BREAKUP SPECIALIST GLENN C. LEWIS ESQ. BIO MIGHT NOT BE ALL IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE /Lewis had mentored Mark Barondess, family lawyer who defrauded me

[The Washington Post, 2005] In Va., Inadequate Attorney Discipline. The May 11 editorial "Another Slap on the Wrist" shined a much-needed light on the failure of Virginia's system for disciplining attorneys. Virginia earned a shameful D-plus on our last Lawyer Discipline Report Card and ranked 40th in the country. In "adequacy of discipline imposed," it flunked outright. According to the American Bar Association's latest statistics, more than half of the complaints against Virginia lawyers are not investigated and not even 2 percent of those that are investigated result in disbarment or suspension. When discipline is imposed, 75 percent of the time it is in the form of a private admonition or reprimand. Virginia lawyers treat discipline and client protection as poor stepchildren. Despite the efforts of Virginia Bar Counsel Barbara Williams and her staff, lack of adequate funding too often leads to token discipline. The state Clients' Protection Fund, which is supposed to reimburse victims of attorney theft, also is one of the weakest in the nation, paying out less than $6 per licensed attorney (compared with New Jersey's $50 and New York's $45 per lawyer). Unlike lawyers in most jurisdictions, including the District and Maryland, Virginia lawyers are not required to contribute to the fund. Virginians deserve an attorney discipline system that investigates promptly, deliberates openly, and weeds out unethical or incompetent lawyers. This means adequate funding, open proceedings, increased non-lawyer participation and evenhanded treatment of even the most well-connected attorneys.

[Leone (JLARC), 1995] Review of the Virginia State Bar (Summary). [T]here appears to be a need for better prioritization of activities to ensure that the Bar’s regulatory activities remain its primary focus...The association-like nature of some programs and activities conducted by the Bar raises questions about whether the Bar is properly focused on its regulatory mission. In addition, the expansion of the Bar into commercial activities is unusual for a State agency and exposes the Bar to potential conflicts, especially with its regulatory function. Further, these types of activities divert resources from the Bar’s most important activity -- lawyer discipline -- and raise concerns about public accountability. (Page VII)

[Leone (JLARC), 1995] Review of the Virginia State Bar (Report). This report on the Virginia State Bar raises potential concerns about the agency’s unusual role in conducting both regulatory and non-regulatory, association-like activities. The mixture of activities exposes the Virginia State Bar to potential conflicts, diverts resources from the Bar’s most important activity -- disciplining lawyers -- and raises concerns about public accountability. (Page 91)

Head of Va. Bar Association in Loan Dispute
Prominent divorce lawyer Glenn Lewis is himself a defendant in a $1 million claim by BB&T

