On Tuesday, September 6, 2022, Fifth District, Section II Subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar ruled on charges for attorney discipline against Annandale attorney Janet A. Smith alleging misconduct.

The case is styled as, In the Matter of Janet A. Smith, and was brought by Virginia State Bar, Case number #22-052-123727.

The charges cited Smith’s violation of Rules  1.4 and 8.1(a) and (c) of the Rule of Professional Conduct, which states:

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

An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer already admitted to the bar, in connection with a bar admission application, any certification required to be filed as a condition of maintaining or renewing a license to practice law, or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not:

(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact;

(b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter;

(c) fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6; or

(d) obstruct a lawful investigation by an admissions or disciplinary authority.

A summary of the Stipulations of Fact set forth in the filing goes:

On September 21, 2020, complainant Khan contacted Respondent to seek assistance with filing for U.S. citizenship. Respondent charged $100 for the initial appointment which was paid by Khan via credit card.
Two days after, Khan and Respondent met. Respondent said that she would represent Khan for his citizenship application for a flat fee of $950. Khan gave the original documents, including his passport and green card.
Respondent mailed the application to USCIS on September 21, 2020. Khan and his wife, Arifa constantly contacted Respondent about the status of Khan’s application from October 21, 2020, through June 2021.

Between November 2020 and August 2021, Respondent moved her office without notifying all clients, she told clients about it when they called to make appointments. Khan became concerned about retrieving his original documents from Respondent. On August 31, 2021, Khan informed Respondent about it on several occasions but Respondent would not respond not until September 13, 2021, when Respondent texted Khan about the notice of bar complaint that Khan placed against her. On September 21, 2021, Respondent and Khan met, and gave him the original documents and the post office tracking information for his application. Khan terminated Respondent and pursued his citizenship application on his own. He received his certificate of naturalization on March 23, 2022.

Respondent provided the VSB with documents and participated in an interview with VSB Investigator William Sterling.

Elizabeth K. Shoenfeld, Senior Assistant Bar Counsel and Respondent tender to a subcommittee of the 5th District Committee, Section II for its approval of the agreed disposition of a Public Reprimand without Terms as representing an appropriate sanction.

The Subcommittee voted to approve an agreed disposition for a Public Reprimand without terms pursuant to Part 6,  IV, ¶ 13-15 B 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona. 

The dispositive part of the Subcommittee Determination reads:

“Accordingly, having approved the agreed disposition, it is the decision of the Subcommittee to impose a Public Reprimand Without Terms, and Janet A. Smith is hereby so reprimanded.”

As of today, Ms. Smith is listed on Pele Law Offices as a practicing attorney and according to Avvo, she earned her JD at Arizona Summit Law School. Smith practices in Annandale, Virginia. She has been licensed in the District of Columbia and Arizona.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.