Original article available online through Attorney at Law Magazine.

At first blush, Randy Singer’s roles as a distinguished civil litigator, teaching pastor at Trinity Church and prolific author may seem diametrically opposed. “I’ve been a storyteller from a young age. That is probably the common theme of my three chosen professions,” Singer said.

According to Singer, the professions of attorney and pastor have much in common. “In both professions, you are trying to persuade people of something. In one case it’s a jury and in another it’s a congregation. In both professions, there is a big premium on counseling, and you have to be a good listener to be a good counselor. In both, you are helping people at a great point of need. Both require rigorous analytical thinking.”

“Historically, a lot of pastors have had legal training,” Singer said. He cited the example of 19th century theological leader Charles Finney, who was a lawyer before he found his calling as the father of modern revivalism. Part of Finney’s persuasiveness as a Christian leader derived from the fact that “he talked to people like he was speaking to a jury,” Singer explained.

During his undergraduate studies as a pre-law major, Singer clerked for a New York lawyer. “The most important challenges that we face as a society are hashed out in a courtroom. I wanted to be a part of that.”

Singer was accepted at Cornell Law School, but he decided to postpone his law career to spend a few years teaching and coaching. He taught at an international boarding school that included students from all over the world. “It was a great multicultural experience. It also taught me to think on my feet and helped me become more disciplined.”

Singer graduated from the William and Mary Law School and began his legal career at the firm of Willcox & Savage in Norfolk, Va. “I was well-trained at Willcox and Savage. It is one of the most highly regarded firms in this area. I learned to do things with excellence there. I think those formative years are so important. I was blessed in two ways. First, I had really good mentors. Second, it happened at a time when there was a boom in commercial litigation. I got so much experience so early,” Singer said. Among Singer’s notable mentors, he named Palmer Rutherford and Conrad Shumadine. Rutherford was an insurance litigator.

“He got me into court and trained me in the basics. He was always there to lift me up when I was down and cut me down a few notches when I got too cocky. Conrad Shumadine is a nationally respected media lawyer. He is just a really strategic thinker.

I was fortunate to have this combination of mentors; one who emphasized courtroom tactics and another who was a strategic, big picture guy. They both trusted me with a lot of responsibility.”

Eventually, Singer decided to open his own civil litigation practice. “We like to say that we are a small firm with a big firm mentality,” Singer said. Singer describes his practice philosophy as characterized by three primary principles: first, “commitment to excellence. Most of our cases are on contingency. We have the freedom to put in as much time as it takes to get it right.”

For example, when the firm has a large case, they will typically engage in one or more mock trials before the case goes to trial. “The mock trials help us get a jump on the case and stay focused on what will matter at trial.”

“Second, we take a holistic approach to things. We are not just advocates, we are also counselors. I take that role seriously. Our clients become our friends. We develop life-long relationships with many of them.”

“A third thing is our ability to handle the most complex civil cases without being a big firm. To do that, we will sometimes partner with other firms,” Singer explained.

Singer represents that “the best advertising for an author is a word-of-mouth recommendation from an excited reader. The same is true in the law profession.” Singer’s “book” of business comes from other lawyers, former clients and friends and associates in the community at large. “It helps that I am very involved in the community and local law school. I meet a lot of people.”

Singer’s daughter, Rosalyn Singer, joined the firm last year. “It’s great to have her here. Her office is right across the hall from mine. It’s more rewarding to build a firm knowing that one of your kids will be a part of it long term. I’m discovering practice again through the eyes of a new attorney, and that keeps it fresh,” Singer said.

According to Singer, he has adapted his own early perceptions of the practice of law to accept that the law is also a business. “You can’t just be a good lawyer. You have to be a good business person, as well.” He has also seen a general trend away from courtroom litigation practice to one that resolves cases in a number of different ways.

Singer teaches a law school class called The Art of Advocacy. He opines that the principles of advocacy remain the same regardless of the forum. Most cases today are not resolved in a courtroom, but through some form of alternative dispute resolution. “I think that law schools are a little slow to respond to that new reality about how cases get resolved.”

Singer laments that “there is more vitriol than there should be in the practice of law. There is so much needless emotional energy burned bickering over extraneous matters. It doesn’t advance the ball. I want to win. I want my client to win. But I’m not going to take ethical shortcuts. That’s where my spiritual side comes in. I want to practice law in a way that God can honor.”

Among Singer’s notable cases, his firm represented the daughters of Hamilton Somerville in a wrongful death case against their stepmother aft er she had been acquitted of criminal charges in the death of their father. Singer was able to prove that Hamilton Somerville had been poisoned by his wife, leading to a recovery of a family estate worth millions by the daughters. The events that led to the case became a Lifetime movie called “Widow on the Hill.”

Singer also appeared as lead counsel in the case of Farley v. Guns Unlimited on behalf of the family of teacher Karen Farley. Farley was slain at Atlantic Shores Christian School by a 16-year-old student who had purchased a semi-automatic weapon through a straw buyer, his uncle. This was a landmark case in Virginia and the first in the state to receive gavel-to-gavel television coverage.

Singer has authored 13 novels and three works of non-fiction. His cases are sometimes the inspiration for the material he writes. His novel, “The Justice Game,” arose out of the Farley case. In his Author’s Note for the novel, Singer wrote, “Atlantic Shores was the school where my wife taught. The school my kids attended (though they were not there that day). When I learned that Elliot had purchased the gun illegally from a gun store in Isle of Wight County (through a transaction referred to as a “straw purchase transaction”), I ended up representing the family of Karen Farley in an unprecedented lawsuit against that gun store. The verdict shocked everyone.”

The Somerville case inspired his novel entitled “The Last Plea Bargain.” Singer did extensive research about drug testing for the case, which provided interesting material for his book.

The ABA Journal and the University of Alabama Law School recently joined to co-sponsor the Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction. The prize is awarded to authors of books written in the spirit of Atticus Finch, the lawyer-hero in “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

Singer was one of the finalists selected for the inaugural prize last year, an honor he shared with John Grisham and Michael Connelly. “I’m kind of a unique creature, wearing the hat of a pastor, an author and a lawyer, and I’ve known many lawyers who felt like they had to check their spirituality at the door. Our profession is not really set up to minister to clients holistically anymore….We almost feel like we have to confine ourselves to a narrow area of someone’s life, but when you go back to Atticus Finch, that wasn’t his mentality at all.”

Original article available online through the Virginian-Pilot.

A legal case that sounds like a made-for-TV movie has been resolved with a widow acquitted of murder, yet found liable in a mediation that was part of a wrongful-death lawsuit handled by a Virginia Beach lawyer.

In fact, the case of Donna Somerville, a former hospice nurse accused of poisoning her husband, was fictionalized as a 2005 Lifetime movie titled “Widow on the Hill.” On Friday, a judge approved a wrongful-death settlement that conveyed the house on that hill, known as Mt. Athos, to Hamilton Somerville’s three natural daughters.

“You seek justice,” their lawyer, Randy Singer, said, “and we feel like we got justice in the civil case.”

The daughters grew up in the house on the farm northeast of Charlottesville but haven’t set foot inside for nine years. Their stepmother, Donna Somerville, lived there until a mediation in the civil suit ended with a decision against her in March. The decision was kept confidential until it was filed as part of the final settlement order in Orange County Circuit Court.

“Finally, we feel like there’s vindication,” said Sara Somerville, one of the three daughters, “that we have peace of mind, that we can have a good night’s sleep.”

“There’s finally closure, and we can go home,” said her sister Ginger Somerville-

Grant.

Both were in Singer’s office at Regent University School of Law on Friday morning before driving to Orange County for a gathering with friends and supporters. The two women from South Carolina, plus sister Alita Miller of Philadelphia, will return today to their childhood home on the hill.

Retired Judge Robert L. Harris Sr. mediated the wrongful-death suit against Donna Somerville, and in his order wrote, “It is my opinion by preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant is liable.”

The case really began in the early 1990s when Donna Ecochard Scott, as she was then known, was hired as a hospice nurse for Hamilton Somerville’s wife, Sidney, who was dying of cancer. Less than a year after Sidney Somerville’s death, Hamilton married Donna.

He died in November 2001. In his argument before Judge Harris, Singer said that Donna called rescue workers to Mt. Athos but asked them to stop trying to resuscitate her husband and said she wanted his body cremated that night. The daughters insisted on an autopsy, which revealed large amounts of morphine, codeine, Oxycodone and promethazine in his stomach, blood, liver and eye fluid, Singer said.

During the criminal trial, the defense painted Hamilton Somerville as abusing painkillers and his death an accidental overdose, Singer said. Prosecutors asserted that Donna Somerville was having an extramarital affair and said she had access to the drugs through her work as a hospice nurse, a job she had quit years earlier, and to which she returned only a few months before her husband’s death.

The judge in the criminal case ruled in 2004 that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to convict her, in part because tests of Hamilton Somerville’s hair suggested long exposure to the drugs.

