Court Opinion

ID: 9856280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:43:45.704099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:32.364231
License: Public Domain

McGRAW, Justice,
concurring:
I concur fully in Justice McHugh’s persuasive majority opinion, and write separately only to respond to the points raised in the dissenting opinion.
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility declares that “a lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety.” Indeed it is “the appearance, not the fact of impropriety which Canon 9 is designed to eliminate.” Kramer v. Scientific Control Corp., 534 F.2d 1085, 1091 (3d Cir.1976)(emphasis in original). Much of the dissent’s effort is aimed at showing that the respondent has not violated Disciplinary Rule 9-101 (B).
The Disciplinary Rules, however, do not provide the proper standard by which to measure the respondent’s activities. “The Disciplinary Rules state the minimum level of conduct below which no lawyer can fall without being subject to disciplinary action,” West Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, Preliminary Statement. The majority has properly noted that the respondent, because he is both a lawyer and a public officer, is held to a high standard of conduct. The respondent is a fiduciary of the people and this Court must impose standards on his conduct which will preserve and promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of both our public agencies and our system of justice.