Case Title: Taboada v. Daly Seven, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  All the Justices 
 
RYAN TABOADA 
 
 
      OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. 
v.  Record No. 051094 
 August 11, 2006 
 
DALY SEVEN, INC. 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE 
Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge 
 
I. 
 
In this proceeding, we consider whether an attorney 
violated Code § 8.01-271.1 as a result of conduct related to 
his filing a petition for rehearing in this Court. 
II. 
 
D. Stan Barnhill, an attorney licensed to practice law in 
this Commonwealth, represented Daly Seven, Inc. in Taboada v. 
Daly Seven, Inc., 271 Va. 313, 626 S.E.2d 428 (2006).  This 
Court held in its opinion in Taboada that a special 
relationship existed between an innkeeper and its guest, and 
that such relationship imposed certain duties upon the 
innkeeper to warn and protect its guests.  271 Va. at 326, 626 
S.E.2d at 434.  After this Court's opinion in Taboada was 
issued on March 3, 2006, Barnhill signed and filed as counsel 
of record a petition for rehearing on behalf of Daly Seven 
pursuant to Rules 5:39 and 5:39A. 
Barnhill made numerous assertions in the petition for 
rehearing regarding this Court's opinion.  Barnhill described 
 
2
this Court's opinion as "irrational and discriminatory" and 
"irrational at its core."  He wrote that the Court's opinion 
makes "an incredible assertion" and "mischaracterizes its 
prior case law."  Barnhill stated:  "George Orwell's fertile 
imagination could not supply a clearer distortion of the plain 
meaning of language to reach such an absurd result."  Barnhill 
argued in the petition that this Court's opinion "demonstrates 
so graphically the absence of logic and common sense." 
Barnhill wrote in boldface type that "Ryan Taboada may be 
the unfortunate victim of a crazed criminal assailant who 
emerged from the dark to attack him.  But Daly Seven will be 
the unfortunate victim of a dark and ill-conceived 
jurisprudence."  Barnhill also included the following 
statement in the petition:  "[I]f you attack the King, kill 
the King; otherwise, the King will kill you." 
This Court entered a rule to show cause that directed 
Barnhill to appear in person and show cause why this Court 
should not impose sanctions against him pursuant to Code 
§ 8.01-271.1.  The Court also directed that Barnhill file a 
brief in response to the rule. 
 
Barnhill filed a brief with the Clerk of this Court and 
appeared in person with counsel.  During the hearing, 
Barnhill, by counsel, expressed to this Court his apology and 
sincere regret for the language he used in the petition.  
 
3
Barnhill acknowledged that the language he used in the 
petition was "totally inappropriate and that it was a grave 
mistake and a serious error of judgment on his part to write 
the petition the way he did."  Barnhill also assured this 
Court that "he did not mean any disrespect." 
 
Barnhill informed this Court, through counsel, that he 
recognized the gravity of his mistake.  His counsel 
represented that "Mr. Barnhill has committed to abide by his 
firm's policy that no brief will be filed that has not been 
reviewed and approved by another partner in his firm." 
 
Barnhill represented in his brief that "[t]his episode is 
an aberration in the practice of a lawyer who has engaged in 
extensive professional service, including serving on the 
Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, the Sixth District 
Ethics Committee and the Virginia State Bar Council."  
Barnhill has practiced law with an unblemished record for more 
than 20 years.  He has also served on the board of directors 
of a legal aid organization. 
 
Barnhill requested that this Court consider as an 
appropriate sanction the public and private embarrassment that 
he has experienced as a result of the issuance of the rule.  
Barnhill also asked that this Court grant his client, Daly 
Seven, leave to withdraw the petition for rehearing and 
substitute an appropriate petition. 
 
4
III. 
 
Code § 8.01-271.1 states in relevant part: 
"Every pleading, written motion, and other 
paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be 
signed by at least one attorney of record in his 
individual name . . . . 
"The signature of an attorney or party 
constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has 
read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to 
the best of his knowledge, information and belief, 
formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded 
in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good 
faith argument for the extension, modification, or 
reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not 
interposed for any improper purpose, such as to 
harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless 
increase in the cost of litigation.  If a pleading, 
written motion, or other paper is not signed, it 
shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after 
the omission is called to the attention of the 
pleader or movant. 
 
. . . . 
 
"If a pleading, motion, or other paper is 
signed or made in violation of this rule, the court, 
upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose 
upon the person who signed the paper or made the 
motion, a represented party, or both, an appropriate 
sanction . . . ." 
 
(Emphasis added.) 
 
In this proceeding, this Court must consider whether the 
petition for rehearing that Barnhill filed was interposed for 
an improper purpose within the meaning of Code § 8.01-271.1.  
In determining whether the petition for rehearing was 
interposed for an improper purpose, this Court must apply an 
objective standard of reasonableness.  See, e.g., Tullidge v. 
 
5
Board of Supervisors of Augusta Co., 239 Va. 611, 614, 391 
S.E.2d 288, 289-90 (1990). 
 
Applying this standard, this Court is compelled to 
conclude that Barnhill interposed the petition for rehearing 
for an improper purpose which was to ridicule and deride the 
Court by the repeated use of intemperate language to express 
his displeasure with the Court's opinion.  His use of 
intemperate phrases – "Ryan Taboada may be the unfortunate 
victim of a crazed criminal assailant who emerged from the 
dark to attack him.  But Daly Seven will be the unfortunate 
victim of a dark and ill-conceived jurisprudence," and "[I]f 
you attack the King, kill the King; otherwise, the King will 
kill you," – serves no objective purpose that would assist 
this Court in its determination whether to grant the petition 
for rehearing that he had filed.  Ridicule and derision of the 
Court in this context is an improper purpose within the 
meaning of clause (iii) in Code § 8.01-271.1. 
 
The provision in Code § 8.01-271.1 prohibiting an 
attorney or party from interposing a pleading, motion, or 
other paper for any improper purpose is designed to ensure 
dignity and decorum in the judicial process.  This provision 
deters abuse of the legal process and fosters and promotes 
public confidence and respect for the rule of law.  As this 
Court stated in Oxenham v. Johnson, 241 Va. 281, 286, 402 
 
6
S.E.2d 1, 3 (1991), "sanctions can be used to protect courts 
against those who would abuse the judicial process."  Because 
Barnhill's conduct violated the standard established by clause 
(iii) in Code § 8.01-271.1, this Court must impose an 
appropriate sanction. 
 
In determining the appropriate sanction to impose upon 
Barnhill, this Court considers the gravity of his conduct – in 
this instance, the very strong intemperate language used in 
the petition for rehearing – and his prior exemplary record as 
a member of the Bar of this Court.  This Court also considers 
Barnhill's apology, the apology of his law firm, and 
Barnhill's statement that in the future he will not file a 
brief that has not been reviewed and approved by another 
partner in his law firm. 
Upon consideration of these facts, the very serious 
nature of his conduct, and the potential impact of that 
conduct upon the administration of justice, this Court must 
impose a meaningful sanction.  Accordingly, Barnhill's 
privilege to practice before this Court will be suspended for 
a period of one year from the issuance of the mandate in this 
case.  Additionally, this Court will assess a fine against 
Barnhill personally in the amount of $1,000.00, and Barnhill 
will not be permitted to receive reimbursement of this fine 
from his law firm or his client. 
 
7
 
This Court agrees with Barnhill that his client should 
not be prejudiced because of his misconduct.  Accordingly, 
this Court will strike the petition for rehearing and Daly 
Seven will be permitted to file another petition, if it so 
desires.  The Clerk of this Court will enter an order 
consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.