Barrett v. Virginia State Bar
611 S.E.2d 375, 2005 Va. LEXIS 45, 269 Va. 583 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawyer does not violate the rule against giving legal advice to an unrepresented adverse party by stating intimidating opinions about the likely legal outcomes of their dispute, so long as the recipient is aware of the lawyer's adverse interest. However, a lawyer's duty of professionalism prohibits harassing opposing counsel with personal attacks and threatening disciplinary action solely to gain a tactical advantage.
Facts:
- Timothy M. Barrett, a lawyer, and his wife, Valerie Jill Rhudy, separated in the summer of 2001.
- While Rhudy was unrepresented by counsel, Barrett sent her two emails about their pending divorce and custody dispute.
- The emails contained Barrett's detailed predictions on legal outcomes, stating that venue was properly in Virginia Beach, that Rhudy would likely be denied spousal support under the doctrine of imputed income, and that he would likely obtain custody of the children.
- The emails also threatened Rhudy with a long, expensive legal battle if she continued with the divorce.
- After Rhudy retained counsel, Lanis L. Karnes, Barrett sent Karnes numerous letters containing personal and religious attacks.
- In his correspondence, Barrett repeatedly referred to Karnes by her former married name as a form of protest, called her incompetent, and attacked her as a 'worst example of "Christian" feminism.'
- Barrett also repeatedly threatened to file disciplinary complaints and motions for sanctions against Karnes for minor issues, including typographical errors.
- During the proceedings, Barrett failed to make ten court-ordered child and spousal support payments and made six partial payments, leading to two contempt of court findings against him.
Procedural Posture:
- The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board investigated Timothy M. Barrett's conduct arising from his divorce.
- The Board found Barrett had violated Rules 3.1, 3.4(i), 3.4(j), 3.5(e), 4.3(b), and 8.4(b) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Based on these findings, the Board issued an order on August 5, 2004, suspending Barrett's license to practice law for three years.
- Barrett (appellant) filed an appeal of right from the Board's ruling to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lawyer-spouse violate the rule against giving legal advice to an unrepresented adverse party (Rule 4.3(b)) by sending emails that state his opinions on the likely legal outcomes of their divorce, such as venue, spousal support, and child custody?
Opinions:
Majority - Agee, J.
No. A lawyer-spouse does not violate the rule against giving legal advice to an unrepresented party by sending emails stating his personal opinions on their legal situation. The court reversed the Board's finding that Barrett violated Rule 4.3(b), reasoning that his emails expressed his 'opinion of their legal situation' rather than impermissible 'legal advice.' Because Rhudy knew Barrett was her adversary, she would not assume he was a disinterested authority on the law. The court affirmed, however, that Barrett violated other rules by: (1) harassing opposing counsel with personal attacks and derogatory comments (Rule 3.4(j)); (2) threatening disciplinary charges solely to gain an advantage by intimidating her into withdrawing (Rule 3.4(i)); (3) filing a frivolous motion to strike pleadings (Rule 3.1); and (4) engaging in ex parte communication with the judge (Rule 3.5(e)). The court reversed the finding that Barrett's failure to pay support was a deliberately wrongful act (Rule 8.4(b)), holding the Bar failed to prove his non-payment was willful or that there was a nexus between the civil contempt findings and his fitness to practice law.
Dissenting in part - Keenan, J.
Yes. A lawyer-spouse violates the rule by providing legal advice to an unrepresented adverse party. The dissent argued that Barrett's explanations of legal doctrines like 'imputed income' and his specific predictions of court outcomes constituted legal advice intended to influence his wife's conduct. The majority's holding effectively creates a 'spousal exception' to Rule 4.3(b), allowing a lawyer to use legal knowledge as a 'sword' in a marital conflict. The dissent would also have affirmed the violation for failure to pay support (Rule 8.4(b)), arguing that two judicial findings of contempt are sufficient evidence of a 'deliberately wrongful act' that reflects adversely on a lawyer's trustworthiness.
Analysis:
This decision creates a fine, fact-sensitive distinction between a lawyer's permissible expression of a partisan 'opinion' and impermissible 'legal advice' given to an unrepresented opponent. It suggests that if the recipient is aware of the lawyer's adverse interests, even intimidating predictions about legal outcomes may not violate Rule 4.3(b). The case strongly reinforces the professional duty of civility, clarifying that harassing, ad hominem attacks against opposing counsel in correspondence constitutes sanctionable misconduct. This precedent may make it harder to discipline lawyers for aggressive communications with unrepresented parties in domestic disputes, but it strengthens the bar's ability to police unprofessional conduct between lawyers.
