UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

In re: Case No. 19-34574-KRH

LeClairRyan, PLLC,1

Debtor Chapter 7

DECLARATION OF LYNN L. TAVENNER, TRUSTEE

I, Lynn L. Tavenner, Trustee, and not individually but solely in my capacity as the 

Chapter 7 trustee (in such capacity, the “Chapter 7 Trustee” and/or the “Trustee”) of the 

bankruptcy estate (the “Estate”) of LeClairRyan PLLC (“LeClairRyan” and/or the “Debtor”), 

in the above- referenced Chapter 7 case (the “Case”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby 

declare as follows under penalty of perjury to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief:

1. I am the duly appointed Chapter 7 Trustee in the LeClairRyan Case. 

2. I submit this declaration in support of the (a) Motion to Approve – (Trustee’s 

Second Motion to Modify Procedures Regarding the Prosecution and/or Settlement of Action 

Involving Former Attorneys and Certain Others and Memorandum in Support Thereof) (the 

“Second Motion to Modify Procedures”) [ECF No. 962]; (b) Motion to Authorize Disclosure of 

Certain Settlement Materials (the “Motion to Authorize Disclosure”) [ECF No. 944] 

Adversary Proceeding No. 20-03142 (ULX Partners, LLC, UnitedLex Corporation) [ECF No. 

55]; (c) Objection to – Trustee’s Answer and Limited Objection to the Motion for Relief from 

Stay (the “Trustee’s Objection to the Motion for Relief From Stay”) [ECF No. 921]; and (d) 

1 The principal address of the Debtor as of the petition date was 4405 Cox Road, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060, and 

the last four digits of the Debtor’s federal tax identification number are 2451.

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 973 Filed 08/18/21 Entered 08/18/21 10:58:55 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 10
the Case Status and Report pursuant to Local Rule 2015-(a)-(1)(A), all of which are reflected on 

the Proposed Agenda For August 19, 2021, at 11:00 A.M [ECF 972].

3. Further, I submit this declaration in support of (a) Motion to File Document(s) 

Under Seal (the “Sealing Motion”) [ECF No. 68] and (b) Motion to Amend Complaint and to 

Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order (the “Motion to Amend”) [ECF No. 66] in Adversary 

Proceeding No. 20-03142 (ULX Partners, LLC, UnitedLex Corporation), as also are reflected on 

the Proposed Agenda For August 19, 2021, at 11:00 A.M [ECF 972 ].

4. The statements in this declaration are, except where specifically noted, based on 

my personal knowledge on information that I have obtained in connection with my role as the 

Trustee. If I were called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify to the facts set forth 

herein on that basis.

5. As previously argued on June 24, 2021, and again on July 22, 2021, the relief 

requested in the Motion for Relief from Stay (as defined in Trustee’s Objection to the Motion for 

Relief From Stay) is not supported by the relevant authority and I therefore objected to the relief 

sought by Columbia Casualty Company (“Columbia”). As this Court likely recalls from my 

testimony in another matter in this Case, the policy at issue in the Motion for Relief From Stay, 

policy number 596749072, dated January 17, 2019, was modified by Runoff Endorsement No. 

10, effective August 31, 2019 (collectively the “Complete Policy”). I recognize that the subject 

policy may provide in certain limited instances for proceeds to be available for eligible 

persons/entities (including LeClairRyan), and I do not unequivocally object to the use of 

proceeds in specific delineated instances for the advancement of reasonable defense costs to 

identified individuals. However, the Complete Policy (which is property of the Estate over which 

this Court has express jurisdiction) is limited. And I, on behalf of the Estate, have direct claims 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 973 Filed 08/18/21 Entered 08/18/21 10:58:55 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 10
against certain individuals for Management Wrongful Acts and Interrelated Wrongful Acts (as 

both are defined in the Complete Policy), as well as claims for entity coverage. Collectively 

these claims vastly exceed the available limits provided by the Complete Policy. Therefore, the 

proceeds of the Complete Policy are a significant asset of the Estate and should be protected by 

this Court for the equitable treatment of all of the claimants under the Complete Policy. I do 

however maintain, in the exercise of my business judgment, that it is in the best interest of the 

Estate for limited, reasonable defense costs for eligible individuals should be available under 

appropriate, identified parameters imposed by this Court to ensure that the proceeds of the 

Complete Policy are equitably made available for all eligible.

