Title: Pilli v. Virginia State Bar
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 042630
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: April 22, 2005

PRESENT:  Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and
 
Agee, JJ., and Compton, S.J. 
 
DOMINICK ANTHONY PILLI 
 
v.  Record No. 042630   OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  April 22, 2005 
VIRGINIA STATE BAR  
 
 
FROM THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD 
 
 
This case presents an appeal of right from a ruling of the 
Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (the Board).  Dominick 
Pilli challenges the Board’s order suspending his license to 
practice law in the Commonwealth for a period of 90 days based 
on its finding that Pilli violated Rule 8.2 of the Virginia 
Rules of Professional Conduct. 
The Board found that Pilli made certain statements with 
reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity concerning the 
qualifications and integrity of a judge.  The issue before us is 
whether the Board’s finding is supported by a reasonable view of 
the evidence and is in accordance with the law.  See Williams v. 
Virginia State Bar, 261 Va. 258, 264, 542 S.E.2d 385, 389 
(2001); Myers v. Virginia State Bar, 226 Va. 630, 632, 312 
S.E.2d 286, 287 (1984). 
 
In October 2001, Judge Michael J. Cassidy of the Fairfax 
County General District Court issued a “show cause” summons 
against Pilli charging him with failing to appear in court 
regarding a misdemeanor traffic offense for which Pilli was 
counsel of record.  In response, Pilli filed a “motion to remove 
show cause,” requesting dismissal of the summons based on his 
understanding that the traffic case had been continued to a date 
in January 2002.  A few days later, Judge Cassidy heard argument 
on Pilli’s motion, denied the motion, and set the show cause 
hearing and underlying traffic case for trial on December 11, 
2001. 
 
Pilli failed to appear before Judge Cassidy on December 11, 
2001, when the show cause matter and traffic case were “called” 
in court.  Judge Cassidy tried Pilli in his absence, found him 
in contempt of court, and imposed a $250 fine.  Later that 
afternoon, Pilli filed a motion to rehear, which he argued the 
next day.  On December 12, 2001, Judge Cassidy refused to set 
aside his contempt finding, but suspended $150 of the fine.  
Judge Cassidy set forth his findings in two orders, which 
recited the proceedings in the matter. 
 
On December 28, 2001, Pilli filed a “Reply to Supplemental 
Order of Judge Cassidy (December 12, 2001)” (the Reply).  The 
stated purpose of the Reply was “to clarify the errors which 
Judge Cassidy has so negligently and carelessly, (a second time) 
failed to give consideration to, in these matters.”  Pilli 
accused Judge Cassidy of “skewing . . . the facts” and 
“fail[ing] to tell the truth.”  Pilli further stated, “I cannot 
tolerate a Judge lying to this Court, to this Attorney, to the 
 
2
Judicial Review Commission and to the Virginia State Bar.  He is 
flat out inaccurate, and wrong.”  Pilli also threatened to use 
his “influence . . . to have [Judge Cassidy] removed” from 
office. 
 
Pilli appealed his contempt conviction to the circuit 
court, which found him guilty of the charge.  The court 
sentenced Pilli to serve four days in jail. 
 
In January 2004, a subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar 
(the Bar) certified four charges of misconduct against Pilli to 
the Board.  The Bar charged Pilli with: (1) making a false 
statement of fact to a tribunal and offering evidence that the 
lawyer knows to be false, in violation of Rule 3.3; (2) 
committing a criminal or deliberately wrongful act that reflects 
adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer, in violation of 
Rule 8.4(b); (3) engaging in professional conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 
Rule 8.4(c); and (4) making a statement that the lawyer knows to 
be false or with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity 
concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, in 
violation of Rule 8.2. 
 
In August 2004, the Board held a hearing on the four 
charges of misconduct.  The Board ultimately dismissed the 
charges relating to the alleged violations of Rule 3.3, Rule 
 
3
8.4(b), and Rule 8.4(c), and found Pilli in violation of Rule 
8.2. 
 
