*1 754 H., parent interests. Hunter 231 W.Va. dence when no other has custodial
child’s best
L.,
118,
rights
subject
the
In Brandon
children.
Court held that courts parent where there had “preferences of the IV. showing unfitness with been no rel. Brandon L. v. CONCLUSION parent.” that State ex 674, Moats, 209 551 S.E.2d W.Va. reasons, foregoing For we reverse the the (2001). Further, explicitly the Act states 2013, May order the Circuit Court of family circuit court or court shall “[t]he County, Virginia, Mineral which re- West grant grandparent visitation to a reasonable appeal fused the Mother’s from upon finding would be in the a that visitation Family the March final order would not best interests of the child and County. Court of Mineral This case is fur- substantially parent-child interfere with the entry denying ther remanded for of an order relationship.” § W. Va.Code 48-10-501 grandparent rights grand- visitation to the (2006)(Repl.Vol.2009). parents. Finally, recognition of the re- imposed upon strictions have been This Court has observed that im- Mother as a result of the lower courts’ judicial Troxel case “instructs that a determi proper rulings, we direct the Clerk of the regarding grandparent nation whether visita Court to con- issue mandate this case rights appropriate may prem tion are not be temporaneously opinion. with this solely of the child ised on the best interests Reversed and Remanded. R., analysis.” Cathy L.M. v. Mark Brent 319, 327-28, 874-75 (2005) curiam). Rather, (per evaluating give significant
court “must also consider and
weight parents’ pre preference, thus
cluding intervening court from a fit
parent’s
making
decision
on a best interests
Troxel,
basis.”
Id.
the United States
altogether. she wanted to retain
control over her schedule and that of her
children. Consent to visitation is not a blan parent’s constitutionally pro
ket waiver to a
tected interest to make decisions about his or
her children. As it is conceded that parent,
Mother is a fit she has a constitution
ally protected right to make decisions re care,
garding custody, and control of her case,
children. Under the facts of this those
rights ability include the to make unfettered regarding
decisions the location of their resi-
756 *3 Davis, Jr., Esq., Harrisburg,
Robert H. PA, for Petitioner. Cipoletti, Esq.,
Rachael L. Fletcher Kirby, Esq., Joanne M. Vella Office of Disci- Charleston, WV, Counsel, Disciplinary for Re- and the Office of plinary (“ODC”). Counsel spondent. While has made commendable efforts deal with his problem, substance abuse our PER CURIAM. review and only consideration are not limited to Mr. upon case is before This intoxicating abuse of substances. 1, 2012, petition Dante June of L. record, Pursuant to our of the review entire practice for reinstatement of his license we find that Mr. has not satisfied Hearing law. Panel Subcommittee showing his burden of that he presently pos- (“HPS”) Lawyer Disciplinary Board integrity moral sesses character (“LDB”) hearing on conducted a Mr. DiTra- Therefore, resume the of law. we April pano’s on March *4 DiTrapano’s to Mr. li- decline reinstate law upon developed Based record 2013. cense. through testimony presented and evidence hearing, created during report the HPS a I. 17, 2013, containing on October its recom- DiTrapano’s regarding peti- mendation Mr. AND FACTUAL PROCEDURAL In report, that HPS recommended tion. BACKGROUND DiTrapano’s to this that Mr. license be Felony A. Federal Convictions following comple- reinstated the successful and Disbarment termination of federal tion and his sentence release, expected supervised of which is to petitioner, DiTrapano, The Dante a L. January along on with Charleston, occur Virginia. native of West He be- (1) following legal prac- conditions: that his abusing drugs gan illegal teenager, as a supervised by employer tice be or anoth- his years his which continued into as an under- supervisor er and the director of the West graduate early in student. his twen- While Lawyer ties, Virginia Program Assistance DiTrapano Mr. was arrested several (“WVLAP”) following years for two his rein- possession in connection with his of times (2) statement; reinstatement, prior that illegal to he drugs driving and for under the influ- required pay be to dues to the his West eventually sought in-patient He ence. treat- Virginia complete required State all Bar and citing February ment for addiction in (3) CLEs; to he be ordered reimburse as on which the date he became pro- the LDB the costs of the reinstatement clean and sober. (4) ceedings; that he be ordered to continue DiTrapano Mr. that he avers did not en- Anonymous at his attendance Alcoholics and gage in form of substance abuse for Anonymous meetings three to Narcotics four approximately years fifteen thereafter. Dur- (5) week; per remain a times that he mem- time, ing completed undergradu- his he years period
