1. At all times relevant hereto, John Michael DiJoseph, Esquire (hereafter "Respondent"), has been an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

As to VSB Docket No. 02-041-2657:

2. Ms. Kelly L. Bowman (hereafter "Complainant") retained the Respondent in or around April, 2000, to research the possibility of vacating a felony conviction to assist her in becoming certified as an emergency medical technician.

3. The Respondent charged the Complainant a "flat fee" of $2,000.00 for his legal services, which Complainant paid to him, in full, at the inception of Respondent's engagement. The Complainant also supplied the Respondent with documents pertinent to her legal matter.

4. The Respondent met with the Complainant over an approximately eight month period.

5. Following the approximately eight month period during which the Respondent would meet with the Complainant, the Respondent continued responding to Complainant's telephone messages and e-mail inquiries, but failed to respond in a timely manner as required by the rules of professional conduct.

6. On or about December 14, 2001, the Complainant sent the Respondent a letter stating, inter alia, as follows:

I am writing this final request asking for the return of all the papers and documents I loaned to you for your review when I retained your services in April 2000. I, as well as my father, have repeatedly attempted to contact you via telephone at your home, cell phone, at your office, as well as through email seeking your cooperation with this matter. Your lack of response and communication has us both concerned. Your prompt response to this matter is greatly appreciated. If I do not receive the documents and accompanying paperwork within ten days I will refer this request to the Virginia Bar Association for action.

7. By way of response to her letter, the Complainant received a telephone call from someone on Respondent's behalf, stating that the Respondent was unavailable and would be returning in mid-January, 2002. After waiting and then hearing nothing further from the Respondent, the Complainant renewed her efforts to secure her documents via a telephone call and an e-mail. The e-mail was sent to Respondent on Wednesday, January 16, 2002, and stated

This is my final attempt to contact you before going before the Virginia State Bar. I have received the return receipt from the registered letter I sent you requesting my documents be returned. I hope this finds you well; and I hope to hear from you soon.

8. The Respondent answered the Complainant's e-mail on Thursday, January 17, 2002, stating: "Hi Kelly: I know that LM has talked to you. I should have your records ready by Monday. Will notify you. Best. JOHN"

9. The Complainant telephoned the Respondent on January 28, 2002. During the phone call, the Respondent stated that he wished to set up a time to meet with the Complainant to return her documents, and that she should call the Respondent again in a week. The Complainant telephoned the Respondent one week thereafter, only to receive his voice mail. As of the time that Complainant prepared her Complaint to the Virginia State Bar on February 11, 2002, she had heard nothing further from the Respondent.

10. In response to the Bar Complaint, the Respondent sent a fax to the Virginia State Bar intake office, dated March 11, 2002, stating, in pertinent part, as follows:

I last saw [the Complainant] about six months ago. I had not seen or heard from her for about six months prior to that meeting. I had placed her file that contained mainly research and court documents in storage prior to the next to last meeting as she had decided to forego litigation for various reasons. I told her at the last meeting, as I do with many of my clients, that I wanted to give her her file if she wanted it. If not, I would destroy it. She said she would let me know, which she never did. I have looked for her file and cannot find it. I vaguely recall giving her some of the file at the next to last meeting.

11. On October 18, 2002, the Respondent was interviewed by a Virginia State Bar investigator. The Respondent advised the investigator that during a lunch he had with the Complainant he had given her a portions of her file, consisting of one three ring binder, and that with the exception of his own research notes he had returned all of the Complainant's documents to her.

12. To date, the Respondent has failed to return the portion of file which was not previously returned, and to furnish her with other of Respondent's file materials to which the Complainant is entitled. In fact, the portion of the Complainant's file which was not previously returned has been lost by the Respondent.

13. On March 6, 2003, the Respondent was served with a subpoena duces tecum, which, among other things, compelled the production of the "complete" client file for the Complainant's case, as well as

[a]ll documents of whatever type or description, or true copies of the same, in your possession, custody or control, of any type and nature, omitting nothing therefrom, pertaining to any legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, by or on behalf of [the Complainant] respecting your representation of [the Complainant], including, but not limited to, any fee agreement(s), all billing statements and billing records, including the trust account subsidiary and/or individual client ledger cards.

