VIRGINIA:



BEFORE THE FIFTH DISTRICT SECTION I COMMITTEE
OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR



IN THE MATTER OF FRANCIS GERARD MCBRIDE, ESQ.
VSB Docket Nos. 01-051-1728 and 02-051-2473


COMMITTEE DETERMINATION
PUBLIC REPRIMAND


On October 8, 2002, a hearing in this matter was held before the duly convened Fifth District Committee Section I, consisting of Sean P. Kelly, Esq., Richard J. Ruddy, Jr., Esq., Carol T. Stone, Esq., Mark A. Barondess, Esq., Stephan A. Wannall, Esther J. Nance, and Susan Richards Salen, Esq., presiding.

Pursuant to Part 6, §IV, ¶13(H)(2)(m) of the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court, the Fifth District Committee Section I of the Virginia State Bar hereby serves upon the Respondent the following Public Reprimand:

 

I. FINDINGS OF FACT


1. At all times relevant hereto the Respondent, Francis Gerard McBride, Esq. (hereinafter the Respondent), has been an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

2. On October 17, 1994, the Respondent qualified as Executor of the Estate of Mary K. Nuber. On January 31, 2001, the Complainant, the Commissioner of Accounts for the Circuit Court of the County of Prince William, sent a report to the Judges of the Prince William County Circuit Court, informing them that the Respondent had failed to file the Nuber Estate's fourth accounting within thirty days of the service of summons that she had served on him. Also on January 31, 2001, the Complainant filed her complaint against the Respondent with the Virginia State Bar.

3. On April 10, 2001, this complaint was referred the Fifth District Committee Section I for further investigation. On May 16, 2001, a Virginia State Bar Investigator spoke with the Commissioner regarding the Respondent and the Nuber Estate. The Commissioner informed the investigator that the Respondent had filed a fourth accounting but that she could not approve it yet. The Commissioner had informed the Respondent what revisions he needed to make to the accounting in order for her to approve it, and given the Respondent until June 1, 2001 to complete the revisions. The Commissioner also informed the investigator that the Respondent had told her that he intended to file the Estate's final accounting on June 1, 2001.

4. On June 18, 2001, a Virginia State Bar Paralegal spoke with the Commissioner regarding the Nuber Estate. The Respondent had filed another fourth accounting but it was still not correct and could not be approved. The Commissioner had given the Respondent until October 5, 2001 to correct the fourth accounting and file it again.

5. On June 29, 2001, a subcommittee of the Fifth District Committee Section II imposed a Dismissal with Terms against the Respondent for failing to file a correct fourth accounting of the Nuber Estate. The subcommittee gave the Respondent until October 5, 2001 to file a correct fourth and final accounting, and until November 1, 2001 to provide proof to Bar Counsel that the accounting had been filed and approved by the Commissioner and that the Estate could be closed. On October 5, 2001, the Respondent filed a third version of his fourth accounting. The Commissioner approved it on October 8, 2001. However, this fourth accounting was not the final accounting for the Nuber estate.

6. On December 18, 2001, the Commissioner filed another summons to be served on the Respondent, giving him thirty days to file the fifth accounting of the Nuber Estate. On February 7, 2002, the Commissioner reported to the Circuit Court of Prince William County that the Respondent had failed to file the fifth accounting of the Nuber Estate, as required by the summons and on February 8, 2002, the Virginia State Bar received her complaint against the Respondent. On June 7, 2002, the Respondent submitted a fifth but incorrect accounting to the Commissioner. As of October 4, 2002, the Commissioner had not approved the Respondent's fifth accounting, which was not a final accounting.

II. NATURE OF MISCONDUCT

The Committee finds that the following Disciplinary Rules have been violated:

RULE 1.3 Diligence

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

III. PUBLIC REPRIMAND

Accordingly, it is the decision of the Committee to impose a Public Reprimand, and a Public Reprimand is hereby imposed.

Pursuant to Part Six, §IV, ¶13(B)(8)(c) of the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court, the Clerk of the Disciplinary System shall assess costs.

 

FIFTH DISTRICT SECTION I COMMITTEE OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR
By
Susan Richards Salen, Chair


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have this _____ day of _________________________, 2002, mailed a true and correct copy of the Committee Determination of a Public Reprimand by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to the Respondent, Francis Gerard McBride, Esq., at 10560 Main St., Suite 514, Fairfax, VA 22030-7812, his last address of record with the Virginia State Bar.

Noel D. Sengel