Complaint Review: Jan C. Smith, Smith & Smith
- Jan C. Smith, Smith & Smith
15381 Kings Hwy, 112 Peach Grove Ln #4, POB 365
- Phone: 804-493-9556
- Category: Lawyers
Jan C. Smith, Smith & Smith Dangerously Unethical Lawyer You Should Avoid Under ALL Circumstances Montross Virginia
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
Click here now..
Lawyer Jan C. Smith of 1751 Windmill Point Road, White Stone, VA, and Smith & Smith of 15381 Kings Hwy, 112 Peach Grove Ln #4, POB 365, Montross, VA. He engaged in conflict of interest by taking my case in full knowledge that opposing counsel, Michael C. Mayo, was Commissioner of Accounts overseeing his probate, as executor, of his mother-in-law's will. In order to get Mayo to approve the Accountings and other documents he had probated (prior to taking my case) that Mayo had previously rejected, he intentionally subverted my case by: (1) failing to enter a court appearance as counsel of record despite repeated requests, (2) conspiring with opposing counsel NOT to file a court document by the deadline, (3) NOT informing me, his client, of his failure to do so, and (4) making a surprise appearance in court FOR opposing counsel to fatally damage my case.
His above actions violated the following Virginia State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Rules:
1.7(a)(2) CONFLICT OF INTEREST: GENERAL RULE (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by ... a personal interest of the lawyer.”
1.8(b) “CONFLICT OF INTEREST: PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS (b) A lawyer shall not use information relating to representation of a client for the advantage of the lawyer or of a third person or to the disadvantage of the client unless the client consents after consultation.”
1.2(a) SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION (a) A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation.
1.3 DILIGENCE (a) A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, (b) A lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, (c) A lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or damage a client during the course of the professional relationship.
1.6(a) CONFIDENTIALITY (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information protected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law or other information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested to be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be ... likely to be detrimental to the client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized to carry out the representation.
4.1(a) TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of fact.
3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL, (j) ...conduct a defense ... or take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.
1.16(b)(d) DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION (b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client; (d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonable practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as ... refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned.
1.5 (a)(4)FEES; (a) A lawyer’s fee shall be reasonable. The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: (4) the amount involved and the results obtained.
The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board regularly receives complaints and issues public reprimands to him for egregious violations of the professional rules that govern diligence and communication and dozens of others violations, see http://www.vsb.org/docs/Smith-041612.pdf http://www.vsb.org/docs/Smith-062510.pdf and http://www.dcbar.org/discipline/other_jurisdiction/20100520Smith.pdf And yet, the county continues to hire him as a substitute judge in Circuit Court! Any other state would have disbarred him long ago.
On May 20, 2010, the Virginia State Bar Sixth District Subcommittee imposed a public reprimand with terms on Jan C. Smith for violating disciplinary rules that govern competence, diligence, communication, and failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority. This was an agreed disposition of disciplinary charges. RPC 1.1; 1.3(a); 1.4(a–c); 8.1(c). See VSB Docket No. 09-060-076463 at http://www.vsb.org/docs/Smith-062510.pdf. On March 20, 2012, the VSB Disciplinary Board issued a SECOND public reprimand to him for violating professional rules that govern diligence and communication. This was an agreed disposition of misconduct charges. RPC 1.3(a); 1.4(a). See VSB Docket No. 10-060-080411, 11-060-086108, 11-060-085701 at http://www.vsb.org/site/publications/register/register-may-2012
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/28/2017 08:56 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/jan-c-smith-smith-smith/montross-virginia-22520/jan-c-smith-smith-smith-dangerously-unethical-lawyer-you-should-avoid-under-all-circu-1375869. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here: