Allied Concrete Co. v. Lester: When Evidence Deletion Ends an Attorney's Career

Case Summary

Allied Concrete Co. v. Lester is a 2011 Virginia case that became nationally prominent not for its underlying facts, a wrongful death lawsuit, but for what happened during discovery. An attorney directed his client to delete social media evidence. The discovery of that deletion produced one of the most severe attorney sanction awards in Virginia history and ultimately ended the attorney's career.

The case is taught in evidence and professional responsibility courses as the definitive illustration of what happens when an attorney crosses the line from strategy into obstruction. It demonstrates that spoliation sanctions do not stop at the client; they reach the attorney, personally, and can cost them their license.

What Happened

Isaiah Lester filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Allied Concrete after his wife was killed in an accident involving one of the company's trucks. The case appeared strong. During discovery, Allied Concrete's attorneys requested Lester's social media records, including his Facebook account.

Before producing those records, Lester's attorney, Matthew Murray, instructed him to "clean up" his Facebook page. Lester deleted approximately 16 photographs, including photos of himself at social events, holding a beer can, and appearing to enjoy life after his wife's death. These photos would have directly contradicted Lester's claim of severe emotional distress.

Lester initially testified during discovery that he had not deleted any Facebook content. This was false. Allied Concrete discovered the deletions through metadata analysis. Facebook records showed that content had been removed from the account. Further investigation revealed that attorney Murray had directed the deletion.

Murray then submitted a false interrogatory response on behalf of Lester, claiming that Lester had not deleted any Facebook content in the past six months. This was perjury.

What the Court Held

The court found that the spoliation was intentional and directed by counsel. The sanctions imposed were extraordinary:

Against Isaiah Lester: $542,000 in sanctions, representing Allied Concrete's costs in uncovering and litigating the spoliation.

Against attorney Matthew Murray: $542,000 in separate sanctions, imposed personally against the attorney. The Virginia State Bar subsequently disciplined Murray, and his law license was ultimately suspended.

In addition to the sanctions, Allied Concrete was awarded $180,000 in attorney fees. The total financial consequence of the evidence deletion exceeded $1.26 million, far more than any settlement advantage the deleted photos could have provided.

The court's reasoning was straightforward: the deletion was deliberate, directed by counsel, concealed through false testimony, and compounded by a false discovery response. Every element of the court's analysis favored maximum sanctions.

The Lesson

Allied Concrete teaches several distinct lessons that apply to any attorney managing digital evidence:

Spoliation sanctions are personal. Attorney Murray did not face sanctions because of something his client did independently. He faced sanctions because he directed the deletion. The court drew a direct line between the attorney's instruction and the destruction of evidence, and followed that line to a $542,000 personal sanction and license suspension.

Metadata survives deletion. Lester's initial denial that he had deleted anything was refuted not by a witness but by metadata. Digital evidence leaves traces that are not erased when the visible content is removed. The timestamp of deletion, the fact that content was removed, and the content of what existed before deletion were all recoverable. Attorneys who believe that deleted digital evidence is gone are wrong.

False discovery responses compound the damage. Had Murray simply produced the photographs and dealt with their implications, the outcome would have been materially different. The decision to direct deletion and then certify a false interrogatory response transformed a difficult discovery problem into a career-ending one.

Social media is evidence. The photos Lester deleted were not extraordinary content; they were ordinary social media posts that contradicted his damages claim. Courts have consistently held that social media evidence is subject to the same preservation obligations as any other relevant evidence. When litigation is anticipated, a party's entire digital footprint becomes potentially relevant.

How to Prevent This

Allied Concrete is a worst-case scenario: intentional deletion directed by counsel, followed by false testimony. But the principles it illustrates apply to any evidence management situation:

Immutable preservation from day one. When evidence enters your possession, it should be stored in a system that prevents modification or deletion. A SHA-256 hash computed at upload mathematically documents the file at that moment, and any subsequent verification proves the file has not changed. This creates a record that establishes integrity even if the question is later raised.

Access logging with attribution. Every access to preserved evidence should be logged with the accessor's identity. If evidence is later alleged to have been modified, the access log documents every person who touched it and when. This protects both the attorney and the client.

Litigation hold on all potentially relevant content. Issue litigation holds broadly when anticipating litigation. Social media accounts, email, cloud storage, and messaging platforms should all be covered. The hold should be documented and acknowledged by the client.