Opinion ID: 2507323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Duties Owed to Clients, the Public, the Legal System, or the Profession

Text: First, we determine whether Mr. Morgan violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to the legal system, or to the profession. We recognize that attorney disciplinary proceedings are primarily designed to protect the public, to reassure it as to the reliability and integrity of attorneys and to safeguard its interest in the administration of justice[.] Committee on Legal Ethics v. Keenan, 192 W.Va. 90, 94, 450 S.E.2d 787, 791 (1994). The parties stipulated to the fact that Mr. Morgan's actions violated duties to clients, the public, and the legal profession. Specifically, we have held that [stipulations or agreements made in open court by the parties in the trial of a case and acted upon are binding and a judgment founded thereon will not be reversed. Syl. pt. 1, Butler v. Transfer Corp., 147 W.Va. 402, 128 S.E.2d 32 (1962). Further, we have explained that [w]here facts are stipulated, they are deemed established as full as if determined by the [trier of facts]. A stipulation is a judicial admission. As such, it is binding in every sense, preventing the party who makes it from introducing evidence to dispute it, and relieving the opponent from the necessity of producing evidence to establish the admitted fact. Matter of Starcher, 202 W.Va. 55, 61, 501 S.E.2d 772, 778 (1998) (internal citation omitted). Neither party is asking for relief from the stipulations as they were agreed upon; therefore, we will not disturb those stipulations regarding the underlying facts and the rule violations. However, we maintain our discretion in determining the appropriate sanctions to adequately discipline the misconduct.