Opinion ID: 1394109
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: In lawyer disciplinary proceedings, this Court accords de novo review to the recommended decision of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board's Hearing Panel Subcommittee: A de novo standard applies to a review of the adjudicatory record made before the Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar 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 Committee's recommendations while ultimately exercising its own independent judgment. On the other hand, substantial deference is given to the Committee'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 of The West Virginia State Bar v. McCorkle, 192 W.Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (1994). Nevertheless, [a]bsent a showing of some mistake of law or arbitrary assessment of the facts, recommendations made by the State Bar Legal Ethics Committee . . . are to be given substantial consideration. Syl. pt. 3, in part, In re Brown, 166 W.Va. 226, 273 S.E.2d 567 (1980). This Court is responsible for determining the ultimate resolution of lawyer disciplinary proceedings. As such, [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 of The West Virginia State Bar v. Blair, 174 W.Va. 494, 327 S.E.2d 671 (1984). The appropriate sanction is likewise the responsibility of this Court, with three distinct goals in mind: punishment, deterrence and maintaining the public's trust and confidence in the lawyers that serve this State. 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 of The West Virginia State Bar v. Walker, 178 W.Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (1987). When determining the particular sanction for a lawyer's misconduct, this Court is guided by a list of considerations supplied by the rules governing lawyer discipline. In imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, unless otherwise provided in these rules, the Court or 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; and (4) the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors. W. Va. Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure Rule 3.16. With these standards in mind, we now proceed to consider the Panel's recommended decision and the parties' contentions.