Preview:

VIRGINIA:
In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court
Building in the City of Richmond on Friday, the  20th day of February,
2004.
Jeffrey Bourke Rice,                                                                                    Appellant,
against                                                                  Record No.       031823
                                                                         VSB Docket No.   02-052-0197
Virginia State Bar,                                                                                     Appellee.
Upon an appeal of right from an order
entered by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board.
Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument by the
appellant, in proper person, and by counsel for the appellee, the
Court is of opinion there is error in the order appealed from.
I.    Rule  1.3(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct
The record supports the finding of the Virginia State Bar
Disciplinary Board  (“Disciplinary Board”) that Jeffery Bourke Rice
(“Rice”) violated Rule  1.3(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct
(“[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.”)
On February  8,  2001, Curtis Lee Thompson  (“Thompson”) retained
Rice as counsel to represent him in seeking a sentence reduction in
the Circuit Court of Madison County.    Pursuant to Code  §  19.2-303,
the sentence reduction was possible only so long as Thompson remained
in a local jail.    Thompson had been in jail for over a year and was
subject to being transferred to the custody of the state Department
of Corrections at any time, which would foreclose reconsideration of
his sentence.    Although Rice was aware of these circumstances and
could have taken action within a matter of a few days, he failed to
obtain the necessary documentation and to file a motion to reconsider




with the trial court until March  21,  2001.    Along with the motion,
Rice filed a praecipe requesting that the matter be placed on the
trial court’s April  11th motions’ day docket.    Thompson was
transferred to the custody of the Department of Corrections on March
22,  2001 and his motion to reconsider was denied when it was heard on
April  11th.
Upon review of the facts presented, the Court is of the opinion
that there is no error in the Disciplinary Board’s finding that Rice
failed to exercise proper diligence as required by Rule  1.3(a).
II.    Rule  8.1(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct
The Disciplinary Board’s determination that Rice violated Rule
8.1(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct is not supported by the
Disciplinary Board’s findings of fact.
Following the filing of a complaint against Rice by Thompson,
the Disciplinary Board sent Rice a copy of Thompson’s complaint.    On
May  8,  2002, Rice met with a Virginia State Bar investigator.    Rice
received written notices on August  21 and September  26,  2002 that his
appearance was required at a November  19,  2002 disciplinary committee
hearing.    On October  22,  2002, Rice was personally served with a
summons to appear at the November  19th hearing.    Despite three forms
of notice, Rice did not appear at the November  19th hearing,
apparently because he failed to note the date on his calendar.
Rule  8.1(c) provides that a lawyer shall not  “fail to respond to
a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary
authority.”    In argument before this Court, Rice suggested that Rule
8.1(c) is inapplicable to this case because a summons to appear at a
disciplinary hearing cannot be considered a demand for information.
2




He asked the Court to hold that  8.1(c) cannot be used as a basis to
sanction a lawyer for failure to appear at a disciplinary hearing.
The purpose of Rule  8.1 is to ensure a lawyer’s cooperation in
maintaining the integrity of the bar.    The rule does not define the
phrase  “demand for information.”    We hold that a hearing before a
disciplinary committee may be a demand for information and an
integral part of an investigation of misconduct.    A hearing provides
the first opportunity for the Bar, in the course of its
investigation, to obtain testimony under oath from the respondent and
others.    A summons to appear at a hearing, if it is found that a
purpose of the hearing is to gather sworn testimony from the
respondent, may be considered a demand for information.
While Rule  8.1(c) may be violated by failure to appear at a
hearing before a disciplinary committee or Board, in this case, the
Disciplinary Board’s findings of fact do not support its conclusion
that Rice violated the rule.    While the Disciplinary Board found that
Rice failed to appear, it made no finding that the committee was
unable to gather information from Rice as a result of Rice’s failure
to appear.    Therefore, the Disciplinary Board’s determination that
the Bar proved a violation of Rule  8.1(c) by clear and convincing
evidence is unsubstantiated.    This charge is dismissed.
III.    The Sanction
In its order, the Disciplinary Board suspended Rice’s license to
practice law for one year.    The sanction was based on Rice’s
violation of Rule  1.3(a) and Rule  8.1(c).    Because we have dismissed
the Board’s finding that Rice violated Rule  8.1(c), we will remand
the matter to the Disciplinary Board to reconsider the sanction to
3




determine whether the one-year suspension is merited for Rice’s
violation of Rule  1.3(a) alone.
Accordingly, the order of the Disciplinary Board, dated May  5,
2003, is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for
reconsideration of the sanction for Rice’s violation of Rule  1.3(a).
4




This order shall be certified to the Virginia State Bar
Disciplinary Board and shall be published in the Virginia Reports.
A Copy,
Teste:
Patricia H. Krueger, Clerk
JUSTICE KOONTZ, JUSTICE LEMONS, and SENIOR JUSTICE COMPTON, dissent
from Sections II and III.
5

Download 1031823.pdf

Virginia Law