Title: Legal Ethics Committee v. Ikner

State: west-virginia

Issuer: West Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

September 1993 Term ___________ No. 21974 ___________ THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL ETHICS OF THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BAR, Complainant v. GORDON T. IKNER, A MEMBER OF THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BAR, Respondent ___________________________________________________ Disciplinary Proceeding LICENSE SUSPENDED ___________________________________________________ Submitted: November 30, 1993 Filed: December 14, 1993 Sherri D. Goodman Chief Disciplinary Counsel The West Virginia State Bar Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Complainant James B. McIntyre McIntyre & Collias Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for the Respondent JUSTICE McHUGH delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "'This Court is the final arbiter of legal ethic problems and must make the ultimate decisions about public reprimands, suspensions or annulments of attorneys' licenses to practice law.' Syllabus Point 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Blair, [174] W. Va. [494], 327 S.E.2d 671 (1984)." Syl. pt. 1, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Charonis, 184 W. Va. 268, 400 S.E.2d 276 (1990). 2. Under the authority of the Supreme Court of Appeal's inherent power to supervise, regulate and control the practice of law in this State, the Supreme Court of Appeals may suspend the license of a lawyer or may order such other actions as it deems appropriate, after providing the lawyer with notice and an opportunity to be heard, when there is evidence that a lawyer (1) has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or is under a disability and (2) poses a substantial threat of irreparable harm to the public until the underlying disciplinary proceeding has been resolved. This is a case of first impression because there is no specific By-Law in the By-Laws of the West Virginia State Bar which addresses whether or not a lawyer's license can be suspended when a lawyer disappears during a disciplinary proceeding and abandons his legal practice. Furthermore, this Court has not ever addressed this issue. We believe that any ethical charge pending against a lawyer which indicates that the integrity of the legal system has been placed into question is serious, especially in the case before us since Mr. Ikner was aware of an ongoing disciplinary proceeding when he disappeared. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel asserts that since Mr. Ikner's whereabouts are unknown his license should be suspended to prevent him from representing that he is a West Virginia attorney to others who would be unaware of the serious charges pending against him. We have noted that "[i]ntegrity and honor are critical components of a lawyer's character as are a sense of duty and fairness. Because the legal system embraces the whole of society, the public has a vital expectation that it will be properly administered." In re Brown, 166 W. Va. 226, 232-33, 273 S.E.2d 567, 570 (1980). Thus, we agree with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel that this issue should be addressed. This Court has stated that "[t]he primary purpose of the ethics committee is not punishment but rather the protection of the public and the reassurance of the public as to the reliability and integrity of attorneys[.]" Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Mullins, 159 W. Va. 647, 651, 226 S.E.2d 427, 429 (1976), overruled on another point, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Cometti, 189 W. Va. 262, 430 S.E.2d 320 (1993). In order to protect the public and uphold the public's confidence in the reliability and integrity of attorneys this Court has "the inherent power to supervise, regulate and control the practice of law in this State[.]" In re Daniel, 153 W. Va. 839, 842, 173 S.E.2d 153, 155 (1970). In the past we have set forth principles to regulate the practice of law when there has not been a specific rule or law governing the issue. For instance, in In re Brown, 166 W. Va. at 231, 273 S.E.2d at 569, we recognized that In re Daugherty, 103 W. Va. 7, 136 S.E. 402 (1927) and In re Eary, 134 W. Va. 204, 58 S.E.2d 647 (1950) were "significant in their recognition that the courts do possess inherent power to formulate standards for reinstatement as a part of their larger power to regulate the practice of law" when a rule did not exist which specifically addressed the issue. Therefore, even though there is no specific rule or case which has addressed this issue, we will address the issue under our inherent power to regulate the practice of law. We note that this Court does have the authority to suspend a judge before a disciplinary proceeding has been completed under Rule II(J)(2) of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure which states, in pertinent part, that when the integrity of the legal system has been placed into question by a Judge by virtue of his having been indicted or otherwise charged with a serious offense, having engaged in some breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or having become unable to perform his legal obligations . . . the Supreme Court may suspend the Judge with or without pay until the underlying disciplinary proceeding . . . has been completed[.] We applied this rule in In re Grubb, 187 W. Va. 228, 417 S.E.2d 919 (1992) and suspended a judge who was indicted for a serious crime. Additionally, we explained in In re Grubb that "[w]e have an inherent responsibility under our general supervisory powers to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and to maintain the public confidence in our court system." Id. at 231, 417 S.E.2d at 922. Although the By-Laws of the West Virginia State Bar currently do not have a similar rule, this Court has the same obligation to maintain public confidence in our court system. Furthermore, "'[t]his Court is the final arbiter of legal ethic problems and must make the ultimate decisions about public reprimands, suspensions or annulments of attorneys' licenses to practice law.' Syllabus Point 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Blair, [174] W. Va. [494], 327 S.E.2d 671 (1984)." Syl. pt. 1, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Charonis, 184 W. Va. 268, 400 S.E.2d 276 (1990). Thus, we conclude that under the authority of the Supreme Court of Appeal's inherent power to supervise, regulate and control the practice of law in this State, the Supreme Court of Appeals may suspend the license of a lawyer or may order such other actions as it deems appropriate, after providing the lawyer with notice and an opportunity to be heard, when there is evidence that a lawyer (1) has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or is under a disability and (2) poses a substantial threat of irreparable harm to the public until the underlying disciplinary proceeding has been resolved. In the case before us, we find that Mr. Ikner's disappearance during a disciplinary proceeding is reprehensible. However, what is more troubling is that Mr. Ikner by disappearing has abandoned his legal practice, thus jeopardizing the legal interests of his clients in violation of West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (regarding a lawyer's competence), 1.3 (regarding a lawyer's diligence), and 1.4 (regarding a lawyer's communication with his clients). Critical traits of a lawyer's character are honor and integrity. Certainly, those qualities would be lacking in a lawyer who abandons his clients. The public's confidence in our legal system would be undermined if we allowed a lawyer, who has voluntarily disappeared during a disciplinary proceeding and abandoned his legal practice, to continue to be a licensed lawyer while his whereabouts remain unknown. Therefore, because Mr. Ikner abandoned his clients' legal interests thereby violating certain Rules of Professional Conduct, he poses a substantial threat of irreparable harm. We therefore find it necessary to suspend Mr. Ikner's license until he makes himself available so that the appropriate disciplinary proceedings may be resolved. Mr. Ikner's attorney correctly points out that Mr. Ikner does possess certain due process rights. We have not ignored those rights. Mr. Ikner was directed to appear before this Court on November 30, 1993, in order to show why his license should not be suspended. Mr. Ikner failed to appear. Furthermore, in the event that Mr. Ikner returns to complete the disciplinary proceedings, he may apply for reinstatement pursuant to the West Virginia State Bar By-Laws, art. VI, §§ 31 and 32. III Accordingly, based upon the representations of the Committee and upon notice and opportunity to be heard, we grant the request of the Committee and order that the law license of the respondent, Gordon T. Ikner, be suspended pending the resolution of the disciplinary action which is currently before the Committee. License Suspended.