VIRGINIA: Before the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board In the Matter of Richard Murray Attorney at Law VSB Docket No. 15-053-101605 CONSENT TO REVOCATION ORDER On March 29, 2018, came Richard Murray and presented to the Board a Consent to Surrender License to practice law in the courts of this Commonwealth. By tendering his Consent to Surrender License at a time when allegations of Misconduct are pending, the nature of which are specifically set forth in the attached Consent to Surrender License, Respondent acknowledges that the material facts upon which the allegations of Misconduct are pending are tme. The Board having considered the said Consent to Surrender License, and Bar Counsel having no objection, the Board accepts his Consent to Surrender License. Accordingly, it is ordered that the license to practice law in the courts of this Commonwealth heretofore issued to the said Richard Murray be and the same hereby is revoked, and that the name of the said Richard Murray be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of this Commonwealth. Entered this 30th day of March, 2018 Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board By , ;+ k Digitally signed by John A. C. Keith L. ^.. IXdt. 11 Date: 2018. 03. 30 12:34:16-04'00' John A. C. Keith, Chair
Transcript
VIRGINIA:
Before the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board
In the Matter of
Richard MurrayAttorney at Law
VSB Docket No. 15-053-101605
CONSENT TO REVOCATION ORDER
On March 29, 2018, came Richard Murray and presented to the Board a Consent to
Surrender License to practice law in the courts of this Commonwealth. By tendering his Consent
to Surrender License at a time when allegations of Misconduct are pending, the nature of which
are specifically set forth in the attached Consent to Surrender License, Respondent acknowledges
that the material facts upon which the allegations of Misconduct are pending are tme.
The Board having considered the said Consent to Surrender License, and Bar Counsel
having no objection, the Board accepts his Consent to Surrender License. Accordingly, it is
ordered that the license to practice law in the courts of this Commonwealth heretofore issued to
the said Richard Murray be and the same hereby is revoked, and that the name of the said
Richard Murray be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of this Commonwealth.
Entered this 30th day of March, 2018
Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board
By, ;+ k Digitally signed by John A. C. Keith
L. ^.. IXdt. 11 Date: 2018. 03. 30 12:34:16-04'00'
John A. C. Keith, Chair
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
RICHARD MURRAY DOCKET NO. 15-053-101605
CONSENT TO SURRENDER LICENSE
Comes Now Richard Murray, pursuant to Rules of Court, Part 6, § IV, ̂ 13-
28, and files this Consent to Surrender his license to practice law in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. In support thereof, Murray affii-ms the foUowing:
1 Murray freely and voluntarily consents to the surrender of his license to
practice law in the Commonwealth of Virgiaia. His decision is not the result of
coercion or duress, and he is fully aware of the implications of his consent.
MuiTay further affirms that he is presently eighty two years of age, does not
maintain an active membership in the Virginia State Bar but retains a retired status
and no longer resides in the Conimonwealth of Virginia. Murray further affirms
that he was an active member of the Virginia State Bar for 54 years and has never
been found to have violated the mles governing the conduct of Virginia licensed
attorneys. Murray fiirthcr submits that, having successfully and joyfally practiced
law for more than one half century, he has no intent to ever seek reinstatement to
the practice of law, and affirms he will not do so.
2 Murray is aware that a Subcommittee Determination (Certificatton) was
issued against him and that the Certification is set for hearing before the Virginia
State Bar Disciplinary Board. Murmy has answered the Bar's Certification. A
copy of the Bar's Certification and Murray's Answer are attached hereto as
Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively, and are incorporated herein by reference.
3. Murray aclmowledges that the material facts upon which the allegations of
Misconduct are predicated are true.
4. Murray submits this Coiisent to Surrender because he believes that he camiot
present a defense to the Bar's Certification that would result in its complete
dismissal.