ber of WVLAP for a of two degree studies a ate and obtained law from the date of and that from reinstatement he Atlanta, John Marshall Law School Geor- upon request assist the be available to Board gia, graduating cum summa laude. Subse- speaking of Directors in members to bar who quently, he was admitted bar both addiction; struggle with alcoholism and/or Virginia Georgia. West Mr. (6) screens, give that he urine random at Charleston, Virginia, returned home to West period for a expense, to the WVLAP of firm, went to work at father’s law years two from reinstatement. DiTrapano, Barrett & DiPiero. work- While firm, have thoroughly reviewed the record at the Mr. avers that he We consideration, briefs, presented regularly twelve-step did not meet- attend cited, ings legal arguments sobriety authorities and the or remain focused on his be- "twelve-step program” powerlessness, a 1. The was first described the addict to admit to make Story Anonymous: inventory, in Alcoholics How personal promptly to moral admit Many Thousands WomenHave Recov- Men and wrongs, exact to admit the nature of his or her Among ered Alcoholism Bill W. wrongs, wrongs. amends for from and to make those things, steps requiring other the twelve include substance in violation with his so- addicted to a controlled cause he became overconfident (2005) frequently traveling § for work. briety 922(g)(3) and was of 18 U.S.C. and 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2) (2005). charged him § Count Two DiTrapano developed cough a In knowingly making a false statement pain wheezing. A doctor with chest representation a licensed dealer of fire- containing cough syrup to him a prescribed regarding dependence arms on a con- he did not hydrocodone. Mr. said trolled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C. history of inform the doctor of his substance 924(a)(1)(A). § was arrested that he knew he should not have abuse and Charleston, Virginia, on June West quickly medicine. He became ad- taken the 2006, pursuant federal arrest warrant. cough syrup and abused it for dicted to year. began acquiring and the next He then 26, 2006, pursuant June to Rule 3.27 of On oxycodone. DiTrapano pro- abusing Virginia Lawyer Disciplin- the West Rules cocaine, smoking stating crack gressed on Procedure,2 ary the ODC filed a after “spun that his use out of control” suspension seeking temporary the immediate child, six-year-old a friend of one of his DiTrapano’s of Mr. law license. That same children, accidently DiTrapa- drowned in the day, guilty pleaded he to Count One of the family swimming pool. no indictment,3 re- federal after which family early en- *5 report leased on bond and ordered to to the couraged drug him to enter a rehabilitation (PARCWEST) Hunting- Prestera Center in He traveled to Florida for treat- program. ton, twenty- Virginia, complete a West ment, began en- but before he treatment he day eight in-house substance abuse treat- use, gaged drug leading in additional to his Thereafter, program. ment he was released 14, 2006, in March for arrest Florida on pending on conditional home confinement 6, 2006, possession April of cocaine. On sentencing. was executed on his federal search warrant DiTrapano Mr. returned to federal court Charleston, Virginia. Among home in West 29, 2006, again August upon arrest for on items seized were several loaded fire- the forth in the violation of his bond as set arms, ammunition, and crack cocaine. Mr. Petition for United States Probation Office’s again DiTrapano April was arrested on Action on of Pretrial Release. Conditions 2006, Georgia charged driving in and with on alleged petition The various of the violations suspended possession and license of co- Sep- conditions of his home confinement. On again caine. He was arrested on June 8, 2006, tember the federal court revoked the Charleston, Virginia, in South West bond, petitioner’s pre-sentencing and release license, driving suspended having on a no custody remanding petitioner the to the of insurance, having expired registration, an day the United States Marshal. That the having expired inspection sticker. supplement to petition ODC filed a its seek- 14, 2006, DiTrapano On June Mr. was in- temporary suspension immediate of Mr. dicted in the United States District Court for DiTrapano’s law license to this Court. The Virginia the Southern of District West on petition September granted ODC’s was on separate felony two counts. Count One 14, 2006. charged knowingly possessing him with vari- DiTrapano initially