834 S.E.2d 721
W. Va.2019Background
- Travis C. Sayre, admitted 2011, was court‑appointed in multiple appeals and abuse/neglect matters between 2016–2017.
- Sayre repeatedly missed appellate deadlines, sought untimely extensions, and did not timely perfect appeals for several clients despite court orders and notices to show cause.
- In one criminal matter, while still counsel for a limited purpose, Sayre exchanged sexually suggestive messages with a court‑appointed client; no physical contact was alleged.
- The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) and Sayre stipulated to many factual violations and the Hearing Panel Subcommittee (HPS) recommended a 90‑day suspension, automatic reinstatement (if conditions met), two years supervised practice, and payment of costs.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and, while agreeing Sayre violated multiple Rules (including competence, diligence, communication, and Rules 8.4(a) and (d)), declined to find a Rule 1.8(j) violation (no sexual contact), and increased sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sayre violated duties of competence, diligence, and communication by failing to perfect appeals and follow appellate orders | ODC: Yes—he knowingly and repeatedly failed to timely perfect appeals and violated appellate rules | Sayre: Largely stipulated but explained client communications/confusion and workloads/illness contributed | Court: Found violations of Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 3.4(c), and 8.4(a)/(d) as stipulated |
| Whether Sayre violated Rule 1.8(j) (no sexual relations with client) | ODC/HPS: Alleged inappropriate sexualized communications intending to initiate sexual relationship warranted Rule 1.8(j) violation | Sayre: Messages were inappropriate but there was no sexual intercourse or sexual touching as Rule 1.8(j) defines | Court: Did not find a Rule 1.8(j) violation (no physical sexual contact), but found misconduct under Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(d) |
| Appropriate sanctions (HPS recommended 90‑day suspension with automatic reinstatement) | ODC/HPS: 90‑day suspension, automatic reinstatement if supervised agreement and costs paid, 2 years supervised practice, costs | Sayre: Consented to stipulations and recommended sanctions | Court: Increased sanction to 120‑day suspension with no automatic reinstatement, added 6 CLE ethics hours (beyond requirements), retained 2‑year supervised practice and costs |
| Weight of aggravating vs mitigating factors | ODC/HPS: Aggravating—prior discipline, pattern, multiple offenses, selfish sexual motive, client vulnerability | Sayre: Mitigating—cooperation and remorse | Court: Acknowledged mitigating factors but found aggravators substantial and supported a harsher sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Comm. on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W. Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (W. Va. 1994) (standard of review: de novo for law and sanctions; deference to factual findings)
- Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel v. Jordan, 204 W. Va. 495, 513 S.E.2d 722 (W. Va. 1998) (factors for imposing sanctions)
- Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Scott, 213 W. Va. 209, 579 S.E.2d 550 (W. Va. 2003) (definition and use of aggravating factors)
- Comm. on Legal Ethics v. Walker, 178 W. Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (W. Va. 1987) (sanctions must punish, deter, and restore public confidence)
- Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Conner, 234 W. Va. 648, 769 S.E.2d 25 (W. Va. 2015) (precedent imposing 90‑day suspension for pattern of neglect and communication failures)
- Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Stanton, 233 W. Va. 639, 760 S.E.2d 453 (W. Va. 2014) (severe sanctions for sexual relationships with clients)
- Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Artimez, 208 W. Va. 288, 540 S.E.2d 156 (W. Va. 2000) (discipline for sexual relationship‑related professional misconduct)
- Lawyer Disc. Bd. v. McGraw, 194 W. Va. 788, 461 S.E.2d 850 (W. Va. 1995) (burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings)