A lawyer’s misdeeds spur state bar to revisit proposal

[jowey]

Virginia Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Federal Fraud Charges

A Woodbridge attorney has pleaded guilty to defrauding his clients out of more than $3.5 million.

Prosecutors say 40-year-old Stephen T. Conrad pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal fraud charges in U.S. District Court.

Conrad worked on personal injury and workers' compensation cases. Court documents say until last December he forged his clients' signatures and misappropriated funds coming from insurance companies against which claims were made.

Records show Conrad used the money to pay for his mortgage, credit card bills and travel.

He faces up to 20 years in prison, fines and restitution. Sentencing is set for November 14.

One has to note that it took the Fed's to press criminal charges against this Virginia attorney.

A lawyer?s misdeeds spur state bar to revisit proposal
By Marc Davis
The Virginian-Pilot
© March 16, 2008

It took one really bad lawyer to force the Virginia State Bar to do an about-face.

It started Oct. 19, with a plan to protect clients from dishonest lawyers. The proposal would make it harder for lawyers to secretly settle lawsuits and other claims for insurance without their clients’ knowledge and then keep the money.

This angered trial lawyers. They said there is no evidence that Virginia lawyers are crooks, so the plan was unnecessary.

The vote wasn’t close: The State Bar voted 54-7 to scrap the plan.

Then disaster struck.

Less than two months later, on Dec. 5, a Northern Virginia lawyer, Stephen T. Conrad of Woodbridge, was arrested and accused of doing exactly what the plan was designed to prevent. He settled hundreds of cases without his clients’ approval, then signed their names to settlement checks and kept the money.

Now, embarrassed by the Conrad case, the State Bar is reconsidering the protection plan it rejected in October.

Conrad was charged with embezzlement and forging his clients’ signatures. He surrendered his law license on Dec. 14, acknowledging that he “could not successfully defend” against the allegations. He is being held in the Prince William County jail.

Bar leaders said Conrad misappropriated at least $3.7 million. His misconduct dates to at least 2002 and continued through 2007, according to criminal charges and the State Bar’s investigation.

To prevent future Conrads, the bar’s proposal would require insurance companies to notify clients directly whenever settlement money is paid to lawyers on their behalf. That way, lawyers could not keep the money without their clients’ knowledge.

Currently, insurance companies notify only the lawyers, and they, in turn, tell their clients and pay the money.

The Virginia Trial Lawyers Association strongly opposed the plan. Now, the group is backpedaling.

In a letter to the State Bar last month, the association’s president, Charles J. Zauzig III of Woodbridge, said his group is happy to work with the bar to reconsider the issue.

And that’s exactly what will happen.

State Bar President Howard W. Martin Jr., a Norfolk lawyer, has sent the proposal back to a study committee for more work.

The Conrad case changed everything, Martin said. “That got the attention of the Virginia trial lawyers and some plaintiff lawyers on our board,” he said. “They said maybe it’s time to take another look at this.”



Conrad, 40, has been practicing law since 1993. He mainly represents clients with personal injury or workers’ compensation claims.

In November, a judge appointed a receiver to take over Conrad’s law office after repeated complaints of misconduct. In its court filing, the bar cited details in at least five cases in which Conrad settled cases without his clients’ knowledge and kept their money. The clients:

- In 2004, Conrad settled a personal injury case for $14,000. For years, he lied to the client about the settlement and refused to return her phone calls. He finally told the client in 2007, after she threatened to go to the State Bar, and he sent her some money.

- In 2005, Conrad settled a personal injury case for $5,000. The client found out two years later from a third party. Conrad told the State Bar he couldn’t pay the money because of medical liens. He failed to produce subpoenaed documents.

nIn 2005, Conrad settled three personal injury claims arising from a traffic accident for $10,500. The clients found out two years later after contacting the insurance company.

- In 2006, Conrad settled a personal injury case for $6,800. One year later, the client still wasn’t aware of the settlement when the State Bar told him about it.

