Fisher subsequently did appear at the May 6 Hearing. In response to the Court’s query, Fisher advised that he did not seek leave to retain counsel and was prepared to proceed with the May 6 Hearing on his own behalf. Fisher thereupon admitted that he had read the Application and was fully cognizant of the certification he had made to the Court. Fisher explained that after speaking with another attorney about the matter, he decided that disclosure of the public reprimand was not necessary. Fisher advised that he had filed the Application in haste at the request of a client. Fisher explained that he had wanted to avoid drawing attention to the disciplinary action taken by the Virginia State Bar. Fisher contended that he did not mislead the Court by failing to make the disclosure requested in the Application because the reprimand was public. Fisher argued that, as the reprimand had come from an agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and not from the Supreme Court itself, there had been no action in “any court” pertaining to his conduct or fitness. Accordingly, he concluded that disclosure of the reprimand was not technically required.Now having considered Fisher’s explanations and arguments, the Court finds that Fisher made a conscious decision not to disclose the public reprimand. Virginia Code section 54.1-3910 authorizes the Virginia State Bar, as an administrative agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia, to enforce the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. Part Six of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia provides the framework under which the Virginia State Bar operates and promulgates the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct under which attorneys practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.2 The Virginia State Bar reprimanded Fisher pursuant to Rules adopted and procedures established by the Supreme Court of Virginia. The reprimand was directly appealable to the Supreme Court of Virginia under Part Six, § IV, ¶ 13-26 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Fisher’s technicality argument, which focuses on the words “any court,” is nothing but misguided sophistry.

1. Case 15-00301-KRH Doc 10 Filed 04/10/15 Entered 04/10/15 14:14:29 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2. Case 15-00301-KRH Doc 10 Filed 04/10/15 Entered 04/10/15 14:14:29 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3. Case 15-00301-KRH Doc 10 Filed 04/10/15 Entered 04/10/15 14:14:29 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3