Executed and dated on +^ CH ^ 2. 6 ijo-
c
Rich rdMuiray
'^//
STATE OF FLORIDACITY OF <&^7t^ , to wit:
This day, Richard Murray, appeared before nic and executed the foregoing
.^ ®^ee^w^^aaBad^i^i&fe
ff%
^. MiCMAEL MARTtHEZ"s Notary Ptf&tic . Slate oi FiorMa
Any indivUuu; v»;.<'i yjrv;^ ̂ p^rs. 'ii'.dl R.cpresentath'e shall b^ entitled torezeive fir his or h<-" syn'iceF sucn rea.icnable compens^lion as approved
VSB
bv the Commissioner ofAecour. 3 for the Fairfax County Circuit Court orby the approprialti nHtcia) ofthcjurisdtctit. m in which inis vi 'ill is heingprobated.
7 V'L-gmia Code § 64.2-1208 allows a l^duciar>- to take "rcasc'Babie corttpensation" for&er vices reiideFeJ ta {tie adinlrcstratioB of an estate. Th® Falr&x Coua.t)' CommissionCTof Accounts ("the Co.mrftissioner"1) pubti^hed iipeoinc guidelines as to what conuilutes'.reasonable compensaUcn" in varioiis circymstances. According to ihe FiduciaryCompen.satioQ Schedule for Kxecutors and A.dirunistrator^ pubHshed by tbsCommissioner of Accounis for Fakfex Cctunt>, *Tf the wii! is silent as to the fiduciary'scompensation, the gutd<i{incs set out hensin <3pp!y.n
8. According 10 ihc ('orr.nussiocer's guidfiinss in vSwt Jurir.g Ihe reievani timefrAme, af. duciA-^ ma:. takes fe^fcased on the pri'.-cipa! of the esiaie accoriding to tbefottowin^Svtiedule:
FJMt $400,000 5u/o
Nex; $300, 000 ^»
Next $30>),0u0 3%
BaSanve c-ver $1 million 29-»
Balance over S 10 miltiun By agreement -^ itli Comro.issi&ner
~;» A ccording to this . ifheduie, bsssd on a iota] value of S&. 9 millioo for the {..evitan estate,R-spondent \\ds CTiiUed 10 as»»c»xunatet>' S 199, 000 in fees based on the ̂ . ineijsal, plusas much as 5% of the net ree^ipEs reponc<t durmg any panicular accoyntlng psriiKt.
10. Respondent w&s av. arc of the L&gu;.ge in the Wil! anil of tfic fee schedule promuigatcJby ihe'Commission. tff. yoncths'^ss, he asked Ms. Winicrmyer . ind Mr. Lcvitan to agree,to give him a f<;e uf 10°/c k.iflhc priswiual oflh^ estatt:-.
11. Rcspondl enl admittfld thai he did not leli Ms. Wmtemwcr wd h.tr. Lcvitan the actual
Jii"Een;'n£; b-;l.wciia <kd fee £2T. o'jnr in the Comrais.sioiicr's aChuduie aad the fee amount hev.-ds proposias. Respondttnt Jiii ntn Ji&closfr to Ms. Wintenayer ar Mr. Levilan the tola}amoun. loftl-. etee he was propo&iag for hirr. ^elf. Respondent did not teU Ms. Wintemya-ur Mr. F. svitan thai Aeir :ntera:st<> %ere in conflict with Re8poadent3 s inreteste with regardu ih:s iwseesc m Respoadfrnt's lee. Respondent did aot advise ̂ !s. %rmtemi}-cr or Mr.I.e<> ;tet to soosutt with tiieir own counsc' before agreciTig to this substantially incrcasudt'ce.
; 2, On ur about No\'e{r. h;r i 0, 2U: 2, Ms. Wwlcn-zy^ und Mr. Le^-itan sigaed 'etters, drafiedby Respondcit, in v»h!eh th-sy afe'ecd t. i i, :vc Rcspondsot a lee of 10% of the principal oft.W CftSl'.C.
: 3. On Nfarch i 5, 2013, IlcspQ ndeat fiicd the Htst Actfounting, which rcfl&cted that he had
paid him've{rS24(),000- in eKet-tj(or fees.
! 4. On May 20, 2014, Rcsponden! filed the Second Acccunung, which reflected that he hddpaiJ himself S320,000 ia isxecutor fees.
15. After the Secoad Accouaiing, Respondent paid! bimselfa. jdilional amounts toialing moicthan S300,000. IB total, R.cspondea: distribyted $890,000 from the Levitan estate tohim&ell".