14. The Respondent produced no material related to Complainant's legal matter in response to the subpoena duces tecum beyond a written statement claiming "File returned to her." No fee agreements, billing statements and records, or any trust account records of any type or description for Complainant's legal matter were provided by the Respondent to the Virginia State Bar pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum, notwithstanding the fact that Complainant's payment of $2,000.00 at the inception of the representation was an advance of legal fees which the Respondent was required to deposit in an attorney trust account and to maintain trust account records with respect thereto.

As to VSB Docket No. 02-041-3238:

15. On or about August 1, 2001, Mohammad I. Khokhar (hereafter "Complainant") retained the Respondent to represent his interests in a civil suit that had been filed against the Complainant and other individuals. The Complainant tendered a check made payable to the order of the Respondent on that same date in the sum of $1,000.00. Subsequently, at the Respondent's request, the Complainant tendered an additional check made payable to the order of the Respondent in the sum of $500.00.

16. At the time that Respondent was retained, a default judgment had been entered against the Complainant, but no final judgment had been entered inasmuch as an evidentiary hearing to set the amount of damages had yet to be conducted.

17. One possible defense which the Respondent discussed with the Complainant was to have been predicated upon averments that he was not a proper party defendant because he was a stranger to the transaction giving rise to the plaintiff's cause of action and that his identity had been confused with that of his brother who was also a defendant in the suit, and who was separately represented.

18. The Respondent did not move to set aside the default judgment that had been entered against the Complainant, either before the evidentiary hearing which the Respondent did not attend, or prior to the time a judgment entered against the Complainant, in excess of $62,000.00, became final.

19. The Complainant was subjected to enforcement action upon the judgment via an appearance before a Commissioner to conduct debtor's interrogatories, without benefit of counsel. The Complainant also sustained losses occasioned by the seizure and/or surrender of his assets as part of the enforcement action.

20. In response to the Bar Complaint filed by the Complainant, the Respondent stated and claimed that he had been retained during the pendency of the civil matter in question merely to "investigate" and "review" the Complainant's legal matter, which the Complainant disputes.

21. On March 6, 2003, the Respondent was served with a subpoena duces tecum, which, among other things, compelled the production of the "complete" client file for the Complainant's case, as well as

[a]ll documents of whatever type or description, or true copies of the same, in your possession, custody or control, of any type and nature, omitting nothing therefrom, pertaining to any legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, by or on behalf of [the Complainant] respecting your representation of [the Complainant], including, but not limited to, any fee agreement(s), all billing statements and billing records, including the trust account subsidiary and/or individual client ledger cards.

22. The Respondent produced no material related to Complainant's legal matter in response to the subpoena duces tecum beyond a written statement claiming "No file. Used file of Ted Kavrukov, Esquire, who represented Mr. Khokar's friends." No fee agreements, billing statements and records, or any trust account records of any type or description for Complainant's legal matter were provided by the Respondent to the Virginia State Bar pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum.. Respondent did not deposit the fees tendered into his attorney trust account.

As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1063:

23. In or around October, 2001, McArthur Britt, Sr., (hereafter "Complainant") retained the Respondent to handle a civil matter then pending in state court in Prince George's County, Maryland. At that time, the Respondent met with the Complainant in the Complainant's home office in the state of Maryland, and rendered legal advice.

24. The Respondent requested, and was paid, the sum of $1,800.00 by the Complainant at the inception of the representation. The Respondent failed to deposit the sum tendered by the Complainant in an attorney trust account, but instead deposited the entire sum in his operating account.

25. At the time scheduled on the first court date upon which the Respondent was to appear, he failed to do so, and the Complainant called him. By the time the Respondent arrived, the case had to be continued by the Court because time did not permit its full presentation.

26. On the occasion of the second scheduled court date, the Respondent appeared with counsel authorized to practice law in the state of Maryland, and informed the court that he, the Respondent, was not authorized to practice law in the state of Maryland. The presiding judge continued the case and requested the attorneys to attempt settlement of the matter.

