VIRGINIA:

IN THE MATTERS OF

ALEXANDRA DIVINE BOWEN VSB Docket Nos. 01-033-0480 and 01-033-2297

On April 9, 2002, a hearing in the above-styled matters was held before a duly convened panel of the Third District Committee, Section III, consisting of Daniel A. Carrell, Esquire; Cynthia A. S. Cecil, Esquire; John Tracy Walker, Esquire; George C. Hutter, lay member; and Edwin A. Bischoff, Esquire, presiding.

The respondent Alexandra Divine Bowen, Esquire, appeared in person, with her counsel, Andrew W. Wood, Esquire. Barbara Ann Williams, Bar Counsel, appeared as counsel for the Virginia State Bar. The court reporter was Tracy J. Stroh, Chandler & Halasz, P.O. Box 9349, Richmond, Virginia 23227; (804) 730-1222.

Pursuant to Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13 of the Rules of Court, the Third District Committee, Section III, hereby serves upon the respondent the following Public Reprimand with Terms:

• General Findings of Fact

1. The respondent, Alexandra Divine Bowen, was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Virginia on May 2, 1980.

2. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Ms. Bowen was an attorney in good standing to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

• VSB Docket No. 01-033-0480

Complainant: Diane G. Hahn

A. Findings of Fact

1. In February 2000, Diane G. Hahn retained Alexandra Divine Bowen to handle Ms. Hahn's divorce from her husband Gary D. Hahn.

2. On or about February 15, 2000, Ms. Hahn gave Ms. Bowen a check for $1000.00 made payable to Bowen, Bryant, Champlin & Carr as a retainer.

3. Initially, Ms. Bowen accepted and returned Ms. Hahn's telephone calls, but as time passed, Ms. Bowen became increasingly unresponsive to her client's inquiries, failing to return phone calls, to respond to voice messages and fax messages, and to schedule follow-up in-person conferences.

• Not only did Ms. Bowen fail to respond to Ms. Hahn's messages, she failed to respond to letters from Mr. Hahn's counsel seeking an amicable settlement.



• Ms. Hahn understood that a hearing on alimony and support issues would be scheduled, but no hearing was set, even after Ms. Hahn advised Ms. Bowen of her financial concerns, which were in part health related. Ms. Bowen never provided Ms. Hahn with any explanation for her failure to schedule a hearing.



• As a result of lack of attorney client contact and communication, Ms. Hahn was unaware of the progress of her case, how the case was to be handled procedurally, and unaware of requests for exchange of information by opposing counsel which related to possible settlement of the case.



• On or about August 4, 2000, Mr. Hahn's counsel wrote Ms. Bowen entreating her to provide financial information he had previously requested and offering to provide her any information she needed to assess what would be a fair resolution of the case. Ms. Bowen did not respond to the letter.



• Ms. Bowen failed to properly supervise and be responsible for the conduct of non-lawyer assistants under her employment who communicated with, or should have communicated with, Ms. Hahn, or who received communications from Ms. Hahn which were not properly forwarded to Ms. Bowen.



• Ms. Hahn, frustrated by the lack of communication with Ms. Bowen, discharged Ms. Bowen by letter dated September 1, 2000.



• Mr. Hahn's counsel filed divorce papers on or about September 4, 2000, after hearing nothing from Ms. Bowen.
• Ms. Hahn submitted a bar complaint against Ms. Bowen to the Virginia State Bar on or about September 6, 2000.



• Murray J. Janus assumed Ms. Hahn's representation, and by letter of September 8, 2000, requested Ms. Bowen in writing to provide him pertinent portions of Ms. Hahn's file.



• Ms. Bowen did not respond to Mr. Janus' letter dated September 8, or to a follow-up letter from Mr. Janus dated October 2, 2000.



• Mr. Janus wrote Ms. Bowen again on October 16, 2000, reminding her of her ethical duty to release Ms. Hahn's file.

• By letter dated October 19, 2000, Ms. Bowen sent Mr. Janus Ms. Hahn's file and a refund of all of Ms. Hahn's deposit, less actual costs.

B. Findings of Misconduct

The Third District Committee finds that there is clear and convincing evidence in VSB Docket No. 01-033-0480 that the respondent violated the following rules of Professional Responsibility:

RULE 1.4 Communication

(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

• A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
  

• A lawyer shall inform the client of facts pertinent to the matter and of communications from another party that may significantly affect settlement or resolution of the matter.

RULE 5.3 Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants

With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer:

* * *

• a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if:

* * *

• the lawyer is a partner in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows or should have known of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

III. VSB Docket No. 01-033-2297

Complainant: Reginald A. Freeman

A. Findings of Fact

1. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Freeman was a sergeant in the United States Air Force stationed in at the Incirlik Air Base, Turkey.

