IN THE MATTER OF VSB DOCKET: 04-000-0518
SCOTT GEORGE SMITH
This matter came before the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board on September 24, 2003, pursuant to a Rule to Show Cause as to why the Respondent's license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia should not be suspended due to the revocation of his license to practice law in the State of Maryland.
The matter was heard at 9:00 a.m. in hearing room B of the Supreme Court of Virginia, 100 North 9th Street, First Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219. The Board consisted of Robert L. Freed, Second Vice-Chairman, William C. Boyce, Jr., Chester J. Cahoon, Jr., Peter A. Dingman, and Anthony J. Trenga. The Bar was represented by Kathryn A. Ramey, Assistant Bar Counsel. Mr. Smith was not represented. The hearing was recorded by Donna Chandler of Chandler & Halasz, P.O. Box 9349, Richmond, Virginia 23227, (804) 730-1222.
Upon the call of the case, neither Mr. Smith nor counsel for Mr. Smith answered. The Clerk then called Mr. Smith's name three times in the corridor adjacent to the courtroom and received no answer.
The members of the Board were polled by the Chairman as to whether any member possessed any bias or conflict which would render him incapable of hearing this matter fairly and objectively. All answered in the negative, including the Chairman.
Upon notification that a member of the Virginia State Bar has been suspended or revoked in another state, Part 6, Section IV, Paragraph 13.I.6.a. of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia requires the Board to issue a Rule to Show Cause. This was properly done. Section 6.b. of the Rules provides that the Respondents shall file, within fourteen days of the date of the mailing of the Rule to Show Cause, his grounds of defense. Section 6.f. of the Rules provides that if the Respondent has not filed a timely written response, or does not appear at the hearing, the Board shall impose the same discipline as was imposed in the other jurisdiction.
Mr. Smith was disbarred from the
practice of law in the State of Maryland due to a series of misappropriations
of funds. Mr. Smith did not appear at the hearing by counsel or in person. Mr.
Smith filed on September 25, 2003 a document with the Bar entitled "Plea
of Nolo Contendre". No grounds of defense were asserted in the plea.
The Board therefore imposes the same discipline as was imposed in Maryland, that is revocation. It is so ordered.
Duties of the Respondent
It is ORDERED that, as directed in the Board=s September 24, 2003 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 M, of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. The time for compliance with said requirements runs from September 24, 2003, the effective date of the Summary Order. All issues concerning the adequacy of the notice and arrangements required by the Summary Order shall be determined by the Board.
It is further ordered pursuant to Paragraph 13 B.8.c.1 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, Scott George Smith, at his
address of record with the Virginia State Bar, 1001 Back Bay Beach Road, West
River, Maryland 207789622 and hand delivered to Kathryn A. Ramey, Assistant
Bar Counsel, Virginia State Bar, 707 East Main Street, Suite 1500, Richmond,
ENTERED this ______ day of _______________, 2003.
VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD
Robert L. Freed, Second Vice-Chairman