27. The Complainant thereafter engaged a different attorney to handle his matter, and attempted via telephone and faxed messages over a period of months, without success, to secure the return of his documents from the Respondent.

28. The Respondent did not, at any time following the termination of legal services, tender a refund of unearned fees to the Complainant; nor did the Respondent account to the Complainant respecting the manner in which the fees tendered were applied to any legal services performed, or costs charged, respecting the Complainant's legal matter.

29. On October 23, 2002, Bar Counsel directed a letter of that date to Respondent, enclosing a Complaint filed by the Complainant in this matter, and stating, inter alia, in bold and underlined text, the following: "please review the complaint and provide this office with a written answer, including an original and one copy of your response and all attached exhibits, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter." The Respondent failed to file a written response to the Complaint with the Bar as required by the said letter, either within twenty-one (21) days, or at any time thereafter.

As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1293:

30. On or about August 14, 2002, Mr. Ron Berman (hereafter "Complainant") engaged the Respondent to enter his appearance and continue Complainant's representation in a suit filed pro se by the Complainant in the Montgomery County, Maryland, Circuit Court. As of the time he retained the Respondent, Complainant had made a credit card payment to the Respondent in the sum of $1,500.00, which sum the Respondent deposited in his operating account, and not in an attorney trust account. After discharge, the Respondent failed to refund any portion of the fees or return the file.

As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1687:

31. In or around October, 2001, Steven A. Hardy, (hereafter "Complainant") retained the Respondent to handle a civil matter then pending in state court in Prince George's County, Maryland.

32. The Respondent requested the sum of $1,500.00 as a legal fee, and was paid the sum of $700.00 by the Complainant at the inception of the representation. The Respondent failed to deposit the sum tendered by the Complainant in an attorney trust account, but instead deposited the entire sum in his operating account.

33. The Complainant discharged the Respondent following a court appearance in February, 2002.

34. The Respondent did not, at any time following the termination of legal services, tender a refund of unearned fees to the Complainant; nor did the Respondent account to the Complainant respecting the manner in which the fees tendered were applied to any legal services performed, or costs charged, respecting the Complainant's legal matter. After termination, the Respondent did not refund any portion of fees or return the file.

35. On December 17, 2002, Bar Counsel directed a letter of that date to Respondent, enclosing a Complaint filed by the Complainant in this matter, and stating, inter alia, in bold text, the following: "please review the complaint and provide a written answer, including an original and one copy of your response and all attached exhibits, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter." The Respondent failed to file a written response to the Complaint with the Bar as required by the said letter, either within twenty-one (21) days, or at any time thereafter.

As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1688:

36. In late 2001 and continuing into 2002, the Respondent met with several present and former female employees of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), and discussed filing a "class action" employment discrimination lawsuit against the employer. The Respondent was paid by the individuals who attended meetings with the Respondent, none of which advanced fees was placed in an attorney trust account, and all of which were deposited in Respondent's operating account.

37. The Respondent scheduled at least three meetings with these individuals.

38. During the course of these meetings, Clara B. Weaver (hereafter "Complainant") tendered by way of a credit card payment the sum of $1,500.00 to the Respondent for representation of her interests as a member of the "class."

39. The Respondent deposited the entire sum of $1,500.00 in his operating account, and not in an attorney trust account, as required.

40. The Respondent has filed no suit on the Complainant's and the other individuals' behalf; has failed to account to the Complainant respecting the sums she tendered to him; and has failed to refund all or any portion of the sums he was paid by the Complainant for the "class action" suit.

41. On December 19, 2002, Bar Counsel directed a letter of that date to Respondent, enclosing a Complaint filed by the Complainant in this matter, and stating, inter alia, in bold text, the following: "please review the complaint and provide a written answer, including an original and one copy of your response and all attached exhibits, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter." The Respondent failed to file a written response to the Complaint with the Bar as required by the said letter, either within twenty-one (21) days, or at any time thereafter.

As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1689:

42. In the year 2000, Ms. Denise Brooks (hereafter "Complainant") hired the Respondent to represent her interests in a discrimination case. She paid him the sum of $1,500.00, which Respondent deposited to his operating account, and not to an attorney trust account, as required.