- In July 2007, Conrad settled a workers’ compensation case for $22,500. The client found out a few months later after independently researching his case. Conrad promised to pay the client within 24 hours, but didn’t.

There is no definitive figure for how much Conrad is suspected of misappropriating. At a meeting of the bar’s executive committee, Martin said Conrad mishandled at least $3.7 million from about 250 clients.

“It’s a moving number,” said the court-appointed receiver, Richard S. Mendelson, an Alexandria lawyer. “It changes every day.”

Mendelson said he is reviewing files of more than 500 clients, some going back 10 years or more. He will file a report with the judge in late March, but it may be sealed, pending Conrad’s criminal case.



Would the proposed rules have prevented Conrad’s misdeeds?

That was debated last month by the State Bar’s executive committee in Richmond.

Irving M. Blank, a Richmond lawyer on the committee, said “there’s no question in my mind” Conrad would have been caught sooner had his clients known he was settling their cases and getting their checks. The misappropriation, he said, would have been much less than $3 million.

“The bar has an obligation to protect the public from something like this,” Blank told the committee. “If we don’t do something, members of the Fourth Estate are going to roast us.”

Another committee member, Edward L. Chambers Jr. of Yorktown, said if the public found out the bar rejected the insurance plan in October, followed by Conrad’s arrest on embezzlement charges , it would look terrible.

Virginia Beach lawyer Judith L. Rosenblatt said she was less concerned with public perception than in public protection. She cited the cases of Conrad and Troy A. Titus, a Virginia Beach lawyer who was disbarred in 2005 and is accused in lawsuits of misappropriating more than $2 million belonging to clients and investors.

“We look horrible, and we should look horrible, because we are not policing ourselves,” Rosenblatt said.

The proposal has its critics.

Some lawyers said requiring insurance companies to communicate directly with clients would interfere with the attorney-client relationship. They said insurance companies are adversaries with clients and should communicate through their lawyers.

One lawyer, George E. Allen III of Richmond, wrote to the State Bar last year: “The problem is not significant enough in Virginia to justify the intervention in the attorney-client relationship.”

Other lawyers complained that the plan would invade a client’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and might invite relatives to steal the client’s settlement check.

One lawyer wrote that a plaintiff’s physical safety might be endangered if his location were revealed to a third party by the insurance company’s letter.

Twelve states have rules or laws requiring insurance companies to notify clients directly when they make a payment to a lawyer. The American Bar Association recommends that every state pass such a law.

In response to critics, Christopher J. Habenicht, a suburban Richmond lawyer who chairs the bar’s Public Protection Task Force, defended the insurance notification plan.

“The task force considers the intrusion into the attorney-client relationship to be minimal and outweighed by the salutary effect of the recommended statute at negligible cost,” he wrote in October. “The task force is of the opinion that if the statute prevented one theft … it would well serve its purpose.”

After Conrad’s arrest, the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association agreed to reconsider the issue.

“We will work with the bar to try to come up with some type of solution,” Zauzig said. “We’re not closing the door on anything.”

Just found this little item on another one of Virginia's attorneys.

My girlfriends attorney documented in this article N.Va. Lawyer Arrested, Accused of Embezzlement did the same thing. This is a chronic problem with Virginia, when the Bar changed it's policy in 2000 it avoided addressing "strategy" complaints from "disgruntled" clients, not bothering to weed through the "whining clients" it provided a perfect shelter for "bad apples".

I particularly like the claim made by the trial lawyers "there is no evidence that Virginia lawyers are crooks, so the plan was unnecessary.", of course there is not any evidence, it is not collected. The Virginia State Bar has no idea who is badly representing their clients or not representing them competently - classic avoidance, without evidence there is no crime, just victims of a harvest.

[Rigged]

One has to note that it took the Fed's to press criminal charges against this Virginia attorney.



Just found this little item on another one of Virginia's attorneys.

