Photos Were Illustrative Only

A public reprimand without terms was imposed by a subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board for lack of candor to a tribunal and with Bar Counsel

Respondent represented Mr. Mahdi Ahmad Norozi in his divorce from his wife, Harwaa Akhond. Mr. Norozi alleged that his wife and her family engaged in a religious practice involving self-mutilation. He alleged that this practice takes place during the Shia Muslim holiday of Ashura, which was on October 1, 2017.

On September 15, 2017, Respondent filed a motion for pendente lite relief, in which he requested an order protecting his client and his minor children against acts of family abuse and violence by Ms. Akhond. Plaintiffs counsel and Complainant Travis Van Hook requested that the parties appear at calendar control, and during the September 20, 2017 calendar control hearing, Respondent presented photos of Ashura practices. Respondent stated that the photos, which depicted bloodied children, were actual photos  of the couple’s children. Based on viewing the photos, the court said it would hear an emergency motion for a protective order.

Respondent said that his client dropped off the photos with his assistant, who left them on his desk. The photos were large color prints in an envelope, and they were not accompanied by a note. Respondent acknowledged that prior to presenting the photos at the calendar control hearing, he made no effort to verify what the photos actually depicted.

Following the September 20, 2017 calendar control hearing, Mr. Van Hook emailed the photos to his client Ms. Akhond, who verified that the photos Respondent had presented did not depict her or her children.

Despite this information, on September 25, 2017, Respondent filed a motion for an emergency protective order. The motion attached five photos, which he stated represented the Ashura tradition. In the motion, Respondent made no attempt to correct his previous misrepresentation to the court.

At the September 28, 2017 hearing, Respondent acknowledged that he had since learned that the photos he had previously presented were mere examples, and were not of the
couple’s children. He said that a mother who is seen in the photos looked much like his client’s wife, and that at the time he presented the photos, he did not know they were from a website.

He stipulated that he did not correct the misstatement.

In the bar investigation

Respondent told the bar’s investigator that just before the September 28, 2017 hearing, he went to calendar control and told the court that the motion was not urgent because the pictures were not of the actual family. Respondent had no documentation of this claimed visit to calendar control, despite the fact that attorneys are not permitted to see a calendar control judge in this court unless they first fill out the attorney portion of a calendar control order. This is known as a “blue sheet” because it must be printed on blue paper.

The reprimand was an agreed disposition. (Mike Frisch)