Revoked After Suspension

The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board has revoked an attorney's license.

Effective April 25, 2025, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoked Jared Ryan Jenkins' license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia for violating professional rules that govern fairness to opposing party and counsel, as well as bar admission and disciplinary matters. 

There is no link provided to the findings and basis for the  revocation.

The Circuit Court of Rockbridge County had previously affirmed the imposition of a nine-month suspension imposed by a three-judge panel

Jenkins, acting on behalf of certain beneficiaries of a trust, filed a motion to intervene in the Circuit Court of Rockbridge County to stop the sale of property held by the trust. Jenkins contended that the circuit court was required to appoint a trustee prior to any sale. The motion to intervene stated that “[i]f these actions are allowed to stand, the citizens of Rockbridge County will rightly question the rule of law.” The motion to intervene was filed against the backdrop of prior litigation construing the trust.

Findings

At the hearing on the motion to intervene, Jenkins stated that “there is a procedure literally in the statute to appoint a trustee to do this. So if we’re going to ignore this statute . . . what other statutes are we going to ignore[?]” The circuit court denied the motion to intervene, concluding that it was not well founded. The circuit court further found that “several of the allegations made [by Jenkins] were false, insulting and offensive to counsel and to the Court and were made without any basis in law or fact and were in violation of Section 8.01-271.1 . . . as the statements and allegations impugned the integrity of the Court and Judicial system itself.” The circuit court ordered Jenkins to pay the legal fees incurred by the opposing party in defending the motion to intervene, in the amount of $4,000.

When Jenkins did not pay the fees, the circuit court issued a rule to show cause. Jenkins filed a response to the rule to show cause in which he challenged the circuit court’s jurisdiction to proceed. Jenkins wrote that “[i]nconvenience is no excuse for illegality. This case is rife with unethical conduct.” He asserted that “[t]he Court asserts authority to convey the property out of a family land trust to the brother of a former Circuit Court judge” and that “[t]his wrongful and unethical assertion of judicial power must be resisted.” Jenkins further wrote that “[i]t is beyond comprehension that the Court . . . would act in this manner and not consider that [its] behavior was unethical . . . . It is much easier to infer that everyone involved 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.” According to Jenkins,

“[i]t appears that the Court felt this unethical collusion would be legal and beyond question merely because he signed the orders approving it,” and, “[r]ather than addressing the concerns about the appearance of impropriety, the Court sanctioned me for having the temerity to raise the issue. I was ordered to pay the attorney’s fees charged for having to support and justify their unethical and illegal behavior.” Jenkins wrote that the circuit court was guilty of “[i]gnoring the laws.”

According to Jenkins, “[i]f the Court will go to these lengths for these purposes, it is reasonable to ask to what other lengths and for what other purposes the Court has wrongfully attempted or will wrongfully attempt to use its self-assumed power.” Finally, Jenkins stated that “[j]eopardizing the public trust in the judiciary by wrongfully and unethically pursuing the course of action taken in this case is dangerous.”

The day before appearing in court on the show cause hearing, Jenkins emailed members of the Rockbridge County Bar Association. In this email, he stated that the judge, “who we all know has little to no experience with the civil side of the court, would rather send me to jail than admit he was wrong,” which “is dangerous to us all.” He stated that the judge “has the authority to do this the right way, but he has chosen to do it the wrong way at every opportunity.” Jenkins characterized the court’s decisions as “tyranny” and “disqualifying.” He exhorted his colleagues “to attend the hearing so that you can see the lengths [the judge] will go to when an experienced attorney in good standing questions his authority.”

Following a show cause hearing, the circuit court held Jenkins in contempt, ordered him to serve 60 days in jail, ordered him to pay a daily fine until he purged his contempt, and required him to pay additional attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. The circuit court later revoked Jenkins’ privilege to practice in the Rockbridge County Circuit Court. Jenkins ultimately paid the fine.

A subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar certified the charges of misconduct against Jenkins. The Virginia State Bar then filed a complaint against Jenkins alleging that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. A three-judge panel concluded that Jenkins had violated Rules 3.4 and 8.2 and suspended his license to practice law for nine months. Jenkins appeals from this decision.

Affirmed

There is no question Jenkins actually made many scurrilous statements impugning the integrity of the judge. No evidence whatsoever supports Jenkins’ assertion that the judge’s behavior was corrupt or unethical. Jenkins certainly offered none. The panel could properly conclude on this evidence that the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth. Again, even if a judge commits a legal error – and in this instance, the appellate courts found no legal error – that does not justify a violation of the ethical rules that govern lawyers’ conduct.

A footnote describes the history of the underlying litigation

Jenkins filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition challenging the underlying rulings. The Court of Appeals ruled against him and dismissed the petition. Jenkins v. Circuit Court of Rockbridge County, No. 1556-22-3 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2022). The Court of Appeals separately upheld the circuit court's sanctions award and its decision on the underlying motion to intervene. Jenkins v. Irvine, Record No. 0099-23-3 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2024) (finding the appeal “wholly without merit”). This Court refused petitions for appeal in both cases. Jenkins v. Circuit Court of Rockbridge County, No. 220756 (Va. Apr. 26, 2023); Jenkins v. Irvine, No. 240110 (Va. May 28, 2024); Jenkins v. Irvine, No. 230935 (Va. May 29, 2024).

(Mike Frisch)