"Take the Challenge and Prove us Wrong!"
Rhetta M. Daniel has been practicing law for over 40 years without a single client complaint filed against her.
In 2017, Rhetta Daniel began representing her client in an international fugitive criminal case in which he was accused of being the "hub of a 600 kilo cocaine organization operated in Richmond, Va for over 10 years.
The case exposed a criminal syndicate operating in the Henrico County Circuit Court for over 20 years, involving the alleged unethical conduct of a number of high profile judges, attorneys and prosecutors. The client's case also involved alleged bribery, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting a fugitive, FBI corruption and other violations of federal and state codes.
Rhetta Daniel filed a Motion for Brady material in the Henrico County Circuit Court in December 2017, and that is when her troubles began. In early 2018, Virginia State Bar started looking for attorneys who would file complaints against her.
Then in February 2018, the Virginia State Bar filed ethics charges of "impairment" against Rhetta Daniel and swiftly suspended her right to practice law based on her refusal to release five years of protected medical records containing secrets and confidences of her clients. This tactic by the VSB that quickly prevented Rhetta Daniel from defending her high profile client and other pro bono clients involved in serious civil litigation.
Despite providing through medical and psychological reports and the testimony of three medical experts that Rhetta Daniel was more than capable of practicing law, the VSB illegally suspended her law license.
Since 2018, Rhetta Daniel, a former VSB Prosecutor and Henrico County Chief Deputy Commonwealth Attorney, began her fight to obtain justice for herself and other attorneys.
Rhetta Daniel knew that if the Virginia State Bar could impose an illegal suspension and subsequent disbarment on her, it could do the same to any attorney practicing law in Virginia. Through intensive research, Rhetta Daniel began to dissect the Virginia Code, Supreme Court if Virginia Rules of Procedure and constitutional provisions concerning the power of the VSB to discipline attorneys licensed in Virginia or suspend or revoke attorneys' licenses.
Rhetta Daniel has become an expert in her quest to clear her untarnished name, to protect other lawyers, to protect the public and to expose the imposition of illegal discipline of attorneys by the VSB since 1976.
The Challenge
Rhetta Daniel challenges attorneys, judges or anyone else to prove her analyses of the governing law are wrong. The challenge is not about a monetary prize but of legal knowledge and wits, the ability to analyze the Virginia Code sections and procedural Rules empowering Virginia's judiciary and restricting the authority of Virginia's judicial and legislative branches of government.
Rhetta Daniel's Claims:
1. The Virginia State Bar only has the authority to "investigate and report" alleged violations of the Rules of Virginia Code of Professional Conduct to Virginia courts and request that Virginia courts take disciplinary action against attorneys practicing law in Virginia.
Rhetta Daniel's fundamental basis is found in Virginia Code § 54.1-3910. Organization and government of Virginia State Bar:
“The Supreme Court “may” promulgate rules and regulations organizing and governing the Virginia State Bar. The Virginia State Bar “shall” act as an administrative agency of the Court for the purpose of “investigating and reporting violations of rules and regulations adopted by the Court under this article”… Code 1950, § 54-49; 1974, c. 536; 1991, c. 564; 2002, c. 306. [Emphasis added.]
2. The General Assembly has the exclusive power to establish all Virginia courts and tribunals. The General Assembly enacted restrictive statutes that address the disciplining, suspending, and disbarring attorneys who violate the Rules of the VCPC. These statutes give absolute jurisdiction to Virginia courts to impose discipline on attorneys after complaints have been filed against them in the courts.
Rhetta Daniel's positions are based on the provisions of is Virginia Code § 54.1-3910 and § 54.1-3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations:
Notwithstanding the "foregoing provisions of this article," the Supreme Court “shall not” promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys which are inconsistent with any statute; “nor shall it promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys.” . . . Code 1950, § 54-51; 1974, c. 536; 1988, c. 765.
3. The Supreme Court of Virginia's Rule 13-2, also recognizes that Virginia courts are the only Virginia governmental entities that are authorized to discipline attorneys who are found by a Virginia court to have violated the Rules of the VCPC.
SCV RULE 13-2 AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS.
Nothing in this Paragraph [Organization and Government of the Virginia State Bar] “’shall’ be interpreted so as to eliminate, restrict or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of this Commonwealth to deal with the disciplining of Attorneys as provided by law.’”
Every Judge shall have authority to take such action as may be necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of clients of any Attorney whose License is subject to a Suspension or Revocation.
Every Circuit Court shall have power to enforce any order, summons or subpoena issued by the Board, a District Committee or Bar Counsel and to adjudge disobedience thereof as contempt.
Updated: November 25, 2019
Rhetta Daniel's Assertions
Supreme Court of Virginia Case:
The SCV's opinion issued in a case, In re: Moseley, 273 Va. 688 (2007) stated:
“A court has an inherent power to discipline and regulate attorneys practicing before it. This power, since the judiciary is an independent branch of government, is not controlled by statute. Thus, the court's authority to discipline attorneys and regulate their conduct in proceedings before that court is also a constitutional power derived from the separation of powers between the judiciary, as an independent branch of government, and the other branches.”
The Virginia Supreme Court went on to state “This inherent and constitutional power is essentially acknowledged in Code § 54.1-3915, which prohibits the promulgation of any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys.”
U.S. Supreme Court Case:
U.S. Supreme Court v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719, (1980), which has never been reversed or modified by any court, is a pivotal decision and states:
Appellant Virginia Supreme Court, which claims inherent authority to regulate and discipline attorneys, also has statutory authority to do so. Pursuant to these powers, the court promulgated the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) and organized the Virginia State Bar to act as an administrative agency of the court to report and investigate violations of the Code. The statute reserves to the state courts "the sole power to adjudicate alleged violations of the Code," and the Supreme Court and other state courts of record have independent authority on their own to initiate proceedings against attorneys.
Prove us wrong!
Response to the challenge can be submitted in the comments or by email to ethics@vajusticegov.us
