Opinion ID: 4173746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Charges by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board

Text: same circuit in which the petition is filed and, in the order of such appointment, shall designate the date, time and place for the convening of such three-judge court, which date and time shall not be less than twenty days from the date of the filing of the petition. Such three-judge court shall, without a jury, hear the charges and all evidence offered in support thereof or in opposition thereto and upon satisfactory proof of the charges shall remove any such officer or person from office and place the records, papers and property of his office in the possession of some other officer or person for safekeeping or in the possession of the person appointed as hereinafter provided to fill the office temporarily. Any final order either removing or refusing to remove any such person from office shall contain such findings of fact and conclusions of law as the threejudge court shall deem sufficient to support its decision of all issues presented to it in the matter. W.Va. Code § 6-6-7 (1985). 9 The LDB filed a formal Statement of Charges on October 2, 2015, alleging that Mr. Plants violated Rules 1.7(b) (conflict of interest),3 3.4(c) (knowingly disobey rule of a tribunal),4 8.4(b) (criminal act),5 and 8.4(d) (prejudice to the administration of justice).6 In his answer, Mr. Plants denied any violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct but admitted that the two incidents occurred. In his answer and during the hearing before the HPS, Mr. Plants contended that corporal punishment was an acceptable form of discipline to which he and Ms. Plants had agreed and noted that the family court judge had ruled that he did not intend to injure his son. Mr. Plants also explained his concerns for the safety of his children when he saw them in Ms. Plants’s car in the parking lot of Fruth Pharmacy. Mr. Plants denied knowingly or willfully violating the Emergency Protective Order. 3 Because the subject conduct occurred prior to January 1, 2015, the version of the Rules of Professional Conduct in effect prior to the January 1, 2015 amendments applies. The applicable version of Rule 1.7(b) provided “[a] lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests . . . .” All references in this opinion to Rule 1.7(b) shall be to the pre-January 1, 2015 version of the rule. 4 Rule 3.4(c) provides “[a] lawyer shall not: . . . knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists . . . .” 5 Rule 8.4(b) provides “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; . . . .” 6 Rule 8.4(d) provide “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” 10