Contempt case canceled following lawyer’s apology
Remorseful Ramin Fatehi talks to judge about incident
NORFOLK — A Circuit Court judge who had ordered Norfolk Commonwealth’s Attorney Ramin Fatehi to appear before her to explain why he shouldn’t be held in contempt for remarks he made in her courtroom has canceled the hearing.
Judge Mary Jane Hall wrote in an order filed Tuesday that the hearing was no longer needed because Fatehi had apologized “for the words that he used” during a Feb. 27 criminal court hearing.
In an email to The Virginian-Pilot and the Daily Press, Fatehi, who was elected commonwealth’s attorney in 2021, said he expressed remorse to the judge. “I have apologized to Judge Hall for the words I used,” Fatehi wrote. He also released a copy of the transcript from the Feb. 27 court hearing, which he said he was doing in an effort to be transparent.
“The court has accepted that apology and considers further proceedings to punish the contempt to be unnecessary,” Hall wrote.
Hall issued the order requiring him to appear before her March 15 and explain why he shouldn’t be held in contempt just hours after the Feb. 27 hearing in which she alleged that he’d used insulting language toward her.
In the initial order, the judge wrote that Fatehi had “openly insulted and resisted the powers of the court” and “engaged in acts calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court in the administration of justice.” She also wrote that he had “taunted” her when he said, “That’s the second error of law that you have committed.”
Hall wrote in the order filed this week that the professional rules for lawyers in Virginia require that they treat all judges and court personnel with respect, and avoid inappropriate displays of emotion or unbecoming language.
“Contemptuous displays by lawyers in the courtroom directed at the presiding judge invite the rest of the bar and the public to lose confidence in our judicial process,” the judge wrote. “Whether a court commits its second or twenty-second error of law, counsel’s response to a ruling must not erode the public’s confidence in the justice that they may receive from the courts. Advocacy and zeal must never cross into insolence and disrespect.”