916 S.E.2d 681
W. Va.2025Background
- Scott A. Curnutte, a solo practitioner in West Virginia, faced four separate disciplinary complaints involving failure to act and communicate in client matters, as well as failing to respond to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC).
- The complaints covered several matters: a property dispute (McFarlan), an estate matter (Lambert), a criminal defense case (Orrillo), and conduct as a mediator (Kramer mediation), all within a roughly one-year period.
- Following hearings, the Hearing Panel Subcommittee (HPS) found multiple violations including lack of diligence, failure to communicate, failure to expedite litigation, misconduct in mediation, and repeated noncompliance with ODC requests for information.
- Mr. Curnutte admitted to failing to respond to ODC but contended the remaining allegations were not proven by clear and convincing evidence and argued that an admonishment was a sufficient sanction.
- The HPS recommended a six-month suspension, compliance with reinstatement procedures, and payment of disciplinary costs; the Supreme Court of Appeals upheld these sanctions due to clear evidence of violating professional duties, aggravating factors, and prior discipline.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument (LDB) | Respondent’s Argument (Curnutte) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to Diligently Represent Clients | Curnutte neglected client matters and delayed cases | Complicated matters caused delays, not neglect | Violation found |
| Failure to Communicate with Clients | Did not keep clients informed or respond to them | Denied failures; claimed communication attempts | Violation found |
| Failure to Comply with ODC Requests | Pattern of ignoring lawful ODC demands | Admitted non-response; claimed it doesn’t warrant suspension | Violation found |
| Sanction Appropriateness | Six-month suspension is justified due to pattern, aggravation, prior discipline | Admonishment is sufficient, community needs lawyer | Six-month suspension imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Committee on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W. Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (W. Va. 1994) (sets standard of review: deference to HPS factfinding, de novo on law)
- Committee on Legal Ethics v. Blair, 174 W. Va. 494, 327 S.E.2d 671 (W. Va. 1984) (Supreme Court is ultimate arbiter of legal ethics matters)
- Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Cain, 245 W. Va. 693, 865 S.E.2d 95 (W. Va. 2021) (appropriate deference to HPS, but ultimate judgment with Court)
- Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Couns. v. Jordan, 204 W. Va. 495, 513 S.E.2d 722 (W. Va. 1998) (factors for disciplinary sanctions)
- Committee on Legal Ethics of the W. Va. State Bar v. Walker, 178 W. Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (W. Va. 1987) (sanctions must deter and restore public confidence)