Emergency Motion To Disqualify City Attorney

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK
ROY L. PERRY-BEY,
RONALD M. GREEN,
Plaintiffs, Case No: CL1900281600

v.
CITY OF NORFOLK,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION

TO DISQUALIFY ADAM MELITA AS ATTORNEY ON BEHALF
OF CITY OF NORFOLK AND NORFOLK CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Pursuant to applicable Local Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule of the Court, the Plaintiffs, respectfully moves
this Court to resolve this matter without a hearing and for
an Order (a) to disqualify Defendant, Adam Melita, Deputy City
Attorney, as “COUNSEL OF RECORD” for the above referenced
Defendants in violation of Local Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule of the Norfolk Circuit Court; states as follows:
1). Defendant Adam Melita’s representation of multiple clients,
in this matter, his employer the CITY OF NORFOLK, the “client”
“knows or should have known he cannot nor his employer provide
legal services or advice to his employer presents a serious
and unethical conflict of interests, Melita is a Defendant and
is likely to be a material witness for the Defendants, the
CITY OF NORFOLK, his employer the “client,” and that it must
act through duly licensed attorneys.

2). Adam Melita is a necessary witness to the facts and
circumstances giving rise to the controversy under which the
defendants city has used as justification to delay removing
the (“public nuisance”), Confederate monument material to the
determination of the issues being litigated.
3). Melita’s representation in this matter of his employer,
the CITY OF NORFOLK, the “client” “knows or should have known
he cannot provide legal services/advice to his employer, it
presents a serious and unethical conflict of interests, Melita
is a Defendant and is likely to be a material witness for
Defendants, the CITY OF NORFOLK, his employer the “client,”
and that it must act through duly licensed attorneys.
4). Melita is likely to be called to give evidence material
to the determination of the issues being litigated.
5). The evidence cannot be obtained elsewhere;
6). The testimony is prejudicial or may be potentially
prejudicial to the testifying attorneys “clients” CITY OF
NORFOLK, and NORFOLK CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.
7). The relation of attorney and client is that of master and
servant in a limited and dignified sense, and it involves the
highest trust and confidence.

8). It cannot be delegated without consent, and it cannot
exist between an attorney employed by a corporation to
practice law for it and a client of the corporation. See: In
re Richmond Title, etc., Co., 2 Va. L. Reg. (n.s.) 772 (1917).
9). A corporation or other lay agency cannot practice law or
hire lawyers to practice for it. See: West Virginia State Bar
v. Early, 144 W. Va. 504, 109 S.E. 2d 420 (1959).
10). Lawyers may not act as advocates in “adversarial
proceeding” if the lawyer is “likely to be a necessary
witness” (Rule 3.7(a).
11). Plaintiffs assert the entire government law office should
face disqualification because they are likely to be called
to give evidence material to the determination of the issues
being litigated.
12). Virginia’s Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
provide that a lawyer shall not accept or continue employment
in a proceeding if the lawyer knows or believes that the
lawyer is or may be a witness necessary to establish an
essential fact on behalf of the lawyer's client.
13). As the above referenced case can not proceed under any
legal basis, without resolution of the Defendant’s improper
appearances and disqualification, as a matter of justice,
legal ethics and Law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs moves the court to resolve the matter
without a hearing and for an order Disqualifying Defendant(s)
“Melita” and others similarly situated and as legal counsel
on behalf of THE CITY OF NORFOLK and NORFOLK CITY ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE in the above referenced matter in accordance with Rules
of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part 6, §II Rule 3.7(a),(c).
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Respectfully Submitted,
By_______________________________ By_______________________________
/s/MR. ROY L. PERRY- BEY, PLAINTIFF /s/MR. RONALD M. GREEN, PLAINTIFF
89 LINCOLN STREET #1772 5540 BARNHOLLOW ROAD
HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669 NORFOLK, VA 23502
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was mailed
on this 18th day of April, 2019 to Adam Melita, Deputy City
Attorney, City of Norfolk, City Hall Building, 9th Floor, 810
Union Street Norfolk, VA 23510.
By_______________________________
/s/MR. ROY L. PERRY- BEY, PLAINTIFF
89 LINCOLN STREET #1772
HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669
By_______________________________
/s/MR. RONALD M. GREEN, PLAINTIFF
5540 BARNHOLLOW ROAD
NORFOLK, VA 23502
MR. ROY L. PERRY-BEY
89 LINCOLN STREET #1772
HAMPTON, VA 23669
Tel: (804) 362-0011
ufj2020@gmail.com
April 18, 2019
The Honorable George E. Schaefer, III,

