Opinion ID: 4173746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Collateral Proceedings

Text: After the incidents that resulted in misdemeanor criminal complaints against Mr. Plants, three collateral proceedings relating to his position as prosecuting attorney ensued. First, on April 11, 2014, the ODC petitioned this Court, pursuant to Rule 3.27 of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure, for immediate, temporary suspension of Mr. Plants and/or the disqualification of Mr. Plants and the Kanawha County Prosecutor’s Office from instituting actions or prosecuting claims related to domestic violence involving a parent or guardian and a minor child. The ODC alleged that the temporary suspension was necessary due to a conflict of interest that posed a substantial threat of irreparable harm to the public. In its Rule 3.27 petition, the ODC asserted that by denying the domestic battery charges against him, Mr. Plants created a non-waivable conflict of interest in violation of Rule 1.7(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct in which his personal interests materially limited his ability to execute properly his official duties. Mr. Plants responded that temporary suspension or disqualification was unnecessary because the action taken at the circuit court by entering an order disqualifying him from certain cases was sufficient to protect the public. We denied the ODC’s petition on the grounds that the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, pursuant to a petition for writ of prohibition by the City of Charleston (“City”) and the Charleston Police Department (“Police Department”), properly removed Mr. Plants from any cases involving the subject matter 6 similar to the pending criminal charges against him thereby removing the threat of a possible conflict of interest. Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel v. Plants, 233 W.Va. 477, 485, 759 S.E.2d 220, 228 (2014). As referenced above, while the ODC’s Rule 3.27 petition was proceeding, the City and the Police Department filed a petition for writ of prohibition on April 14, 2014. The petition sought to prohibit Mr. Plants and the Kanawha County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office from prosecuting allegations of domestic violence involving parents and minor children reported, investigated or charged by the City and the Police Department until the conflict of interest issue identified by the ODC was resolved. Following a hearing, the circuit court entered an agreed order in which Mr. Plants and the Kanawha County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office agreed to be disqualified from three categories of cases: (1) crimes of violence against a child; (2) abuse and neglect; and (3) criminal violations of domestic violence protection orders. Finally, on August 15, 2014, the Kanawha County Commission instituted proceedings pursuant to West Virginia Code §6-6-7(c)(1985)2 to remove Mr. Plants from 2 West Virginia Code § 6-6-7 was amended effective June 9, 2016. At the time of the underlying proceedings, it stated in relevant part as follows: (a) Any person holding any county, school district or municipal office, including the office of a member of a board (continued . . .) 7 of education and the office of magistrate, the term or tenure of which office is fixed by law, whether the office be elective or appointive, except judges of the circuit courts, may be removed from such office in the manner provided in this section for official misconduct, malfeasance in office, incompetence, neglect of duty or gross immorality or for any of the causes or on any of the grounds provided by any other statute. (b) Charges may be preferred: (1) In the case of any county officer, member of a district board of education or magistrate, by the county commission, or other tribunal in lieu thereof, any other officer of the county, or by any number of persons other than such county officers, which number shall be the lesser of fifty or one percent of the total number of voters of the county participating in the general election next preceding the filing of such charges . . . . (c) The charges shall be reduced to writing in the form of a petition duly verified by at least one of the persons bringing the same, and shall be entered of record by the court, or the judge thereof in vacation, and a summons shall thereupon be issued by the clerk of such court, together with a copy of the petition, requiring the officer or person named therein to appear before the court, at the courthouse of the county where such officer resides, and answer the charges on a day to be named therein, which summons shall be served at least twenty days before the return day thereof in the manner by which a summons commencing a civil suit may be served. The court, or judge thereof in vacation, or in the case of any multi-judge circuit, the chief judge thereof, shall, without delay forward a copy of the petition to the supreme court of appeals and shall ask for the impaneling or convening of a three-judge court consisting of three circuit judges of the state. The chief justice of the supreme court of appeals shall without delay designate and appoint three circuit judges within the state, not more than one of whom shall be from the (continued . . .) 8 the office of prosecuting attorney. After a hearing, the three-judge panel appointed to consider the matter ruled that Mr. Plants should be removed from office on the grounds of malfeasance in office by committing wrongful conduct affecting the performance of his duties. The panel further found that Mr. Plants had neglected the duties of his office by voluntarily agreeing to a disqualification that had, in effect, prevented him from giving appropriate attention to a substantial and important part of his statutory duties. Mr. Plants did not appeal the panel’s decision.