But in arguing the wrongful-death lawsuit, Singer said new data from the testing lab indicated that hair could be contaminated with drugs from outside sources, which would give incorrect results.

Somerville’s hair had vomit in it the night he died, and the vomit could have contained drugs expelled from his stomach, he said.

In a criminal case, guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In a wrongful-death civil suit, the preponderance of evidence must point to guilt.

Keith C. Cuthrell Jr., a lawyer who also worked on the civil suit, said Donna Somerville had tried to sell Mt. Athos but the daughters filed to prevent that until the civil case was settled. Mt. Athos was once part of President James Madison’s Montpelier estate.

“This has been one of the most hard-fought cases I have ever handled,” Singer said.

In addition to practicing law, Singer is a preacher and an author of legal thrillers. He said there is balance between preaching forgiveness and seeking damages in court.

“My role is two fold,” he said. “To be the most fierce advocate I can for justice, because Scripture is all about justice, but also to be a counselor. The very last thing we did at mediation was go to Romans 12 – don’t take vengeance into your own hands. Do not overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil -”

“With good,” Somerville-Grant finished.

Cuthrell said his goal was also to reclaim Hamilton Somerville’s reputation from the accusations of drug addiction. Cuthrell said he wanted “a very public resolution” to the case for that reason, in addition to returning the farm to the daughters.

The Mt. Athos farm will become a retirement home for unwanted show horses, Sara Somerville said.

Original article available online through Daily Press.

In what is believed to be the first such verdict in the United States, a Virginia Beach jury ruled Thursday that an Isle of Wight gun store must pay $100,000 to the family of a woman murdered by a handgun sold from the store.

The jury decided the Guns Unlimited clerk who sold the semiautomatic pistol should have suspected it would end up illegally in the hands of then 15-year-old Nicholas Elliott, not the hands of an older relative who chauffeured the youth to the store, paid for the gun with Elliott’s money and then signed the federal paperwork.

Less than three months later, on Dec. 16, 1988, Elliott loaded the Cobray M-11 pistol with a 32-bullet magazine and went on a bloody rampage at his school, Atlantic Shores Christian Academy, murdering teacher Karen Farley.

Dennis Henigan, director of the Center To Prevent Handgun Control, which tracks gun control issues nationwide, said Thursday’s verdict is the first he knows of in which a store is held liable for damages resulting from a “straw purchase.” In straw purchases, someone buys a weapon merely to hand it over to someone else forbidden by law to buy or possess that weapon.

William Farley, the victim’s husband, said he was “absolutely” pleased with the verdict and the damages.

“We weren’t in it just for the money,” he said. “We wanted to alert gun store owners they need to be responsible.”

Nevertheless, Farley’s attorney, Randy Singer, requested a hearing with another jury to redetermine the damages award without retrying the case. Singer was hired on a contingency basis and will be paid with a percentage of the final judgment, Farley said.

Guns Unlimited’s attorney, Peter C. Manson Jr. said there was almost no chance of the judge granting that request. Manson plans to appeal the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court.

Circuit Judge John K. Moore, who presided over the four-day case, set Feb. 21 to hear arguments on those motions.

In ruling for the Farley family, the jury also decided that the shooting spree was a “foreseeable” result of Elliott receiving the gun.

Williams served 15 months in prison for his part in providing the weapon to Elliott, who as a minor could not legally possess it. Elliott, now 19, is in jail, serving the remainder of a life-plus-114-year sentence for Farley’s murder.

Straw purchases, like the one between Williams and Elliott, are a “tremendous problem,” Henigan said. “We feel it’s high time for gun dealers to recognize their responsibility to the community to stop arming children and to stop arming criminals.”

Thursday’s verdict, Henigan said, is a big step in that direction.

Reaching such a verdict was easy, according to two jurors as they left the courthouse about 3:30 p.m. Thursday.

Two days of often conflicting testimony had presented various versions of Elliott’s and Williams’ visit to Guns Unlimited, on Highway 17 in Carrollton.

Most versions, however, agreed that the youth and his relative arrived at the store together, that Elliott did much of the talking with store clerk Tony Massengill, that Elliott chose the weapon and that Elliott handed Williams $300 for the purchase only a few feet away from the display counters.

“It wasn’t difficult to decide,” said juror Mary McFetridge, “not on the negligence.”

A second juror, Yvonne Pettepit agreed, adding that she would like to see gun stores removed from Virginia altogether.