Clerk Law Division
Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk’s Office
150 St Paul’s Blvd. 7th Floor
Norfolk, VA 23510
793-3506
Re: # CL1900281600 Roy L. Perry-Bey, and Ronald M. Green v.

City of Norfolk,
Dear Mr. Schaefer, III:
Enclosed is the plaintiffs EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISQUALIFY,

to be filed in the above referenced matter, which I ask that
you please present to the Honorable Mary Jane Hall Judge for
an Order.
Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
/s/Mr. Roy L. Perry-Bey

Emergency Motion To Disqualify City Attorney

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emergency Motion To Disqualify City Attorney

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emergency Motion To Disqualify City Attorney

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK

Plaintiffs, Case No: CL1900281600

PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION

Local Rule of the Court, the Plaintiffs, respectfully moves

this Court to resolve this matter without a hearing and for

an Order (a) to disqualify Defendant, Adam Melita, Deputy City

Attorney, as “COUNSEL OF RECORD” for the above referenced

Defendants in violation of Local Rules of Civil Procedure and

Local Rule of the Norfolk Circuit Court; states as follows:

1). Defendant Adam Melita’s representation of multiple clients,

in this matter, his employer the CITY OF NORFOLK, the “client”

“knows or should have known he cannot nor his employer provide

legal services or advice to his employer presents a serious

and unethical conflict of interests, Melita is a Defendant and

is likely to be a material witness for the Defendants, the

CITY OF NORFOLK, his employer the “client,” and that it must

act through duly licensed attorneys.

circumstances giving rise to the controversy under which the

defendants city has used as justification to delay removing

the (“public nuisance”), Confederate monument material to the

determination of the issues being litigated.

3). Melita’s representation in this matter of his employer,

the CITY OF NORFOLK, the “client” “knows or should have known

he cannot provide legal services/advice to his employer, it

presents a serious and unethical conflict of interests, Melita

is a Defendant and is likely to be a material witness for

Defendants, the CITY OF NORFOLK, his employer the “client,”

and that it must act through duly licensed attorneys.

4). Melita is likely to be called to give evidence material

to the determination of the issues being litigated.

5). The evidence cannot be obtained elsewhere;

6). The testimony is prejudicial or may be potentially

prejudicial to the testifying attorneys “clients” CITY OF

NORFOLK, and NORFOLK CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.

7). The relation of attorney and client is that of master and

servant in a limited and dignified sense, and it involves the

highest trust and confidence.

exist between an attorney employed by a corporation to

practice law for it and a client of the corporation. See: In

re Richmond Title, etc., Co., 2 Va. L. Reg. (n.s.) 772 (1917).

9). A corporation or other lay agency cannot practice law or

v. Early, 144 W. Va. 504, 109 S.E. 2d 420 (1959).

10). Lawyers may not act as advocates in “adversarial

proceeding” if the lawyer is “likely to be a necessary

witness” (Rule 3.7(a).

11). Plaintiffs assert the entire government law office should

face disqualification because they are likely to be called

to give evidence material to the determination of the issues

12). Virginia’s Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

provide that a lawyer shall not accept or continue employment

in a proceeding if the lawyer knows or believes that the

lawyer is or may be a witness necessary to establish an

essential fact on behalf of the lawyer's client.

legal basis, without resolution of the Defendant’s improper

appearances and disqualification, as a matter of justice,

legal ethics and Law.

without a hearing and for an order Disqualifying Defendant(s)

“Melita” and others similarly situated and as legal counsel