Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Cain, 20-0252

Joshua C. Cain, admitted 2011, practiced in Marshall County and performed court‑appointed work for West Virginia Public Defender Services (PDS).
A circuit judge alerted PDS that Cain submitted many payment vouchers with late dates, excessive time entries (including 0.5 hr waiting and frequent 1‑hr hearing entries), travel time billed inconsistently, billing for a hearing that did not occur, excessive copying, and billing for non‑billable administrative tasks.
PDS investigation found Cain sometimes delayed submissions until a different judge took the bench, maintained a nonfunctional ‘‘Cameron’’ office, and claimed miles not traveled; the vouchers at issue were never presented for payment.
Cain admitted in his Answer and in stipulated findings that he knowingly and intentionally overbilled and violated Rules 1.5, 3.3, and 8.4; he also disclosed depression, anxiety, and cannabis use and entered a WVJLAP monitoring agreement.
The Hearing Panel Subcommittee (HPS) rejected the parties’ agreed 90‑day suspension and recommended a 180‑day suspension, two years supervised practice on reinstatement, WVJLAP compliance, and payment of costs; ODC consented; Cain objected only to the length of suspension.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the HPS findings, imposed a 180‑day suspension, two years supervised practice if reinstated, continued WVJLAP monitoring, payment of costs, and ordered six additional CLE hours in law practice management prior to reinstatement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cain violated professional rules by overbilling PDS	ODC/LDB: vouchers contained false statements and unreasonable fees, violating Rules 3.3, 1.5, 8.4	Cain: conceded many facts but attributed errors to unclear PDS guidance and personal issues	Cain admitted violations; Court accepted HPS factual findings and concluded he acted knowingly and intentionally
Appropriate standard of review for HPS findings and sanctions	HPS/ODC: defer to HPS on facts; Court has final say on sanctions	Cain: sought reduction of sanction to 90 days	Court applied de novo review for sanction, deferential review for facts; accepted HPS findings and sanction rationale
Proper sanction for intentional overbilling	ODC/ HPS: 180‑day suspension fits precedent and aggravating facts	Cain: 90‑day suspension (as stipulated with ODC) is adequate and less burdensome	Court held 180‑day suspension appropriate given intentional misconduct, prior admonishment, and aggravating factors
Additional conditions on reinstatement (CLE, supervision, WVJLAP)	HPS/ODC: supervised practice, WVJLAP compliance, CLE improve practice and protect public	Cain: objected to severity of suspension; accepted monitoring	Court imposed two years supervised practice upon reinstatement, WVJLAP compliance, costs, and six extra CLE hours in law practice management

Committee on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W. Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (establishes de novo review of law and deference to HPS factual findings)
Committee on Legal Ethics v. Blair, 174 W. Va. 494, 327 S.E.2d 671 (Court is final arbiter of attorney discipline)
Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. McGraw, 194 W. Va. 788, 461 S.E.2d 850 (burden of proof: clear and convincing evidence)
Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel v. Jordan, 204 W. Va. 495, 513 S.E.2d 722 (factors to consider in imposing sanctions)
Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Scott, 213 W. Va. 209, 579 S.E.2d 550 (lists mitigating and aggravating factors)
Law. Disc. Bd. v. Hassan, 241 W. Va. 298, 824 S.E.2d 224 (six‑month suspension in overbilling context; comparative guide)
Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Grindo, 243 W. Va. 130, 842 S.E.2d 683 (two‑year suspension for aggravated overbilling and deceit)
Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Cooke, 239 W. Va. 40, 799 S.E.2d 117 (two‑year suspension for extensive, multi‑year overbilling and misconduct)