BY ATTILA BERRY
LEGAL TIMES
August 16, 2007

Glenn Lewis is discovering that there's only so much time you can buy, especially when you don't pay for it.
Lewis, a prominent divorce lawyer in the Washington, D.C., metro area and president of the Virginia Bar Association, has some trouble with his bank, BB&T. In fact, the bank sued Lewis and his law firm at the end of last year for failure to pay back two loans totaling close to $1 million.
Over the course of the past eight months, the dispute has become increasingly acrimonious, with counterclaims flying and Lewis refusing to turn over financial records to the bank.
"The bank had considered him to be a very good customer, and the bank had a genuine appreciation for its relationship with him and his firm," says Thomas Murphy of Friedlander, Misler, Sloan, Kletzkin & Ochsman, one of BB&T's lawyers. "But there has to be limits to that. And the Lewis firm tested those limits, and they've now exceeded those limits."
According to D.C. court records, in 2002, Lewis Law Firm borrowed $750,000 from BB&T and later modified the note agreement six times, delaying final payment for three years. The firm also took out another commercial loan for $250,000 in late 2004, which was supposed to be due this October. After the firm defaulted on the first loan, the bank accelerated payment on the second.
Lewis and his wife, Kimberly, were guarantors on both loans. The bank says it negotiated with Lewis over a period of seven months, but at the end of 2006, the bank filed suit in D.C. Superior Court against Lewis, his wife and the firm.
"It was regrettable that the bank was forced into a public forum," says Robert Greenberg, another lawyer for BB&T.
The defendants then turned plaintiff, suing the bank for defamation and breach of contract, among other charges, and demanding $2 million in damages.
Court documents do not say what the commercial loans were used for or what caused the firm to default on its payments. The defendants' answer to the BB&T's complaint denies the bank's claims and says BB&T "had determined to change the way it conducted business with Defendants, but did not tell them of this change, before they signed the guarantees."
But the Lewis firm's financial problems weren't limited to the BB&T loan. According to documents filed in the case by Lewis, on at least one occasion last year the firm's payroll wasn't met. These documents also say that the Lewis' house was put in foreclosure. Lewis argues in court papers that these troubles arose because BB&T failed to properly manage his accounts.
Adding to the turmoil, over the past three years, the boutique firm experienced a heavy turnover in its ranks.
Lewis would not comment publicly for this story, nor would his attorney, Charles Carpenter, a partner at Pepper Hamilton.
Steve Mandell, also a partner at Pepper Hamilton, wrote in an e-mail on Friday to Legal Times that Lewis' law practice was "flourishing" and "in the midst of its most successful and profitable year ever.
"Having known Glenn Lewis as friend and colleague for many years, I can personally attest to the excellence he and his firm maintain in every aspect of client representation," Mandell said. "Moreover -- amazingly -- he continues to find time and energy to devote to leadership positions in the bar and his community.
"We anticipate the resolution of BB&T's claims in short order," Mandell added, noting that Lewis is working on alternative financing with another lender.
FROM DIVORCE LAW TO 'DR. PHIL'
Lewis isn't your average storefront divorce lawyer. In addition to being president of the Virginia Bar Association, he is a past president of the Fairfax Bar Association -- something his firm Web site claims is a first among Virginia lawyers. Lewis also served two terms on the Virginia State Bar Council. He teaches trial and family law courses at George Mason University School of Law and is on the university's board of visitors.
No stranger to the media, Lewis hosted his own TV show, "Law Weekly," on public access and covered former President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial and the 2000 election vote recount as the BBC's legal correspondent. He has even been on "Dr. Phil."
But Lewis doesn't just play a lawyer on TV. He has an impressive client roster, often handling the domestic disputes of the rich and famous. In naming him one of the top divorce lawyers in the D.C. metro area several times, Washingtonian magazine has noted his representation of former Washington Redskins running back John Riggins, TV talk show host John McLaughlin and Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson. According to his colleagues in D.C.'s divorce bar, he's a formidable opponent in the courtroom.
"Well, he's a very good attorney, a very good trial lawyer, and he speaks very, very fast. I presume that means he thinks very fast," says Marna Tucker, a family law attorney with Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell. "He's very aggressive in court, but polite. He's a worthy adversary."
Joseph Paradiso, a former partner with Lewis who now has his own firm, Paradiso, Taub, Sinay & Owel, says, "I can judge talent, and he is a remarkable talent in terms of his ability to try cases."
Ed Bouquet, an associate at Lewis' firm in the early 1990s, says Lewis was a great mentor for an "embryonic attorney" and says the learning process was constant. "I have never seen anybody who could digest information the way Glenn does," says Bouquet, who is now a solo practitioner. "He could pick details out of a deposition or a file and pull it together and use that to help a client in a way that was incredible."
BOUNCED CHECKS, MISSED PAYROLL
But Lewis' dispute with his bank has affected his business. In March the bank seized the law firm's operating account, putting nearly $150,000 toward the loans' balance. According to Lewis' counterclaim, the firm had around $60,000 in outstanding checks for court fees and rent and, ironically, a payment for the loan.
Additionally, the counterclaim alleges that in March 2006 BB&T dishonored checks that the Lewises had the money to cover, a claim the bank denies. It states that as a result of the bank's actions, "the Lewis Law Firm and Mr. and Mrs. Lewis suffered substantial economic damage, and noneconomic harm including damage to their credit records and reputations." The bounced checks led to the firm missing its May payroll.
Several former Lewis associates refused to discuss what went on at the firm during this period for fear of retribution. But some said that, though Lewis touts having trained many of the best divorce attorneys in the area, he was often absent from the firm during the past few years and didn't provide much in the way of mentoring.
Lewis Law Firm has hemorrhaged attorneys recently as well, losing around nine lawyers in the past three years. In 2005, the firm had at least eight lawyers in its Rockville, Md., Fairfax, Va., and D.C. offices, but by 2007 only one of those original lawyers besides Lewis remained, according to the firm's Martindale-Hubbell listings. Since then, the firm has built its numbers back up to seven attorneys, most of them first- or second-year associates.
The bank has requested that Judge Gerald Fisher appoint a receiver to monitor the firm's finances and has asked the firm to voluntarily hand over its bank statements, its general ledger and its accounts receivable -- citing concerns that the firm is "teetering on the edge of insolvency."
In a July 5 e-mail to BB&T's Greenberg, Carpenter wrote, "We are in the process of putting together a packet of financial records that should address questions about the state of collateral." Last week, a lawyer for BB&T said the bank had yet to receive the information it requested.
The law firm has been making payments on both notes, according to the firm's counterclaim, but the amount the firm owes is still in excess of $500,000.
It "doesn't change the fact that the payment in full was due over a year ago," says BB&T's Murphy.
In June 2003, Lewis contributed an article to Legal Times on the importance of seeking legal counsel early in domestic disputes. In the article he discussed the skills needed to be a good family law practitioner, including an understanding of the benefits of "business reorganization, refinancing," and "debt payoff." Lewis wrote, "A sound appreciation of tax, accounting, bookkeeping, estate planning, and business valuation principles is essential." The question is, did Lewis take his own advice?

