1 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

MARK W. MCFALL, 

Petitioner 

vs.) No. 18-0433 

WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, 

Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

The petitioner Mark W. McFall, by counsel Cheryl E. LaNasa, filed exceptions before the 

Court to the West Virginia Board of Law Examiners’ (hereinafter “the Board”) April 13, 2018, 

decision denying his application for admission without examination, otherwise referred to as by 

reciprocity, to the West Virginia Bar. The reason for the denial is that the petitioner failed to 

produce a certificate of good standing from each state in which he has been admitted to the 

practice of law, as is required pursuant to Rule 4.2(a) of the West Virginia Rules for Admission 

to the Practice of Law (hereinafter “W. Va. R. Admission Prac. Law”). The Board, by counsel 

Teresa J. Lyons, filed a response in support of its decision. 

After review and consideration of the pleadings, together with the appendix record, it is 

determined that this case does not involve a substantial question of law, and the Court does not 

disagree with the decision of the Board as to the question of law. Therefore, a memorandum 

decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. We agree with the 

finding of the Board that petitioner is not eligible for admission without examination to the 

practice of law in West Virginia. 

The petitioner is a graduate of the Cumberland School of Law of Samford University. In 

November of 1988, the petitioner was admitted to the practice of law by successful bar 

examination in the State of Texas. In April of 1990, the petitioner was admitted to the practice of 

law by successful bar examination in the State of Florida. The petitioner’s law practice in both 

Texas and Florida was primarily focused on various types of litigation. The petitioner’s Texas 

law license was suspended as a result of nonpayment of bar dues on September 1, 2001. 

FILED 

February 11, 2019 

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2 

On April 26, 2002, the Supreme Court of Florida entered an emergency suspension of the 

petitioner’s license to practice law following an allegation that the petitioner misappropriated 

client funds while serving as an escrow agent. Following the emergency suspension, a formal 

disciplinary complaint was filed against the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Florida then 

suspended the petitioner’s license to practice law for three years, to be followed by a three-year 

probationary period. Following his suspension, the petitioner did not apply for reinstatement of 

his Florida law license. 

While suspended from the practice of law in Florida, the petitioner was admitted to the 

practice of law by successful bar examination in the State of Tennessee in October of 2010. 

Following his admission to the Tennessee Bar, the petitioner again primarily focused his law 

practice on various types of litigation. 

On March 31, 2017, the petitioner submitted his application to the Board for bar 

admission without examination pursuant to Rule 4.0 of the W. Va. R. Admission Prac. Law. As 

part of his application materials, he submitted only a certificate of good standing from 

Tennessee. After participating in an interview conducted by the 12th District Character 

Committee, the bar admissions administrator informed the petitioner that the Board determined 

that he does not qualify for admission without examination to the practice of law in West 

Virginia because he failed to produce a certificate of good standing from each state in which he 

has been admitted to the practice of law, pursuant to Rule 4.2(a). 

Following the Board’s denial of admission without examination, the petitioner timely 

requested an administrative hearing pursuant to Rule 6.0. An administrative hearing was held on 

February 12, 2018. During the hearing, the petitioner presented evidence in support of his 

character and fitness to engage in the practice of law. 

The hearing examiner issued findings and conclusions in a report dated March 22, 2018. 

The hearing examiner noted that the sole issue for determination was the petitioner’s compliance 

with the provisions of Rule 4.2(a). The hearing examiner then concluded that the petitioner failed 

to produce a certificate of good standing from each state in which he has been admitted to the 

practice of law, pursuant to Rule 4.2(a), and, therefore, recommended that the Board’s denial of 

the petitioner’s application for admission without examination be affirmed. 

 The Board reviewed the hearing examiner’s report, together with the transcript of the 

hearing, the briefs filed by both parties, and the petitioner’s application file. The Board voted to 

deny the petitioner’s application for admission without examination based upon his failure to 

satisfy the provisions of Rule 4.2(a). He could not produce a certificate of good standing from 

each state in which he has been admitted to the practice of law as required by Rule 4.2(a). 

This Court is vested with the authority under article VIII, section one of the West 

Virginia Constitution “to define, regulate and control the practice of law in West Virginia.” Syl. 

Pt. 1, Lane v. W. Va. State Bd. of Law Examiners, 170 W.Va. 583, 295 S.E.2d 670 (1982). 

