An attorney accused of interfering with a witness in a pending criminal case was suspended for six months, followed by one year of probation.

Decatur solo practitioner Jason Lee Van Dyke, an attorney with a history of lawyer discipline sanctions, said the COVID-19 pandemic was delaying his trial, and he chose to take the suspension during a time most lawyers aren't practicing much anyway.

"I had to choose between attempting to run a law practice with this hanging over my head," he said. "Or I could take the six month active suspension and reopen my business in six months."

The original petition in Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Van Dyke alleged that Van Dyke was charged with filing a false report to a peace officer, because of a false statement about an alleged theft of his firearms.

While jailed, Van Dyke told his father to tell a state's witness not to answer the door and to "make himself scarce," the petition said. The court in the criminal case found in January 2019 that Van Dyke was wrong in making the witness unavailable. In the end, Van Dyke pleaded no contest to the charge and got probation for two years, said the petition.

Jason Van Dyke Jason Van Dyke/courtesy photo

"I did deny their allegations, and I still deny them," said Van Dyke about the lawyer discipline case.

Visiting Judge Dennise Garcia, who was appointed to preside over the disciplinary case in Wise County's 271st District Court, ruled that Van Dyke committed professional misconduct. She found he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and that his conduct amounted to a serious crime or criminal act that reflects poorly on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness.

Claire Reynolds, a spokeswoman for the State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, which represents the lawyer-discipline commission, declined to comment.

|

Read the full petition:

|

'Spread the word'

Van Dyke's profile on the State Bar of Texas website shows that he has a disciplinary record.

He was put on probation in 2018 in an agreed judgment that found that he was representing a plaintiff, and that the defendant in that case ended up filing a grievance against Van Dyke. Van Dyke then threatened the complainant with criminal or disciplinary charges to gain an advantage in the civil matter, according to court documents. And he kept representing the plaintiff, even though his own interests were adverse, the judgment said.

Van Dyke was suspended from practicing law in March, April and May of 2019, followed by probation that just ended on Feb. 29. In that case, a grievance committee entered an agreed judgment that found that Van Dyke threatened a complainant, Thomas C. Retzlaff, with physical violence, which is a criminal act that reflects poorly on an attorney's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness.

Retzlaff filed the complaint in Van Dyke's current discipline case. The pair are also embroiled in litigation in federal court, with Van Dyke suing Retzlaff for defamation.

Retzlaff in an email, "I feel it is very important to spread the word about people like Van Dyke."

Note: This story was updated to reflect that Van Dyke's disciplinary agreed judgment found he violated a rule against an attorney committing a serious crime or criminal act that reflects poorly on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to be a lawyer. 

Related stories: