In Re Joseph D. Morrissey

Citations: 305 F.3d 211; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 18650; 2002 WL 31017606Docket: 02-1105

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; September 11, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the disbarment of attorney Joseph D. Morrissey. The disbarment process was initiated by a motion from the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia on August 17, 2000, citing violations of the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4) regarding dishonesty and misconduct. Morrissey had been found guilty on August 15, 2000, of making false statements to a probation officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and for attempting to secure falsified community service reports. The district court determined that these acts constituted professional misconduct and referred the matter for formal disciplinary proceedings. 

An appointed counsel, R. Harvey Chappell, Jr., reported on January 16, 2001, recommending disbarment based on Morrissey's violations and a lengthy history of disciplinary issues spanning from March 1986 to August 2000, documented in a 250-page appendix. Following this, the district court issued an order on January 25, 2001, for Morrissey to show cause for his potential disbarment, citing both the specific violations and his extensive record of misconduct. A panel of judges convened on April 3, 2001, to hear the case, considering the evidence presented. The appellate court upheld the lower court's findings and decision.

On December 21, 2001, an order disbarring Morrissey was filed, leading to this appeal. Key incidents contributing to the disbarment included: a 1986 fine for contempt of court; multiple contempt fines in 1987 and 1988; two 1990 disciplinary proceedings by the Virginia State Bar; a 1991 jail sentence for threatening a judge; a reprimand for fighting with opposing counsel; a 1993 suspension for mishandling a guilty plea; a 1997 fine and jail sentence for an outburst in court; and a probation revocation. The appeal stems from Morrissey's actions while representing Joel Harris, who faced federal drug charges. Morrissey conducted a video interview with a witness that contradicted grand jury testimony and arranged for its public release, violating Local Rule 57(c). He was sentenced to 90 days in prison followed by three years of probation. While on probation, Morrissey was held in contempt for inappropriate comments to opposing counsel, resulting in anger management therapy requirements. A subsequent altercation with a contractor led to a fight, revoking his federal bond and resulting in a three-year suspension of his law license, affirmed by the Virginia Supreme Court. After his release from custody, Morrissey was informed he needed to complete 300 hours of community service, with a minimum of 50 hours for Habitat for Humanity.

Morrissey attempted to obtain a signature from Ted Grivetti, local coordinator for Habitat for Humanity, on his community service time sheet to falsely represent that his service to a neighbor met Habitat's requirements. Grivetti refused and advised Morrissey to consult his probation officer, which Morrissey denied having. He then offered free legal services to Grivetti in exchange for signing the time sheet, which Grivetti again refused, stating he would only sign for actual Habitat project hours. After Guertler learned of these interactions, he confronted Morrissey, who denied both the request for a signature and the offer of legal services. Subsequently, Guertler filed a petition to revoke Morrissey's probation, leading to an evidentiary hearing in which the district court found Morrissey violated 18 U.S.C. 1001 by lying about his conversations with Grivetti and confirmed the offer of legal services in exchange for falsifying his community service hours. The court revoked Morrissey's probation, sentenced him to an additional 90 days in jail, and this ruling was upheld on appeal.

The three-judge panel determined that Morrissey’s actions and his history of ethical violations warranted disbarment, emphasizing that his lack of honesty and integrity made him unfit to practice law. Morrissey did not contest the process but raised two objections: that the panel lacked jurisdiction over conduct occurring while he was suspended and that he was denied the opportunity to present evidence disputing the allegations. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in disbarring Morrissey despite his suspension being considered adequate punishment.

Morrissey’s potential disbarment for conduct occurring during his license suspension is valid under Local Rule 83.1(L) of the Eastern District of Virginia, which allows disbarment proceedings for actions taken while an attorney’s license is suspended. All states that have addressed this issue agree that an attorney can be disbarred for misconduct during suspension. The distinction between disbarment and suspension, as outlined in the Butterfield case, is acknowledged: disbarment permanently removes an attorney's privileges, while suspension is temporary. The three-judge district court had jurisdiction to examine Morrissey’s actions both during and after his suspension. The proceedings stemmed from Morrissey's conduct while representing Harris, leading to two contempt convictions. Courts possess inherent power to punish contempt to maintain order and enforce justice. The standard for reviewing disciplinary actions is based on whether the district court’s conduct was irregular or improper, interpreted as an abuse of discretion.

Morrissey sought to introduce witnesses and evidence, including polygraph results, to challenge the findings from a contempt hearing before Judge Payne in the three-judge FRDE court. The district court rejected this request, limiting its consideration to mitigation evidence. Morrissey argued that the district court's decision constituted issue preclusion due to differing burdens of proof between probation revocation and disbarment. However, the court emphasized the significant deference owed to the district court's findings in disbarment cases, asserting that intervention is warranted only in cases of clear irregularity or abuse of discretion. 

Morrissey's prior contempt conviction in August 2000 was affirmed on appeal, where no objections regarding the admissibility of evidence were raised, and the credibility of witnesses was contested. The district court had accepted the testimony of Ted Grivetti over Morrissey. It noted various standards of proof, ultimately finding the evidence met the necessary burden for its conclusions. The three-judge FRDE court concluded it did not err in refusing to reopen the contempt proceedings, affirming its jurisdiction over all acts committed by Morrissey during and outside his license suspension.

The FRDE court's decision to not reopen the Harris contempt proceeding and to proceed with disbarment of Joseph D. Morrissey was found not to be an abuse of discretion. The district court's order is affirmed. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has granted the government's motion to suspend or disbar Morrissey, leading to his disbarment from practicing before this court. The Clerk is instructed to remove Morrissey from the attorney roll and notify relevant parties, including the Virginia State Bar and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The accompanying Memorandum Opinion details the history of misconduct by Morrissey, who has a documented record of unethical behavior, including multiple contempt citations and disciplinary actions over a fifteen-year period. Specific incidents include contempt rulings from various courts, which established a pattern of inappropriate conduct characterized by a volatile temperament and dishonesty. An evidentiary hearing was held where Morrissey presented character witnesses and submitted various documents, though not all were permitted by the court. Ultimately, the evidence supported the decision to disbar him.

Disciplinary proceedings against Morrissey began on April 12, 1990, and the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Committee agreed to dismiss a complaint if he attended a professionalism course. On December 28, 1990, Morrissey received a reprimand for failing to file a timely appeal and a habeas corpus petition, as well as not informing his client of these failures. This reprimand was later upheld by the Disciplinary Board. 

Morrissey's subsequent misconduct involved a confrontation with Judge John P. Driscoll on June 17, 1991, during which he challenged the judge's rejection of a plea agreement, leading to a contentious exchange. Following this incident, Morrissey sent a letter to Judge Driscoll accusing him of attempting to provoke contempt, resulting in Morrissey's conviction for contempt on July 18, 1991, and a five-day jail sentence, which was upheld by higher courts.

On December 19, 1991, Morrissey was again held in contempt for fighting with opposing counsel during a trial and received a reprimand from a three-judge panel. Later, on August 31, 1993, he faced a disciplinary complaint for unilaterally downgrading a felony arrest warrant to a misdemeanor but avoided further action by agreeing to apologize to the trial judge.

Following a two-day hearing in December 1993, Morrissey was suspended from practicing law for six months due to mishandling a plea bargain in a rape case, where he allowed a defendant to plead guilty to a misdemeanor while arranging undisclosed charity payments. This suspension was affirmed by the Virginia Supreme Court. On October 20, 1997, Morrissey was again cited for contempt and sentenced to 30 days in jail for an outburst directed at a judge during a sentencing hearing.

Morrissey, after entering private practice, represented Joel Harris, a Richmond political figure indicted for drug distribution. During the representation, Morrissey videotaped a key witness recanting his grand jury testimony and publicly shared this during a press conference, leading to his conviction for contempt of court for violating Local Rule 57(C). He received a 90-day prison sentence and three years of probation, which included a suspension from practicing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and a prohibition against committing any crimes or being held in contempt during probation.

While on bond pending appeal, Morrissey was held in contempt for inappropriate comments to opposing counsel, which led to a requirement for anger management therapy. Following this, he engaged in a fistfight with contractor Garien Wycoff, resulting in Wycoff's serious injuries. This incident caused Judge Payne to revoke Morrissey's bond, and he was jailed until October 1, 1999. Subsequently, he was convicted of assault and battery related to the fight.

On December 28, 1999, a panel of Virginia circuit court judges suspended Morrissey's law license for three years due to various incidents, a suspension affirmed by the Virginia Supreme Court. The situation escalated when Morrissey attempted to evade probation conditions related to community service, specifically failing to comply with directives from his federal probation officer regarding service requirements.

Morrissey sought to fulfill his community service requirement by contacting Ted Grivetti from Habitat projects, claiming to have completed work for an elderly neighbor and asking Grivetti to sign his time sheet to validate this claim. Grivetti refused, suggesting Morrissey consult his probation officer, which Morrissey denied having. He then offered free legal services to Habitat in exchange for signing off on his time sheet, which Grivetti again declined, stating he would only sign for actual Habitat work. Grivetti reported this interaction to probation officer Andrea Edmonds, who informed Guertler. Morrissey was subsequently confronted by Guertler and his supervisor on February 16, 2000, where he denied both the request to sign the time sheet and the offer of legal services.

On April 20, 2000, a Show Cause Order was issued by Judge Payne due to Morrissey’s conduct. Following a hearing, Judge Payne found Morrissey violated 18 U.S.C. § 10014 by lying to his probation officer and offering legal services for falsification of service reports. Morrissey's probation was revoked, resulting in an additional 90 days of incarceration, a decision later affirmed by the Fourth Circuit.

In a subsequent due process hearing, Morrissey's history of temper management issues, non-compliance with court orders, and dishonesty were highlighted. Rather than addressing his anger issues, Morrissey presented character witnesses to argue his community service and legal capability, which were not pertinent to his fitness to practice law. He failed to demonstrate any proactive steps taken to manage his temper until prompted, revealing he had been meeting with Reverend Bradley Harris for counseling. However, the panel noted the lack of formal training in relevant fields for Reverend Harris, and the absence of prior mention of these sessions by Morrissey or his counsel. Morrissey later submitted Reverend Harris's curriculum vitae and a letter outlining their spiritual assistance relationship, which did not substantiate his claims of managing his anger.

The second meeting between Morrissey and Reverend Harris, occurring five months later, revolved around topics such as theology and forgiveness, with no mention of professional anger management counseling. This lack of formal counseling suggests Morrissey's failure to recognize his temper as a professional issue. The panel expresses concern over Morrissey's lack of candor, particularly regarding his claim that his discussions with Reverend Harris constituted appropriate anger management. During testimony, Morrissey initially claimed he had secured a teaching position in Ireland, but later admitted that a church official was merely facilitating the opportunity. This inconsistency raised further concerns about his honesty.

The panel cites federal courts' inherent authority to regulate attorney admissions and discipline, referencing relevant case law. Morrissey's history reveals significant ethical violations, particularly during his misconduct in state court and before Judge Payne. Virginia's ethical standards, which prohibit conduct reflecting adversely on an attorney's fitness, were breached by Morrissey's actions while on bond and probation, indicating both a lack of control over his temper and dishonesty to the court. The panel highlights that Morrissey made false statements to his probation officer and failed to grasp the seriousness of the proceedings. Despite these issues, Morrissey maintains that he has been dedicated to his clients and community.

Morrissey was evaluated positively by witnesses regarding his character and public service, yet the panel aligned with the Virginia Supreme Court's assessment that his persistent lack of civility and unacceptable conduct overshadow these attributes. His dishonesty and lack of candor in interactions with the court and supervising authorities were deemed unacceptable for a legal professional. Despite prior contributions, Morrissey's unprofessional behavior and failure to acknowledge his misconduct rendered him unfit to practice law. Consequently, he will be disbarred from the Eastern District of Virginia. The court instructed the Clerk to distribute copies of the Memorandum Opinion to relevant parties, including the Virginia State Bar and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ethical standards governing legal practice in this Court are defined by the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, effective January 1, 2000, except for Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6, which is addressed by Local Criminal Rule 57. Counsel admitted to practice, whether generally or pro hac vice, are subject to the rules detailed in Appendix B. The Virginia Rules replaced the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, which is referenced alongside the current rules for context. The excerpt also cites the case Morrissey v. Virginia State Bar, highlighting that Morrissey’s actions were not merely aggressive advocacy but demonstrated a blatant disregard for ethical standards, undermining public confidence in the legal profession. The Virginia Supreme Court's opinion did not address Morrissey's misconduct during his probation in a separate case.