Bar to get access to files of lawyer’s lawyers

Virginia State Bar officials investigating an ethics complaint against former state Del. Joe Morrissey will have full access to the files of Morrissey’s lawyers.

Morrissey’s announcement that he would waive the attorney-client privilege for his lawyers’ files came at a March 4 hearing that aired evidence about Morrissey’s alleged 2013 involvement with an underage staffer.

The hearing produced testimony that the then-lawyer-legislator acknowledged receiving and forwarding nude photographs of his 17-year-old receptionist.

Morrissey has contended the staffer did not send the photos to him and he did not send them to anyone else. Morrissey said the cellphones of the two were hacked by a vengeful former companion of the staffer.

Morrissey’s concession on access to his lawyers’ files ended the hearing just before a VSB attorney was to play a recording of Morrissey and the young staffer allegedly discussing the revealing photos.

“Because there might be a perception we’re trying to hide something, we’ve decided to offer all the attorneys’ files up to the Virginia State Bar,” Morrissey told Henrico County Circuit Judge L.A. Harris Jr.

“It’s not some of the files; it’s not most of the files. It is everything,” Morrissey said.

At the hearing, Harris was to consider whether the bar had shown enough evidence to justify disclosure of the lawyers’ files under the “crime/fraud exception” to the attorney-client privilege.

Morrissey’s move made such a ruling unnecessary.

Attorney-client privilege at issue

The hearing was only the latest legal battle to arise from Morrissey’s alleged tryst with his youthful assistant.

Morrissey was convicted in 2014 on an Alford plea to a misdemeanor charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. A 21-page plea agreement included a rare statement of the “defendant’s position” in which Morrissey maintained he was “absolutely not guilty” of all charges.

Questions soon arose about portions of Morrissey’s account. Detectives contended a document he submitted to the court was not the court order it appeared to be. Authorities also questioned Morrissey’s denial of receiving and re-sending revealing photos of his alleged paramour.

Efforts to revive a criminal case against Morrissey failed, but the VSB sought to use the same allegations to gain access to the Morrissey defense files.

“The bar has learned evidence exists that several of the statements Mr. Morrissey made in his summation appear to be false,” Paulo E. Franco, a bar attorney, told Harris at the outset of the March 4 hearing.

“We’re prepared to show here today that every word in here is true,” Morrissey responded.

Law student testifies

Morrissey had four attorneys in the course of his 2014 criminal defense. The bar sought the complete file of each one.

Three of the lawyers hired their own attorneys to fight the bar’s bid for access. Morrissey, however, took the lead in defending the bar’s evidence, joined in court by co-counsel Catherine S. Mullins.

The bar’s first witness countered Morrissey’s denial of the nude photo claims.

Carter Nichols – now a third-year law student – was Morrissey’s legislative aide in 2013. Morrissey called him to help with a cellphone problem the morning after police found the minor at Morrissey’s home.

Morrissey denied any physical relationship with the girl but said he had received explicit photos of her by cellphone message and had forwarded them to a friend “to show off how beautiful they were,” according to Nichols.

Morrissey was concerned about whether to seek replacement of his phone, which had a broken screen, Nichols said.

Nichols was followed on the stand by a Henrico County detective who laid the foundation for an audio recording of Morrissey and the girl as they monitored police questioning of the girl’s mother.

The audio recording was never played in court because Morrissey then agreed to waive the attorney-client privilege.

Disputed court order

Harris also heard no evidence about a purported court order which caught the attention of detectives in the wake of Morrissey’s Alford plea. The document – proffered by Morrissey – consisted of a support agreement apparently signed by the staffer’s parents and an attached court “consent order.”

Morrissey explained that the document was assembled by the staffer’s father to make it appear his support obligation was founded on a court order. Later, a lawyer for the staffer’s mother believed it was a court order and the mistake was perpetuated through other counsel, Morrissey said.

Bar investigation to continue

The unusual battle over the attorney-client privilege forced open a VSB investigation that ordinarily would have been confidential.

No VSB ethics charges have been brought against Morrissey related to the 2013 incident or its aftermath. Morrissey is listed as active-in-good-standing with the VSB, according to online records.

Franco said his office would submit its findings to a VSB discipline subcommittee. “They’ll determine whether charges are appropriate,” he said.

Franco said he had no idea about the time frame for his office’s investigation.

The bar sought and won access to the file of a lawyer’s lawyer in 2011 in a Norfolk Circuit Court case. The bar was looking for evidence that the lawyer in question had hidden a large fee in the midst of divorce proceedings.

Morrissey’s legal troubles have been well publicized. He was disbarred in 2003 for failing to tell clients about an earlier suspension. He was reinstated by the Supreme Court of Virginia in 2011.

After his 2014 Henrico conviction, he served a jail term on nights and weekends while attending to his legislative duties during the day. He gave up his House of Delegates seat last year, ran for an open Senate seat and then folded that campaign.

Morrissey practices from an office in Highland Springs.