Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawyertestimony
lawyerplea

Related Cases

In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117, 43 O.O.2d 459
View Case »
Pelagatti v. Cohen, 370 Pa.Super. 422, 536 A.2d 1337
View Case »
Otis & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 57 F.Supp. 680
View Case »
Perlman v. U.S., 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950
View Case »
Poly Trucking, Inc. v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., 93 P.3d 561
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pilli v. Virginia State Bar, 269 Va. 391, 611 S.E.2d 389, 74 USLW 3132

Facts

Dominick Pilli was charged with contempt by Judge Michael J. Cassidy after failing to appear in court for a traffic case. Following this, Pilli filed a reply accusing Judge Cassidy of lying and incompetence, which led to charges of misconduct by the Virginia State Bar. The Board found that Pilli's statements were made with reckless disregard for their truth and violated professional conduct rules.

The Board received evidence concerning Pilli's failure to appear in court on both October 16, 2001 and December 11, 2001, and Pilli's actions in drafting the Reply 'pleading.'

Issue

Whether the Board's finding that Pilli violated Rule 8.2 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The issue before us is whether the Board's finding is supported by a reasonable view of the evidence and is in accordance with the law.

Rule

Rule 8.2 prohibits a lawyer from making statements that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard to the truth or falsity of the statement concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.

Rule 8.2 prohibits a lawyer from making a statement that the lawyer knew to be false or with reckless disregard to the truth or falsity of the statement concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.

Analysis

The court examined the evidence presented to the Board and found that Pilli's statements about Judge Cassidy constituted an attack on the judge's qualifications and integrity. The court noted that Pilli's own testimony acknowledged that his remarks could be seen as impugning the judge's integrity. The court concluded that Pilli made these statements with reckless disregard for their truth, as they were personal attacks without factual basis.

The Board found by clear and convincing evidence that Pilli 'made statements with reckless disregard concerning Judge Cassidy's qualifications and integrity.'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's order suspending Pilli's license for 90 days, finding that the evidence supported the Board's determination of a violation of Rule 8.2.

We hold that the Board's conclusions are justified by a reasonable view of the evidence, and that the record supports the Board's determination that there is clear and convincing evidence that Pilli violated Rule 8.2.

Who won?

Virginia State Bar; the Bar prevailed because the court found clear and convincing evidence that Pilli violated professional conduct rules.

In reviewing the Board's determination that Pilli violated Rule 8.2, we observe that two separate elements must be established to prove a violation of that Rule.

You must be