6. Columbia is interfering (albeit the interference could be unintentional) with this 

Court’s FAO Order. Specifically, certain individuals are concerned whether proceeding with 

mediation would somehow negatively impact potential coverage under the Complete Policy and, 

as such, have refused to schedule mediation as required under this Court’s FAO Procedures 

Order. Others are hesitant to take additional steps that could result in settlement. Accordingly, I, 

through counsel, have respectfully requested that Columbia affirmatively let all know who 

inquire that proceeding under any order of this Court will not nullify insurance coverage.

Columbia has agreed to do the same. Nonetheless, the fact that issues related to the Complete 

Policy are interfering with the FAO Order further demonstrates the need for this Court to retain 

control and jurisdiction over all assets of this Estate including but not limited to the Complete 

Policy. 

7. In resolution of Trustee’s Objection to the Motion for Relief From Stay, I, 

through counsel, have agreed, subject to this Court’s approval, to the limited relief provided for 

in the proposed order that can be found at ECF No. 965. 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 973 Filed 08/18/21 Entered 08/18/21 10:58:55 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 10
8. In the Second Motion to Modify Procedures, consistent with, and as expressly 

provided for by a term of the initial FAO Order (as defined in the Second Motion To Modify 

Procedures), I respectfully request that this Court invoke an express provision of the FAO Order 

and authorize the modification of certain discrete aspects of the FAO Actions Procedures (as 

defined in the Second Motion To Modify Procedures). While still in the initial stages of my 

investigation in the Spring of 2020, I, with the assistance of my counsel, filed the Motion for an 

Order Establishing Procedures Regarding the Prosecution of Actions Involving Former 

Attorneys and Certain Others and Memorandum in Support Thereof (the “FAO Procedures 

Motion”), ECF No. 457, which this Court approved. Thereafter, I filed the Motion to Amend –

Trustee’s Motion to Modify Procedures Regarding the Settlement of Actions Involving Former 

Attorneys and Certain Others and Memorandum In Support Thereof (the “FAO Procedures 

Modification Motion”), ECF No. 852, to address certain settlement items.

9. Since the entry of the initial FAO Order, I have made demands on over 210 

Persons2 and resolved approximately 115 of those demands. Approximately 50 of the 210 

demands are still currently the subject of this Court’s mediation procedures delineated in the 

FAO Action Procedures as authorized by the FAO Order; of those 50 demands, approximately

43 are pending mediation and 7 involve mediations that have been conducted and continued

(collectively, the “Remaining Mediation Matters”).

10. While the Pre-Complaint Mediation Election process has been extremely 

successful, it has taken significantly longer than expected. For the most part, the lag has been the 

result of accommodating the requests of the Persons who made a Pre-Complaint Mediation 

2 As said term is defined at 11 U.S.C. § 101 (41).

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 973 Filed 08/18/21 Entered 08/18/21 10:58:55 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 10
Election. For example, some of the Persons are attorneys who have desired to resolve without the 

assistance of a mediator. And given the pre-mediation success with certain defense counsel, I 

have accommodated requests even though it meant a longer than initially expected time to 

resolve. In addition, counsel for certain Persons requested mediation schedules substantially 

longer than I desired, but I acquiesced to give said counsel time to exercise his discretion as to 

how to best utilize the mediator and the mediation process. And while I was initially frustrated 

with this specific delay, I do not regret affording additional time based on the results, including 

but not limited to, resolving in the last 4 weeks over 30 matters with the assistance of one 

particular mediator. There also has been delay in receiving, reviewing, investigating, and/or

analyzing information. Unfortunately, given these delays, demand has been made on one 

Person wherein I have not provided dates for a mediation in August but am willing to (a) mediate 

before September 1, 2021, and/or (b) enter into an appropriate agreement that would allow for a 

mediation in September and/or October. And contrary to certain misrepresentations made by 

another to this Court in recently filed pleadings, I have been ready and willing to mediate any 

and all other matters before the expiration of the statutory deadline described below. Others, 

however, have been unavailable and/or asked to mediate in the Fall, with the former attorney 

referenced in the objection filed at ECF No. 968 initially claiming unavailability until midOctober, notwithstanding that both the selected mediator and I were available multiple dates in 

August. It was not until after the filing of the Motion to Amend that said former attorney 

suddenly became available to mediate in mid-September (but apparently was still “unavailable” 

to mediate on any of the numerous August dates).

