Opinion ID: 6348853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: request to seal record

Text: The HPS, having concluded that “private discipline fails to meet the requirements within the clear dictates of Rule 3.20” of the Rules of LDP, further recommended that Mr. Doheny’s Motion to Seal the Record in this matter be granted. We also reject this recommendation. “The principle [sic] purpose of attorney disciplinary proceedings is to safeguard the public’s interest in the administration of justice.” Syl. Pt. 3, Daily Gazette Co. Inc. v. Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar, 174 W. Va. 359, 326 S.E.2d 705 (1984). In that regard, we have held that “[u]nder West Virginia Constitution art. III, § 17, which provides that ‘The courts of this State shall be open,’ there is a right of public access to attorney disciplinary proceedings.” Syl. Pt. 4, Id. In support of this holding, this Court noted that “[p]rocedures governing professional discipline are emblematic of the character of a profession. Confidentiality favors insulating the legal proceedings which resulted to imposition of the disciplinary order. In response to ODC’s Motion, Mr. Doheny requested that the action be dismissed and sealed. In the alternative, Mr. Doheny requested a hearing before the HPS for ODC to be “required and compelled to explain themselves and their actions.” On remand, the HPS should determine, inter alia, if this matter may be resolved without a hearing pursuant to Rule 3.20 of the Rules of LDP, or whether Mr. Doheny has effectively asserted a request for a hearing and met the requirements entitling him to a hearing pursuant to Rule 3.20(d) to address the validity of the disciplinary order entered in Pennsylvania. 16 profession from adverse publicity over the public interest in the proper administration of justice.” Id. at 365, 326 S.E.2d 705, 711 (1984). 10 Mr. Doheny argues that he provided the ODC with copies of his Private Reprimand and “other related documents” pursuant to Rule 3.19 of the Rules of LDP and that such documents should remain confidential pursuant to Rule 2.6 of the Rules of LDP. 11 Mr. Doheny further argues that the ODC “arbitrarily” changed its investigation from a criminal conviction investigation to a reciprocity investigation and then filed confidential records on the public docket of these proceedings. According to Mr. Doheny, if this case 10 Prior to this Court’s decision in Daily Gazette, 174 W. Va. 359, 326 S.E.2d 705 (1984), the West Virginia State Bar used private reprimands as a method of official discipline. However, our decision in Daily Gazette made it clear that private reprimands were “in direct contravention with the ‘open courts’ provision of the West Virginia Constitution art. III, § 17.” Id. at 367, 326 S.E.2d 705, 713. 11 Rule 3.19 of the Rules of LDP addresses felony convictions that do not reflect adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. Rule 2.6 of the Rules of LDP provides as follows: The details of complaints filed with or investigations conducted by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel shall be confidential, except that when a complaint has been filed or an investigation has been initiated, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel or the lawyer may release information confirming or denying the existence of a complaint or investigation, explaining the procedural aspects of the complaint or investigation, or defending the right of the lawyer to a fair hearing. Prior to the release of information confirming or denying the existence of a complaint or investigation by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, reasonable notice shall be provided to the lawyer. 17 is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it will be as if the case was never filed so there will be no final disposition of any discipline against him. However, because we find no error in the ODC’s decision to pursue this matter as a reciprocal disciplinary action and decline to approve the HPS’s recommendation that this matter be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we are unpersuaded by Mr. Doheny’s arguments. In addition, we note that this Court, on October 4, 2018, and on January 28, 2021, refused similar motions by Mr. Doheny to seal the records of this matter. Mr. Doheny has provided no authority or justification to warrant a different decision at this stage of the proceedings with regard to his motion to seal the record in this matter. Finally, consistent with our holding in Daily Gazette that “courts of this state shall be open,” we believe that Mr. Doheny has failed to provide justification in this matter to overcome the public’s right of access to court proceedings, including lawyer disciplinary matters. Daily Gazette, 174 W. Va. at 365, 326 S.E.2d at 711.