43. The Respondent has filed no suit on the Complainant's and the other individuals' behalf; has failed to account to the Complainant respecting the sums she tendered to him; and has failed to refund all or any portion of the sums he was paid by the Complainant. The Respondent did not return the file.

44. On December 18, 2002, Bar Counsel directed a letter of that date to Respondent, enclosing a Complaint filed by the Complainant in this matter, and stating, inter alia, in bold text, the following: "please review the complaint and provide a written answer, including an original and one copy of your response and all attached exhibits, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter." The Respondent failed to file a written response to the Complaint with the Bar as required by the said letter, either within twenty-one (21) days, or at any time thereafter.

As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1690:

45. Mr. John E. Davis (hereafter "Complainant") was one of sixteen WMATA bus drivers who met with Respondent, for the purpose of engaging him to represent them in a "class action" suit for back pay. The Respondent was to have made demand upon WMATA for the pay in question, and thereafter to have filed suit if the matter were not settled following the demand.

46. The Respondent accepted the sum of $50.00 from the Complainant. The Respondent at no time deposited any sums so collected in an attorney trust account; rather all sums tendered were deposited in Respondent's operating account.

47.The Respondent has performed services and spent a number of hours performing work for the Complainant and other "class action" clients, but has not pursued the "class action" claim in court or any other forum on his clients' behalf; has failed to account to the Complainant and others respecting the sums tendered to him; and has failed to refund all or any portion of the sums he was paid by the Complainant and others for the "class action" representation.

48. On December 18, 2002, Bar Counsel directed a letter of that date to Respondent, enclosing a Complaint filed by the Complainant in this matter, and stating, inter alia, in bold text, the following: "please review the complaint and provide a written answer, including an original and one copy of your response and all attached exhibits, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter." The Respondent failed to file a written response to the Complaint with the Bar as required by the said letter, either within twenty-one (21) days, or at any time thereafter.

As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1816:

49. In or around late 2001, Ms. Judy J. Jones (hereafter "Complainant") paid the Respondent the sum of $1,500.00 to handle an employment retaliation matter. The Respondent deposited Complainant's payment into his operating account, as opposed to an attorney trust account, as required.

50. Before engaging the Respondent, the Complainant had prevailed in a suit against WMATA, and her objective was to have Respondent enforce her rights against WMATA for retaliation arising from the Complainant's prior suit.

51. The Respondent informed the Complainant that the Court dismissed her retaliation claim, without prejudice.

52. Following dismissal of the matter as stated above, the Respondent requested additional fees from the Complainant to refile her retaliation case.

53. As Respondent was handling Complainant's retaliation matter, the Complainant joined other individuals interested in having Respondent file a "class action" employment discrimination lawsuit against WMATA. The Complainant paid the Respondent an additional sum of $1,500.00, none of which was placed in an attorney trust account, and all of which was deposited in Respondent's operating account.

54. The Respondent scheduled and attended numerous meetings respecting the "class action" suit.

55. The Respondent has filed no suit on the Complainant's and the other individuals' behalf; has failed to account to the Complainant respecting the sums she tendered to him; and has failed to refund all or any portion of the sums he was paid by the Complainant for the "class action" matter.

56. The Respondent failed to timely respond to Complainant's letter to him requesting a refund and her file materials.

57. On January 3, 2003, Bar Counsel directed a letter of that date to Respondent, enclosing a Complaint filed by the Complainant in this matter, and stating, inter alia, in bold text, the following: "please review the complaint and provide a written answer, including an original and one copy of your response and all attached exhibits, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter." The Respondent failed to file a written response to the Complaint with the Bar as required by the said letter, either within twenty-one (21) days, or at any time thereafter.

As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-2531:

58. In October of 2000, Mr. Marion D. Lenoir (hereafter "Complainant") retained the Respondent to file a lawsuit against Prince George's County, Maryland, for a violation of Complainant's civil rights by members of the police department of that jurisdiction. At the time he retained the Respondent, the Complainant tendered a check to the Respondent in the sum of $1,500.00 as an advance of legal fees.

