Opinion ID: 4173746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Report of the Hearing Panel Subcommittee

Text: Following a lengthy hearing on May 19 and 20, 2016,7 the HPS filed a report with this Court on September 19, 2016. Providing a detailed analysis of the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, the HPS concluded: The Hearing Panel finds that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent [Mr. Plants] violated Rules 1.7(b), 3.4(c), 8.4(b) 7 In addition to Mr. Plants and Ms. Plants, the HPS heard testimony from Sergeant Matthew Adams, Sergeant Brian Hammontree, Sergeant Anthony Colagrasso, Paul Ellis, Melissa Foster-Bird, Dan Holstein, and Donald Morris. The testimony of Robert H. Davis, Jr. was offered by deposition. 11 and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. By his behavior/conduct, which result[ed] in domestic battery charges being filed against him pursuant to West Virginia Code §61-2-28(a), while simultaneously serving as the Prosecuting Attorney of Kanawha County, West Virginia, a conflict of interest was created. Additionally, Respondent knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal when he knowingly violated the Domestic Violence Emergency Protective Order, entered on February 27, 2014, by communicating with Petitioner Allison Plants and their children outside of the Fruth Pharmacy in Charleston, West Virginia, on or about March 17, 2014. He did so without asserting that no valid obligation existed for him to follow the Protective Order. Finally, Respondent committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice when he knowingly violated the Domestic Violence Emergency Protective Order, entered on February 27, 2014, by communicating with Petitioner Allison Plants and their children outside of the Fruth Pharmacy in Charleston, West Virginia on or about March 17, 2014. The HPS evaluated Mr. Plants’s conduct in accordance with applicable standards to determine whether discipline should be imposed, including mitigating and aggravating factors, and concluded that he should be sanctioned with a public reprimand and with payment of the costs of these proceedings. As the HPS explained: Accordingly, Respondent should be sanctioned for his misconduct. For the public to have confidence in our State’s disciplinary and legal systems, lawyers who engage in the type of conduct exhibited by Respondent must be sanctioned, pursuant to Rules 3.15 of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure in the form of a Public Reprimand. Such a sanction is also necessary to deter other lawyers from engaging in similar conduct and to restore the faith of the general public in the integrity of the legal profession. Although Respondent’s lack of disciplinary history and his 12 removal from his position as the elected Prosecuting Attorney of Kanawha County, West Virginia, are mitigating factors, as is the fact that the criminal charges against him were dismissed, it must be remembered that Respondent, as the elected Prosecuting Attorney, was held to a higher standard. Therefore, especially under the facts herein, the ethical violations he commits are considered more egregious because of the betrayal of the public trust attached to the office. Importantly, despite the fact that Respondent held public office at the time of the incidents in question and, as such, may be held to a higher standard in these proceedings, the sanctions imposed must be justified by the conduct of Respondent, rather than linked to any publicity the matter may have received. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review lawyer disciplinary proceedings using the following standards: A de novo standard applies to a review of the adjudicatory record made before the [Lawyer Disciplinary Board] as to questions of law, questions of application of the law to the facts, and questions of appropriate sanctions; this Court gives respectful consideration to the [Board’s] recommendations while ultimately exercising its own independent judgement. On the other hand, substantial deference is given to the [Board’s] findings of fact, unless such findings are not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Syl. Pt. 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W.Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (1994). We have determined that “[t]his Court is the final arbiter of legal ethics problems and must make the ultimate decisions about public reprimands, suspensions, or annulments of attorneys’ licenses to practice law.” Syl. Pt. 3, Committee on Legal Ethics 13 v. Blair, 174 W.Va. 494, 327 S.E.2d 671 (1984). We are mindful of the multiple considerations in these cases: In deciding on the appropriate disciplinary action for ethical violations, this Court must consider not only what steps would appropriately punish the respondent attorney, but also whether the discipline imposed is adequate to serve as an effective deterrent to other members of the Bar and at the same time restore public confidence in the ethical standards of the legal profession. Syl. Pt. 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Walker, 178 W.Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (1987). With respect to public confidence in the ethical standards of the legal profession and public officials, in particular, we have emphasized that “[e]thical violations by a lawyer holding a public office are viewed as more egregious because of the betrayal of the public trust attached to the office.” Syl. Pt. 3, Committee on Legal Ethics of West Virginia State Bar v. Roark, 181W.Va. 260, 382 S.E.2d 313 (1989). Applying these standards, we turn to the case before us. III. DISCUSSION The ODC urges this Court to impose a harsher sanction than public reprimand in this lawyer disciplinary matter but takes no other issue with the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the HPS. According to the ODC, Mr. Plants’s conduct warrants a stronger sanction to send a clear message that when an elected prosecuting attorney engages in conduct that results in a conflict of interest and knowingly violates 14 the terms of a court order, this Court will suspend that prosecutor’s license because such conduct violates the public trust in the very official elected to enforce the law. The ODC urges this Court to impose a three-month suspension of Mr. Plants’s law license. Mr. Plants consented to the sanction of public reprimand and costs recommended by the HPS.8 In considering the ODC’s challenge to the HPS’s recommended sanctions, we rely upon Syllabus Point 4 of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jordan, 204 W.Va. 495, 513 S.E.2d 722 (1998): Rule 3.16 of the West Virginia Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure enumerates factors to be considered in imposing sanctions and provides as follows: “In imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, unless otherwise provided in these rules, the [West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals] or [Lawyer Disciplinary Board] shall consider the following factors: (1) whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to the legal system, or to the profession; (2) whether the lawyer acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently; (3) the amount of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; 8 While Mr. Plants consented to the sanction, he takes issue in his brief with the HPS’s conclusions regarding conflict of interest and knowing violation of a court order. However, Mr. Plants did not file an objection as required by Rule 3.11 of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure to raise these issues before this Court. Accordingly, we decline to consider them. However, we consider individual facts in the record relating to the issues raised by Mr. Plants in the context of the appropriate sanction, which is the issue before us. 15 and (4) the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.” Id. at 497, 513 S.E.2d at 724, syl. pt. 4. In a detailed analysis of the first three Jordan factors, the HPS found that Mr. Plants’s conduct resulting in the domestic battery charges created an unwaivable conflict of interest violating his duty to his client, the citizens of Kanawha County, and the public and the legal system. The HPS also determined that Mr. Plants knowingly violated the Emergency Protective Order. The HPS further concluded that Mr. Plants’s misconduct created actual and potential injury to the public, the legal system and the legal profession. With regard to the fourth Jordan factor, we have explained that “[m]itigating factors in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding are any considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed.” Syl. Pt. 2, Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Scott, 213 W.Va. 209, 579 S.E.2d 550 (2003). We consistently have described mitigating factors as follows: Mitigating factors which may be considered in determining the appropriate sanction to be imposed against a lawyer for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct include: (1) absence of a prior disciplinary record; (2) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) personal or emotional problems; (4) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct; (5) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings; (6) inexperience in the practice of law; (7) character or reputation; (8) physical or mental disability or 16 impairment; (9) delay in disciplinary proceedings; (10) interim rehabilitation; (11) imposition of other penalties or sanctions; (12) remorse; and (13) remoteness of prior offenses. Id. at 210, 579 S.E.2d at 551, syl. pt. 3.9 In contrast, “[a]ggravating factors in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding are any considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed.” Id., syl. pt. 4. In this case, the HPS found three mitigating factors: (1) Mr. Plants did not have a prior disciplinary record; (2) Mr. Plants had been removed from office as the elected Prosecuting Attorney of Kanawha County; and (3) the magistrate court dismissed the misdemeanor criminal complaints against Mr. Plants. The HPS also found one aggravating factor: Mr. Plants refused to acknowledge his wrongful conduct when he maintained that he did not commit a crime by speaking with his children in violation of the Emergency Protective Order. Taking into account these mitigating and aggravating factors, the HPS recommended that Mr. Plants be publicly reprimanded. 9 In Scott, we adopted the mitigating factors proposed by the American Bar Association in its Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Scott, 213 W.Va. at 214, 579 S.E.2d at 555. We noted, however, that these mitigating factors are not to the exclusion of others that a particular case may present. Id. at 214 n.33, 579 S.E.2d at 555 n.33. 