s Answer filed in the above referenced matter admitted almost all of the allegations of fact set out in the Certification, very little of the evidence presented was in controversy. The evidence may be summarized as follows: 1. At all times material to this hearing, Respondent was an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 2. Respondent formerly served as a Judge of the Norfolk Circuit Court and resigned his judgeship during a hearing on charges against him held before the Commonwealth of Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission (the “JIRC”). Respondent became involved in a dispute with the other judges of the Norfolk Circuit Court regarding bonds posted by bondsmen in the Norfolk Circuit Court. During a heated discussion, one of the judges accused Respondent of having a relationship with a certain Ms. Battle, a bondswoman. The alleged conflicts of interest arising out of Respondent’s handling of bond cases involving Ms. Battle led to a the JIRC inquiry. As a result of these events, Respondent resigned his position as a circuit court judge. 3. Respondent thereafter filed a civil suit (civil action no. 2:97cv364) (the “JIRC Suit”) in the United States Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Federal Court”) against eight of his former judicial colleagues (the “Norfolk Judges”), Albert Teich, Clerk of the Norfolk Circuit Court (“Teich”), JIRC and its former chairman, and Reno Harp III, former Counsel to JIRC (collectively, the “Defendants”). The JIRC Suit consisted of eight counts presenting claims regarding the motivation and conduct of the persons who brought certain matters to the attention of JIRC, who testified in its proceedings, or who conducted its proceedings. The relief sought in the JIRC Suit included compensatory damages of Forty Million and 00/100 Dollars ($40,000,000.00), punitive damages of Ten Million and 00/100 Dollars ($10,000,000.00), injunctive relief requiring that Respondent be reinstated as a state circuit court judge, and Respondent’s attorney’s fees and costs in bringing the JIRC Suit. 4. The Defendants moved to dismiss the JIRC Suit on several grounds. Following the filing of written briefs and oral argument, the Honorable Robert E. Payne (“Judge Payne”) ruled: “Having sought to discern the basis for Edmonds’ claims, the Court concludes that they are highly suspect, if not entirely lacking in merit. However, it is not necessary to reach the merits of Edmonds’ federal claims because the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain them.” Edmonds v. Clarkson, et al., 996 F.Supp. 541 (E. D. Va. 1998). Judge Payne held that an established constitutional principle known as the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine clearly precluded V i r g i n i a L a w y e r R e g i s t e r 9
Page 1 and 2: disciplinary actions Disciplinary A
Page 3 and 4: sidered by a duly convened panel of
Page 5 and 6: 42. In late August 1994, Dynalectri
Page 7: where he remained for five years. F
Page 11 and 12: ORDER AND OPINION This matter came
Page 13 and 14: All other Charges of Misconduct wit
Page 15 and 16: These findings support violations o
Page 17 and 18: engaged in conduct in 2000 which in
Page 19 and 20: RULE 8.4 Misconduct * * * (b) and (
Page 21 and 22: DISSENTING OPINION Joseph R. Lassit
Page 23 and 24: The Panel confirms the accuracy of
Page 25 and 26: negative. Respondent, by counsel, a
Page 27 and 28: 13. Mrs. Crittenden followed up wit
Page 29 and 30: RULE 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party
Page 31 and 32: Disciplinary Procedure V, the Secon
Page 33 and 34: RULE 1.16 Declining Or Terminating
Page 35 and 36: Upon satisfactory proof that these
Page 37 and 38: a t t o rney licensed to practice l
Page 39 and 40: 1. You are to refund $3,750.00 to t

Disciplinary Board Disciplinary Actions - Virginia State Bar

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?