Attorney was late for his own sanctions meeting
By Peter Vieth
The Daily Record Newswire
RICHMOND, VA - Richmond's two federal bankruptcy judges banned a Richmond lawyer from their courts for four months earlier this year. The sanction for alleged poor practice was upheld Sept. 26 by a U.S. district judge.
The judges said attorney Darryl A. Parker showed a pattern of ill-prepared documents, late court appearances and disregard of procedural requirements.
Parker even arrived late to a "show cause" hearing on sanctions to be imposed against him, according to one of the bankruptcy judges.
Besides the four-month suspension, the judges ordered Parker to refund fees to five clients and reimburse the U.S. Trustee's office a total of $4,000 for the trouble he caused. He was also ordered to attend a total of 12 hours of continuing legal education before reinstatement.
The double-barreled sanctions proceedings produced three judicial opinions recounting examples of "unprofessional conduct and incompetent representation," in the words of one judge.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Keith L. Phillips was the first to call Parker to account. After a Dec. 10, 2013, hearing, he concluded Parker violated bankruptcy laws when he filed unsigned and unverified schedules, statements and lists in a bankruptcy case.
Parker's treatment of the client "reflects poorly on the legal profession and is unacceptable to the court," Phillips wrote.
Judge Kevin R. Huennekens reviewed four other cases of alleged unprofessional conduct. He noted Parker was late for his own sanctions hearing, and cited other instances where the attorney had kept others waiting for bankruptcy proceedings.
One attorney, acting as a trustee, testified that Parker was an hour late for a morning meeting of creditors on Oct. 10, 2013. The trustee "testified that he detected the distinct odor of alcohol emanating from Parker while he conducted the § 341 meeting," Huennekens wrote.
"The Court was disappointed that Parker did not take the witness stand at the Hearing to deny this allegation," Huennekens said.
In each of four cases, "Parker needlessly subjected his clients to procedural peril," the judge said. "Parker has demonstrated an increasingly consistent propensity for filing ill prepared pleadings, making untimely appearances, and disregarding procedural requirements," Huennekens said.
In a Jan. 15 order, both judges suspended Parker from practice before the Eastern District Bankruptcy Court until May 16.
Parker appealed to the district court, arguing the court acted beyond its authority and minimizing his alleged misdeeds.
"These are and were minor infractions by your Appellant who has had a very successful practice within the Bankruptcy Court for many years," Parker wrote in his appeal.
U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne upheld all of the sanctions against Parker.
In fact, Payne said he considered the four-month suspension "quite lenient."
"Because Parker displayed such ineptitude for such a prolonged period of time in so many cases, the Bankruptcy Court was well within the bounds of judicial reasonableness, acting under its inherent power to sanction attorneys before it, to suspend Parker's right to practice in front of it for a period of four months," Payne wrote.
Parker has received both a public reprimand and a public admonition in Virginia State Bar disciplinary proceedings.
He was reprimanded and fined $500 in 2012 for lapses in his handling of a 2003 real estate closing. He was admonished this year for his handling of two criminal matters and ordered to complete additional CLE credits and submit to bar inspection of his books.
Parker remains licensed in good standing with the VSB.
Under VSB rules, Parker could be subject to reciprocal discipline by the VSB for his four-month suspension by the bankruptcy court. However, a recent decision by a VSB Disciplinary Board panel called into question the bar's authority to suspend an attorney's law license based on suspension by a particular court.
The VSB Committee on Lawyer Discipline has been working on a revised rule for reciprocal discipline, but a proposal has not yet been released for public comment.
"At this time it will be up to a member of the Disciplinary Board to determine whether to initiate reciprocal proceedings," said VSB Counsel Edward L. Davis.
Parker did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Published: Tue, Oct 07, 2014