affecting ous firearms in and interstate com- sentenced 10, 2006, being merce while an unlawful user federal court on October to a term of Anonymous findings report Supreme Alcoholics and other addiction re- ODC must its to the covery groups employ twelve-step program. right Appeals. lawyer Court of The has a to a hearing, hearing, Supreme the "[a]fter such Lawyer Disciplinary 2. Rule 3.27 of the Rules of lawyer may temporarily suspend the "upon receipt of Procedure states that evidence sufficient appro- order such other action as it deems (1) demonstrating lawyer that a has underlying disciplinary proceedings priate until committed a violation of the Rules of Profession- completed.” [LDB] before the have been Id. (2) disability poses al Conduct or is under a irreparable a substantial threat of harm to the government 3. The dismissed Count Two nolle public, the shall conduct an immediate [ODC] prosequi. investigation.” Following investigation, the the a term imprisonment forge signature of six months and of would and did of an years supervised three release with a recom- individual known to the United States At- (hereinafter participate Individual”)4 that he in a torney mendation substance “Known program. serving After abuse treatment promissory to a principal note super- imprisonment $500,000 and while thereafter on amount of and did state to United release, again April vised was arrested on Bank that the per- known individual had 1, 2007, charged simple possession sonally signed note, promissory 10, 2007, methamphetamine. April On (footnote added), all in violation of 18 U.S.C. screen, testing posi- failed a (2001). § August On Mr. Di- Upon tive for cocaine. Trapano entered a plea guilty written Officer, Senior United States Probation felony charge Stipulation based on a federal court revoked Mr. su- agreed Facts parties. Stipula- pervised release and ordered that he be im- stated, tion of in part: Facts prisoned years two without subse- quent supervised DiTrapano represented release. to United Bank that the known individual would be Following the ODC’s November executing papers the loan and would be petition seeking the annulment of Mr. DiTra- jointly liable on the loan. Mr. pano’s felony law license as a result of his papers then took the loan from United conviction, this Court annulled law license represented Bank and taking that he was May Having on 2007. also been admitted them to the known signa- individual for his Georgia, bar his license there was forged ture. Mr. then annulled on November signature known individual’s on the loan prison, While federal papers and returned them to United Bank. voluntarily participated in a nine-month Resi- *6 DiTrapano Mr. was aware that Drug dential and Alcohol Assistance Pro- known individual did intend to in invest gram. Upon being prison, released from project but that the known individual had completed program a six-month aftercare at said that he wanted portion to fund his of Center, Community Corrections a half- investment, $225,000.00, approximately Rand, way Virginia. in house West Since from liquid the known individual’s assets. then, continuously he states that he has at- DiTrapano Mr. knew that the known indi- family tended substance abuse and counsel- financially vidual did not intend to be re- ing, Anonymous Alcoholics and Narcotics sponsible DiTrapano’s portion for Mr. of Anonymous meetings, and church services. DiTrapano the investment. Mr. knew that gainful He also states that he has maintained arrangement project for the was that employment. DiTrapano Mr. asserts that he DiTrapano Mr. and the known individual April has been clean and sober since $450,000.00, would invest a total of 2007. $225,000.00 each, $15,000.00 good with 17, 2009, July On the United States Attor- money being faith provided up front and ney charging filed an information that Mr. $435,000.00 closing pro- due at the on the DiTrapano, July in or about at or near ject. Charleston, Virginia, West knowingly did make a false statement for purpose influencing $435,000.00 DiTrapano of the actions of Mr. did in fact use Bank,
United purposes____Mr. institution the accounts of for loan related DiTra- $35,000.00 by pano deposited which were then insured the Federal from the loan Deposit Corporation, proceeds Insurance ... personal checking connec- into his application subsequently tion with defendant’s to obtain account and used the $500,000, a loan in the amount purposes____Mr. of for non-loan related Di- $5,000.00 Trapano defendant LOUIS DANTE DITRAPANO took cash from the loan sign would and did proceeds deposited his own name and that were into the ac- partner DiTrapano. 4. The individual” was a "known client and busi- ness of Mr.