17 Notwithstanding the HPS’s findings, the ODC maintains that a three-month suspension is more appropriate. The ODC notes that this Court has routinely suspended prosecutors for misconduct. However, the sanctions we have imposed in cases involving prosecuting attorneys have ranged from outright dismissal of the charges to three-year suspensions and annulment. For example, in Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Jarrell, 206 W.Va. 236, 523 S.E.2d 552 (1999), we dismissed the charges filed against a county prosecutor based upon extraordinary mitigating circumstances. We determined that while ethical violations occurred in some of the counts charged, none involved criminal conduct, the attorney was inexperienced in criminal law and lacked advisors, no harm or prejudice resulted to anyone, and the prosecutor chose not to run for office again. Id. at 244, 523 S.E.2d at 560. Notably, in Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Sims, 212 W.Va. 463, 468, 574 S.E.2d 795, 800 (2002), we declined to accept a recommendation to suspend for ninety days a prosecutor who had already been removed from office. In that case, we stated that “removal of a lawyer from an elected office is an effective, dramatic, and powerful punishment which serves as a ‘deterrent to other members of the Bar.’” Id. at 468, 574 S.E.2d at 800. After concluding that Sims’s removal from office as prosecuting attorney for his conduct must “in fairness be considered a mitigating factor,” we further stated that “[f]orfeiture of a public office and removal therefrom is a harsh and drastic sanction indeed.” Id. at 469, 574 S.E.2d at 801. In Sims, we concluded that “under all the 18 circumstances of this case, including the fact that Mr. Sims was removed from office, a public reprimand and payment of the costs incurred in this proceeding are appropriate and adequate sanctions.” Id. On the other hand, in Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Roark, 181 W.Va. 260, 382 S.E.2d 313 (1989), we suspended a mayor and former county prosecutor’s license for three years based upon his criminal conduct while in office. After a federal indictment on thirty criminal charges, Mr. Roark pled guilty to six counts of felony misdemeanor possession of cocaine, resigned from office as mayor of the City of Charleston, served 179 days in federal prison, served three years of probation and paid a $5,000 fine. Id. at 262 n.2, 382 S.E.2d at 315 n.2. In these circumstances, we held “[e]thical violations by a lawyer holding a public office are viewed as more egregious because of the betrayal of the public trust attached to the office.” Id. at 260, 382 S.E.2d at 313, syl. pt. 3. See also, Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Busch, 233 W.Va. 43, 754 S.E.2d 729 (2014) (license of prosecuting attorney who failed to cooperate with opposing counsel, lied to circuit court, and avoided giving up exculpatory evidence suspended for three years); Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Scott, 213 W.Va. 209, 579 S.E.2d 550 (2003) (prosecuting attorney’s license suspended for three years based upon ethical violations of dishonesty for lying in and out of court and falsifying court documents); Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. White, 189 W.Va. 135, 428 S.E.2d 556 (1993) (prosecutor’s license suspended for two years based 19 on illicit drug use that led to federal investigation in which he pled guilty to possession of marijuana, cocaine and percocet); Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Clifton, 236 W.Va. 362, 780 S.E.2d 628 (2015) (assistant prosecuting attorney’s repeated sexual misconduct by using position of power over vulnerable women in criminal system resulted in annulment of law license). Likewise, the sanctions imposed in our prior decisions involving other public officials have ranged from public reprimand to annulment, depending upon the conduct and aggravating and mitigating factors present in the particular case. See In re Matter of Callaghan, __ W.Va. __ , 796 S.E.2d 604 (2017) (law license of judge-elect suspended for two years for violating Rule 8.4(d) and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, along with other violations of Code of Judicial Conduct); Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Blyler, 237 W.Va. 325, 787 S.E.2d 596 (2016) (law license of court appointed special commissioner suspended for sixty days for violation of rule requiring safekeeping of funds); Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. McGraw, 194 W.Va. 788, 461 S.E.2d 850 (1995) (public reprimand of Attorney General who violated ethics rule requiring client confidentiality); Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Boettner, 188 W.Va. 1, 422 S.E.2d 478 (1992) (license of former Senate President who pled guilty to willfully evading payment of federal taxes for failing to report payment of interest by a third person on a campaign loan suspended for three years); Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Grubb, 187 W.Va. 608, 420 20 S.E.2d 744 (1992) (license of inactive member of bar annulled after conviction in federal court of bribery of public official, mail fraud, conspiracy, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, RICO, and aiding and abetting); Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Moore, 186 W.Va. 127, 411 S.E. 2d 452 (1991) (law license of former governor who pled guilty to three federal felonies including obstruction of justice and Hobbs Act violation annulled). As in all disciplinary cases, however, we remain mindful of our obligation to consider facts on a case-by-case basis in determining appropriate