Sanctions – Attorney sanctioned for violating multiple Rules of Professional Conduct

Where an attorney failed to disclose material information to his client, failed to withdraw for over a month after the client terminated him and attempted to exert control over the disbursement of the settlement funds even after he was terminated, he violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct.

Background

Douglas Bell Wessel, a licensed Virginia lawyer, represented Mariela Perez in a personal injury action against Merrifield Garden Center. As the date of trial approached, a fee dispute arose concerning whether Wessel or Perez would be responsible for additional legal counsel’s fees. Wessel then began to deceive Perez, pretending to prepare for trial when he had no intention of trying the case.

In the weeks preceding the impending trial, Perez lost trust in Wessel and eventually terminated him immediately after her case settled. Even after he was terminated, Wessel tried to influence the distribution of settlement funds, refusing to even allow the disbursement of funds which undisputedly belonged to Perez.

The Virginia State Bar, or VSB, asserted that Wessel’s actions constituted misconduct and the violation of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. A three-judge panel was appointed, and it agreed with the VSB.

Rule 1.3(b)

Rule 1.3(b) states: A lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services but may withdraw as permitted under Rule 1.16. The representation agreement between Wessel and Perez stated that Wessel would handle her civil claim for injuries and damages arising out of an accident at Merrifield Gardens, which could entail settlement or trial.

Wessel argues that he did not intentionally fail to represent Perez but instead acted with her best interests in mind. What Wessel fails to understand is that Perez should have been alerted to his concerns regarding trying the case as soon as they arose. His undisclosed decision to not try the case yet maintain the facade that he intended to proceed to trial clearly demonstrates the conflict between Wessel’s self-interest and those of his client.

As soon as Wessel determined that his disagreement with Perez regarding fees rendered him unable to fully carry out his responsibilities, he should have advised her of the predicament and either withdrawn or reached an agreement with her to limit the scope of his representation. His failure to take such actions in a timely manner harmed his client and, consequentially, violated Rule 1.3(b).

Rules 1.16(a)(1) and 1.16(a)(3)

Given the determination above that Wessel violated Rule 1.3(b), Wessel also violated Rule 1.16(a)(1) when he continued to represent Perez after he decided to not try the case and failed to communicate his decision to Perez. Then, later, he violated Rule 1.16(a)(3) when he failed to withdraw for over a month after Perez terminated him. Not only did Wessel fail to withdraw, but he continued to attempt to exert control over the disbursement of the settlement funds even after he was terminated.

Rules 8.4(a) and 1.15

The three-judge panel found that Wessel’s attempts to prevent Stoney from distributing the settlement funds after Wessel was terminated by Perez violated Rule 8.4(a). In addition, it found that Wessel’s interference with the disbursement of the funds prevented the portion of the settlement that was undisputed from going to Perez immediately, violating Rule 1.15(b)(4). This court agrees.

Affirmed.

Wessel v. Virginia State Bar ex rel. Fifth District, Section II Committee, Record No. 251004, June 4, 2026 (Fulton III). From the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Plowman Jr., Barredo and Robbins Jr.). VLW 026-6-029. 12 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-6-029