My girlfriends attorney documented in this article N.Va. Lawyer Arrested, Accused of Embezzlement did the same thing. This is a chronic problem with Virginia, when the Bar changed it's policy in 2000 it avoided addressing "strategy" complaints from "disgruntled" clients, not bothering to weed through the "whining clients" it provided a perfect shelter for "bad apples".

I particularly like the claim made by the trial lawyers "there is no evidence that Virginia lawyers are crooks, so the plan was unnecessary.", of course there is not any evidence, it is not collected. The Virginia State Bar has no idea who is badly representing their clients or not representing them competently - classic avoidance, without evidence there is no crime, just victims of a harvest.

Um..were all crooks.

[jowey]

Um..were all crooks.

Huh ?
"were all crooks." - yesterday but today were not....

Thing is that no one can identify who is a crook or who is not.... forget about who were a crook.

[Rigged]

Huh ?
"were all crooks." - yesterday but today were not....

Thing is that no one can identify who is a crook or who is not.... forget about who were a crook.

Ha. I meant lawyers, a little self deprecating humor.

[jowey]

Ha. I meant lawyers, a little self deprecating humor.

Thought as much.....

..... seriously though, once one hires one, a lawyer, one hopes that they would represent their position in court. I was dumbfounded, when the ones we retained started making excuses as to why they did not bother researching the case, just a look at the evidence, a phone call to the doctors or therapists, a date that would mean that the statute of limitations applied. The Bar then responds that they do not address "strategy" issues, but one can hire another. "Strategy" is the profession and the oversight institution dismisses it.

What I like is the professionalism on the attorney forums, the name calling, no solutions, no analysis - if they think I am stupid then do like everyone else and not read the junk that I write. Attorneys, law enforcement and religious zealots share a trait - trust us we are right, you are wrong or stupid. I might be but tell me why my attorney avoided representing my case with "the police lie all the time", "the video is irrelevant", "doctors, therapists and witnesses" do not matter - dont bother, been there done that.

Eh, it does not matter, with the exception of my girlfriends deteriorating health and depression, life goes on. I did contact Ms. Gould who initiated the "Public Protection Task Force" for the Virginia State Bar - see what happens. Figure that if the above items that I identified are irrelevant, then "presumption of guilt" is the paradigm being implemented and "rule of law" is a fraud. Guess that depends on what "law's" are being executed and how or who is interpreting them, which turns into whimsy.

So when someone claims that something is "against the law", I can respond with a litany of experiences as I stood between a stalker who was trying to assault, stalk and kill his wife for escaping. The family that took her in before I met her who was terrorized and did get ineffectual restraining orders. We have experienced the effectiveness of "rule of law", "officers", attorneys and courts.

So when I watch "Rove" and the Bush administration thumb its nose at silly subpoena's in the national theater, I chuckle. Here we have an administration that has allegedly committed war crimes and nothing is done, excuses are made, those that do not agree are called names. Whose interpretation of the law are we supposed to obey ? Silly whimsy, people wonder why crime is rampant, what is crime ? what isnt crime ? why do we have the largest prison populations ? Is it some silly person screaming over the phone about killing people or a dictator bluffing about WMD's - what type of response is warranted ?

I can also remember conversations with my father who was a Virginia attorney about the profession. He would start talking about "clients of choice" and how to process those that were not. Course I would state that I thought that American law was supposed to be applied equally to all citizens - he chuckled, I found out different when he divorced my mother.....

Eh, this subject provides amusement for me, still hope that I can prove to my girlfriend that there is some substance in this thing called the "law". Her experiences proved me wrong. What do I know, I am just a stupid old ex-Marine.

[Rigged]

Thought as much.....

..... seriously though, once one hires one, a lawyer, one hopes that they would represent their position in court. I was dumbfounded, when the ones we retained started making excuses as to why they did not bother researching the case, just a look at the evidence, a phone call to the doctors or therapists, a date that would mean that the statute of limitations applied. The Bar then responds that they do not address "strategy" issues, but one can hire another. "Strategy" is the profession and the oversight institution dismisses it.