sanctions: In disciplinary proceedings, this Court, rather than endeavoring to establish a uniform standard of disciplinary action, will consider the facts and circumstances in each case, including mitigating facts and circumstances, in determining what disciplinary action, if any, is appropriate, and when the committee on legal ethics initiates proceedings before this Court, it has a duty to advise this Court of all pertinent facts with reference to the charges and the recommended disciplinary action. Syl. Pt. 2, Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Mullins, 159 W.Va. 647, 226 S.E.2d 427 428 (1976), overruled on other grounds by Committee on Legal Ethics v. Cometti, 189 W.Va. 262, 430 S.E.2d 320 (1993). As the final arbiters of the discipline to be imposed in this case, we know we must keep in mind our prior decisions involving public officials generally and prosecuting attorneys specifically and take into account our responsibility to consider not only appropriate punishment on a case-by-case basis, but also our goals of achieving a 21 deterrent effect and the restoration of public confidence in the ethical standards of the legal profession. Given the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that suspending Mr. Plants would achieve the goal of holding him to a higher standard as a former prosecutor or would send a stronger message than a public reprimand. In fact, we have previously analyzed the necessity for suspension and have concluded that in some circumstances this sanction is not necessary to punish the respondent appropriately or restore public confidence. For example, in Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Losch, 219 W.Va. 316, 633 S.E.2d 261 (2006), we concluded, “[w]e believe that suspension from the practice of law and supervision for one year is not necessary for the purposes of punishment of the respondent or restoration of public confidence in the ethical standards of the legal profession.” Id. at 320, 633 S.E.2d at 265. We see no reason why these same considerations could not arise in a case involving a public official. Moreover, we have applied this analysis of our prior decisions involving public officials as demonstrated above by the wide array of sanctions, many less than a three-month suspension. Moreover, in this specific case, the mitigating factors fully support the recommendation of the HPS. The misdemeanor criminal charges against Mr. Plants were dismissed based upon his full compliance with the requirements of a pre-trial monitoring agreement. He accepted the ruling removing him from office as prosecuting attorney and did not extend those proceedings by filing an appeal. Finally, we note that he had no 22 prior disciplinary record. We agree with the HPS, which observed that “despite the fact that [Mr. Plants] held public office at the time of the incidents in question and, as such, may be held to a higher standard in these proceedings, the sanctions imposed must be justified by the conduct of Respondent, rather than linked to any publicity the matter may have received.” The hearing record is replete with testimony regarding personal and political matters, the discussion of which would not serve our goals for this proceeding. We conclude that given Mr. Plants’s circumstances as a former prosecutor and current sole practitioner, suspension would not serve as a greater punishment to him or deterrent to others than removal from office has already served. Finally, with respect to the ODC’s request that this Court address the HPS’s admission of expert testimony on the issue of what conduct violates the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, we find that the issue is moot. As Justice McHugh noted, “[t]he law on this point is well settled in West Virginia. ‘Moot questions or abstract propositions, the decision of which would avail nothing in the determination of controverted rights of persons or of property are not properly cognizable by a court.’” State ex rel. Durkin v. Neely, 166 W.Va. 553, 556, 276 S.E.2d 311, 313 (1981) (citing, inter alia, Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Lilly v. Carter, 63 W.Va. 684, 60 S.E. 873 (1908)). See also, Syl. Pt. 4 Cline v. Mirandy, 234 W.Va. 427, 765 S.E.2d 583 (2014). In this case, while the HPS ruled in a pre-hearing motion that the deposition testimony could be offered into evidence at the disciplinary hearing, the HPS ultimately 23 gave no weight whatsoever to Mr. Davis’s opinions in its report to this Court. Since we have adopted the HPS’s recommended sanction of public reprimand without modification in this proceeding, the HPS’s admission of the testimony of Robert M. Davis, Jr. is moot. Consideration of its admissibility at the hearing below would avail nothing in the determination of the appropriate sanction to be imposed upon Mr. Plants, which is the only issue before us. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bernard, 757 F2d 1439 (4th Cir. 1985) (expert testimony not relied upon by jury in arriving at its verdict on an unrelated charge; therefore, issue of admissibility of expert’s testimony on appeal of conviction on unrelated charge is moot). IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, we impose the following sanctions pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure: (1) Public reprimand of Mr. Plants; and (2) order that Mr. Plants reimburse the Lawyer Disciplinary Board the costs of the proceedings on the formal statement of charges. Public Reprimand and Costs. 24