The Board received evidence concerning Pilli’s failure to 
appear in court on both October 16, 2001 and December 11, 2001, 
and Pilli’s actions in drafting the Reply “pleading.”  The 
evidence presented by the Bar showed that Pilli initially had 
requested a four-month continuance of a misdemeanor traffic 
charge set for September 17, 2001.  Based on the general 
district court’s administrative procedures, the court clerk 
processing the request was only authorized to continue the case 
to the arresting officer’s next available court date, October 
16, 2001. 
A continuance on a misdemeanor charge beyond the officer’s 
first available date could be obtained only with the approval of 
a judge.  Under the court’s procedures, upon submitting his 
continuance request, Pilli would have been instructed to contact 
the clerk’s office after September 18, 2001, to confirm whether 
a judge had agreed to the extended continuance and to obtain the 
new hearing date. 
The traffic case was continued to October 16, 2001.  Judge 
Cassidy testified that Pilli did not appear on that date or on 
December 11, 2001.  Judge Cassidy further stated that when the 
show cause summons was called for trial on December 11, 2001, 
 
4
court personnel were unable to locate Pilli anywhere in the 
courthouse. 
 
Pilli testified that his secretary verified with court 
personnel that the traffic case was continued to January 17, 
2002.  Pilli admitted that he did not appear in Judge Cassidy’s 
courtroom on December 11, 2001, when the show cause summons was 
called for trial, because he was attending to another matter in 
a nearby courthouse.  He stated that he had asked the prosecutor 
handling the show cause summons to “pass” the case until he 
returned. 
According to Pilli, when he arrived back at the Fairfax 
County Court House, the courtroom to which his case was assigned 
was closed.  Pilli stated that he wrote the Reply “emotionally” 
because he was “upset” and “frustrated” with the manner in which 
Judge Cassidy handled the show cause matter. 
The Board found by clear and convincing evidence that Pilli 
“made statements with reckless disregard concerning Judge 
Cassidy’s qualifications and integrity.”  The Board further 
found that Pilli’s Reply contained “numerous statements which 
are inappropriate, without basis in fact, and which clearly 
accuse Judge Cassidy of mendacity and incompetence.”  After 
considering Pilli’s prior disciplinary record, which included 
two public reprimands and two private reprimands, the Board 
 
5
suspended Pilli’s license to practice law for 90 days.  Pilli 
appeals. 
 
Pilli argues that the Bar failed to present clear and 
convincing evidence to support a violation of Rule 8.2.  Pilli 
asserts that his statements in the Reply were “merely opinions,” 
and that Rule 8.2 only applies to statements of fact.  Pilli 
argues alternatively that any statements in the Reply that were 
factual in nature had an objectively reasonable basis and were 
not made with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. 
 
In response, the Bar argues that the statements Pilli made 
in his Reply establish by clear and convincing evidence that he 
violated Rule 8.2.  The Bar asserts that Pilli’s numerous 
accusations that Judge Cassidy lied clearly impugned the judge’s 
integrity and were made with reckless disregard as to their 
truth or falsity. 
 
We consider the parties’ arguments under an established 
standard of review.  In reviewing the Board’s decision in a 
disciplinary proceeding, we conduct an independent examination 
of the entire record pertaining to the charge before us.  
Williams, 261 Va. at 264, 542 S.E.2d at 389; El-Amin v. Virginia 
State Bar, 257 Va. 608, 612, 514 S.E.2d 163, 165 (1999); Myers, 
226 Va. at 632, 312 S.E.2d at 287.  We consider the evidence and 
all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence in 
the light most favorable to the Bar, the prevailing party in the 
 
