Reciprocal discipline has been imposed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit based on a Virginia license revocation

The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoked Respondent’s law license after finding that she violated multiple rules of professional conduct in two separate lawsuits. In finding revocation to be the appropriate sanction, the Board reasoned:

The evidence presented in this proceeding demonstrate[s] that Respondent intentionally misused the judicial process by failing to abide by court rules concerning discovery in the Suffolk lawsuit, falsely accusing Judge Daffron and Judge Bondurant of improper or criminal behavior, submitting false information about settlement in the Suffolk lawsuit, and engaging in rude and disruptive behavior during hearings in both the Charles City and Suffolk lawsuits. The harmful consequences of Respondent’s actions include awards of sanctions against her clients in both lawsuits, and the inevitable embarrassment and distress Judge Bondurant, Judge Daffron, and opposing counsel in both lawsuits endured as Respondent engaged in her years-long campaign of baseless attacks on their competence, reputation, and professionalism. Revocation is further supported by Respondent’s multiple acts of misconduct in both lawsuits, as they reflect a pattern of disdain for the courts and the judicial process.

In its consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors applicable to the appropriate sanction, the Board found that the absence of a prior disciplinary record, Respondent’s lack of a dishonest motive, and the payment of restitution, albeit by Respondent’s malpractice carrier, were mitigating factors.

The aggravating factors far outweighed the mitigating factors, however. The evidence reflects a pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses; Respondent’s bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process by failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; Respondent’s refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her misconduct;  the vulnerability of Respondent’s victims, her clients; and Respondent’s substantial experience in the practice of law.

As to the challenge to Virginia’s bar regulation processes

Respondent argues that Virginia’s attorney discipline procedures constitute an unlawful usurpation of authority statutorily delegated only to the state’s courts. In Respondent’s view, this attorney discipline scheme contravenes not only the governing statutes, but also the state’s constitution, resulting in the type of grave injustice that would undermine this Court’s reliance on it and preclude imposition of the presumptive reciprocal discipline.

Authority to discipline attorneys in Virginia is vested by statute in the state’s Supreme Court. The court’s latitude is broad…

The Supreme Court of Virginia has considered arguments like those advanced by Respondent and has concluded that its attorney discipline procedures pass muster.

Respondent had previously served with the Virginia Bar Counsel (Mike Frisch)