760 pur- it for non-loan wrongdoings.
count and used related felony With to his poses.5 being conviction for possession an addict in charge providing firearms and his for (Footnote added). accepted The court firearms, false statement to obtain Mr. Di- following sentencing plea, hearing on Trapano stated: January DiTrapano Mr. sen- was 2006, along In June of with the crime of day imprisonment, years to one five tenced firearms”, being possession “an addict in release, 1,000 supervised hours of com- I charged “providing was a false munity currently serving service. He is statement to obtain firearms.” This supervised sentence of release which he ex- charge purchase arose from the gun of a at January pects complete on the South Charleston Gun Show I where checked a box that indicated I was not B. Reinstatement Petition drugs. during addicted to This occurred Hearing and HPS my relapse and at a time where I was in 1, 2012, pursuant On June to Rules 3.30 my denial of disease. Lawyer and 3.337 of the Disciplin- Rules of felony also discussed his (“Rule ary Procedure 3.30” and “Rule 3.33” making conviction for a false statement to a respectively), petition filed a Ques- financial institution. He said in the for reinstatement of his law license in West tionnaire: Virginia. August On he also filed a 27th, August On pled guilty 2009 I to 18 early for motion termination of his federal § (making U.S.C. a false statement supervised sentence of released. re- That institution). charge a financial in- quest by was denied September order dated my signing volved me name and the name 17,2012. my partner business on a loan docu- reinstatement, Along with his for responsibility my ment. I take full submitted a Reinstatement my crime and am remorseful actions. Questionnaire (“Questionnaire”) required as January On 2010 I was sentenced 3.33(b). Questionnaire, Rule In the Judge day jail, years Johnston 1to described, among Release, things, Supervised other and 1000 hours of Stipulation explains good 5. The of Facts that the en- considered in the determination of moral loan, $500,000, tirety deposited into character and fitness. *7 DiTrapano's an account in Mr. client's name. $435,000 of the loan amount proce- was used for loan 7.Rule 3.33 describes the reinstatement $35,000 purposes, deposited following related lawyer's was into Mr. dure the annulment of a law account, DiTrapano's personal checking imposes following require- license. The rule the $5,000 by DiTrapano. was taken in person seeking cash Mr. on a ments reinstatement of his/ Stipulation The of Facts does not state what her law license: $25,000 remaining proceeds, came of the in loan (b) expiration years After the of five from the glean and we are unable the to fate of that sum disbarment, person date of whose license to entirety from the of the record. practice law has been or shall be annulled in this State and who shall desire reinstatement states, 6. Rule 3.30 in full: petition of such license file a verified in reason, any nonpay- Supreme Appeals reciting When for other than the of the fees, membership any person ment of person the license of cause of such annulment and what the practice law requirements has been or shall be shall have done in satisfaction of annulled, rehabilitation, restitution, suspended or whether or not for a as to conditions or thereto, requirements limited time or tion, conditions, until as to restitu- other acts incident reason which person or some other act shall be the should be reinstated as a member satisfied, person such shall not become entitled of the state bar and his or her license to State, engage practice in petitioner the of law in this law restored. The shall elapsed require- completed whether such time has question- or such also file a reinstatement restitution, conditions, provided by ments as to or some naire [ODC]. the At the time satisfied, person filing other act questionnaire have been until such the with the good standing Supreme Appeals, shall have been restored to as a Clerk of the Court of the Virginia petitioner member of the copy West State Bar as shall also file a of each with the [ODC], provided Any prompt herein. conviction for false which shall conduct a investi- swearing, perjury any felony, per- gation report and the thereof and shall file a with a conduct, prior subsequent son’s shall be [HPS] [LDB]. Community signed note, Service. The Federal Sen- the exactly bank was less tencing Guidelines calculated a sentence in weeks after year we buried a 6 old close months, range Judge family the of 41-51 friend ... but who in drowned our granted swimming pool Johnston me a variance the on June 10th 2005. I was substantially departed shape emotionally sentence and from horrible try- and was guidelines to deal following for the reasons: with the horrible events of that day by numbing my mind. I do not even i. The conduct occurred .in June 2005 signing papers remember at United predated charge which involving day. National Bank that guns prison that I served the sentence myself on availed to the RDAP Pro- also Ques- included