This article can be found at:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1187168523105

… author Mark Barondess began his reference, 'What Were You Thinking??: $600-per-hour Legal Advice on Relationships, Marriage & Divorce,' with a reference to Mr. Lewis as one of his two life mentors and influences … -Glenn C. Lewis biography at The Lewis Law Firm, P.C.

Veronique Wyvell, RN
Member, Fairfax County Network Against Family Abuse
Founder, MOMMY GO BYE-BYE: Mothers Against Unjust Law
7831 Enola Street, #TA7, McLean, Virginia 22102
VWyvell@patriot.net

MAUL (Mothers Against Unjust Law) Goals:
Rebuttable PRESUMPTIONS Against Custody for Batterers
PPAs (Parenting Plan Agreements) before Litigation
Moratorium on CCEs (Child Custody Evaluations)
MINIMUM Parent-Time Schedules (UTAH Code)
JURY Trials (in Domestic Relations Cases)
PROTECTIVE Parent Reform Acts
DIGITAL Courtroom Records
ALI's Approximation Rule
TERM LIMITS for Judges

. . .
ADDENDA

COMPLAINT FORM

TO:
Virginia State Bar
707 East Main Street, #1500
Richmond, VA 23219

FROM:
Ms. Veronique Wyvell
7831 Enola Street, #TA7
McLean, VA 22102
703.748.0072 Tel/Fax

SUBJECT OF COMPLAINT:
Mr. Mark Barondess, Attorney at Law
[ SANDGROUND BARONDESS WEST & NEW, P.C. ]
8000 Towers Crescent Drive
Sixth Floor, Tysons Corner
Vienna, VA 22182
703.761.4200 Tel

COMPLAINT:
It is my opinion that Mr. Mark Barondess did a very indecent thing when he hid his diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (a progressive and degenerative condition affecting the memory) from me for more than one year. I hired him in May 2000. I was unaware of his illness when he represented me at two important trials. Our first trial was in September 2000; our second trial was in August 2001.
Several months after our August 2001 trial with its late decision of early November 2001 and near Thanksgiving, as the artwork came down from his office walls and his computer was being dismantled, Mr. Barondess both confirmed that I had lost all custody of my four year old daughter and announced that mine was his last court case because his memory had deteriorated and he was too sick to work.
Furthermore, at that time and in front of his associate, Ms. Erika Schiller, we discussed my letter to him requesting an Appeal. His partner, Mr. Brian West, would handle the Appeal process and Mr. David Duff would take over as my new attorney, he said.
Mr. Barondess failed to apply for the Appeal, however, and the deadline was missed. I never saw or heard from Mr. Barondess again, although he said he would still do consulting work for his former clients.

SIGNATURE AND DATE:
V. Wyvell, Registered Nurse, 13 June 2002

. . .
ADDENDA

COMPLAINT REPORT

TO:
Virginia State Bar
707 East Main Street, #1500
Richmond, VA 23219

FROM:
Ms. Veronique Wyvell
7831 Enola Street, #TA7
McLean, VA 22102
703.748.0072 Tel/Fax

SUBJECT OF COMPLAINT:
Ms. Erika Schiller, Attorney at Law
[ SANDGROUND BARONDESS WEST & NEW, P.C. ]
8000 Towers Crescent Drive
Sixth Floor, Tysons Corner
Vienna, VA 22182
703.761.4200 Tel

COMPLAINT:
I do not owe Ms. Erika Schiller money because I never hired her to represent me. You have on file a history of my experience with her law firm because you investigated last summer my complaint against her boss, Mr. Mark Barondess. Mr. Barondess embezzled more than $26,000.00 from me when he tricked me into believing he was working on my case. Ms. Schiller should stop harassing me with her demands for more on my money. Her invoices are enclosed.

