On December 6, 2022, the Second District, Section II Subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar imposed a Public Reprimand on Norfolk attorney Kelly Lynn DiCorrado for failure to properly communicate with her client.

The Case is entitled “In the Matter of Kelly Lynn Dicorrado” bought by the Office of the Attorney General  with case no. 22-022-125525

The charges cited Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4 (a)(b) which state:

A lawyer shall act with reasonable dilıgence and promptness in representing a client

A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here. 

The Respondent was appointed by the Norfolk Circuit Court to represent a client on a Petition for Civil Commitment as a Sexual Predator. Respondent did not communicate with the Complainant. The first time Respondent communicated with Complainant was prior to the hearing on October 18, 2021, in the courthouse.

The filing states:

“On October 21, 2021, AAG Whealton emailed the Respondent and Ms. Spivey regarding available dates for trial. Ms. Spivey provided possible dates in January, February, and March 2022. On October 22, 2021, Respondent wrote that “[t]he first date I have available is the February 28th date and that is beyond the 120 – day requirement.” Respondent stated that she was “not willing to waive that requirement.” Later that day, Ms. Spivey provided additional potential dates in January. On November 4, 2021, after prompting from AAG Whealton, Respondent wrote “I am booked all three days and trying to work on moving my schedule around.” Respondent stated she “should know hopefully by tomorrow or Monday” and was “waiting to hear back from the prosecutor.” However, no trial date was set at that time. Respondent stated that she had never heard back from the special prosecutor on the case she was trying to move and she had two jury trials scheduled in January of 2022.”

The filing continues:

“Respondent asserted that under the Supreme Court Judicial Emergency due to Covid – 19, “the 90 – day requirement for the Probable Cause hearing pursuant to Virginia Code § 37.2 – 906 was suspended.” Respondent also asserted that this was her first SV P case and she relied upon her review of the Virginia Code for Sexually Violent Predators. When asked why she didn’t contact AAG Whealton to schedule the hearing as the Clerk’s letter instructed, Respondent stated I don’t have an answer for that; it was over a year ago, perhaps I didn’t read the letter, but I can’t tell you for certain.”

The filing further states:

“Respondent stated that her paralegal attempted to locate Complainant, but that he moved between Virginia Department of Corrections (“DOC”) facilities a number of times. Respondent stated that Complainant was fully advised of the SVP process, the Complainant’s rights and provided a copy of his evaluation by the Attorney General prior to her involvement. When asked why she didn’t at least write a letter to Complainant during this time period, Respondent said there was no new information to provide to the Complainant, and Respondent did not receive any correspondence or communication from the Complainant requiring a response.”

According to the court, such conduct of the respondent constitutes a violation of the aforementioned Rules of Professional Conduct. Thus, the respondent should be publicly reprimanded.

The Disposition states:

“Accordingly, having approved the agreed disposition, it is the decision of the Subcommittee to impose a Public Reprimand with Terms. The terms shall be met by March 31. 2023 and are as follows: 

    1. The respondent will complete six hours of continuing legal education credits by attending courses approved by the Virginia State Bar in the subject matter of law office management or SVP Continuing Legal Education. Respondent’s Continuing Legal Education attendance obligation set forth in this paragraph will not be applied toward her Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement in Virginia or any other jurisdictions in which Respondent may be licensed to practice law. 
    2. The respondent will certify her compliance with the terms set forth in this paragraph by delivering a fully and properly executed Virginia MCLE Board Certification of Attendance form (Form 2) to Bar Counsel, promptly following her attendance of each such CLE program(s).”

As of today, Ms. DiCorrado is listed on the website of the law firm Delpierre & Dicorrado, PLC as a practicing attorney. Her info can be found on norkfolkjustice.com. She attended Regent University School of Law. DiCorrado practices in Norfolk, Virginia. 

A copy of the original filing can be found here.