Opinion ID: 2315153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Virginia Decision

Text: Based on these facts, the Virginia Board found violations of its Disciplinary Rules in that the Respondent had communicated directly with a person (the daughter) when she was known to be represented by counsel. This was held to be a violation of DR 7-103(A)(1). With respect to his dealings with the mother, the Board found that Respondent violated DR 7-103(A)(2) by rendering legal advice to an unrepresented person without advising that person (or being sensitive to the fact) that she had conflicting interests with Respondent's client (the ex-husband), if not with Respondent himself. The Virginia Board found it particularly reprehensible that Respondent had engaged in deceitful action by engaging both women in conversations concerning matters which were extremely private and sensitive to them under the guise of acting as their church counselor when, in fact, the sole purpose of that meeting was to benefit his then undisclosed client. Va.Bar Rept., p. 4. This was held to be a further violation of DR 7-103(A)(2), as well as a violation of DR 7-103(B), DR 1-102(A)(3), and 1-102(A)(4). [2]