BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
IN THE MATTER OF ALAN JAY CILMAN
VSB DOCKET: 02-000-2325
The Board consisted of John A. Dezio, Chairman, William C. Boyce, Jr., Richard J. Colten, Lay Member Thaddeus T. Crump, and Peter A. Dingman. The Respondent, Alan Jay Cilman, appeared without counsel. Seth M. Guggenheim, Assistant Bar Counsel, appeared as counsel for the Virginia State Bar. The proceedings were transcribed by Tracy J. Stroh of Chandler & Halasz, P.O. Box 9349, Richmond, Virginia 23227, (804) 730-1222.
All required legal notices were properly sent by the Clerk of the Disciplinary System.
On May 20, 2002 the Respondent requested that the matter be heard by a three judge panel. The request was denied by William M. Moffet, Chairman of the Disciplinary Board, on May 24, 2002, citing the provisions of Paragraph 13 K(1), which provide in pertinent part:
"All issues concerning adequacy of the notices and arrangements required herein shall be determined by the Disciplinary Board."
On June 27, 2002, Respondent requested that the hearing be continued. Respondent's motion was denied by John A. Dezio, First Vice-Chairman of the Disciplinary Board.
At the hearing, Respondent renewed his motions for a three judge panel and continuance, and the Board ruled that it was without authority to alter the previous rulings of the Board's officers. Nevertheless, the Board stated that if it had authority, it would deny both motions.
The Chair polled the panel to determine whether any member would be prevented from hearing the matter because of a conflict, actual or perceived. Each member, including the Chair, responded in the negative.
In support of the rule, the Bar alleges that Respondent has failed to give the notice and proof thereof required by Paragraph 13 K(1), in relation to several instances of discipline. Paragraph 13 K(1) provides in the case of a suspension or revocation that the Respondent shall give notice, by certified mail, of his suspension or revocation to all clients, opposing counsel, and judges presiding over pending cases within 14 days. Arrangements for the disposition of matters then within his care shall be made within 45 days, and proof of such notice and arrangements shall be given to the Bar within 60 days.
After hearing testimony, viewing evidence, and hearing argument of counsel, the Board finds as follows:
(1) At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent, Alan Jay Cilman, has been a suspended member of the Virginia State Bar.
(2) On July 23, 1998, Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two years by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, as an alternative sanction, for failing to comply with terms relating to earlier discipline. Respondent was required to comply with the provisions of Paragraph 13 K(1). Respondent was properly notified by the Bar.
(3) Although Respondent appealed the Board's decision, the requirements of Paragraph 13 K(1) were not stayed, and remained in full force. Respondent's appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
(4) On August 25, 1998, Respondent was once again disciplined pursuant to an agreed disposition which imposed a letter of reprimand and required the Respondent to pay costs.
(5) Respondent failed to pay costs and, as a result, Respondent's license was administratively suspended on October 15, 1999. Respondent was once again ordered to comply with Paragraph 13 K(1). The Bar properly notified Respondent of these requirements.
(6) On August 24, 1998, Respondent was tried by a three judge panel for ethical misconduct. Respondent was suspended for one year and, once again, required to comply with Paragraph 13 K(1). The Bar properly notified Respondent of these requirements.
(7) On November 19, 1999, Respondent was administratively suspended for failing to pay the costs associated with the three judge hearing. Once again, Paragraph 13 K(1) requirements were imposed, and Respondent was notified by the Bar.
(8) On August 10, 2001, Respondent was administratively suspended for failing to pay the supplemental costs associated with the suspension of July 23, 1998.
(9) Although Respondent notified some clients of his various suspensions, there is no evidence that all were notified. In any case, no judges or opposing counsel were notified, and no proof of any required notifications was ever received by the Bar.
(10) The Board finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent has failed to show cause why his license to practice law should not be suspended or revoked.
Duties of the Respondent
It is further ordered pursuant to Paragraph 13 K(10) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, that the Clerk of the Disciplinary System shall assess costs against the Respondent.
It is finally ordered that the Clerk of the Disciplinary System shall forward a copy of this order, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Respondent, Alan Jay Cilman, at his address of record with the Virginia State Bar, 507 Valley Drive, Vienna, Virginia 22180, and to Seth M. Guggenheim, Assistant Bar Counsel, Virginia State Bar, 100 N. Pitt Street, Suite 310, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3133.
ENTERED this ______ day of _______________, 2002.
VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD
John A. Dezio, Chairman