in the gram tionnaire a wrongdoing: fourth act of ii. That there were no victims to the Also, jail/prison when I was in during crime, potential all victims were made years, my part- former 2006/2007/2008 project whole and the that the loan was DiTrapano, ners at Barrett and DiPiero hugely taken out for was successful paid a client10 a substantial amount of complaining iii. That there was not a wit- money responsible that I was misap- ness, potential victim I asked that propriating. large A part of this prosecuted potential not be and the vic- was used for the during my client but tim wrote a letter to asking the Court relapse, I was too close to this client and that I not be incarcerated did not professionally my act handling of power iv. That I had attorney8 a valid Brokerage Although accounts. there sign potential victims name [sic] explanations conduct, are for some of this I to the document actions, was categorically wrong in my episode during my v. That the occurred them, have taken responsibility for relapse and that while that is not an punished severely. have been All of the excuse, any it vitiated intent money that dispute was of colorable vi. And that the Court received over 100 paid to charged the client and to me as in support letters of a non-ineareerated during income 2005 and 2006. This income sentence and the courtroom was full of caused the extreme obligations financial community lawyers members and who that I have with the Virgi- IRS and West disagreed timing with the prose- of this Department nia of Tax and Revenue. To findings cution. Most of these are set the extent of that amounts to fully forth more Sentencing' Tran- restitution, I wanted to disclose that to the script attached.9 Court and the Office of Disciplinary Coun- (Footnotes added). alleged He further in the sel. Questionnaire that his use made him (Footnote added). paid amount incapable forming the intent to commit *8 partners former approxi- to the client was this crime: mately million. $1.4 important It is also to note that I cer- tainly requisite lacked the intent to Additionally, commit disclosed in any crime that would Questionnaire constitute fraud dur- the previously that he had ing my relapse my incapaci- because of by been admonished the LDB. He stated Specifically, tation. day actually on the I that the admonishment arose from a com- assertion, "power attorney” Contrary 8.This Court has defined as to Mr. the by only person ap- "a written instrument court considered five of which one the six factors listed by Questionnaire during points agent attomey-in-fact another as his sentencing hearing; the the court did not men- upon authority perform and confers him cer- power attorney. tion the existence of a valid 23; specified Agency § acts. 3 Am.Jur.2d tain Agency § 2A Valley C.J.S. 150." Kanawha Bank 10. The client he describes is the "known individ- Friend, v. felony ual” discussed with tion for the false statements Mr. to United Bank. convic- 530(1979). made finance, involving representation represented of a client I plaint the him that basic have, know, personal injury you you in a matter.11 that if a million dol- lars invested an investment account investigation pur- The commenced an ODC earning percent you that’s ten have DiTrapano’s petition suant to Mr. for rein- you opportunity short-term business that hearing A statement. reinstatement money percent, you can borrow at four 17,2013, April held on March money principal leave the in the account to address the matter. Numerous witnesses percent you earn the ten borrow the testify appeared DiTrapa- on behalf of Mr. money, you pay short-term it and then no.12 Mr. also testified. therefore, back you disrupt never the felony regard to his conviction for With investment. Bank, making statements to United false specifically The questioned HPS Mr. DiTra- DiTrapano told the HPS: pano money about loan that was not used got by myself. I the note could’ve whole purpose of the loan: get I had the credit to the whole note [DiTrapano]: part personal, about myself. my I get did not need client to know, you money personal used the note. I mean it was a deal and we both stuff, was, I don’t know what that but it went in I on the deal and so went to the always "my has stood mind that there bank, thinking authority I that had to do money was a certain amount of that I had that because I had had numerous conver- coming to me for some reason and that— particular person sations with this over the obligated and that I was on the loan and I him____ years represented course of the I money borrowed the and the bank knew $500,000 deal,
the deal was not a but was know, And, know, a—I don’t you what was it 470 or some- just apparently, it’s —but so, know, thing, you you but whatever it was. And authority that that I wasn’t know, because, going pay I was to have to that disputing had. And I’m not that know, money you thought. back at that time. I It impaired thought I was and I didn’t, up got ended I authority. in trouble before I had a that I had the I obvious- chance ly. my I to do that. signed went in and name on the note, signed note and name on the [sic] facts, I do stand those but there power attorney which I had to do. know, reason, probably you was some that $35,000 put
