Opinion ID: 2507323
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Statement of Charges

Text: The Statement of Charges was issued against Mr. Morgan on March 10, 2010. It set forth the following alleged violations of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 [2] and 3.2 [3] for failure to appear for several hearings; Rules 1.5(a), [4] 1.16(d), [5] and 8.4(c) and (d) [6] for acceptance of fees for legal services and failure to provide those services; Rule 1.15(a) [7] for failure to set up, maintain, and/or deposit retainers into a separate account from his own property; Rules 1.4(a) and (b) [8] for failure to return communication to his clients; and Rule 8.1(b) [9] for failure to respond to the ODC's lawful requests for information. Mr. Morgan did not respond to the charges until May 19, 2010. Eventually, Mr. Morgan stipulated to all of the alleged violations of misconduct set forth in the Statement of Charges. The stipulated rule violations, as well as the agreed-upon sanctions, were submitted to the HPS by Mr. Morgan and the ODC during a testimonial hearing on September 22, 2010. The decision of the HPS was rendered January 20, 2011, and found that the evidence established that Mr. Morgan had violated the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct as suggested in the Statement of Charges. Specifically, the HPS concluded that Mr. Morgan had violated duties to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. Further, his actions were determined to have been negligent rather than intentional, with a great amount of real and potential injury to Mr. Morgan's clients. The recognized aggravating factors were a pattern and practice of accepting retainer fees but then failing to carry out services; failing to communicate with clients; failing to respond to requests for information from the ODC; multiple offenses; and a prior admonishment by the Investigative Panel of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board for failure to communicate with clients. Mitigating factors were set forth as the absence of selfish or dishonest motive; remorse; and the fact that Mr. Morgan had been licensed to practice law since 2001, but had had no previous discipline imposed by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. [10] The HPS followed the recommended sanctions as stipulated to by the OCD and Mr. Morgan. Specifically, the HPS recommended the following sanctions to this Court: 1) [Mr. Morgan] shall be reprimanded; 2) [Mr. Morgan] shall refund the unearned fee referenced in Count I in the amount of $4,000.00; in Count II in the amount of $2,000.00; and in Count IV in the amount of $1,000.00; 3) [Mr. Morgan's] practice shall be supervised for two years by an attorney agreed upon by the ODC and [Mr. Morgan]. [Mr. Morgan] will meet with the attorney every two weeks, and the office practice plan shall be based upon the Report of Barron K. Henley, Esq., and include implementation of those proposed changes to [Mr. Morgan's] office management as suggested by that report. Mr. Henley shall review and evaluate [Mr. Morgan's] office practices, and the goal will be to improve the quality and effectiveness of [Mr. Morgan's] law practice to the extent that the sanctioned behavior is not likely to recur; 4) [Mr. Morgan] shall arrange for Mr. Henley to call him for an after care phone call three months after the commencement of his supervised practice and prepare a written report to be submitted to ODC to ascertain the degree of progress of the changes to his law office management; 5) [Mr. Morgan] shall arrange for Mr. Henley to call him for an after care phone call six months after the commencement of his supervised practice and prepare a second written report to be submitted to ODC to ascertain the degree of progress of the changes to his law office management, and to ensure that any additional issues from the three months report are adequately addressed; 6) [Mr. Morgan] shall have his trust account audited for two years and shall provide such audit to ODC; 7) [Mr. Morgan] shall provide certification of his IOLTA[ [11] ] to ODC; 8) Pursuant to Rule 3.15, [Mr. Morgan] shall pay costs of the disciplinary proceeding. (Footnote added). By its March 31, 2011, order, this Court disagreed with the recommended disposition and set this case for further review.