What I like is the professionalism on the attorney forums, the name calling, no solutions, no analysis - if they think I am stupid then do like everyone else and not read the junk that I write. Attorneys, law enforcement and religious zealots share a trait - trust us we are right, you are wrong or stupid. I might be but tell me why my attorney avoided representing my case with "the police lie all the time", "the video is irrelevant", "doctors, therapists and witnesses" do not matter - dont bother, been there done that.


Eh, it does not matter, with the exception of my girlfriends deteriorating health and depression, life goes on. I did contact Ms. Gould who initiated the "Public Protection Task Force" for the Virginia State Bar - see what happens. Figure that if the above items that I identified are irrelevant, then "presumption of guilt" is the paradigm being implemented and "rule of law" is a fraud. Guess that depends on what "law's" are being executed and how or who is interpreting them, which turns into whimsy.

So when someone claims that something is "against the law", I can respond with a litany of experiences as I stood between a stalker who was trying to assault, stalk and kill his wife for escaping. The family that took her in before I met her who was terrorized and did get ineffectual restraining orders. We have experienced the effectiveness of "rule of law", "officers", attorneys and courts.

So when I watch "Rove" and the Bush administration thumb its nose at silly subpoena's in the national theater, I chuckle. Here we have an administration that has allegedly committed war crimes and nothing is done, excuses are made, those that do not agree are called names. Whose interpretation of the law are we supposed to obey ? Silly whimsy, people wonder why crime is rampant, what is crime ? what isnt crime ? why do we have the largest prison populations ? Is it some silly person screaming over the phone about killing people or a dictator bluffing about WMD's - what type of response is warranted ?

I can also remember conversations with my father who was a Virginia attorney about the profession. He would start talking about "clients of choice" and how to process those that were not. Course I would state that I thought that American law was supposed to be applied equally to all citizens - he chuckled, I found out different when he divorced my mother.....

Eh, this subject provides amusement for me, still hope that I can prove to my girlfriend that there is some substance in this thing called the "law". Her experiences proved me wrong. What do I know, I am just a stupid old ex-Marine.

I am extremely sorry to hear about your ordeal.

I think there is NO excuse for professional incompetence. None. Zero tolerance. The bar of overseers in Virgina is flat wrong in this situation. Our interest is to represent our clients to the best of our professional abilities. If you fall an inch below that, in my opinion (and many others also) that is incompetence (ethically and professionally).

We are to--first and foremost-- abide by the client's wishes. They decide the objective of their representation. We make the decisions regarding how to make that objective possible and in a perfect world we would all go home happy. I agree with you one-hundred percent in this instance. With almost everything you have said here. Unfortunately, that is just the way it is. Some of us work very hard, some of us don't live up to our obligations. I can't speak for Virgina but the majority of lawyers I work with are not like that. They are very dedicated people who work for cause, not money. I think though when you stop caring about what your doing is when you can easily slip into being lax and irresponsible.

[jowey]

I am extremely sorry to hear about your ordeal.

I think there is NO excuse for professional incompetence. None. Zero tolerance. The bar of overseers in Virgina is flat wrong in this situation. Our interest is to represent our clients to the best of our professional abilities. If you fall an inch below that, in my opinion (and many others also) that is incompetence (ethically and professionally).

We are to--first and foremost-- abide by the client's wishes. They decide the objective of their representation. We make the decisions regarding how to make that objective possible and in a perfect world we would all go home happy. I agree with you one-hundred percent in this instance. With almost everything you have said here. Unfortunately, that is just the way it is. Some of us work very hard, some of us don't live up to our obligations. I can't speak for Virgina but the majority of lawyers I work with are not like that. They are very dedicated people who work for cause, not money. I think though when you stop caring about what your doing is when you can easily slip into being lax and irresponsible.

I agree, one reason why I keep this up, there are consequences.....

The other reason is that my girlfriend has given up, health is failing and this is not acceptable in this country. So I shout our story to the void, from the rooftops and mountain tops Well I thought that was dramatic....