SIGNATURE AND DATE:
V. Wyvell, 16 Jan 03

. . .
ADDENDA

3 February 2003

7831 Enola Street, #TA7
McLean, VA 22102
703.748.0072 Tel/Fax

Mary W. Martelino
Assistant Intake Counsel
Virginia State Bar
707 East Main Street, Suite 1500
Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Ms. Martelino,

Thank you for taking a moment to review my recent complaint about Ms. Erika Schiller. I paid special attention, however, to the postscript in your letter to me which offers to reopen my case against her boss, Mr. Mark Barondess, for a second review. I would like for the Bar to reexamine its decision in reference to my experience with Mr. Barondess.

I would like for the Bar to consider this: How could Mr. Worrell in his assessment of my complaint ignore the danger in relying on Mr. Barondess’s believability and recall of past events when Mr. Barondess himself in his rebuttal confessed to a failing memory? Furthermore, it strikes me that the shocking disclosure by Mr. Barondess of so many details on the UNPREDICTABILITY of his disease, the diversity and severity of his symptoms to include a deteriorating memory, and the steady decline of his health supports my assertions that his illness certainly disrupted and hurt his performance as my trial lawyer. [Or was Mr. Barondess’s duty to conduct discovery for our second trial, for example, instead “impaired” by offers of bribe money--he conducted NO discovery; to hurt my position, Mr. Troy Deel, the father of my child, had already “fixed” Dorothy Tingen’s transcript of our first circuit court trial by paying off this court reporter.] You can imagine my horror as I listened to Mr. Barondess list his numerous medications and reveal in our final meeting which is described in my original complaint report dated 13 June 2002, “You wouldn’t believe all the pills I take…I need drugs to keep me awake during the day and then I need drugs to help me get to sleep at night…” He was a very, very sick man.

I had inklings that Mr. Barondess was abnormally inattentive and mismanaging my case, but I dismissed my concerns by reasoning that after all our pediatrician had recommended him to me, he was known as a superb and aggressive attorney, and it was hard to believe I was getting bad service at rates of $350.00 and later $375.00 an hour. If I had known sooner about his diagnosis I would have put two and two together because as a nurse I understand the progressively debilitating effects of multiple sclerosis on virtually every system in the human body, and I would have immediately bowed out of this relationship.

Because of the serious nature of this disease I feel I had the right to know my lawyer was sick--we are not talking here about cataracts. We intuitively know Mr. Barondess should have told me in my first conversation with him he would be gambling by accepting to represent me. Instead, he took my case and then disappeared without warning eighteen months later at Christmas-time after deceitfully offering and agreeing to apply for my appeal--he never even filed a withdrawal notice. I told Dr. Stanton Samenow in December 2001 that Mr. Barondess had said to me Mr. West would appeal and Mr. Duff would do the trial. I can sign release forms to allow you to speak with this psychologist. I must caution you, however, Dr. Samenow and Mr. Barondess are friends.

It is impossible to feel after reading Mr. Barondess’s description of his fight against multiple sclerosis that he would have been completely unhindered professionally by such terrific physical battering by such a remarkable array of UNPREDICTABLE symptoms. It is difficult to believe that he would have been completely unaffected mentally by situational stress and depression in the face of eventual dependency and incapacitation possibly followed by early death. I think his rebuttal described an especially difficult period of flare-ups in the days and weeks before the deadline for his response. I would like for the Bar to note Mr. Barondess delivered his answer to my report three or even four days after the twenty-one day limit imposed by the Bar.

Mr. Mark Barondess behaved injudiciously because he was understandably overwhelmed by his personal crisis.

I hope the Bar will see the decency in reconsidering its decision in my case. I also hope a reversal might provide the basis for modification or retrial to correct a destructive and dangerous custody order that is extremely detrimental to the safety and welfare of my young daughter.