6
Board proceeding.  Williams, 261 Va. at 264, 542 S.E.2d at 389; 
El-Amin, 257 Va. at 612, 514 S.E.2d at 165; Gunter v. Virginia 
State Bar, 238 Va. 617, 619, 385 S.E.2d 597, 598 (1989). 
We accord the Board’s factual findings substantial weight 
and view those findings as prima facie correct.  Williams, 261 
Va. at 264, 542 S.E.2d at 389; El-Amin, 257 Va. at 612, 514 
S.E.2d at 165; Myers, 226 Va. at 632, 312 S.E.2d at 287.  
Although we do not give the Board’s conclusions the weight of a 
jury verdict, we will sustain those conclusions unless it 
appears that they are not justified by a reasonable view of the 
evidence or are contrary to law.  Williams, 261 Va. at 264, 542 
S.E.2d at 389; Myers, 226 Va. at 632, 312 S.E.2d at 287. 
In reviewing the Board’s determination that Pilli violated 
Rule 8.2, we observe that two separate elements must be 
established to prove a violation of that Rule.  First, the Bar 
must establish that a lawyer made a statement about a judge or 
other judicial officer involving his or her qualifications or 
integrity.  Second, the Bar must prove that the statement was 
made with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity or with 
knowledge that the statement was false. 
In the present case, we hold that the Board’s conclusions 
are justified by a reasonable view of the evidence, and that the 
record supports the Board’s determination that there is clear 
and convincing evidence that Pilli violated Rule 8.2.  Pilli’s 
 
7
own testimony established the first element of proof, namely, 
that he made statements concerning the qualifications or 
integrity of Judge Cassidy.  At the hearing before the Board, 
the Bar’s counsel asked Pilli, “Do you feel like you impugned 
the integrity of Judge Cassidy?”  Pilli replied, “I think it 
would be questioned by what I wrote, yes.” 
Even in the absence of Pilli’s concession, the record 
leaves no doubt that Pilli’s remarks constituted an attack on 
Judge Cassidy’s qualifications and integrity.  In the most 
vitriolic of terms, Pilli accused Judge Cassidy of lying, of 
“skewing” the facts, and of various acts of incompetence.  The 
very content of these accusations refutes Pilli’s argument that 
he made objectively reasonable statements concerning Judge 
Cassidy’s integrity and qualifications. 
With regard to the second element of proof under Rule 8.2, 
the record establishes that Pilli made these statements about 
Judge Cassidy with reckless disregard as to their truth or 
falsity.  Pilli responded to what likely was an administrative 
mistake made by either his staff or the court’s staff by 
personally attacking Judge Cassidy.  This personal attack 
accused Judge Cassidy of lying and other professional misconduct 
without any basis in fact and with utter indifference to the 
absence of such facts. 
 
8
We find no merit in Pilli’s contention that he did not 
violate Rule 8.2 because his statements about Judge Cassidy were 
merely statements of opinion, rather than of fact.  Pilli’s 
repeated accusations that Judge Cassidy lied were assertions of 
fact that were plainly within the scope of remarks proscribed by 
Rule 8.2.  Thus, we need not address the issue whether 
statements of pure opinion, in the absence of any factual 
allegations, are subject to disciplinary review under Rule 8.2.∗
Finally, we observe that these written statements by a 
member of the bar of this Commonwealth, published in the form of 
a “pleading” filed with a court, are more than merely a 
troubling reflection of the author’s lack of professionalism.  
Such statements also may have the undeserved effect of 
diminishing the public’s perception of the numerous lawyers and 
judges who so ably serve the citizens of this Commonwealth. 
Because the present record supports the Board’s 
determination that Pilli violated Rule 8.2, we will affirm the 
Board’s order suspending Pilli’s license to practice law in this 
Commonwealth for a period of 90 days.  In light of the fact that 
Pilli’s suspension was stayed during the period this appeal was 
                     
∗ We also do not consider Pilli’s argument that his 
statements are protected by the First Amendment, or his due 
process argument concerning the charges of misconduct, because 
he did not assign error on either basis to this Court.  See Rule 
5:17(c).  These arguments are also barred because Pilli failed 
to raise either argument before the Board.  See Rule 5:25. 
 
9
pending, the suspension shall begin on June 22, 2005.  Pilli 
shall notify, by certified mail, all clients for whom he is 
currently handling matters and all opposing attorneys and 
presiding judges in litigation.  Pilli shall make appropriate 
arrangements for the disposition of those matters presently in 
his care, in conformity with the wishes of his clients. 
Affirmed. 
 
10