Appeals court upholds fine for attorney who tried to have Norfolk’s top prosecutor investigated
A fine issued to a lawyer who attempted to have Norfolk’s top prosecutor investigated by a special grand jury last year was upheld in an opinion issued Tuesday by the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
A three-judge panel affirmed Norfolk Circuit Judge Everett Martin’s decision to dismiss a complaint submitted by attorney Amina Matheny-Willard against Commonwealth’s Attorney Ramin Fatehi and to fine her $500 for filing it for improper reasons.
Matheny-Willard didn’t immediately respond Tuesday to a message seeking comment.
Martin ruled in February 2023 that Matheny-Willard — who lost to Fatehi in the 2021 Democratic primary — had used the filing as part of a publicity stunt to jump start a new election bid to unseat Fatehi. The appeals court agreed in a nine-page published opinion.
“When a litigant puts forth a claim not warranted by a good faith argument for the extension of law and interposed for an improper purpose, a circuit court must impose sanctions,” the panel said in an opinion written by Judge Daniel E. Oritz. “This familiar principle applies to suits brought with no precedent nor factually congruent support and those brought for political publicity.”
Matheny-Willard submitted the complaint in January 2023 on behalf of five Norfolk residents, including Michael Muhammad, a local activist and frequent critic of Fatehi, and four people who’d been impacted by gun violence in the city in recent years.
The filing came two days after Matheny-Willard announced on Facebook that she was again running for commonwealth’s attorney. In the post, she also sought five citizens who would agree to be plaintiffs in a claim she planned to file against Fatehi.
The lawsuit attempted to use the state’s special grand jury statute to have Fatehi investigated as a “public nuisance,” claiming his office had repeatedly failed to adequately prepare for trials, handle cases competently or keep victims and witnesses properly informed. Fatehi called the filing legally baseless and frivolous and said it had been filed “in bad faith.”
Jane Harper, jane.harper@pilotonline.com