McFetridge and Pettepit said the jury of six women and a man spent most of their 2 1/2 hours behind closed doors deciding the more difficult issue of how much Guns Unlimited should pay to Farley’s husband and children.

The $100,000 total the jurors decided upon, with $20,000 going to Farley’s husband, William Farley, and $40,000 each going to her teen-age children, Lora and William Jr., was far less than the $3 million requested in the Farleys’ suit.

James S. Dick, owner of Guns Unlimited, said the relatively low damages awarded by the jury, damages he said his insurance will cover, indicated the jury’s decision was “a sympathy verdict.”

McFetridge said the jury decided Elliott’s mother was responsible, as well, for having bought bullets for her son’s gun, that clerk Tony Massengill was responsible for making the sale and that Atlantic Shores Christian Academy, the Virginia Beach school where Elliott studied and Farley taught, should have been more vigilant in matters such as checking students’ lockers.

The following opinion editorial written by Randy Singer was published by the Philadelphia Inquirer.

In his recent speech at the United Nations, President Trump, never one given to understatement, blasted Iran as “a rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos.” He once again described the Iran deal as “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.” The only thing missing was a nickname for Iran’s supreme leader.

Predictably, Iran’s foreign minister struck back, saying that “Trump’s ignorant hate speech belongs in medieval times.” But the speech undoubtedly made our allies uncomfortable as well. A few weeks ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had suggested that the Iran deal could provide a template for a diplomatic solution to the North Korean crisis.

Despite opposition from the international community, Trump will probably refuse to certify Iran’s compliance with the deal in October, effectively causing the deal to implode. He would be right, and acting within his rights, to do so.

There are three reasons the Iran deal is even worse than you think:

First, it releases our chokehold on terrorist financing. The essence of the deal is that the United States and five other nations will continue to roll back billions of dollars in sanctions as long as Iran complies with its promise not to develop weapons-grade uranium for use in nuclear weapons for 10 years. The deal fails to address Iran’s well-documented support of terrorism and, on the contrary, mandates sanctions relief for financial institutions that have facilitated terrorism.

As a lawyer, I represent the families of terrorist victims in lawsuits against Iran. I can tell you first-hand that when you pull back the curtain on the intricate web of terrorism financing, Iran is the one holding the money bag. Things will only get worse if Trump recertifies the deal.

Second, the deal puts a bounty on American citizens deployed abroad. President Barack Obama can deny it all he wants, but when the United States sent a plane to Iran on Jan. 16, 2016, containing $400 million in unmarked currencies, and the money was turned over on the same day that five U.S. hostages were freed (after which the United States sent an additional $1.3 billion to Iran), that is the definition of a quid pro quo. Despite this red-handed evidence, Obama declared, “We do not pay ransom for hostages.”

I know one Iranian-supported militia group that did not believe him. Two days before the hostages were released, and after word presumably spread about the upcoming deal, three American citizens were kidnapped in Iraq by forces supported by Iranian funds. Perhaps the timing was coincidental, or perhaps Tehran decided that it was about to give up American bargaining chips so it might as well first capture three more.

Fortunately, all three Americans were released after 31 days of captivity, but not before they were tortured severely. We have now filed suit on their behalf against Iran. But the question remains: Would these men have ever been captured if the word wasn’t out that America pays ransom for hostages?

Third, the deal sets up Iran to become a regional superpower, threatening America’s longstanding allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel. With Iran’s growing military power (including the testing of ballistic missiles), its growing cyber-economy, and its plan for space travel, the rogue regime already poses a huge threat. And with its support of terrorism and destabilizing activities unchecked, it may now be able to create a Shi’ite axis extending from Iran all the way through Syria and Lebanon.

So what can be done?

The press and international community are narrowly focused on whether Iran has technically complied with the nuclear aspects of the deal. But when the president reports to Congress in October, pursuant to the Corker-Cardin law that requires his certification of Iran’s compliance, he must also certify that the suspension of sanctions under the deal is appropriate and vital to the national security interests of the United States. As U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley recently explained: “[Under Corker-Cardin] we consider the whole picture, not simply whether Iran has exceeded [the] limit on uranium enrichment. We must consider the whole jigsaw puzzle, not just one of its pieces.”

Can anyone honestly say that allowing Iran to finance terrorists, develop ballistic missile technology, and destabilize countries like Syria, is in the best interest of the United States? Why should we continue to link arms with a country whose parliament recently broke into a spontaneous chant of “Death to America” after voting to increase its military budget? For a leader who wrote The Art of the Deal, the answer should be obvious.