11. Finally, in my business judgment, ULX Manager, LLC (“ULX Manager”) is not 

a party that was an intended beneficiary of the FAO Order and the procedures should not apply 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 973 Filed 08/18/21 Entered 08/18/21 10:58:55 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 10
to it. During discovery, the defendants in the Adversary Proceeding (defined below) disclosed 

that ULX Manager is the Managing Member of ULXP and is a 100% owned indirect subsidiary 

of United Lex and was to be “managed, operated, and controlled by or under the direction” of the 

Managing Member. It has therefore received ample notice of this claim. Furthermore, ULX 

Manager had a voice at a mediation through its sole parent - United Lex.

12. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546, the statutory deadline to bring an action or 

proceeding under §§ 544, 547, and/or 548 of the Bankruptcy Code is September 3, 2021, as is 

the statutory deadline contained in § 108 (collectively, the “Statutory Deadline”). It was never 

my intent, nor did I believe, that the FAO Order would reduce the Statutory Deadline. The 

language that I, through counsel, proposed in the FAO Order to address this, as well as other 

items, was as follows: “No term of the Motion or this Order shall prohibit the Trustee from 

seeking specific Court approval that the procedures shall not apply to any individual defendant. ” 

Your Honor accepted said language in connection with the entry of the FAO Order. In the 

exercise of my business judgement, I believe it is in the Estate’s best interest for this Court to 

determine that the procedures shall not apply to the Remaining Mediation Matters and ULX 

Manager but in so doing also allow flexibility for continued settlement discussions, including 

but not limited to mediation procedures. As such, modifying the FAO Order will ensure that the 

intent and basis for implementing the FAO Action Procedures remains intact while not 

jeopardizing the value of Estate assets given the Statutory Deadline. Accordingly, I respectfully 

ask that this Court enter an Order as provided on Exhibit A attached hereto allowing the 

modification of the FAO Actions Procedures. 

13. In connection with Motion to Authorize Disclosure, I respectfully request that the 

Court enter an order (i) authorizing, but not requiring, disclosure of settlement materials on a 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 973 Filed 08/18/21 Entered 08/18/21 10:58:55 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 10
confidential basis pursuant to a certain protective order entered in this Case and (ii) establishing 

procedures to preserve the Debtor’s privilege in relation to third-party subpoenas.]. I, in the 

exercise of my business judgment, maintain that the same is in the best interest of the Estate, In 

a declaration filed with this Court on May 26, 2021 [ECF No. 893], I previously represented to 

this Court that 

I believe the ULX Objection is misplaced and really relates to the open discovery matters 

in the ongoing adversary proceeding against ULX/ULXP where it should be addressed. 

Said disputes are not currently before this Court, and I am hopeful that the parties will 

consensually resolve through the traditional meet and confer process in the context of the 

adversary proceeding. But as in all litigation matters, I am confident this Court, if 

needed, will resolve any matter properly brought before the Court at the appropriate time 

in the context of the adversary proceeding. 

I also represented, “I understand the requirement to address discovery disputes in good faith, 

and maintain that the Estate has and continues to try to resolve all discovery disputes in good 

faith.” Id. The relief sought in the Motion to Authorize Disclosure is the result of my good faith 

in trying to resolve said disputes. In this instance, I believe that the settlement materials 

requested by ULX/ULXP are not relevant and should therefore not be discoverable. However, to 

avoid expending significant resources on this issue, I agree that the production of the settlement 

materials within a reasonable search plan and with the consent of the settling party is within the 

best interest of the Estate. In furtherance of protecting both the Estate and the settling parties, I 

believe that the settlement material should be exchanged under a protective order approved by 

this Court. As such, I respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion to Authorize 

Disclosure by entering the proposed order attached hereto as Exhibit B.

14. Additionally, I respectfully request that this Court enter an Order granting the 

Sealing Motion in Adversary Proceeding No. 20-03142 (ULX Partners, LLC, UnitedLex 

Corporation). The FAO Order could create an expectation of confidentiality for some potential 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 973 Filed 08/18/21 Entered 08/18/21 10:58:55 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 10
defendants, and therefore I, in the exercise of my business judgment, maintain it is prudent to 

treat such allegations in the proposed amended complaint as confidential until the Court rules on 

the Second Motion to Modify Procedures and the Motion to Amend. Contrary to baseless 

allegations in recent pleadings filed with this Court, I have never willfully and intentionally 

violated any Order of this Court. To the contrary, I come to this Court with clean hands, having 

used (and will continue to use) in the exercise of my business judgment all reasonable means to 

ensure compliance with your Honor’s orders. 

15. Finally, the Motion to Amend in Adversary Proceeding No. 20-03142 (ULX 

Partners, LLC, UnitedLex Corporation) (the “Adversary Proceeding”) is based upon a valid 

exercise of my business judgment, is in the best interests of the Estate, was filed as promptly as 

possible, and was filed in good faith. Since filing the initial complaint in the Adversary 

Proceeding, I, along with my counsel, have continued to investigate the misconduct of the ULX 

Entities (as defined in the Motion to Amend) and certain of the Debtor’s former officers and 

directs. I have uncovered compelling evidence that supports adding the new defendants and new 

claims in order to hold the defendants accountable for their substantial misappropriation and 

receipt of value, which rightly belongs to LeClairRyan and its stakeholders. While determining 

whether adding the new claims to the initial complaint through an amended complaint is the 

most efficient way to advance the litigation is certainly this Court’s ultimate decision, I, in the 

exercise of my business judgment, maintain it is in the best interest of the Estate to ask this Court 

to make such a determination. I perceive that the new claims arise from a scheme to manipulate 

a law firm for gain and benefit of others. This scheme was described in the initial complaint, and 

the amended complaint drills down into all known aspects of the scheme that was more 

encompassing and devious than initially discovered. In my business judgment, any additional 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 973 Filed 08/18/21 Entered 08/18/21 10:58:55 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 10
resources or delay from the amended complaint will be less than the financial burden and 

duplication and effort if I am unable to add additional parties to the complaint. Moreover, 

discovery is ongoing. As such, the new claims will neither require the expenditure of additional, 

significant resources nor cause any substantial delay to the case. In contrast, there will be a 

duplication of efforts and extra financial burden on the Estate if it is not able to file an amended 

complaint. I respectfully submit that common questions of fact and legal issues in the existing 

claims predominate in the new claims. For the forgoing, I respectfully request that the Court 

grant the Motion to Amend. 

16. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, I declare under penalty of 

perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

LYNN L. TAVENNER, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE

Dated: August 18, 2021

Richmond, Virginia

By: /s/ Lynn L. Tavenner

Lynn L. Tavenner, Chapter 7 Trustee

Respectfully submitted,

LYNN L. TAVENNER, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE

Dated: August 18, 2021

Richmond, Virginia

By: /s/ Paula S. Beran

Paula S. Beran, Esquire (VSB No. 34679)

PBeran@TB-LawFirm.com

Tavenner & Beran, PLC

20 North 8th Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Telephone: (804) 783-8300

Counsel for Lynn L. Tavenner, Chapter 7 Trustee

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 973 Filed 08/18/21 Entered 08/18/21 10:58:55 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 18th day of August 2021, a true copy of the foregoing Declaration 

was sent electronically to:

Shannon F. Pecoraro, Esquire

Department of Justice

Office of the United States Trustee

701 East Broad Street, Suite 4304

Richmond, Virginia 23219

And all other parties receiving CM/ECF notices in this Case.

/s/ Paula S. Beran

Paula S. Beran, Esquire

Counsel for Lynn L. Tavenner, Chapter 7 Trustee

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 973 Filed 08/18/21 Entered 08/18/21 10:58:55 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 10