The Virginia Supreme Court has affirmed the disbarment of Bradley Glenn Pollack, an attorney from Woodstock, Virginia, who violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct while representing a vulnerable client. In *Pollack v. Virginia State Bar* (Va. 2025), the court upheld a three-judge panel's decision to revoke Pollack's law license for violations involving his duty of candor and truthfulness.
The case stems from Pollack's representation of Kathleen Kearney, who sought his legal assistance in February 2023 regarding issues with her reverse mortgage and to investigate potential proceeds from a Powerball lottery jackpot she believed she was owed. The attorney-client relationship quickly deteriorated into what witnesses described as predatory behavior that left Kearney fearful of her own attorney.
On July 6, 2023, Kearney granted Pollack a written durable power of attorney, providing him with broad authority over her financial affairs and property. At the time, court records indicate that while Kearney was experiencing declining physical health, she appeared to be mentally competent. However, witness testimony revealed troubling developments following the power of attorney arrangement.
According to witness testimony presented to the three-judge panel, Pollack's conduct following the power of attorney grant raised serious concerns. One witness testified that Pollack, along with his wife and possibly his child, came to Kearney's residence and stayed for approximately one week. During this period, the witness noted that documents went missing from Kearney's house, suggesting possible misconduct regarding the client's personal papers and records.
The situation deteriorated to the point where Kearney became "afraid of Mr. Pollack" and expressed that "she feared him," according to witness testimony. Recognizing the problematic nature of the relationship, Kearney sought help from local attorney Keith Richards, telling him that she no longer wanted Pollack to act on her behalf and wished to end any further involvement with him.
Tammy Barnett, who served as Kearney's neighbor and occasional caregiver, testified that Pollack had "overstepped big time." Barnett expressed particular concern about Pollack's decision to place his name on Kearney's bank accounts, a move that raised red flags about potential financial exploitation of the vulnerable client.
The three-judge panel from the Circuit Court of Shenandoah County, consisting of Chief Judge Designate Dontae L. Bugg and Judges Designate David B. Franzen and Carroll A. Weimer Jr., found that Pollack's conduct violated several critical professional conduct rules. The panel determined that Pollack violated Rule 3.3(a)(1), which governs an attorney's duty of candor toward a tribunal, and Rule 4.1(a), which regulates truthfulness in statements to others.
Additionally, the panel found violations of Rules 8.4(b) and (c), which specifically address attorney misconduct. These rules serve as catch-all provisions that prohibit conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct that reflects adversely on the attorney's fitness to practice law.
Based on these findings, the three-judge panel concluded that Pollack's violations were serious enough to warrant the most severe disciplinary sanction available: revocation of his law license. Pollack appealed this decision to the Virginia Supreme Court, challenging both the misconduct findings and the disciplinary sanction imposed.
In the October 16, 2025 opinion authored by Justice Stephen R. McCullough, the Virginia Supreme Court unanimously affirmed both the finding of misconduct and the disciplinary sanction. The court's decision reflects the serious nature of Pollack's violations and the legal profession's commitment to protecting vulnerable clients from attorney misconduct.
The case highlights ongoing concerns about attorneys who exploit power of attorney arrangements and vulnerable clients. Professional conduct rules exist specifically to prevent the type of behavior exhibited in this case, where an attorney used his position of trust to potentially exploit a client's financial affairs while creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.
Disbarment represents the most severe sanction available in attorney disciplinary proceedings, reserved for cases involving serious misconduct that demonstrates an attorney's unfitness to continue practicing law. The Virginia Supreme Court's unanimous affirmation of this sanction sends a clear message about the profession's standards for protecting client welfare and maintaining public trust in the legal system.
The decision also underscores the importance of the professional conduct rules that govern attorney behavior, particularly Rules 3.3 and 4.1, which require honesty and candor in legal proceedings and client communications. These rules form the foundation of the attorney-client relationship and the broader legal system's integrity.
For the legal profession, this case serves as a reminder of the serious consequences that follow when attorneys violate their professional obligations, particularly when those violations involve vulnerable clients and potential financial exploitation.