VIRGINIA STATE BAR:
IN THE MATTER OF NORVILL
VSB Docket No. 02-000-2153
26th day of April 2002, this Show Cause Hearing was held before
a panel of the Board, consisting of William C. Boyce, Jr., Chester J. Cahoun,
Frank B. Miller, III, Gordon P. Peyton, Jr., and Roscoe B. Stephenson, III,
Acting Chair. The Court Reporter was Donna Chandler of Chandler & Halasz,
The Show Cause hearing was heard pursuant to the "Rule to Show Cause and Order of Suspension at Hearing" from the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board entered March 29, 2002, suspending the license of Respondent on the grounds that Respondent had been convicted of a crime, as defined by Rules of Court, Part 6, Section IV, ¶13(A), by reason of his conviction, based on his guilty plea to misdemeanor charges in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia, of forging and uttering stolen checks, on December 14, 2001, Case Number 01-F-180-H. The felony charges then pending against Respondent were dismissed as part of the plea bargaining.
admitted that he has not practiced law in
Respondent advised that, in 1993, following his arrest, he entered a long
term treatment center for substance abuse, where he remained for five years.
Following discharge, he moved to the State of
further advised that he has been employed locally in
Respondent was very candid in admitting that he was not current on his dues
or his continuing legal education requirements in the
further advised that he wishes to activate his
Board was impressed with the fact that Respondent had paid approximately $1,300.00
back of the $2,100.00 stolen through the forged checks and that Respondent
is performing approximately thirty hours per week of volunteer work in
Board was impressed with the candor and forthrightness of the testimony of
the Respondent, especially the fact that he felt a Suspension of his license
to practice law in the
on the testimony of Respondent and the Exhibits introduced in evidence at
the hearing, the Board was of the opinion that Respondent had not shown cause
why his license to practice law in the
In deliberating whether to further suspend or revoke the license of Respondent to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Board considered the evidence that Respondent, in California, forged and uttered checks belonging to his father, Christopher Clark, with whom he was living at the time, and in the State of West Virginia, forged and uttered checks belonging to James Argent, for whom he performed certain work in Bekley, West Virginia, both victims are persons who were close to Respondent and who placed trust in him.
considering all of the facts introduced at the hearing, including the testimony
of Respondent and the exhibits tendered by both parties, the Board is of the
opinion and doth ORDER that the license to practice law in the
revoking the license to practice law in the
Board was further impressed with the information contained in letter received
from the employer of Respondent and the punishment undergone for the offenses
committed. The Board is not unaware of the fact that Respondent has also committed
The Board felt Revocation was more appropriate than a suspension for a number of reasons. Respondent has not practiced law in any state, since 1993 and, by his own admission, was not current in his continuing legal education. For this reason, the Board was concerned about his familiarity with the Rules of Professional Responsibility and his proficiency in the practice of law.
Board noted that, despite five years of treatment for his addiction in the
is ORDERED that, as directed in the Boardís April 26, 2002, Summary Order
in this matter, a copy of which was served on Respondent by certified mail,
Respondent must comply with the requirements of Part 6, Section IV, Paragraph
13.K.(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. The time for compliance
with said requirements runs from the
is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Disciplinary System shall send an
attested and true copy of this Order and Opinion to Respondent, Norvill Sherman
The Clerk of the Disciplinary System shall assess costs pursuant to Part 6, Section IV, Paragraph 13.K.(10) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
So ORDERED, this ______ day of May, 2002.
Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board
By:Roscoe B. Stephenson, III
 Petitioner advised that his license in
 While the Order of the Supreme Court of California (State Bar Court Case No. 93-Q-15992) accepting Respondentís resignation is dated April 13, 1994, the Transmittal of this license was marked "received" by the Supreme court of California on November 3, 1993. (VSB Exhibit 4) This Exhibit 4 also contains documents from the Municipal Court Southern Branch showing Respondent made a Nolo Contendre plea to the charges of forging and uttering.
 The Board received in evidence, without objection, as Respondent Exhibit 2, a letter from Elizabeth Hanna, Secretary, Richwood City Building Commission. This Exhibit was also considered by the Board in its deliberations.
 Respondent was placed on probation by the Circuit
Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia for a period of two years, effective
 According to the documents, Respondent was born on July 8 , 1952.