Pursuant to this authority, this Court has promulgated the Rules. 
3 

Pursuant to Rule 6(e), the petitioner filed exceptions with this Court to the Board’s 

decision. We consider this matter under the following standard of review: 

 

This Court reviews de novo the adjudicatory record made before 

the West Virginia Board of Law Examiners with regard to 

questions of law, questions of application of the law to the facts, 

and questions of whether an applicant should or should not be 

admitted to the practice of law. Although this Court gives 

respectful consideration to the Board of Law Examiners' 

recommendations, it ultimately exercises its own independent 

judgment. On the other hand, this Court gives substantial deference 

to the Board of Law Examiners' findings of fact, unless such 

findings are not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence on the whole record.  

Syl. Pt. 2, Matter of Dortch, 199 W.Va. 571, 486 S.E.2d 311 (1997). 

The petitioner argues that Rule 4.2(a) requires that an applicant for admission without 

examination only submit a certificate of good standing for each jurisdiction in which he has been 

admitted to practice law and currently maintains an active status. Therefore, the petitioner asserts 

that because he submitted a certificate of good standing from Tennessee, which is the only other 

jurisdiction in which he currently maintains an active law license, he has complied with the 

provisions of Rule 4.2(a). The petitioner asks the Court to find that he has satisfied the 

requirements set forth in Rule 4.2(a), reverse the Board’s denial of his application for admission 

without examination, and hold that he is eligible for admission without examination to the West 

Virginia Bar. 

The Board, in response, argues that the petitioner’s interpretation of Rule 4.2(a) is 

contrary to the purpose of the rule, namely to prevent attorneys who have been suspended in 

other jurisdictions from engaging in the practice of law in West Virginia. The Board urges this 

Court to apply Rule 4.2(a) and require an applicant for admission without examination to 

demonstrate that he is in good standing in every jurisdiction in which he has been admitted to 

practice law. Finally, the Board requests that this Court affirm its decision that the petitioner is 

ineligible for admission without examination to the practice of law in West Virginia. 

Rule 4.2(a) provides that “[i]n order to be admitted to the practice of law in West 

Virginia, the applicant must be in good standing in every state in which he or she has been 

admitted to practice and maintains an active status and must submit evidence of that standing.”

The petitioner’s interpretation of Rule 4.2(a) was rejected by the Board, and the Board concluded 

that the petitioner failed to satisfy the provisions of Rule 4.2(a). Specifically, the hearing 

examiner, whose conclusions were adopted by the Board, determined that Rule 4.2(a) requires an 

applicant to establish that he is in good standing in every state in which he has been admitted to 

practice law and in every state in which he maintains an active practice. Further, the hearing 
4 

examiner reasoned that by adopting Rule 3.20(a) and (b) of the West Virginia Rules of Lawyer 

Disciplinary Procedure1 this Court has set a public policy that “recognizes and upholds the 

disciplinary procedures and sanctions imposed by the bar of another jurisdiction.” 

Thus, our focus turns to whether the Board correctly concluded that the petitioner failed 

to satisfy the provisions of Rule 4.2(a). We conclude that it did. By failing to be able to provide a 

certificate of good standing from two of the three jurisdictions in which the petitioner has been 

previously admitted to the practice of law, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements for 

admission without examination to the practice of law set forth in Rule 4.2(a). In order to be 

admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia, an applicant must satisfy the requirements set 

forth in Rule 4.2(a). Because the petitioner has failed to submit certificates of good standing 

from each jurisdiction in which he was previously admitted, he is ineligible for admission 

without examination to the practice of law in West Virginia. Id.

 Upon consideration of the applicable standard of review and the record, this Court finds 

that petitioner’s exceptions have no merit, and, therefore, we affirm the Board’s finding that the 

petitioner, Mark W. McFall, is not eligible for admission without examination to the practice of 

law in West Virginia. 

Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 11, 2019 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Tim Armstead 

Justice Evan H. Jenkins 

Justice John A. Hutchison 

 

1 Rule 3.20(a) of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure provides that “[a] final adjudication 

in another jurisdiction, whether state or federal, of misconduct constituting grounds for discipline 

of a lawyer or a voluntary surrender of a license to practice in connection with a disciplinary 

proceeding shall, for the purposes of proceedings pursuant to these rules conclusively establish 

such conduct.” Rule 3.20(b) of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure provides that: 

Any lawyer who is a member, active or inactive, of The West Virginia State Bar 

against whom any form of discipline has been imposed by the authorities of 

another jurisdiction, whether state or federal, or who voluntarily surrenders his or 

her license to practice law in connection with disciplinary proceedings in another 

jurisdiction, whether state or federal, shall notify the Office of Disciplinary 

Counsel of such action in writing within ten days thereof.