2. Sgt. Freeman's ex-wife appealed from a general district court decision granting him custody of their daughter.

3. In the summer of 2000, Ms. Bowen undertook to represent Sgt. Freeman on the appeal after Elizabeth Muncy, his former counsel, accepted a position with the Chesterfield County Commonwealth Attorney's office.

• A hearing was held in Henrico Circuit Court on August 4, 2000, at which time the judge awarded custody of the child to Sgt. Freeman's ex-wife but ruled that Sgt. Freeman was to submit a visitation schedule, once he ascertained his leave availability, which would be incorporated in the court order, which counsel for the parties understood they were to submit to the Court.



• Sgt. Freeman, commencing immediately after the August 4, 2000 hearing, and continuing through February 16, 2001, repeatedly requested, by fax and e-mail, from Ms. Bowen information concerning the delivery of a transcript of the August 4, 2000 proceedings he had requested and the entry of the order, which had been repeatedly requested by his personnel office.

• Despite Sgt. Freeman's numerous inquiries and demands that she prepare the visitation schedule so an order could be entered, and deliver a copy of the transcript, Ms. Bowen failed to prepare the visitation schedule and deliver the transcript until February 16, 2001.



• Sgt. Freeman approved on February 16, 2001 the sketch order prepared by Ms. Bowen.

• Sgt. Freeman submitted a bar complaint against Ms. Bowen to the Virginia State Bar on or about March 15, 2001.
  

• Ms. Bowen and opposing counsel prepared a new sketch order in April 2001.

• The Court entered the sketch order on April 23, 2001, but because Ms. Bowen had failed to correct a misspelling of Sgt. Freeman's ex-wife's middle name, an error which Sgt. Freeman brought to Ms. Bowen's attention before the sketch order was submitted to the court, an amended order had to be filed.

• A corrected order was not entered until July 23, 2001.

• Ms. Bowen's failures to communicate with Sgt. Freeman were not the result of staffing problems, but the lack of proper diligence and promptness by Ms. Bowen.

B. Findings of Misconduct

The Third District Committee finds that there is clear and convincing evidence in VSB Docket No. 01-033-2297 that the respondent violated the following rules of Professional Responsibility:

RULE 1.3 Diligence

(a) A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

* * *

RULE 1.4 Communication

(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

* * *

IV. Imposition of Public Reprimand with Terms

Accordingly, based upon the clear and convincing evidence of ethical misconduct presented in VSB Docket Nos. 01-033-0480 and 01-033-2297, and respondent's prior disciplinary record, it is the Third District Committee's decision to impose a Public Reprimand with Terms in these matters, compliance with which by October 22, 2002, shall be a predicate for the disposition of these matters by imposition of a Public Reprimand. The terms and conditions that shall be met by October 22, 2002, are as follows:

1. Respondent shall complete a mentoring program of 20 hours duration with a mentor who has at least 25 years of law practice experience and who shall be approved by Bar Counsel. The mentoring program shall focus on client communications and personnel management. Respondent, respondent's counsel and Bar Counsel shall coordinate selection of a mentor. Respondent shall submit to Bar Counsel in writing, no later than October 22, 2002, a certification signed by her mentor and by respondent that she has completed a 20 hour mentoring program.

2. The respondent shall complete 80 hours of supervised pro bono service through the Domestic Violence Program, subject to the approval of the program coordinator, and if such approval is not given, through another pro bono program approved by Bar Counsel. Respondent shall submit to Bar Counsel in writing, no later than October 22, 2002, a certification signed by the coordinator of the pro bono program that she has completed 80 hours of supervised pro bono service.

Upon satisfactory proof that these terms and conditions have been met, a Public Reprimand with Terms shall be imposed, and these matters shall be closed. If, however, the Third District Committee finds that these terms and conditions are not met by October 22, 2002, or such later date as the Committee may approve, in writing, for good cause, these matters shall be certified to the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board.

Pursuant to Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13.(K)(10) of the Rules of Court, the Clerk of the Disciplinary System shall assess costs.

THIRD DISTRICT COMMITTEE, SECTION III,

OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR

Date: / / _______________________________________________

Edwin A. Bischoff, Esquire, Chair

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing District Committee Determination (Public Reprimand with Terms) was mailed on the ________ day of ________, 2002, by certified mail, return receipt requested to Alexandra Divine Bowen, Esquire, Bowen, Bryant, Champlin and Carr, Suite 300, 1919 Huguenot Road, Richmond, Virginia 23235-4321, respondent's last address of record with the Virginia State Bar, and mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to her counsel, Andrew W. Wood, Esquire, Wood and Wood, P.C., P.O. Box 8265, Richmond, VA 23226.

___________________________________