Sincerely yours,

Veronique Wyvell
Nurse and Teacher

. . .
ADDENDA

3 September 2002

7831 Enola Street, #TA7
McLean, VA 22102
703.748.0072 Tel/Fax

Thomas A. Edmonds
Executive Director
Virginia State Bar
707 East Main Street, #1500
Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Mr. Edmonds,

I am resubmitting my complaint in reference to Mr. Mark Barondess, attorney at law, for your reexamination because I disagree with the decision by Mr. Claude Worrell, assistant bar counsel, that my lawyer was justified in concealing from me his diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. The evidence provided by me to the [Virginia] State Bar strongly supports a connection between the gravity of Mr. Barondess’s symptoms and his substandard performance as my trial lawyer--he himself agreed that his memory had suffered. Arguments given by Mr. Worrell and Mr. Barondess are weak, irrelevant, and contradictory. Note that my attorney delivered his answer to my report four days after the twenty-one day limit imposed by the Bar. Why was his response late? He explained that he responded late because his symptoms flared-up, Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Barondess is guilty of abandoning my case, and, by pretending otherwise, he is lying. I told Dr. Samenow, last December, that my lawyer had said to me that Mr. West would appeal and Mr. Duff would do the trial. I can sign release forms to allow you to speak with Dr. Samenow.

You should expect that a few more of your Fairfax County lawyers, Mr. David Duff and Ms. Sandra Havrilak included, may find themselves under the magnifying glass because I am no longer seeking attorneys to represent me. I have been searching instead for a journalist who will agree with me that some situations are just plain to see and require few facts. You can read for yourself my letter to New York dated 29 August 2002 which is enclosed.

You are probably now thinking that I am straying from the purpose of this letter. I will argue that Virginia long ago strayed from the key facts of my case. Until now I have left my emotions out of this endeavor, but I notice that Mr. Barondess, a fully grown man, craves pity. Well, I only seek pity for my four year old who is suffering unmercifully and for too long at the hands of the state. And the more I love her and protect her, the more the state defrauds me and disgraces me. Again, you can read for yourself my fax dated 20 June 2002 which is attached to Enclosure E.

I was never once the moving party in these forty-four months of court battle. I was never married to [Troy Deel] the father of my baby nor financially supported by him. The father of my child never sees nor supports his twelve year old son by another woman--also an out of wedlock pregnancy. The father of my little girl became angry when I refused to abort my fetus, and he has now stolen her from me to avoid paying child support. The father married a woman he dislikes to impress the court--this woman also abandoned her baby son at birth seventeen years ago to avoid spending her money on him. I also crave pity, Mr. Edmonds--for my helpless child.

In the three months that have now passed, June, July, and August, my daughter, Brigitte, and I have shared only four forty-eight hour weekends together. I have completely abandoned attempts to phone her between our visits to deny the father and his wife the pleasure they derive from screening my calls, impeding conversations, and using my daughter as a pawn and as a weapon against me. It would be very difficult for the state to convince me that in rendering my daughter motherless by turning her over to a dangerously un-empathetic and violent man, a foster child himself, and his wife it has ruled in her best interest.

I made a mistake when I failed to report Ms. Dorothy Tingen, court reporter licensed by the state, for conspiring with the father to falsify the court record of our February 2000 trial to change my position. I made a mistake when I failed to report Ms. Colleen Daly, director of a daycare [Winwood Children’s Center, 12301 Lee Jackson Memorial Highway (Rt. 50), Fairfax, Virginia, 703.218.4141] licensed by the state, to Child Protective Services for conspiring with the father (we had shared custody) and allowing my three year old to spend entire days hiding in fear under a table at daycare while whimpering “my mommy, my mommy, my mommy, my mommy”--not drinking, not eating, not using the toilet. Brigitte quickly succumbed to pneumonia. I finally have no more tolerance for misbehaviors by those the state decides to license or appoint. The conspiracy between Dr. William Zuckerman, psychologist licensed by the state, and the father which is described in the fax of 20 June is one neither of us should ignore for the reasons explained in the letter to a New York journalist. I have learned from Circuit Court Judge Arthur Vieregg that leverage has its place in the law, unfortunately.

It may be time for you, sir, to have a talk with the head of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission about the cruel and unusual approach and attitude that define the practice of child custody law by the Fairfax County justice system, and perhaps you both would then consider meeting with Congressman Tom Davis to discuss why Ms. Veronique Wyvell deserves a new trial funded by the state.

Respectfully,

Veronique Wyvell
Nurse and Teacher
. . .