Seriously though, I keep hearing that there are some "bad apples" out there, the question is what is being done about them ? In our situation I have identified avoidance by the institution to address such failures, a step backwards from their pre-2000 policies.

If I had a supporting "review" from the Bar and my grievance documented I could possibly take a malpractice claim to another and not be "dismissed". If they took the grievances, rated them and applied them to the attorney, other clients would know what type of professional they were hiring. This would provide incentive for the member to actually represent the client.

I suspect that they implemented the policy to avoid those that are "guilty" using this as a mechanism of doubt. So rather than facing the problem, reviewing the grievance and then through ratings dismiss it, the Virginia Bar chooses to avoid it and provide a niche for profiteering.

As it stands in Virginia they do not know how many "clients" have been processed. How many other clients did the attorneys that we retained "process", take their money and then in court tell them to plead guilty ? The bottom line is that the oversight institution does not know and cannot make any claim of "diligence" in its population.

I realize that this is acceptable and that I am beating a dead horse. After all who would have thought that "torture" would be made legal in this country.

[jowey]

I suspect that the problem of negligent representation is endemic to the profession in Virginia. This is based on economics, why expend resources "researching" a case when there is no consequence for "processing" a case - the low bidder on a contract cuts corners.

We have gone through ten law firms here in Virginia, skipping the first five for the time being, the five that followed either did not address written instructions, processed us or played phone tag. This one last year, did not respond to my letters questioning their change of invoice from a credit to a debit and numbers that did not add up or my request to provide a strategy that would clear my girlfriend of her remaining problems.

If we consider the Virginia State Bar's claim that the majority are ethical. The question is:
Do attorneys have a "Black List" of clients that are not of "choice" ?

I make this claim based upon our first five years experience (1989-95). It turned out that the husband in my girlfriends divorce got a Christian attorney. We wonder about this because of the following:

• The attorney threatened to "destroy" us.
• The attorney claimed that they were not being paid by the client.
• We had church people showing up in the day, giving us notes about "put to death. (law)".
• The attorney had the courts force us to release our street address and within months the stalking husband was in our neighborhood.
• A comment by a real estate agent claiming that our attorney was running for political office - we found out later that the Christian attorney is active politically.
• Our fourth attorney claimed "ethical indescretion's" but then dropped the issue after giving us explicit instructions - without explanation.

There is more, however the concern is that we will never be able to obtain competent counsel in Virginia. Whether because we are on some secret "attorney black list", the "pattern/demographic" that we fit in, an endemic problem with Virginia attorney's or we can only afford the "bad apples".

These failures by attorneys result in a cascade of events, increased risk, debts and "life" sink an individual deeper into the muck, some turn to crime, forced to desperate acts - feeding the machine.
What the heck

Funny, think I might finally have managed to get my girlfriend to get out of her Bible and go to an event next weekend. Would be nice if the "Christians" that send her Bible lessons would show up on her side and help her out, "Christians" only show up to persecute and threaten.

[Rigged]

Well I only know the bar policies of two states. I don't really know much about Virgina.

West's Annotated Code of Virginia Currentness
Title 54.1. Professions and Occupations
Subtitle IV. Professions Regulated by the Supreme Court (Refs & Annos)
+ Chapter 39. Attorneys (Refs & Annos)
>> Article 6. Revocation or Suspension of Licenses; Disbarment Proceedings
§ 54.1-3934. Revocation of license by Board


The Board of Bar Examiners may, for good cause, revoke any license issued by it at any time before there has been a qualification under it in any of the courts of this Commonwealth.


§ 54.1-3935. Procedure for revocation of license


A. If the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any circuit court of this Commonwealth observes, or if a complaint, verified by affidavit is made by any person to such court, that any attorney has been convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony or has violated the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, the court may assign the matter to the Virginia State Bar for investigation. Upon receipt of the report of the Virginia State Bar, the court may issue a rule against such attorney to show cause why his license to practice law shall not be revoked. If the complaint, verified by affidavit, is made by a district committee of the Virginia State Bar, the court shall issue a rule against the attorney to show cause why his license to practice law shall not be revoked.


