Opinion ID: 1359074
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The burden is on the Bar to establish violation of disciplinary rules by clear proof. Blue v. Seventh District Committee, 220 Va. 1056, 1062, 265 S.E.2d 753, 757 (1980). In an appeal from the Board, we will make an independent examination of the whole record, giving the factual findings of the Disciplinary Board substantial weight and viewing them as prima facie correct. Id. at 1061-62, 265 S.E.2d at 757. The conclusions of the Board will be sustained, however, unless it appears they are not justified by a reasonable view of the evidence or are contrary to law. Id. at 1062, 265 S.E.2d at 757. Wright contends that the Board's findings regarding his violations of the record-keeping rules are not supported by clear proof or, alternatively, [n]o client had been hurt in any way. Our independent examination of the record reveals that overwhelming evidence supports the Board's factual findings and conclusions that Wright was in violation of Disciplinary Rules 9-102(B)(3) and (4), and 9-103(A) and (B). Wright kept no complete records identifying the source of funds deposited into his trust account. His clients' ledger cards for the period September 1983 to December 1984 showed total receipts of $7,535.82 deposited in his trust account and disbursements of $13,158.14 from the account. At the time of the Board's hearing on December 19, 1985, Wright still had not brought his ledger cards up to date. Wright overdrew his trust account three times between October 1983 and June 1984. On numerous occasions during the period November 1984 to May 1985 when the fiduciary account should have contained at least $1,300 of Chance's funds, the account balance was less than that amount. In fact, the records show that the trust account had a negative balance in January and May 1985. Despite the deficiencies in Wright's record-keeping, which he admitted resulted from his own negligence, no client suffered a loss of money. However, neither loss of money by a client nor proof of a lawyer's moral turpitude is a prerequisite to a finding that the lawyer has mismanaged his financial records and clients' funds. Delk v. Virginia State Bar, 233 Va. 187, ___, ___, 355 S.E.2d 558, 561 (1987). We conclude that clear proof supports the Board's findings that Wright violated Disciplinary Rules 9-102(B)(3) and (4), and 9-103(A) and (B). Wright further contends that there was no clear proof of his dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4). Assuming without deciding that scienter is a necessary element in establishing a violation under this rule, see Pickus v. Virginia State Bar, 232 Va. 5, 9, 348 S.E.2d 202, 205 (1986); Gibbs v. Virginia State Bar, 232 Va. 39, 41, 348 S.E.2d 209, 210 (1986), our independent examination of the record shows that Wright, by his own admission, knew that his attorney account did not contain sufficient funds to cover the check to Wilbar's counsel. He also knew he had received the funds to pay Dr. Raiford, but knowingly withheld the sums due the doctor.