745 S.E.2d 256
W. Va.2013Background
- Grindo, WV attorney, admitted violations of Rules 3.2 and 3.4(c) based on two counts arising from appellate conduct and failure to expedite litigation.
- ODC filed a two-count complaint; Hearing Panel Subcommittee found violations and recommended admonishment with additional remedies.
- Court reviewed de novo, as final arbiter of ethics, considering sanctions rather than re‑litigating facts.
- Mitigating factors (remedial steps, cooperation, family illness) and aggravating factors (experience, prior neglect, briefing lapses) were weighed to determine the sanction.
- Court concluded admonishment was inadequate; imposed public reprimand with continued management reforms, office evaluation, extra CLE hours, and costs.
- Grindo initially failed to appear for oral argument but later brief was filed; nonetheless, sanctions were imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate sanction for Rule violations | LDB urged admonishment | Grindo urged accepting LDB recommendation | Public reprimand and other sanctions imposed |
| Impact of mitigating and aggravating factors on sanction | Mitigating factors weighed heavily | Aggravating factors supported harsher discipline | Mitigating factors outweighed for public reprimand with additional sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Committee on Legal Ethics v. Blair, 174 W. Va. 494 (1984) (court is final arbiter of legal ethics decisions)
- Legal Ethics of W. Va. v. McCorkle, 192 W. Va. 286 (1994) (de novo standard for law questions; deference to factual findings)
- Committee on Legal Ethics v. Walker, 178 W. Va. 150 (1987) (determine punishment to deter and restore public confidence)
- Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel v. Jordan, 204 W. Va. 495 (1998) ( outlines Rule 3.16 factors for sanctions)
- Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Scott, 213 W. Va. 209 (2003) (lists mitigating factors for sanctions)