6. In September 201 4i Respondent contacted Ms, Wtntermysr and Ms. Levitan and asked
them to sign letters to the CQmmissioRer of ̂ ccounis staling ihat they inteaded forI^espondent to receive a "gift" of 10% oftiw estate value, in addition to the schcduiedt--\-^t;utcr fees ot'appr<1x:mgte{y $29(l. 'ti !u M< V»'interm> cr said that Respondent to.d bcrthat he and Ms. Lc'.'it^;t -Aero theaos aiid inat he shcjij receive somcthuig fro.Ti ihdi.friendship. Respondent Jid noi encourage Ms. WiBtcmwcr.or Mr. Levitan IQ com.uStn'llh separate counsel before agreeing to this gii't Botli Ms. U iB:eunyer and Mr. l.evitansignw'd (he letters a.s requesicd b) Resp.'>ndd3t.
". Respondent a,minsd to io.'teiiini: this 31:1 l*pm Ms. ̂ 'intun-oyer and Mr, Uvitar.. Hesaid ihat he did so because another attocGcv con\-i. nscd him it would be beneficial for taxpuq^oses, RssporAn' St. b.sequeftS. I) a4jr. hlfrd 10 a Virginia 'Stale Bar investigator thatreq'.3e?-iing this gift 'n, jddidon tc ths Ci.r -tmi.^toner's scheduled fee was "greedy."
i 8. In ea.'-ly December 201,4, Subhi^h Garg. who was an accountant tor the Levitan estate,coniacteu Ms. Winicrmver and (uid her tbtit she &hould sfiek cmmseS regarding Ihe gi-rt of! 0% ofthe esldle's assets.
19, Ms. Wwtermyer theo hired comsel. On Dticemter 30, 2014, Ms. Wmtennyer executedan aftldavjl Kvokiag Ac . ettcrs she had signed regarJing Is-sponUwt's tw. Shs stated(has .s'ne signed the g:ft letter "-with&ut fuliy apprecisimg whal I was doing."
2'). On December 31, 201 4, Ms. '%'i:nterm^ cr'^ c<iun^e1 Kled & peti lion to remove Rcspcmden!A.-, tkc Personal Repres.er'ati'. -e of the L&vitac Estate.
21 Ott N^arch 24, 201.5, a T.mpc. rAry In}ya«;3ii Order WM entered removiQg ResiFOtident as
the Per'wnal Representative, Dunng the hearing, Pairrax Cou-itv Circuit Coim JudgeMichyd F. Devtne &?und lliat ReApondeil nad made materN rsisstatemeDts in UsS'ovt.-mber 20:2 letter to Ms. Wintcrm)-er. h"»ecsfica..!Iy, Respondeni had told Ms.
V>intcrnyer that Ms>. [.e'.'tlan .. s?£cifi a}Iy ̂ hosc net to incorporaie" the Commissior. er 01"AcCQunis Fee Schettulc irJo hi;r \\"dl. Jtdgtf DcT.-i:^ also found that Respondcnl's tees
were **unre£S308bie urtderany dreumsiancss."
:2. A irid] was .̂ chtfduj^d for Marcli 24, 20! 6.
23>, On Februi-o- 18. 2016. just =\ er a :r.or.;h britbrs tnai, Respondeni llied for Chapter 7bankn. ip-'cy. Tnc bai-itouptcy llling ̂ xyed the Fairfax Coynl> Circuit Court iitiestioa.
.24. On May 13, 2016, Ms. ̂ 'inlerniyc'r broughl an ad\-ers&r>' piocccdiiig » detenrir. e :ha!\hs debt owed b> ??esponder, t isnon-. i^chs'-geablt*. On Ju'y 14, 2ftl6. Michae; r>«iherty,the replacemeiil'Pcrwiis] Representative for the Levitan E.state, also brought an ad versan-proceeding to delermine that the debt owed by Respondenl is non-dischargeabie.
;5. lit the achedule attached t3 his .'ankruplK>- petition, Resp'.)odeat ideniififrd Ns> attomeyt.'-ust account a? an asset but rep»senied thd: i*. hail a /erQ balaflce.