B. If the rule is issued by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, the rule shall be returnable to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. At the time the rule is issued by the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice shall designate three circuit court judges to hear and decide the case. If the rule is issued by the Court of Appeals or a circuit court, the issuing court shall certify the fact of such issuance and the time and place of the hearing thereon, to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall designate three circuit court judges of circuits other than the circuit in which the case is pending to hear and decide the case. In proceedings under this section, the court shall adopt the Rules and Procedures described in Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13 of the Rules of Court.


C. Bar Counsel of the Virginia State Bar shall prosecute the case. Special counsel may be appointed to prosecute the case pursuant to § 2.2-510.


D. Upon the hearing, if the attorney is found guilty by the court, his license to practice law in this Commonwealth shall be revoked or suspended for such time as the court may prescribe. In lieu of revocation or suspension, the court may impose any other sanction authorized by Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13 of the Rules of Court.


E. The attorney, may, as of right, appeal from the judgment of the court to the Supreme Court pursuant to the procedure for filing an appeal from a trial court, as set forth in Part 5 of the Rules of Court. In any such appeal, the Supreme Court may, upon petition of the attorney, stay the effect of an order of suspension during the pendency of the appeal. Any order of reprimand shall be automatically stayed prior to or during the pendency of an appeal therefrom. No stay shall be granted in cases where the attorney's license to practice law has been revoked.


F. In any proceeding to revoke the license of an attorney, the attorney shall be entitled to representation by counsel.


G. Nothing in this section shall affect the right of a court to require from an attorney security for his good behavior, or to fine him for contempt of court.

straight form the horses patoot. I am really only knowledgeable with Conn, RI, Mass and Federal disbarment proceedings so this is the best I could fish out.

My understanding of this is that you need to file a complaint with the county clerk about that particular lawyers conduct. Then if you can fish up an affidavit (sworn statement) by your girlfriend and yourself and perhaps a disinterested party. You could have grounds for a disbarment or at least a hearing. Nothing gets a lawyers attention better than a big fat sheriff at your door with a summons.

I hope this helps.

DISCLAIMER: this is given as not as professional advice, simply as my opinion.

[jowey]

Well I only know the bar policies of two states. I don't really know much about Virgina.

West's Annotated Code of Virginia Currentness
Title 54.1. Professions and Occupations
Subtitle IV. Professions Regulated by the Supreme Court (Refs & Annos)
+ Chapter 39. Attorneys (Refs & Annos)
>> Article 6. Revocation or Suspension of Licenses; Disbarment Proceedings
§ 54.1-3934. Revocation of license by Board


The Board of Bar Examiners may, for good cause, revoke any license issued by it at any time before there has been a qualification under it in any of the courts of this Commonwealth.


§ 54.1-3935. Procedure for revocation of license


A. If the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any circuit court of this Commonwealth observes, or if a complaint, verified by affidavit is made by any person to such court, that any attorney has been convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony or has violated the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, the court may assign the matter to the Virginia State Bar for investigation. Upon receipt of the report of the Virginia State Bar, the court may issue a rule against such attorney to show cause why his license to practice law shall not be revoked. If the complaint, verified by affidavit, is made by a district committee of the Virginia State Bar, the court shall issue a rule against the attorney to show cause why his license to practice law shall not be revoked.


B. If the rule is issued by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, the rule shall be returnable to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. At the time the rule is issued by the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice shall designate three circuit court judges to hear and decide the case. If the rule is issued by the Court of Appeals or a circuit court, the issuing court shall certify the fact of such issuance and the time and place of the hearing thereon, to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall designate three circuit court judges of circuits other than the circuit in which the case is pending to hear and decide the case. In proceedings under this section, the court shall adopt the Rules and Procedures described in Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13 of the Rules of Court.


C. Bar Counsel of the Virginia State Bar shall prosecute the case. Special counsel may be appointed to prosecute the case pursuant to § 2.2-510.


