Virginia Bar

The public should know about the Virginia Bar's Code of Conduct -

1993.11.01 (Virginia Bar [James McCauley] to Anthony OConnell, in part)
"Finally, you indicate that Mr. White, over a period of seven years, has made defamatory and divisive statements which you consider to be far more damaging than the issue regarding the real estate settlement. The Code of Professional Responsibility does not proscribe defamatory statements by an attorney, and our office is not the appropriate forum to investigate or prosecute your claim. If you feel that you have been defamed or libeled by the Respondent, then your remedy is to file a civil action, but a Bar complaint is not an appropriate vehicle to resolve that issue. I am truly sorry that I cannot advance your claims .or interest, however, I must stand on my original decision to dismiss your complaint. I trust that you will appreciate my explanation, although you disagree with it.
Very truly yours,"
(From the Virginia Bar's [James McCauley's] letter of November 1, 1993, to Anthony OConnell)

Below: The public should know that the Virginia Bar's Code of Conduct allows an attorney to isolate a trusting family member and give them concealed instructions which set up and characer assassinate another family member. This divides and disempowers the family and protects the accountants.

1992.04.22   (Attorney Edward White to Jean Nader)
"Enclosed is an agreement which should satisfy Tony as to the car. It cannot be any clearer.
Also enclosed is a preliminary analysis of the estate tax, which should be close to being accurate. I do need to check with Jo Ann Barnes as to a technical question as to whether or not any of your father's trust comes into this. I do not think it does, but there have been many changes in the law since that trust was established. I will have to ask her to bill us for that advice and any other technical tax matters I am not comfortable with. I can do most of the rest of the tax work and save the estate some money.
The executors' commission shown on the analysis is not figured on the value of the realty; however it does not include the 5% commission on the receipts of the estate in addition to the inventory.
In order to file that return and the subsequent Fiduciary Income tax return we will need an accounting from Tony from the date of his last accounting to the date of death. If he does not want to prepare it, I will not agree to any preliminary disbursal to him at all, and will seek your approval to file suit against him to compel the accounting, plus damages to the estate for his delay.Since that trust terminated on your mother's death, his final accounting is due now and not in October.
There will be no further explanations or written entreaties to him as far as I am concerned. He has the duty and he will perform it under a court order if necessary. Of course he will furnish that receipt.
The preliminary analysis contains three alternatives on Accotink at the bottom for your consideration.
In the event that we do seek a reduction in the assessment Tony will be given written notice that his prompt cooperation is necessary and that if he fails to cooperate that he is aware of the adverse consequences to the estate and is responsible for them.
As far as further steps are concerned, we have a lot to do. No gift tax returns were filed for 1989 and 1991 which will have to be done. The results of those gifts are factored in under "Unified Credit used for gifts 9,784".
The paper trail in the court and IRS is as follows:
File Estate tax by June 15, 1992
File First Accounting (16 months after qualification but can be sooner)
Ask for posting of Debts and Demands against the estate.
File Fiduciary Income tax returns for period 9/15/91-9/15/92, due January 1, 1993.
File Motion for a Show Cause why distribution should not be made. Submit Show Cause Order.
Request Executor's exoneration letter from IRS and Virginia.
Obtain closing letter from IRS and Virginia as to estate tax returns.
File 1993 Fiduciary tax returns (Sept. 1992-distribution)
File for Order allowing distribution.
Distribute estate.
File Final Accounting.
Normally distribution is withheld until the Order of Distribution is entered. As I indicated the creditors have one year to press claims against the estate. No prudent executor will distribute before that period, the entry of the Order of Distribution and the receipt of the tax closing letters.
Sincerely, Edward J. White

Is it any wonder that the Bar's ok of the dynamics in the 1992/4/22 letter resulted in the 2012/8/30 Complaint against me? - chiefjudgesmith.com/2patterns/pattern1complete.html
-chiefjudgesmith.com/web-complaint/complaint-home.html