26. At s subsequent credili. >r metiling. Reapondent admitteij tfaat he aetufllly had $43, 594;?.?hc trus! account. %espur;dent ;laim&4 ti-iai :hb mone^ belonged lo him and not 10 hi^cliisms.
2". In Dscemher 2P16, the Fanics aRlere'J inlri a .scrtIcmcxM aercemcnl whereby S220,00?'y. as oaid to (he 1^', n^a caUlsi >.>n b.*iia**l'o: Rsspi. Kide.r. i. None ot llit; stfttlement amuysit
was paid 3ir$ct;> b> R^spoident. Rather, $126. 0(»J A'as paid by Respondent'smalpractice insiirpj-. ce ;;.uTi-:r and ?9-., 000 'A As paid by hi-i former law firm. Thissctliemuni re3Q'.Ae4 the two adveri,ar> pr... ctfed:;-»g& ss well es the Circuit Court Jawsuit..
:S. Kc&pon3;nr did noi rtftura any <, f±c SP5'J. C^L> h^ tojk from the Levitan Estate to thsLeviion Est&te.
:l. NAT;;RE OF .MISCONDUCT
Such conduct by Respordcnt i^nstitutcy rnisennduct in vi.ol.aiion oflhe following
pro\'i^i'ms of the Rules o^ProressionJ Cond-act :
Xl'LE 1 5 Fee?
^i A law^ er's fee s'r 3.11 be rcai. or.a^k. Tl'. e facmrs tQ be considered in dcterroining:hc -easonabltfncss sfa i"ee tr..:;ude the ut2t<.Hving:
These Riiles of Professional Cdnduct ^pp^ed to R^pondent, rugardless ofthepF eseaetf or
ab^^-e of an attomc)"c{icnt relationship, because he was aciing &3 a fsd^ciary for the LevitaiiEs;ai. e. "[A1 S&WCT miist corepiy at all limes with aJI applicabte dsscspliRary roles ofAeCixle ofP^^i. ^-naf R^s'pi insibillty u'hei-cr of not he i.s actt^ in his profcssion&^wapacity.
" ABA
Fomai ()p. 336. ' Virgias:s Standiag Commirtee on Lega.i Etliics adopted this opmion aad lield::I(---:when -in ;i:k-mci' assumes tiw ̂ ponsibiiitv c:<icrirg a^ a ndjd&ry and yioiates his or herujl^ in & manner that would ju.Stify dis. iplinan, ' aclicis had the relalionship heen^lhat o!af<"'rnev uik'nt. the attorney r.my beproperl) discipitned parsuani to thtfCode orProi«ssion»iR&spMsibiiiT^" iegaJEwicsOp. 1325 (Feb. 2". 1990). Tte same temcksion ^restated in
LcgarE'thics Op. 15T5, whi^h ^AA ^.doftsd . iy the Supreme Court of\'irgimaon Febraan I.
I yy4
11 the x»me and labor reqM ircd. the novelsy and difTteuliy af th< que&Eior.aimoived, Anri the Aill n;v|uisite It* feribrns the legal service properl.v;
(2) the iikriihood, ill apparent tij the clieni, thai ibc acceptance of the
panicutfar cmploymeni will prwtude other employment by dc lawyer;
1.31 ths fee custoinarily ciiargcd in the {ycaJiU fm simiiar Sega! services;
i4j the amount in^ »>'5vcd and the results obtame-J;
(5 > tti<i tim<s !s,m;uitioTi*-. im.x's.cJ by the citeat or by the eircixaistances;
s '< < in,: nslure aac ier>g:b . <.'
t tie pi -. fcs.star. al reitiiioii&Iiip with xbc ci it'nt,
C7) :h^ cxpcrieace, repatailn. n, .ind dbfllty ol'thc law)-er or lawyersf-er'orming the scniccs; and
('S j v. haher the fee is Hxcd or eunfiagtint.
