251004
Va.Jun 4, 2026Background
- Perez retained Wessel for a personal-injury claim arising from a Merrifield accident, and their agreement gave Wessel a contingency lien and cost rights. 1
- As trial neared, Wessel hired additional lawyers over a fee dispute and later decided not to try the case, but he did not promptly tell Perez. 2
- Wessel continued to act as though he would try the case to pressure settlement, even though he intended not to do so. 3
- Perez learned of Wessel's true position only shortly before trial, then the case settled for $1.2 million and Perez immediately terminated Wessel. 4
- After termination, Wessel resisted distributing undisputed settlement funds to Perez and did not move to withdraw until a later fee hearing. 5
- A three-judge panel found Wessel violated Rules 1.3(b), 1.16(a)(1), 1.16(a)(3), 1.15(b)(4), and 8.4(a), and suspended him for 13 months. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.3(b) failure to carry out client contract 7 | VSB said Wessel intentionally misled Perez and failed to perform. | Wessel said he acted in Perez's best interests. | Wessel violated Rule 1.3(b). 8 |
| Rule 1.16 withdrawal after conflict and discharge 9 | VSB said Wessel had to withdraw once he could not ethically continue and after Perez fired him. | Wessel said no rule required immediate withdrawal. | Wessel violated Rules 1.16(a)(1) and (a)(3). 10 |
| Rule 8.4(a) and Rule 1.15(b)(4) settlement disbursement 11 | VSB said Wessel improperly blocked immediate payment of undisputed client funds. | Wessel said the fee agreement required him and lenders to be paid first. | Wessel violated Rules 8.4(a) and 1.15(b)(4). 12 |
| Appropriate disciplinary result 13 | VSB supported the panel's suspension decision. | Wessel sought reversal. | The court affirmed the 13-month suspension. 14 |
Key Cases Cited
- Pappas v. Virginia State Bar, 271 Va. 580 (Va. 2006) (attorney-discipline review gives substantial weight to factual findings 15)
- Anthony v. Virginia State Bar, 270 Va. 601 (Va. 2005) (cited with Pappas for the discipline standard of review 16)
- Brown v. Virginia State Bar ex rel. Sixth Dist. Comm., 302 Va. 234 (Va. 2023) (Rules of Professional Conduct are reviewed de novo; lawyers owe heightened fiduciary duties 17)
- Bailey v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 794 (Va. Ct. App. 2002) (withdrawal required when counsel cannot serve the client's best interests 18)
- Shipman v. Kruck, 267 Va. 495 (Va. 2004) (attorney-client relationship is fiduciary and demands highest fidelity 19)