Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Albright
706 S.E.2d 552
W. Va.2011Background
- Albright was admitted to the West Virginia Bar in 1988 with Parkersburg practice; prior disciplinary actions exist.
- ODC filed seven disciplinary complaints alleging communication failures, lack of diligence, failure to provide accountings, and failures to respond.
- Hearing Panel Subcommittee found multiple Rule violations (1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 8.1, 1.16, 1.5, 8.4) across Counts 1–7 and recommended a three-month suspension plus other conditions.
- Albright did not file a brief; appeared at oral argument; the Court reviewed the record de novo with deference to HPS findings.
- Court adopted HPS findings but declined to adopt the three-month suspension; instead imposed a one-year license suspension with additional reinstatement conditions.
- Court emphasized public protection and deterrence given prior discipline and ongoing conduct; required restitution to two complainants and supervisory requirements upon reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the HPS findings support violations of the cited Rules | Albright violated duties to clients and the public across counts. | Albright contends sanctions should be limited; no brief filed; arguments heard orally. | Findings supported violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. |
| What sanction is appropriate for repeat misconduct | ODC/HPS recommendation warranted; multiple prior actions justify discipline. | Some mitigation; prefer lesser sanction or inactive status. | One-year suspension appropriate to protect the public and deter recurrence. |
| Whether restitution and reinstatement conditions are proper | Restitution and supervision aid rehabilitation and public confidence. | Requests for additional conditions not necessary. | Order includes restitution to two clients, two-year supervision, and psychologist evaluation before reinstatement. |
| Role of mitigating and aggravating factors in sanctioning | Mitigating factors acknowledged; aggravation from prior discipline and experience. | Not explicitly stated; arguable weight may differ. | Mitigating factor present (family illness/death) but aggravating factors predominate; supports longer sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Committee on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W.Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (1994) (deference to Board findings; standard for review of disciplinary decisions)
- Syl. pt. 3, Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Cunningham, 195 W.Va. 27, 464 S.E.2d 181 (1995) (standard for de novo review of legal questions and sanctions)
- Syllabus Point 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Blair, 174 W.Va. 494, 327 S.E.2d 671 (1984) (Court is final arbiter on public discipline)
- Syl. pt. 5, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Roark, 181 W.Va. 260, 382 S.E.2d 313 (1989) (sanctions must balance punishment, deterrence, and public confidence)
- Syl. pt. 3, Jordan v. Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel, 204 W.Va. 495, 513 S.E.2d 722 (1998) (enumerated factors for sanctions include duty, intent, harm, aggravation/mitigation)
- Sims v. Lawyer Disciplinary Bd., 212 W.Va. 463, 574 S.E.2d 795 (2002) (per curiam concurrence on disciplinary considerations)