59. After several weeks had elapsed, the Respondent communicated with the Complainant by telephone, advising him that the suit would be prepared within approximately one week. After approximately one and one-half weeks following that phone conversation, the Complainant received a draft of the proposed suit papers from the Respondent.

60. As of the time of filing of Complainant's complaint to the Virginia State Bar in February of 2003 concerning Respondent's failure to communicate and to pursue Complainant's legal matter, the contemplated lawsuit had not been filed. As of the time he was interviewed by a Virginia State Bar investigator on April 2, 2003, concerning the Bar complaint, the Respondent had yet to file the lawsuit on behalf of the Complainant. One of the reasons for delay proffered to the investigator during the interview was that Respondent had difficulty getting Maryland-licensed attorneys to move his admission to the Maryland courts because the attorneys whom he consulted feared "retaliation" for being associated with a suit against the Prince George's County, Maryland, government.

61. On March 3, 2003, Bar Counsel directed a letter of that date to Respondent, enclosing a Complaint filed by the Complainant in this matter, and stating, inter alia, in bold text, the following: "please review the complaint and provide a written answer, including an original and one copy of your response and all attached exhibits, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter." The Respondent failed to file a written response to the Complaint with the Bar as required by the said letter, either within twenty-one (21) days, or at any time thereafter.

62. On March 6, 2003, the Respondent was served with a subpoena duces tecum, which, among other things, compelled the production of the "complete" client file for the Complainant's case, as well as

[a]ll documents of whatever type or description, or true copies of the same, in your possession, custody or control, of any type and nature, omitting nothing therefrom, pertaining to any legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, by or on behalf of [the Complainant] respecting your representation of [the Complainant], including, but not limited to, any fee agreement(s), all billing statements and billing records, including the trust account subsidiary and/or individual client ledger cards.

63. The only materials produced by Respondent for Complainant's legal matter in response to the subpoena duces tecum were a copy of a search warrant and related return; the draft of a lawsuit; and a single-page, handwritten, seven-entry itemization of work allegedly performed for the Complainant. No fee agreements, billing statements and records, or any trust account records of any type or description for Complainant's legal matter were provided by the Respondent to the Virginia State Bar pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum

64. Neither the Bar nor the Respondent shall call witnesses during the misconduct phase of the proceeding, and each side shall argue its position with regard to the nature of the alleged misconduct.

65. The Respondent shall be permitted to present witnesses for the sanctions phase, if applicable, and the Bar shall be permitted to call witnesses for rebuttal purposes only.

Having received the exhibits and stipulations of the parties, and after hearing argument, the Board retired to deliberate its findings of misconduct. The Board unanimously finds, by clear and convincing evidence that the evidence demonstrates the following violations:

1. As to VSB Docket No. 02-041-2657: Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(e), 1.16(e), 8.1(a), and 8.4(b). The Board did not find a violation of 1.3(a).

2. As to VSB Docket No. 02-041-3238: Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3(a), 1.15(a), and 1.15(e).

3. As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1063: Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), 1.15(c)(3), 1.15(c)(4), 1.16(d), 1.16(e), 5.5(a), and 8.1(c).

4. As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1293: Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), 1.16(d), and 1.16(e). The Board notes that based upon the evidence contained in VSB Exhibit 19 there was sufficient evidence to find that Respondent violated Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a) in this matter also. However, there was no certification to the Board for such a violation nor was there any stipulation regarding such a violation in this matter. Therefore, the Board makes no such finding here.

5. As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1687: Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), 1.15(c)(3), 1.15(c)(4), 1.16(d), 1.16(e), and 8.1(c).

6. As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1688: Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), 1.15(c)(3), 1.15(c)(4), 1.16(d), and 8.1(c).

7. As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1689: Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), 1.15(c)(3), 1.15(c)(4), 1.16(d), and 8.1(c).

8. As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1690: Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), 1.15(c)(3), 1.15(c)(4), 1.16(d), and 8.1(c).

9. As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-1816: Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), 1.15(c)(3), 1.15(c)(4), 1.16(d), 1.16(e), and 8.1(c). The Board did not find a violation of 1.4(a).

10. As to VSB Docket No. 03-041-2531: Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3(a), 1.15(e), and 8.1(c).

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS