842 S.E.2d 683
W. Va.
2020
Read the full case

Background

  • Daniel R. Grindo, a West Virginia attorney since 2002, submitted PDS (Public Defender Services) vouchers from 2013–2015 that often claimed impossibly high daily hours and billed paralegal/nonlawyer work at the attorney hourly rate.
  • PDS audit (after new software) revealed multiple dates with >15–30+ billed hours and duplicate mileage claims totaling $1,927.86; PDS negotiated a conciliation agreement with Grindo requiring a one‑third fee reduction (~$40,425.90) and repayment of duplicate mileage (paid in 2017).
  • Grindo signed a Conciliation Agreement admitting his office’s “business model” of billing nonattorney time at attorney rates; he agreed to seek counsel about self‑reporting to ODC but later told PDS he had self‑reported when he had not.
  • A Hearing Panel Subcommittee (HPS) found by clear and convincing evidence that Grindo violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC)—including RPC 1.5(a), 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(d), 8.1(a), and 8.4(c)—and recommended a two‑year suspension plus additional sanctions.
  • The Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed the record (de novo as to law/sanctions; deferential to factual findings), adopted the HPS findings, rejected mitigating-credit for the conciliation, and imposed a two‑year suspension, CLE and cost conditions for reinstatement, and a prohibition on future PDS work if reinstated.

Issues

Issue Petitioner’s Argument Grindo’s Argument Held
1. Did Grindo’s vouchers violate RPC 1.5(a), 3.3(a)(1), and 8.4(d) by overbilling PDS and billing paralegal time as attorney time? Grindo knowingly submitted inaccurate vouchers and billed nonattorney time at attorney rates in violation of statute and RPCs. Work was performed by staff; overbilling was an accounting mistake or acceptable practice; not willful. Court held Grindo violated RPC 1.5(a), 3.3(a)(1), and 8.4(d); unlawful/value‑billing is not excused by actual performance.
2. Did Grindo make false/misleading statements to PDS and the tribunal? He misrepresented hours and who performed the work; statements to courts were not candid. Billing reflected actual work; any misstatements were mistakes. Court held he lacked candor toward tribunals (RPC 3.3) and statutes requiring accurate records were violated.
3. Did Grindo violate RPC 8.1(a) and 8.4(c) by falsely claiming to have self‑reported to ODC and by misleading ODC? He knowingly lied to PDS and to ODC about self‑reporting; statements were intentional and deceitful. He did not recall telling PDS he had self‑reported; statements were inadvertent or mistaken. Court found intentional, knowing, fraudulent misrepresentations in violation of RPC 8.1(a) and 8.4(c).
4. What sanction is appropriate? Two‑year suspension plus CLE, costs, and restriction on future PDS work; deterrence and protection of public coffers required. Opposed suspension; characterized misconduct as mistake and urged lesser penalties. Court imposed a two‑year suspension, RLDP 3.28 duties, six CLE hours in ethics and payment of costs before reinstatement, and ban on PDS work if reinstated.

Key Cases Cited

  • Comm. on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W.Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (standard of review for disciplinary proceedings)
  • Comm. on Legal Ethics v. Blair, 174 W.Va. 494, 327 S.E.2d 671 (Supreme Court is final arbiter of attorney discipline)
  • Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel v. Jordan, 204 W.Va. 495, 513 S.E.2d 722 (factors for imposing sanctions)
  • Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Cooke, 239 W.Va. 40, 799 S.E.2d 117 (value‑billing precedent; multi‑year suspensions presumptive for fraudulent billing)
  • Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Hassan, 241 W.Va. 298, 824 S.E.2d 224 (contrast where self‑reporting and lack of prior discipline mitigated sanction)
  • Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Munoz, 240 W.Va. 42, 807 S.E.2d 290 (dishonesty/lies are particularly egregious for the profession)
  • Comm. on Legal Ethics v. Walker, 178 W.Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (sanctions aim to punish, deter, and restore public confidence)
Read the full case