* * * * *

1993.02.10  (James McCauley to Anthony O'Connell)
"Dear Mr. OtConnell:
This letter is in reference to your complaint against the above-referenced attorney received in our office on December 7, 1992. In addition, I acknowledge receipt of your supplemental correspondence dated January 26, 1993, received in my office on January 29. I have concluded my preliminary investigation of your original complaint and wish to advise you that your complaint presents no basis for further investigation by this office for the reasons I shall set out below.
The Respondent did not file a written answer to your complaint. However, Mr. White is represented by counsel in this matter, David R. Rosenfeld, Esquire, and I met with Mr. Rosenfeld and his associate in Alexandria to go over all of the factual matters related to this complaint.
Your complaint alleges that the Respondent served as co-executor of your father's estate along with your mother and that the Respondent allegedly withheld certain information concerning a trust which was set up under your father's will in which you were named as a trustee.
According to your complaint, you retained the Respondent in 1987 to handle a real estate closing and you allege that the Respondent appointed himself cotrustee on the note securing that transaction. Then, the day prior to closing, Respondent allegedly informed you that he was not interests in this real estate transaction. You have also claimed that the Respondent
Respondent has handled your mother's estate incompetently.
With respect to your first complaint, it appears that your mother, rather than you, retained the Respondent for legal assistance in her capacity as executrix of your father's will. Apparently, your mother removed you from her will as a
co-executor and nominated the Respondent in your place. However, none of these matters fall within the scope of the Code of Professional Responsibility particularly in view of the fact that you and the Respondent did not share an attorney-client relationship."
Your father's will poured over into a trust which you were nominated trustee. By your own complaint, you admit that you hired another attorney to look into the funding of the trust, i.e., what distributions the estate would
make to the trust. It is my understanding that you came to Virginia to qualify as a trustee. Again, in respect to that matter, there is no attorneyclient relationship between you and the Respondent, Mr. White.In the absence of an attorney-client relationship between you and Mr. White, Mr. White was under no ethical obligation to follow any of your directions or instructions nor was he obligated to communicate directly with you. His ethical duties regarding competence, promptness and communication were owed to your mother.
It is my understanding, based upon a reading of your complaint, that the Respondent and your attorney reached an agreement regarding the funding of the trust and the Respondent agreed to cooperate by providing your attorney with a
draft of the final accounting of your father's estate. Your complaint initially provoked a thought on my part as to why the father's estate remained open so long. However, as indicated in your complaint, Mr. White was not retained by your mother until 1985. Thus, while your complaint states that you were not aware of the fact that your father had appointed you as a co-trustee until 1985, and that your father passed away in 1975, the Respondent appears to have notified you of that fact after he had become involved in 1985.
You have also complained that your mother executed a codicil to her will removing you as a co-trustee and naming Mr. White in your stead. I find nothing improper about that particular matter as it was certainly your mother's prerogative to amend or modify her will and it was Mr. White's responsibility to follow her instructions in that regard.
Your second complaint involves an allegation that Mr. White undertook to represent your interests in a real estate closing in 1987. By letter dated December 28, 1987, you purportedly asked the Respondent to represent your interests in a transfer of property to the Lynch Properties Limited Partnership. You complain that the Respondent failed to notify you of the closing date which you fortuitously discovered from the purchasers just before the closing. In addition, you point out that the Respondent and another party were named as trustees on the Deed of Trust securing the purchase loan without
your knowledge or consent. When you confronted Respondent about this, he advised that he did not represent your interests in this real estate transaction.
My investigation reveals that the Respondent did not serve as settlement attorney for this transaction, In fact, the closing was handled by Coldwell Banker, and the legal instruments for the transaction were prepared under the supervision of McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe. I have seen the real estate closing file which was delivered to Mr. Wright by the McGuire, Woods firm, and I am firmly convinced that Mr. White took no part in that transaction other than to perhaps provide informal legal advice to your mother. Your letter of December 28, 1987 is insufficient as a matter to law to establish an attorneyclient relationship unless there is some evidence that Mr. White did in fact undertake to handle the closing, Finally, there is no ethical issue raised simply because Mr. White is named as a co-trustee in the Deed of Trust securing the purchase by the Lynch Properties Limited Partnership.
The third complaint involved an allegation that Mr. W ite allegedly withheld a $75,000 distribution until you agreed to obtain your own legal counsel With respect to this allegation, Mr. White, in his capacity as an administrator or
executor of an estate is under no obligation by law to make a interim distribution to you. Whether an interim distribution is made is entirely discretionary and the law requires a distribution to be made only upon the filing of a final accounting. With regard to your allegations of incompetence and delay on the part of Mr. White in handling your mother's estate, I have determined that Mr. White has filed in a timely manner the inventory and first accounting for this estate. No delinquency notices or show cause summonses have been issued. The only possible area of neglect appears to be the late
filing of Mrs. OIConnellls income tax return, however, I am advised that Mr. White paid one-half of the accrued interest to the IRS, and that no penalties were assessed, In addition, Mr. White timely requested an extension for
filing the decedent's last income tax return and therefore no penalties were involved. As justification for the delay, Mr. White points out that he experienced some delay in obtaining the K-1 from you and your own complaint appears to concede that there was a problem with getting the K-1 to Mr. White.
Based on the foregoing, I see no basis in fact or in law to conclude that Mr. White has engaged in any misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Therefore, please be advised that no further action will be taken on your complaint. By copy of this letter to Respondent's counsel, Mr. Rosenfeld, I am advising him of my determination.
Very truly yours,

