858 S.E.2d 662
W. Va.2021Background
- In 2004 the Court disbarred Keith W. Wheaton for 31 violations arising from six client complaints, including misappropriation/conversion of client funds, material misrepresentations, failure to communicate, and failure to prosecute claims.
- Wheaton I (2004) imposed mandatory prerequisites for reinstatement: reimburse three clients ($1,250 total), fully satisfy a $45,000 federal bankruptcy judgment, and reimburse the Lawyer Disciplinary Board for costs (~$13,353.39) (total ≈ $60,000).
- By his 2018 reinstatement petition Wheaton had repaid only the small client sums ($1,250) and had not paid the large bankruptcy judgment or the Board costs; he later entered repayment plans.
- The Office of Disciplinary Counsel had at least 14 additional complaints closed because of the disbarment and two post-disbarment complaints (one alleging $18,500 paid and poor representation); those matters remained unresolved in the reinstatement file.
- Since disbarment Wheaton has worked as a paralegal, taken CLE courses, made some child-support payments, pled guilty once to a misdemeanor (earlier), and repaid three small clients; the majority found these facts supportive of rehabilitation.
- The Supreme Court (majority) granted reinstatement in 2021; Justice Armstead dissented, arguing Wheaton failed to satisfy Wheaton I requirements, had not demonstrated sufficient restitution or consistent efforts, and that reinstatement risks public confidence and undermines precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wheaton satisfied mandatory reinstatement conditions (≈$60,000) | Wheaton: has made progress, repaid small sums, entered repayment plans, taken steps toward satisfying debts | Dissent/Board: he has not fully satisfied the court-ordered monetary conditions and made little effort for years on the major debts | Majority: reinstated despite unpaid portions; found "great strides" toward requirements |
| Whether Wheaton demonstrated rehabilitation under governing factors (nature of offense, maturity, post-disbarment conduct, time, competence) | Wheaton: lengthy time since disbarment, employment as paralegal, CLEs, repayment of some sums, improved conduct | Dissent: original misconduct (misappropriation, many complaints) is severe; many additional complaints; prior post-disbarment conduct was troubling | Majority: rehabilitation sufficient to warrant readmission |
| Whether reinstatement would have a justifiable and substantial adverse effect on public confidence | Wheaton: remedial steps and rehabilitation reduce risk to public confidence | Dissent: allowing reinstatement without satisfying orders and despite numerous complaints undermines public trust and consistency | Majority: no such adverse effect found; readmission allowed |
| Whether In re Drake (denying reinstatement for failure to pay restitution) controls | Wheaton: factual differences warrant distinction; has shown progress | Dissent/Board: Drake compels denial because both owed similar amounts and made insufficient efforts to pay over many years | Majority: distinguished Drake and declined to follow it here; granted reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Wheaton, 216 W. Va. 673, 610 S.E.2d 8 (Court's 2004 disbarment decision imposing reinstatement conditions) (establishing Wheaton I requirements for reinstatement)
- In re Brown, 166 W. Va. 226, 273 S.E.2d 567 (1980) (reinstatement requires demonstration of integrity, moral character, competence, and rehabilitation)
- Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Vieweg, 194 W. Va. 554, 461 S.E.2d 60 (1995) (courts must consider whether reinstatement will adversely affect public confidence)
- In re Smith, 214 W. Va. 83, 585 S.E.2d 602 (1980) (courts must consider nature of original offense when evaluating reinstatement)
- Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel v. Jordan, 204 W. Va. 495, 513 S.E.2d 722 (1998) (misappropriation or conversion of client funds ordinarily warrants disbarment)
- In re Reinstatement of Drake, 242 W. Va. 65, 829 S.E.2d 267 (2019) (denial of reinstatement where petitioner made no diligent efforts to pay restitution)