(h) 1'be la^c'r't fe» sfia't :bc adeqybltfj; explained to the c-lk-nt. When the taw.-cr hasnot jcgUKtT'y represented Ae tliertt, t^e aaoun!. ha.-is Oi- ute os the feu yhali btf communwiited tothe ->. ', i\. ni. ̂ A. ivrabA' (n wtlEiflt!. twtvra tsr witliin a iessottaHe 'mc After comm^nemg thtfrepn. A-ntdtion.
^c^ A ;3v. ->cr shall oc: ss^licsl, Ibr !uii,, ;se!f OF 4 p^t^on rdsisd .U' the iaw>cr, an).v'. ibs^. ntia; g::l from a ciiem :ncludmg8 te»tamcntan fcift. A Saw^-tfr shttli not accept sny^uchdiAt if scJicited AI his request In a tmrd parl. y. A \iW. \QT shalj ryt pK pare dn instrument giving
:hv :au->er or a person rct.alcd to -lie ldw->er any subst.antial gift trom a dteot, mciutiing aK-siAincnliu-y gih, ynless the l4iwer or other roclpicisioflho gifl is relaled to the clieat. For^ur?c?«:s of Ais paragraph, a pereon f&laKd i<i j, ia^y^r inv'lyd^sa spouse, chitd, graa^chi. Sil.p»rerF. or other scta-.n., ; «r ind. s idua! with whm-i ihc la^vur cr Ae c'. it.sat mdintains a cijse,
ranulid! relauur;^h;p,
Rl'l. k 1. 1 5 Sa.sekcvp:ng Property
,d'< Di.i-.o-. itiny Fund*.
[3j No Unds beion^ing ;o Vis t. 'v. yer 0- la^ llm' .. hali be JeposiEed orm3i.nuins<i thcrcm fexcfrt as fQllou's.
1 ;1 ninc. s re-A'iuRa. biy l»iti:ktcnt lo ?&v Asn'ice- t?r other chitrge^ or te^s
smp-ttscd b} the f"i4Bi;:^: w^musim .z' 10 n:3ir. tain a rcquireJ minimum Www to
avoid the iir.pk^itior. i?;' .^r.1cc foc^. pr.nlJed ihs fur.ds deposited arc no mr.-re
than nece.i»dr> 1:0 do so, », <r
(, i«.} tw4s in which tw.? or more persoiis (une ot" whom msy be thelawyer) claim an iitterest sbsli be fcdd in th<? tnis.t accoutit until the dispute isresolved and thsre w an aceowtiog and sevsranc< oftteir interesis. Any portionfma?l> defen-nined to belong us the lawyer or law firm shaii be witfidravvnpromplly ftoffi ihe tmsi account.,
RULE 3.3 Candor Toward The Tnhuna:
(a) A . awysf $;j<s{i i^t knowin^t).
{I) make a feise statcir. cn.t of fact. or 'dw '. o a triibunai|.]
RULL; 8.4 Misconduc'.
U is prc'rcssiofial nusconcut:; Mra Ifc.^er '....'
.
b) c. iminit a cn. i.'na.; or det ibeiate. y wrongful di;t that teflyc^ adveraely en tbe
.av. ^er's hur.esiv, trusiwvnbin.sss or fitness to practice law;
;c) engage in conduct invo'ving dish&n&-«y, fraud, deceit or misrepr<»s<-ntalion w-hichrt.-tlc^-s adversv ;'r on the jnw. yer's ti-nes5 to prsctice I."A[^
ill. (^-RTIFICAlIpN
Acccrdinsly,, i* ;s :he Jecision ot the Siibcommitt^e to csrtifv the above msttvrs to *h^
1 ccr-if) -that on '^ j ^ I:iyl / . I mailed by certified rRaiI a irac' and correct copy of
thf ibregoing Suben-mmttleo Dslcranioatioii (CcrtifScstior.) to Rieb?j-d Murray. Esquire,Respondent, si Suiie 400, 601 King Strwt, .'Ue.\antiria. VA 22314-2440, Respondeat's las?adA«s»s. of record v.-ith the Virginia Swte Bar. and by first class maii, ixsst^c prepaid, to Michael[,. R.igs>b>. counsel for Respyndsnl, at Michael I. -. Rigsby, PC, P.O. Box 29328, HairicQ, VA23242.