1993.09.20 certified   (Anthony O'Connell to the Virginia Bar)
"To Whom It May Concern:
My fourteen page complaint with forty-four enclosures was dismissed
as having "no basis in fact" without allowing me the opportunity to
respond. In defense of myself and future families of-Virginia, I
would like to offer one illustration why I feel this is unjust.
Concerning the $1.41 million purchase agreement I made and later
hired Mr. White to handle, your investigator was:

"firmly convinced that Mr. White took no part in that transaction
other than to perhaps provide informal legal advice to your
mother. Your letter of December 28, 1987 is insufficient as a
matter to law to establish an attorney-client relationship
unless there is some evidence that Mr. White did in fact
undertake to handle the closing."
Mr. White's enclosed bills for services for this sale, with his
initials, state:

Far more more damaging to me than the usurped sale has been Mr. White's
more than seven years of defamatory and divisive statements,
preying on the uncertainties of my family. He continues this with
letters referencing your "no basis in fact" approval.
This is very important to me. Please allow me a hearing within the
safety of the system as I risk being sued if I ask for help
elsewhere.
Enclosures:
(1) Mr. White's bills for services rendered for my sale
(2) List of my unreturned telephone calls to Mr. White. I suggest
that Mr. White thought I though he was representing me at
closing."

1993.11.01  (James McCauley to Anthony O'Connell)
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
This letter is in response to your certified letter dated September 20, 1993, which was received in this office on September 23, 1993. As you know, the basis for my dismissal of your complaint was the absence of an attorney-client relationship,between you and the Respondent. Nothing you have submitted to me under cover letter dated September 20, 1993 changes my conclusion.
The copy of Mr. White's fee statement shows an entry: "4120 OV A. O'CONNELL." The fact that you had an office visit with Mr. White does not create an attorney-client relationship. I note that the fee statement dated April 16, 1988 is sent to Mrs. Jean M. O'Connell and I believe that your mother is the client in this particular matter, not you.Your original complaint alleges that the Respondent handled your mother's estate incompetently. I do not believe you have standing to complain, because you are not a. client of Mr. White. The second enclosure, a list of your unreturned telephone calls to Mr. White, 'also does not change my conclusion. Unless you can show that you are a client of Mr. White, Mr. White'was under no ethical.duty or mandate to return your telephone calls. This complaint also boils down to.your word against Mr. White's as to whether he was representing you at the settlement on the real estate transaction. The Bar would have to prove your position by clear and convincing evidence, and1 simply do not see any clear and convincing evidence that Mr. White had agreed to represent you, or that he represented you by his conduct.
Finally, you indicate that Mr. White, over a period of seven years, has made defamatory and divisive statements which you consider to be far more damaging than the issue regarding the real estate settlement. The Code of Professional Responsibility does not proscribe defamatory statements by an attorney, and our office is not the appropriate forum to investigate or prosecute your claim. If you feel that you have been defamed or libeled by the Respondent, then your remedy is to file a civil action, but a Bar complaint is not an appropriate vehicle to resolve that issue. I am truly sorry that I cannot advance your claims .or interest, however, I must stand on my original decision to dismiss your complaint. I trust that you will appreciate my explanation, although you disagree with it.
Very truly yours,

Questions

I don't understand:

(1) Why Mr. White was never required to take an accountable position in writing, such as "Who did he represent and when?" The real estate industry cannot function unless the law of contracts is recognized. The family automatically trust an attorney because attorneys are held out to the public as being regulated.

(2) Why the Bar took it as a given that our family was the problem; that out family was divided, especially when I am asking the Bar to stop Mr. White from making it appear divided and be divided.

(3) Why the Bar does not recognize the law of contracts, such as the "Seller" being one legal entity and Anthony O'Connell being the point of contact for the "Seller".