Supreme Court of Virginia Affirms 13-Month Suspension for Multiple Ethics Violations
Wessel v. Virginia State Bar, Record No. 251004 (Va. June 4, 2026)
In this opinion, the Supreme Court of Virginia unanimously affirms a 13-month suspension of Douglas Wessel’s law license, finding that he violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct in his handling of a personal injury case.
Mariela Perez hired Wessel in 2019 after she was injured by a malfunctioning electric utility cart, sustaining injuries that required multiple leg surgeries. Wessel filed suit in 2021, with trial set for October 2023. Two months before trial, Wessel brought in co-counsel to address a potential causation issue. A fee dispute then erupted over who—Wessel or Perez—was responsible for their fees. After Perez refused to bear those costs, Wessel privately concluded in mid-September 2023 that he would not take the case to trial, but he told neither Perez nor opposing counsel. Instead, he continued to perform pretrial tasks and allowed co-counsel to pursue settlement negotiations, effectively bluffing the defendant into believing that the case was headed to trial. Co-counsel, when they learned of the plan, were “shocked” and told Wessel that they had not “signed up for a bluff.”
Wessel finally disclosed his intention to Perez only around October 10, which was less than two weeks before trial. The case settled for $1.2 million on October 19, and Perez terminated Wessel the same day. Rather than withdrawing, however, Wessel spent the following weeks obstructing disbursement of the settlement funds, insisting that he and his lenders be paid before Perez received anything, even the roughly $640,000 that was concededly hers. The VSB’s Ethics Hotline advised him twice to withdraw; he ignored both recommendations. Perez was not paid her undisputed share until a December 8 hearing at which Wessel finally submitted a withdrawal order.
The Court found violations of four rules. Under Rule 1.3(b) (failure to carry out employment contract), Wessel deliberately deceived Perez by feigning trial preparation while having no intention of trying the case, denying her any meaningful opportunity to seek new counsel or make an informed choice between settlement and trial. The Court characterized her situation as a “Hobson’s choice:” the settlement was effectively the only viable option Wessel left her, and she accepted $1.2 million on a case that the lawyers themselves had valued at $1.5 to $2 million. Under Rule 1.16(a)(1) (mandatory withdrawal when representation would violate the Rules), Wessel should have withdrawn once he decided he could not try the case. Under Rule 1.16(a)(3) (mandatory withdrawal upon discharge), he failed to withdraw for over a month after being fired and continued to assert control over settlement funds. Under Rules 8.4(a) and 1.15(b)(4) (professional misconduct and prompt disbursement of client funds), his efforts to block distribution of the undisputed portion of the settlement violated both the rule’s text and its accompanying comment, which expressly prohibits holding funds to coerce a client.
The Court closed with a pointed reminder that the attorney-client relationship is fiduciary in nature, demanding “the highest fidelity to a most solemn trust.” Wessel’s conduct—prioritizing his own financial recovery over his client’s—fell far short of that standard, and the 13-month suspension was affirmed in full.