I in that account that with, know, you didn’t have to do I was legitimate It was a business deal where just trying myself. to take it for I don’t everybody got paid thought on it and I during period know what that is that mind, my probably impaired, that I had time. authority to do it and I could understand why thought I Well, that because that was the say it [HPS]: would be fair to that but, know, way things, you we did though question even there’s a as to how testimony grand that was made before money may that have been used ... jury authority. said I did not have that you justify party couldn’t to the other yours; inwas fact meant to be explained sought He reason to take would that be fair? protect out the loan was to best his client’s investments: [DiTrapano]: I think that’s fair. *9 Questionnaire Investigative 11. The states: This case was heard Panel (I.D. and I complaint was admonished. There was a filed No: 04-02- 007). complaint This involved a of a Personal Injury large client ... who was with her dissatisfied Included in the record were a number agreed settlement she after to it. The ODC of letters addressed to this Court members of dismissed the case and the file was closed. public support DiTrapano. of Mr. The case, Arising complaint out of the same acknowledges the submission of these let- (I.D. 03-02-078). complaint filed No: This ters. Physical therapist [client]. involved the for the asked, questioned know, The also I you HPS never was where did misappropriation go happened as to the of client funds this or what to this? It was Questionnaire. just that he in his He described a matter of accounting. paid stated that former firm law to one of only way And the anybody that ever approximately clients $1.4 knows about that is I my disclosed it in
million. The firm attributed the million $1.4 they when talked about restitu- I— DiTrapano. income as to Mr. The ODC tion, said, Barrett, DiTrapano, I and DiPie- questioned him as follows: on, paid know, you ro restitution some Q you agree ... [D]o with me that the money to a former money client for that paid law firm back about million? $1.4 may have misappropriated been not have been. yes. A If that’s — Q liability you that the tax that Was questioned The ODC further received? on the issue:
A Yes. Q dispute you You don’t as sit here Q today you that Okay. going my very misappropriated And to next funds out question, pay any Barney firm of that Smith the law didn’t inter- account? They paid est. the sum and then assessed dispute A I don’t they it that it’s—that
you with the income? misappropriated, were but I any don’t have They A assessed me with the income. exactly real recollection toas what some of moneys, you It was a shift of know. It moneys of, those you went for in terms money was these accounts —this know, is owed to misappropriated what was and what client, so, know, you going we’re to take was not. money, pay going him and we’re you. going call it income to We’re Q Okay. I’mSo not sure —I’m not sure. know, expense you I got it and I never — know, You we can—I’m you’re not sure if liability the tax on it. taking issue with the term “embezzled” or elaborated: not, you but if take client funds that don’t my any money I never in life embezzled belong you, misappropriation that’s still my my from dad’s law firm or from law that, agree conversion. And we with myself. partner firm or from aAs of that right? firm, money law no came ever out of that problem A I mean the is that I don’t law firm. I’ve never been accused of it. It happened know what of that mon- happened. money never that the law ey and there was a whole bunch differ- paid specific person firm back to a was the on, things going including, you ent know
result of a civil issue at the end of the impairment my severe part.... on bookkeeping that showed certain amounts money gone from certain accounts that I I think using misappropriated I’m loose- told, know, you was never asked about or ly.13 always I don’t know. I used it more they doing, what they were other than of, know, you in terms I don’t know what it reimbursing were this client this amount of and, know, you meant for wrong it was money. to, know, you me anything have done happened my And what [sic] was is know, you with that in the with — interest potential the firm and future mind I state of that was in. And that’s— to, given, fees and stuff guess, were all I know, you my position that’s on it. know, you or, know, you themselves new know, partners paid, you the —whatev- accounting
er [Q] showed on the other dispute my But there is no in mind know, person $800,000 you when it was over with. You misappropriate did from Dictionary "misappropri- Dictionary 13. Black’s Law defines Embezzlement.” Black's Law *10 application property (8th ed.2004). ation” as ”[t]he of another's . money dishonestly to one’s own use. See found Barney misappropriation, of the HPS Smith ac- the issue out of that this client you agree? that you or do not count. Do this, you accept [d]uring that I the Petitioner was tell the time that
