Thomas D. Horne, Chief Judge
Lorenzo L. Bean III, Esquire
45595 Shepard Drive, #101
Sterling, VA 20164 Eric F. Schell, Esquire
10555 Main Street, Suite 450
Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Dear Counsel:
Eric F. Schell, Esquire on behalf of the defendant, Stephen R. MacDonald, has filed a Motion for Sanctions with the Court. The plaintiff, Emerging Technologies, Inc., represented by Lorenzo L. Bean III, Esquire has non-suited their cause against the defendant twice.
One non-suit is allowed as a matter of right, after which the Court may assess costs and reasonable attorney's fees for additional nonsuits. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-380 (Michie 2003). Accordingly, the Court awards fees in the amount of $6491.56 for Law No. 26282.
The defendant is also entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for Law No. 25095, for failing to establish a prima facie cause of action in this case. Under Maximus, Emerging Technologies, Inc., was required to show that: (1) it had a contract expectancy; (2) MacDonald knew of the expectancy; (3) MacDonald intentionally interfered with the expectancy; (4) MacDonald used improper means or methods to interfere with the expectancy; and (5) Emerging Technologies, Inc., suffered a loss as a direct result of MacDonald's disruption of the contract expectancy. Maximus, Inc. v. Lockheed Inf. Management, 254 Va. 408, 493 S.E. 2d 375 (1997). Evidence was totally lacking that MacDonald knew of the contract expectancy. Emerging Technologies, Inc., failed to meet the threshold of being "well grounded in fact" under § 8.01-271.1. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-271.1 (Michie 2003). The Court awards fees in the amount of $8346.72 for Law No. 25095.
Counsel will note that the attorney's fees and costs awarded are slightly less than the totals computed in the Affidavit of Attorney's Fees submitted by Mr. Schell. Rule 1.5 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct defines "reasonable fees" by using a variety of factors, including the time and labor required, the experience of the attorney, and the customary fees involved. Va. Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 1.5. All the work under Mr. Schell's name ("EFS") was taken into account in the award granted by the Court. However, those fees under the initials "TM" were not. These fees, although only a small fraction of the total, were not explained sufficiently, if at all.
Mr. Schell shall draw an order consistent with this opinion to which the parties may note their exception.
The Motion for Sanctions is granted.
Very truly yours,
Thomas D. Horne, Chief Judge