The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court ruling that found attorney Jason Eugene Swango violated professional conduct rules by refusing to refund consultation fees when meetings never took place. The unanimous decision, issued July 31, 2025, upheld disciplinary action against Swango for his handling of $600 in consultation fees from two prospective clients.
Swango, a Virginia-licensed attorney who operates The Firm for Men, Swango Law P.C., in Virginia Beach, primarily represents men in domestic relations matters. His firm charged prospective clients what he characterized as a "non-refundable" $300 consultation fee, depositing such payments into the firm's operating account as earned fees when received.
The case arose from incidents involving two prospective clients who paid the consultation fee but never received services. Client A attempted to cancel his consultation with Swango on the day of the scheduled meeting because he no longer needed legal services. Client B simply missed his scheduled meeting. Despite the fact that neither consultation occurred, Swango refused to refund the $300 fees to either client.
The Virginia State Bar brought disciplinary charges against Swango, asserting that his handling of the funds violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(a) regarding reasonable fees and Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(a)(1) regarding the safekeeping of client property. The VSB also initially alleged violations of Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1 regarding communications with clients, but the circuit court found in Swango's favor on that charge.
Swango requested that the disciplinary matter be heard before a three-judge circuit court rather than proceeding through the standard bar disciplinary process. The Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, with Chief Judge Designate Mary Jane Hall and Judges Designate Matthew A. Glassman and Tyneka L.D. Flythe presiding, determined that Swango had indeed violated both professional conduct rules.
According to court documents, Swango's firm had established a standard intake policy for prospective clients that included the $300 consultation fee. After clients paid the fee, they received a confirmation letter via email and were sent a questionnaire asking them to detail the legal issues they wished to discuss with Swango.
The Virginia Supreme Court's opinion, written by Justice Wesley G. Russell Jr., focused on the fundamental principle that attorneys cannot retain fees for services never rendered. The court's analysis centered on whether Swango's practice of characterizing consultation fees as "non-refundable" and immediately depositing them into his operating account as earned fees complied with professional conduct standards.
Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(a) requires that attorney fees be reasonable, taking into account factors such as the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of legal questions involved, and the experience and reputation of the lawyer. The court found that retaining fees for consultations that never occurred violated this standard of reasonableness.
Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(a)(1) addresses the safekeeping of client property and funds. This rule requires attorneys to hold client funds in trust until they are earned. The court determined that by immediately depositing consultation fees into his operating account before providing any services, Swango violated his duty to properly safeguard client funds.
The decision reflects broader professional responsibility principles governing attorney-client relationships and fee arrangements. Legal ethics experts note that while attorneys may require advance payment for services, such payments typically must be held in trust accounts until services are rendered and fees are earned.
The case highlights the importance of clear fee agreements and proper handling of client funds, particularly in the consultation phase of attorney-client relationships. Many law firms do charge consultation fees, but professional conduct rules require that such fees be reasonable and that unearned portions be refunded when services are not provided.
Swango's practice of immediately treating consultation fees as earned revenue, regardless of whether services were actually provided, ran afoul of established professional standards. The Virginia Supreme Court's affirmance of the circuit court ruling reinforces that attorneys cannot circumvent professional responsibility rules by simply labeling fees as "non-refundable."
The disciplinary action serves as a reminder to attorneys about their obligations regarding fee arrangements and client fund handling. Professional conduct rules exist to protect clients and maintain public confidence in the legal profession, and courts will enforce these standards even when attorneys attempt to structure arrangements to avoid them.
The case also demonstrates the Virginia State Bar's commitment to enforcing professional standards and protecting consumers from potentially unfair attorney fee practices. While the specific sanctions imposed on Swango were not detailed in the available court documents, the affirmance of the violation findings establishes important precedent for similar cases.
Legal practitioners should review their own fee agreements and fund handling procedures to ensure compliance with professional conduct rules. The decision emphasizes that labels like "non-refundable" do not automatically shield fee arrangements from professional responsibility scrutiny when services are never provided.