This is about an actual case in late 2012 involving two of Staples' lawyers, Murray Wright, esq. and Sadiq Gill, esq. (aka S. Sadiq Gill, Suleman Sadiq Gill, attorney at law, lawyer in Richmond, Virginia) In order to understand the reference to Oswaldo the Bunny, read "Cotton Tale One: The Rabbit Trail (questioning whether Sadig Gill, esquire, has assumed the identity of Bunny Oswaldo).
Although this author has noted some humor in the connection between Sadiq Gill and a rabbit, this is really not a laughing matter. The legal system is often no better than the attorneys who maintain it, and the competence and integrity of an attorney is an essential element of justice. When this is lacking, justice may not be served.
Murray Hardison Wright v. Nancy Lind Mercer Wright
Court of Appeals of Virginia, Record No. 0275-12-2 (10-16-2012)
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0275122.pdf
You can read this decision by the Court of Appeals of Virginia in full at the link above.
Sadiq Gill represented Murray Wright in a failed attempt to get Wright's alimony payments reduced. Murray Wright was not only one of Jeff Staples' attorneys in the Mutiny on the Boundless case, Wright is also a friend of Staples. Birds of a feather...?
Vandeventer Black is listed as attorney of record in the Circuit Court; Sadiq Gill is listed as attorney of record, with Christopher Colby on brief, on the decision by the Court of Appeals. [p.1]
Gill and Wright not only failed to get Wright's $4,960 monthly payment reduced, Wright was ordered to pay an additional $38,416.42 to his ex-wife for her legal fees! [p. 10] Poor Wright--one can only hope his own lawyer gave him a discounted rate! While it's not unusual for a prevailing party to be awarded some fees, this was a huge win for Wright's ex-wife! I would guess it made Wright and Gill hopping mad.
For an insight into the quality and integrity of legal work apparently performed by/under the direction of Sadiq Gill, while going to bat for his sidekick, Murray Wright, read the full opinion at the link provided.
Yes, this is the same dazzling duo that represented Jeff Staples in the Mutiny On the Boundless case. Note the scathing remarks made by the Court of Appeals regarding the quality - or lack thereof - of the brief submitted by Murray Wright through his attorney, Sadiq Gill. It appears that Wright and Gill's plan flopped.
Sadiq Gill apparently farmed out the brief-writing to a subordinate, but Sadiq Gill, as counsel of record, must take responsibility for the brief. And, one would assume that Murray Wright himself had a chance to review and critique the brief!
The Court of Appeals of Virginia issued their decision on October 16, 2012. Interestingly, it appears that shortly afterwards the dazzling duo, Sadiq Gill and Murray Wright hightailed it out of Vandeventer Black, and together hopped over to their current firm, DurretteCrump.
[Note: This author knows of no direct link between Wright and Gill's failure in the Wright case and their departure from Vandeventer. It is simply the timeline of the events that leads to speculation regarding the reason. It is not known when or why the duo decided to leave Vandeventer; perhaps there is no link whatsoever, but again, the timing could lead one to wonder. For what it's worth, it appears that Murray Wright divorced his wife in 1989 and was represented by the firm of McCarthy & Durrette. ]
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0275122.pdf [Court of Appeals opinion, referencing previous order stating that, "[Wright's ex-wife] should not be required to invade the principal of her estate to relieve the obligation of [Murray Wright] whose actions brought an end to the marriage." p. 2]
http://ewsocis1.courts.state.va.u&/CJISWeb/CaseDetail.do [search for "Wright, Murray"; showing Wright as plaintiff in divorce, represented by McCarthy & /Durrette]
http://durrettecrump.com/murray-wright-and-sadiq-gill-have-joined-the-firm/ [January 2013 message from DurretteCrump, welcoming both Wright and Gill, last associated with Vandeventer Black.]
Here is an excerpt of what the Court of Appeals of Virginia had to say about the brief filed by Sadiq Gill, esq., on behalf of Murray Wright, esquire [brackets indicate comments by the author of this post]:
"The inefficient use of this Court’s resources by requiring it to slog through an unorganized brief with redundant arguments, some of which misrepresent the holding of the court below, do no service to the representation of a client seeking serious appellate review of any meritorious issues." [p. 2] [emphasis added]
The Court disapproved of Sadiq Gill's approach, which, according to the Court, was to "throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks." [p.1] [Sounds like Sadiq Gill thought he could pull a rabbit out of the hat and win the case, but the Court of Appeals didn't cotton to that tale!]
The Court stated that Wright's brief, filed by Sadiq Gill, "mischaracterizes Judge Lumpkin's order..." [p.7] [Murray Wright, Sadiq Gill--misrepresent? mischaracterize? Shocking, I'm sure.]
Finally, the Court of Appeals stated that, contrary to the claims of Sadiq Gill and Murray Wright, the Circuit Court had not erred when it ordered Murray Wright to pay his ex-wife $38,416.42 for her legal fees in the matter. [p. 10] Alas, it appears that all of Sadiq Gill's thumping around claiming abuse of discretion was ineffective.
As noted above, Murray Wright lost his case in Circuit Court, then, with the help of Sadiq Gill he lost the case, again, in the Court of Appeals. Sadiq Gill not only failed to get Murray Wright's $4,960 monthly alimony lowered, Wright was ordered to pay an additional $38,416.42 to his ex-wife for legal fees! Read the full opinion at the link below:
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0275122.pdf
***********************************************************************************
BOTTOM LINE:Sherry: The foregoing speaks loudly to the modus operandi of Staples' attorneys. Draw your own conclusions. I can only tell you that in the Mutiny on the Boundless proceedings, I was honest, fair, and played by the rules. Unfortunately, that does not always guarantee justice.
TAGS: Sadiq Gill Attorney Lawyer Durrette Crump Murray Wright Attorney Lawyer Murray Hardison Wright Murray H. Wright S. Sadiq Gill
No comments:
Post a Comment