D. Upon the hearing, if the attorney is found guilty by the court, his license to practice law in this Commonwealth shall be revoked or suspended for such time as the court may prescribe. In lieu of revocation or suspension, the court may impose any other sanction authorized by Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13 of the Rules of Court.


E. The attorney, may, as of right, appeal from the judgment of the court to the Supreme Court pursuant to the procedure for filing an appeal from a trial court, as set forth in Part 5 of the Rules of Court. In any such appeal, the Supreme Court may, upon petition of the attorney, stay the effect of an order of suspension during the pendency of the appeal. Any order of reprimand shall be automatically stayed prior to or during the pendency of an appeal therefrom. No stay shall be granted in cases where the attorney's license to practice law has been revoked.


F. In any proceeding to revoke the license of an attorney, the attorney shall be entitled to representation by counsel.


G. Nothing in this section shall affect the right of a court to require from an attorney security for his good behavior, or to fine him for contempt of court.

straight form the horses patoot. I am really only knowledgeable with Conn, RI, Mass and Federal disbarment proceedings so this is the best I could fish out.

My understanding of this is that you need to file a complaint with the county clerk about that particular lawyers conduct. Then if you can fish up an affidavit (sworn statement) by your girlfriend and yourself and perhaps a disinterested party. You could have grounds for a disbarment or at least a hearing. Nothing gets a lawyers attention better than a big fat sheriff at your door with a summons.

I hope this helps.

DISCLAIMER: this is given as not as professional advice, simply as my opinion.

Thanks, wish we had such a dialog over the years.....

I would be concerned about "filing charges" such as you identified. I admit that I lack communications skills. I have two examples that illustrate my concern with the Virginia courts.

The first time I was bitten by "defending oneself" in court, that was when the second attorney left us high and dry. The opposing counsel was lying to the courts, the judge listened to their evidence and then refused to listen to ours. I cleared my throat and said "your honor", he then said he had heard enough. I then responded that I thought that I had the "right" to present our material - wrong thing to say, he started pounding his little mallet, threats of contempt, contempt. We had pictures and documents to present that would have refuted the claims of opposing counsel.....

Another time with the CVS incident, after my attorney implied kangaroo courts I kept my mouth shut, I dreaded actually having to plead guilty myself, hate lying, I bit my tongue and my attorney did it for me. That judge went on a five minute rant or so it seemed against the prosecutor for his deal, without hearing the case. After the lying cop this totally dumbfounded me, there is a difference where a judge hears the case and then "delivers" sentence and one that does not and goes on a rant against their prosecutor without foundation. After such a diatribe what would the prosecutor do to the next Jowey..... After hearing that I wanted the video so badly, but my attorney would not respond to calls from my friends, myself or correspondence. Nothing like sitting in jail and not being able to contact your attorney, answering machines do not take collect calls from the jail - cute trick. Not to mention trying to make such a call from population.

If we are lucky and did file such charges with the court without counsel we run the risk of being in the wordsmith's theater (there is no fool like one who defends oneself) and a court biased in the favor of its own. I cannot help but wonder about others that also lack communications skills, easy victims of a wordsmith.

Right now we have achieved balance on the tightrope. This latest attorney has not responded to my requests about billing but did show up in court and did "something" - this attorney I can almost forgive, given the nature of the population. I have no confidence in this crap shoot, given our experiences what would the eleventh one be like ?

Oh man, just noticed your reference Code of Professional Responsibility was replaced in 2000 by Professional Guidelines and Rules of Professional Conduct. This occurred the year that my girlfriends attorney deserted, in 2000 I noticed this then and commented that this time because her attorney deserted she would get support - I was wrong. Following that the Bar dismisses complaints involving "strategy" which would fall under the old "Code of Professional Responsibility".

Maybe it applies after going through the courts, which means that one needs to convince an attorney to represent them or risk experiences that we have had with self representation - catch 22, no win scenario and back to my correspondence with Ms. Gould of the Virginia State Bar.

Again thanks for the civilized dialog, been called many names.....