814 S.E.2d 275
W. Va.2018Background
- L. Dante diTrapano was disbarred after multiple arrests and two federal felony convictions (firearm-related and making false statements to a bank), and admitted misappropriation of client funds; his West Virginia license was annulled in 2007.
- After prison and supervised release, diTrapano completed extensive addiction treatment, maintained sobriety for over a decade, gained sustained employment in a law firm, and served community/recovery roles including mentoring other lawyers.
- He entered a voluntary five-year monitoring agreement with the West Virginia Judicial and Lawyer Assistance Program (WVJLAP) requiring frequent meetings, counseling, and random drug screens; the HPS found full compliance.
- DiTrapano first petitioned for reinstatement in 2012 and was denied in 2014 for failing to show current integrity and moral character; he filed a second petition in 2016.
- The Hearing Panel Subcommittee (HPS) recommended reinstatement upon completion of WVJLAP monitoring and proposed conditions including two years supervised practice and monthly reporting; the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) objected, arguing the felonies and past dishonesty preclude reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | diTrapano's Argument | ODC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether felony convictions bar reinstatement as a categorical rule | Felony convictions do not automatically bar reinstatement; focus must be on rehabilitation and present fitness | Twice-convicted felon with client dishonesty should be denied reinstatement | Court: No categorical bar; convictions do not automatically preclude reinstatement |
| Whether petitioner demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation to overcome disbarment | Long-term sobriety, completion of sentence/supervised release, WVJLAP compliance, employment, restitution, mentoring, and character witnesses show rehabilitation | Record insufficient given severity of misconduct including client theft and forgery | Court: Clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation established |
| Whether reinstatement would substantially harm public confidence in administration of justice | Reinstatement conditioned on monitoring and supervised practice mitigates public concern; completion of sentences and restitution reassure public | Public confidence would be undermined given the nature of prior dishonesty and multiple felonies | Court: Reinstatement would not have justifiable and substantial adverse effect on public confidence with conditions imposed |
| Appropriate conditions for reinstatement | Support HPS conditions (WVJLAP compliance, two years supervised practice, dues, costs) | Opposed to immediate reinstatement; questioned sufficiency and timing of supervision and mandate issuance | Court: Granted reinstatement effective immediately with conditions: 2 years supervised practice with monthly reports, continued WVJLAP compliance, bar dues, and reimbursement of costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Comm. on Legal Ethics v. Blair, 174 W. Va. 494, 327 S.E.2d 671 (1984) (this Court is final arbiter of legal ethics matters)
- Comm. on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W. Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (1994) (deference to Board fact findings; de novo review of law and sanctions)
- In re Brown, 166 W. Va. 226, 273 S.E.2d 567 (1980) (standards for reinstatement: integrity, moral character, competence, rehabilitation, and public confidence)
- In re Smith, 214 W. Va. 83, 585 S.E.2d 602 (1980) (consideration of nature of original offense in reinstatement)
- Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Brown, 223 W. Va. 554, 678 S.E.2d 60 (2009) (addiction may mitigate but misconduct type matters)
- Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Hardison, 205 W. Va. 344, 518 S.E.2d 101 (1999) (distinguishing passive neglect from active dishonesty as to mitigation by addiction)