On Friday, January 27, 2023, the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach ordered the Public Reprimand with terms of attorney Kevin Benedict Rack for failing to inform his client about a matter on the latter’s trust account.

The case is entitled “In the matter of Kevin Benedict Rack” with case no. CL22-6513.

The charges cited Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 and 1.7 which state:

The lawyer’s fee shall be adequately explained to the client. When the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the amount, basis, or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or 2)there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or & third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. 6) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph(a), a lawyer may represent a client if each affected client consents after consultation, and: () the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; 2) the representation is not prohibited by laws (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another cient represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or another proceeding before a tribunal, and () the consent from the client is memorialized in writing,

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.

In the Stipulation of facts, it was stated that while handling a trust agreement with his client, the respondent failed to inform the latter that he subsequently employed his law firm to provide legal assistance services to the said trust account without the knowledge and consent of the client.

The filing states:

“The complainant stated that Respondent never disclosed to her that he had employed his Law firm to provide legal services to the Trust and did not obtain ber written consent to employ his law firm to provide legal services to the Trust prior to the execution of the Respondent admitted that he subsequently employed his law firm to Trust Agreement or anytime thereafter. while Mr. Rack did not explicitly obtain Complainant’s consent to using his law firm for trust legal services nor did he disclose in advance the basis for costs thereof, prior to the one instance of his referring a matter for legal review by his law firm, Mr. Rack advised Complainant in writing of the need for such a legal review. n the absence of any objection from the Complainant, Mr. Rack would testify that he mistakenly assumed that he had properly obtained her informed consent.”

A Disposition of Public Reprimand with Terms was agreed upon by the Respondent and the Virginia State Bar. Thus, a Memorandum Order imposing Public Reprimand with Terms was ordered against the respondent.

The Disposition states:

“WHEREFORE, upon consideration of the Agreed disposition, the Certification, Respondent’s Answer, Respondent’s Disciplinary Record, the arguments of the parties, and after due deliberation, It is ORDERED that the Circuit Court accepts the Agreed Disposition, and the Respondent shall receive a Public Reprimand with Terms. The Agreed Disposition is attached to and incorporated in this Memorandum Order.”

As of today, Mr. Rack is listed on the website of the law firm Rack & Moccia, P.C. as a practicing attorney. His info can be found on martindale.com. Kevin attended  T.C. Williams School of Law, University of Richmond, graduating in 1984. He practices in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.