The Shadow
On Wednesday, January 17, Iron Gate Town Attorney, Jared Jenkins, faced a trio of judges in the Rockbridge County courtroom in Lexington, Virginia, at 9:00 a.m. Representing himself, he pleaded his case to judges Turk, Yates, and Albertson against the Virginia State Bar, represented by Attorney Paulo Franco.
The foundation of the case made against Jared Jenkins by the Virginia State Bar rested fundamentally on the bar’s allegations that Jenkins violated the strict code of conduct in which all attorneys are required to practice. The rules of professional conduct in which Jenkins allegedly violated were the following: 3.1, 3.4d, 8.1a, 8.1b, 8.2, 8.4b, and 8.4c.
So the reader is familiar with what these codes are and what they mean, let’s break them down one by one as they are written by the Virginia State Bar.
Rule 3.1: “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that
every element of the case be established (vsb.org).”
3.4 d: “Knowingly disobey or advise a client to disregard a standing rule or a ruling of a tribunal made in the course of a proceeding, but the lawyer may take steps, in good faith, to test the validity of such rule or ruling (vsb.org).”
8.1a: “knowingly make a false statement of material fact (vsb.org).”
8.1b: “fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter (vsb.org).”
8.2: “A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge or other judicial officer (vsb.org).”
8.4b: “commit a criminal or deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law (vsb.org).”
8.4c: “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law (vsb.org).”
Going forward, here are the timeline of events and the story as told by each side, including facts of the case and court documents:
The trouble for Jared Jenkins began in 2019 when he was sought out by Don Dudley to represent him and his cousin, Fred, in a land dispute. Dudley’s longstanding legal battle with his aunt, Joanne Moore, seemingly started in 2003 following the court’s decision that “only living beneficiaries were eligible” to inherit the land. At the time of the resolution, Moore was the only living beneficiary of that generation.
According to Dudley, he tried to purchase the land from Moore, but she refused. Jenkins, meanwhile, reassured Dudley that Moore could not sell the land without a trustee being appointed over the Trust and one had not yet been appointed.
However, that’s exactly what Dudley said happened two weeks after their last hearing on the matter. In April 2021, Joanne Moore sold the land to Christopher Irvine.
According to court documents, “Given that the Trust had no serving trustee, [Christopher] Irvine requested that the circuit court appoint a special commissioner to execute a deed conveying the real estate to him.”
“On January 18, 2022, Jenkins filed a motion seeking leave for seven ‘qualified beneficiaries’ of the Trust to intervene. The motion alleged that Irvine, Moore, and the circuit court ‘ignored multiple procedural safeguards designed to insure [sic] the property of a Trust is not stolen.’ The motion stated that the intervenors sought ‘an explanation of the current posture of this case, an explanation of the authority supporting the actions taken, and reconsideration of those actions.’ Finally, the motion contended, ‘[i]f these actions are allowed to stand, the citizens of Rockbridge County will rightly question the rule of law.’”
Christopher Irvine, however, was not interested in an intervention and stated that Joanne Moore was the “only person qualified to make decisions regarding disposition” of the Trust’s property, presumably because of the decision of the courts in 2003 that “only living beneficiaries” could inherit the land.
However, during Jenkins’ motion to intervene, according to Irvine, Jenkins made statements which prompted him to have his counsel sanction Jenkins under code 8.01-271. According to court documents, “By order of June 21, 2022, the circuit court found that ‘several of the allegations’ in the motion to intervene violated Code §8.01-271.1 and ordered Jenkins to pay $4,000 in attorney fees incurred by Irvine in opposing the intervention and in moving for sanctions.
According to Jenkins during the January 17 hearing, he felt as though he were merely protecting his clients from an order he felt was unjust and not in accordance with Virginia law. In his opening statement to the court, he said, “We’re here to focus on what I’ve been saying. Not what the judge has been doing… Jared, you’re wrong for saying this out loud.”
During a hearing on October 6, 2022, Jenkins faced a judge in Rockbridge County after not yet paying the attorney fees that were ordered on June 21, 2022. Then, on October 12, 2022, court documents state that “[the circuit court] found that Jenkins ‘willfully and intentionally failed to comply’ with the circuit court’s June 21, 2022 order” and found him in contempt, ordered him to pay an additional $800 to Christopher Irvine’s attorneys, fined him $200 a day, and ordered him to spend 60 days in jail. However, he could avoid jail time if he complied with the initial order from June 21, 2022. “You’re going to jail if you don’t pay this before you’ve had a right to appeal,” Jenkins said in his opening statement regarding his take on the October 12 court order.
Jared Jenkins then constructed an email to the Virginia Bar Association which he showed his then-partner, Lawrence “Larry” Mann, of Mann Legal Group. At the time of the email, Jenkins stated in court on Wednesday that he and Mann were 50/50 partners in the firm.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, Mann testified that upon reading Jenkins’ email, he gave him two pages of notes, but encouraged him not to send it, as it included allegations against Judge Russell. “Stick to the facts,” Mann said he told Jenkins during their conversation.
In Jenkins’ email to the Virginia State Bar, some portions included the following statements, according to court documents: the [Dudley] case was “rife with unethical conduct,” those involved in the [Dudley] case, including those in the circuit court “believed that they were above the law and could achieve their desired ends without caring whether their manner of doing so was legal or not,” and the court was “[j]eopardizing the public trust in the judiciary by wrongfully and unethically pursuing the course of action taken in [the land trust]case.”
Julie Crowder, office manager of the Mann Legal Group, also testified against Jenkins. She stated that Jenkins “had anxiety over the Dudley case,” spoke often of his alleged mistreatment by Judge Russell, and she believed he was concerned about his upcoming fines. As such, Crowder claimed she hid a book of checks that was used to both pay the attorneys’ salaries and grant “draws” on occasion whenever there was a need from the attorneys. A draw is a simple “withdrawal” from the Mann Legal Group’s funds.
During the course of his time at Mann Legal Group, both sides agreed that they didn’t really follow a procedure for taking draws. If any of the lawyers needed to make a draw for whatever reason, they discussed it, and a check was cut. The funds were put in by both Jenkins and Mann whenever they made money, similar to that of a marital bank account when both parties put in and take out whenever needed. This analogy was also made by one of the judges during the hearing. “When there’s a divorce, it’s a race to get to the bank account.” As readers are likely aware, part of the allegations against Jenkins is that he fraudulently wrote himself a check for $15,000 using funds from the Mann Legal Group that he was allegedly not allowed to take.
Both sides (Jenkins vs. Larry Mann and Julie Crowder) admitted they didn’t strictly follow the preorganized plan for paying salaries, but both disputed how much of the firm Jenkins managed. According to Jenkins, he was “fraudulently induced” into signing the partnership agreement with Mann, as he believed it would be 50/50. Mann, however, saw it as 98 (Mann)/2 (Jenkins).
Following the October 12 decision, Jenkins asked Mann for help with his legal fees. Mann initially agreed to the sum of $6,800, but the following day, Mann changed his mind, stating in court he feared the amount would increase. Then on October 27, 2022, Jared Jenkins started his own LLC while still part of the Mann Legal Group. From here, Jenkins’ story and Mann/Crowder’s stories differ.
According to Mann/Crowder: Their concern over Jared Jenkins began in February 2022 and continued until November 1, 2022, when his signature was taken off the Mann Legal Group’s bank account. Crowder said in Wednesday’s hearing that she hid the firm’s checkbooks in an accordion folder in a closed file cabinet in her office and Jenkins had to search to find them. Crowder also stated that Jenkins failed to communicate with them toward the end of their partnership and both she and Mann testified that Jenkins stopped returning phone calls to clients.
Crowder also stated that when Jenkins wrote himself the check, he took a check out of sequence to conceal the fact that he’d taken the money. The Virginia State Bar argued that Jenkins must have known he wasn’t allowed to take the money. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have taken a check out of sequence.
According to Jenkins: Neither Mann nor Crowder came to him with concerns over his well-being or alleged anxiety over the Dudley case. He also stated he was unaware that his name was taken off the Mann Legal Group’s bank account, as he had no problem cashing the check he wrote himself on November 3, 2022. As for the checks, he stated they were in the first place he looked in Julie’s office, so he did not
have to look for them.
Jenkins also pointed to several email exchanges between him and Mann between October 26 and October 27, 2022, to show that during the time Mann and Crowder were concerned over his lack of communication, he was, in fact, communicating with them via email.
As for taking a check out of sequence, Jared Jenkins argued that he did not try to hide the fact that he wrote himself a check because he knew it’d be discovered. He also argued he was owed a lot more than $15,000, and that the worst he thought Mann would do was sue him and if Mann did that, he would learn he actually owed Jenkins a lot more money.
As of right now, the money still in the Mann Legal Group’s bank account has not yet been divided between Mann and Jenkins.This was agreed upon by Jenkins and Mann during the hearing.
The question really boiled down to whether or not Jenkins was legally allowed and legally entitled to the money from the check he wrote himself out of the Mann Legal Group’s account.
On October 31, 2022, according to Julie Crowder, she checked the firm’s account balance, and, at the time, the balance was $39,000. She also stated in court she often checked the account as many as 2 or 3 times a week, if not more.
On November 1, 2022, Crowder says she made a trip to the bank to have Jenkins’ name removed from it. According to Jenkins, he had to be present to sign a statement to be on the bank account, so he should have been present to sign to have his name removed.
On November 3, 2022, Jenkins wrote himself a check for $15,000 from money that was in the Mann Legal Group. He cashed the check the same day. According to Mann, he and Jenkins talked about Jenkins taking a draw prior to Jenkins writing the check, but Mann said he hadn’t agreed to it.
On Friday, November 4, 2022, Julie Crowder was out of the office. Because the firm is closed on the weekends, she didn’t notice the $15,000 check cleared until she returned to work on Monday, November 7.
Also on November 7, Jenkins paid off his court fines, thus saving him from having to go to jail for nonpayment.
Both sides seemed to agree that the partnership was nearing its natural end by the time Jenkins wrote the check to himself, as may be evidenced by the fact that Jenkins started his own LLC on October 27, 2022. Regardless of whether or not Jenkins started his own LLC, Jenkins said he believed himself to still be a partner, as he received nothing in writing from Mann. Mann testified in court that he did not give Jenkins anything in writing. Therefore, the question remains: Was Jenkins part of the Mann Legal Group?
To sum it all up: the Dudley case sparked a long series of events that would lead to Wednesday’s hearing. Dudley argued with his aunt, Joanne Moore, over land, Moore sold it Irvine under the pen of the judge, Jenkins contested how the land was sold and argued it was not in accordance with the law, Jenkins requested an intervention, Irvine had his lawyers sanction Jenkins for statements he made when requesting the intervention, Jenkins went to court over those statements and was ordered to pay a fine, after not paying the fine, Jenkins had more fines added on and was threatened jail time if he didn’t pay, Jenkins sent an email to the bar about the judge being a ‘tyrant’ for his mishandling of the Dudley case, and finally, Jenkins wrote himself a check from the Mann Legal Group and cashed it.
At the end of the hearing, the judges deliberated for a few minutes before delivering their verdict: The judges found that the Virginia State Bar had failed to meet the burden of proof on the following codes of conduct: 3.1, 8.1a, 8.1b, 8.4b, and 8.4c. They did, however, find that the bar had met their burden of proof on 3.4d and 8.2.
To remind readers:
3.4d: ““Knowingly disobey or advise a client to disregard a standing rule or a ruling of a tribunal made in the course of a proceeding, but the lawyer may take steps, in good faith, to test the validity of such rule or ruling (vsb.org).”
8.2: ““A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge or other judicial officer (vsb.org).”
Seemingly, these code of conduct violations stem from the statements Jenkins made during the Dudley case when he both challenged the judicial system on the handling of the case (3.4d) and then sent an email to the Virginia State Bar accusing the judge of being a tyrant (8.2).
The sentence for Jared Jenkins was a 9-month suspension to practice law. However, the Virginian Review caught up with Iron Gate Mayor, Gary Craig, who stated that “He’s (Jenkins) going to appeal it… and he’s always had my full support.”
Mayor Craig wrote a letter to be presented to the judges during Jenkins’ hearing that was not read in court. It was signed by all but one member of the Iron Gate Town Council and told of their support of Jenkins. “I [Mayor Craig] have worked very closely with Mr. Jenkins for the past year,” the letter read. “Mr. Jenkins is an intelligent and motivated individual… I have the utmost respect for Mr. Jenkins.”
We also asked the mayor what that meant for the town of Iron Gate going forward. Mayor Craig was forthcoming in stating that as long as the appeal process is ongoing, Jenkins is free to continue representing the Town of Iron Gate and would be going forward unless something changes.
The Virginian Review will continue to follow up with this story as it progresses and will update readers as we learn more.
