The Supreme Court of Virginia Issues a Relatively Short Opinion in an Attorney Disciplinary Action
Jared Ryan Jenkins, a Virginia attorney, filed a motion to intervene in a trust property sale case in Rockbridge County Circuit Court. During the litigation, unhappy with the trial court’s rulings, Jenkins made several disparaging and offensive statements in court filings about counsel and the court, refused to pay court-ordered sanctions, and sent an email to local bar members making “scurrilous statements” about the court, including an accusation that it was unethical. Jenkins was ultimately held in contempt of court. The Virginia State Bar filed a complaint against Jenkins, alleging violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), and a three-judge panel found that he had violated Rules 3.4 and 8.2. His license was suspended for nine months. Jenkins appealed, arguing that (1) the panel should have continued the case pending resolution of the underlying substantive issues, (2) the panel failed to consider evidence relevant to his defense, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to find that he had violated the RPC.
The Supreme Court of Virginia affirms the panels decision, finding that most of Jenkins’ arguments rested on his assertion that the circuit court erred in its rulings in the underlying case and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed. The problem with Jenkins’ contention is that the disciplinary proceeding was separate from the merits of Jenkins’ arguments in the underlying case. Even if Jenkins believed that the court had erred or lacked jurisdiction, this did not justify violations of the RPC. The Court concluded that the panel had properly considered all relevant evidence and that Jenkins had violated RPC 3.4 by knowingly disobeying a court order and RPC 8.2 by making statements that impugned the integrity of the court with reckless disregard for their truth. The Court emphasized that lawyers must maintain professionalism and decorum even when disagreeing with court rulings.