## Facts

- Beverly C. Read, a licensed attorney and Commonwealth’s Attorney, prosecuted an arson-murder case arising from an April 1984 fraternity-house fire.
- Defense counsel sought discovery, including exculpatory evidence; the trial judge issued a November 8, 1984 letter treated by counsel as the governing discovery order.
- The letter directed the prosecution to disclose information that could exculpate the defendant on identity and to identify any material witness who failed to identify the defendant in a photo lineup, referencing *Brady* limitations and Virginia Rule 3A:11.
- A key identification witness later recanted and told Read the defendant was not the person seen near the scene.
- Read decided not to call the recanting witness and did not affirmatively disclose the recantation before trial or during the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief.
- After the Commonwealth rested, Read attempted to disclose the recantation by tendering a written note to defense counsel; when counsel declined, she read the note into the record.
- Defense counsel moved to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct; the criminal case was dismissed on grounds other than the alleged misconduct.
- The Virginia State Bar charged Read with violating DR 1-102(A)(3) (crime or other deliberately wrongful act reflecting adversely on fitness) and DR 8-102(A)(4) (prosecutor must disclose information required by law).
- A district committee recommended a private reprimand, but the Disciplinary Board revoked Read’s license; Read appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Read’s delayed disclosure of a recanting identification witness constituted a “crime or other deliberately wrongful act” reflecting adversely on fitness to practice, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3).
2. Whether Read violated DR 8-102(A)(4) by failing to disclose to the defendant all information required by law, given the discovery directive referencing *Brady* and Rule 3A:11.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Disciplinary Board’s revocation order.
- The Court held the evidence did not establish violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) or DR 8-102(A)(4).
- Because the pertinent disciplinary violations were not proven, Read’s license could not be revoked.

## Legal Principles

- Disbarment based on nondisclosure requires proof that the lawyer committed a “deliberately wrongful act” or a knowing failure to meet a legally required disclosure duty; poor judgment or negligence is not enough.
- A prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory information may be informed by *Brady*, applicable criminal discovery rules, and case-specific court directives, but discipline under DR 8-102(A)(4) depends on showing a breach of the legal disclosure requirement on the record.
- The severity of revocation demands a clear evidentiary basis that the charged disciplinary elements are met; absent such proof, revocation cannot stand.

## Conclusion

The Virginia Supreme Court set aside a disbarment imposed on a prosecutor for late disclosure of a witness’s recantation, concluding the record did not prove a deliberate, disciplinable violation of the charged disclosure-related disciplinary rules.


Read v. Va. State Bar, 357 S.E.2d 544 (Va. 1987)