A I can everything for in to his 2006 convic- for that and incarcerated relation responsibility my tion, wrong partners paid that was a result one of I did his former law that you I am more approximately that clients million dol- addiction and his $1.4 than — know, way misappropriated. overboard with all of gone have lars that Petitioner had making my in people Questionnaire, involved with that Peti- In his Reinstatement everything stated, large part to them for own restitution tioner of this “[a] done, know, support of me they’ve you my in during used for the client but making relapse, that restitution---- I to this client and in was too close professionally my handling in did not act you tell and I still main- I cannot What fur- Brokerage accounts.” Petitioner today hap- I did or what it is what tain “[although expla- ther notes that there are that____ pened to conduct, of this I was nations some Well, they know where it mon- Q [the actions, categorically wrong my have to the client. ey] go, didn’t which was them, responsibility taken and have say. Okay. you If want to A that’s what punished severely.” been Well, Q Okay. it’s not what I want to any regard- findings HPS did not make true, go say. Is that trae or not it didn’t ing DiTrapano’s previous admonishment. client, correct? The HPS concluded that Mr. that, but, really you A I don’t know “presented array impressive had of wit- know, taking paid I it back and I’m hearing, indi- nesses who testified at the position that it all—that none of it went to provided support” viduals who letters the client. “clearly and letters those statements (Footnote added). support Petitioner’s reinstatement.” Fur- thermore, Di- the HPS determined that Mr. Report C. The HPS’s Trapano’s major mitigat- were a “addictions Recommendation “egregious” factor” to the nature of his felony Although concluding two convictions. 17, 2013, report and recom- In its October proved a that Mr. “has record mendation, findings made of fact the HPS convincing rehabilitation clear and evi- I.A., with those stated in Part consistent dence,” the HPS noted that he supra. The HPS also found that sobriety 15-year period had a before the has worked hard to rehabilitate Petitioner legal prob- relapse that contributed to his by having completed various sub- himself relapse lems. understood to Because be programs, including pro- stance abuse a not uncommon feature of alcoholism and continuously gram prison, as well as addiction, drag relapse and because follow- participating family in substance abuse and ing reinstatement could create substantial counseling, and has attended Alcoholics public’s adverse effect on the confidence Anonymous Anonymous and Narcotics justice perception the admission of and its meetings. Petitioner states that he has bar, strong support we recommend and made amends with the reconnected addict, monitoring included in to be con- people he had hurt when he was an friends, ditions for reinstatement. including family, and former colleagues and clients. Finally, while the HPS determined that Mr. Additionally, “supervised the HPS found that Mr. DiTra- sentence of release gainfully pano employed has been for the was intended to be rehabilitative rather than not “conclude that majority punitive,” of time his law license has been the HPS could annulled, law license and that Mr. intends to the reinstatement of Petitioner’s pay despite eligi- will not have a substantial adverse effect on off his substantial debt bility bankruptcy. public justice to file for in the administration of so With *11 long serving as Petitioner is his sentence of arguing briefs to the Court against, for and supervised respectively, release.” the reinstatement of Mr. DiTra- pano’s law license. DiTrapa-
The HPS recommended no’s Although states in his brief
law license be reinstated without further
to this Court
willing
that he was
to have the
petition
hearings beginning
at the end
case submitted in conference on the recom-
petitioner’s satisfactory completion
HPS,
of
and mendations of the
he now asks that the
supervised
termination of his sentence of
adopt
Court
the recommendations of the
release,
following
with the
conditions:
HPS or that he “be
immediately,
reinstated
probation,
3.15(1)
pursuant
on
of The Law-
legal practice
1. Petitioner’s
super-
be
yer
Procedure,14
Disciplinary
with the same
(or
by
employer
vised
supervi-
other
conditions as the HPS recommended
sor)
until
the director of the [WVLAP]
14, 2015,
January
or at the conclusion of his
years
following
two
reinstatement
supervised release whichever
is sooner.”
pursuant
agreement
to a written
be-
(Footnote added).
Petitioner,
supervisor,
tween
the di-
rector, and the
Disciplinary
Office of
This Court
arguments
heard the
from the
Counsel[;]
parties
January
on
at which time
reinstatement,
2. Prior to
Petitioner be
the case was submitted to this Court for
required
pay
his dues to the West
3.33(e).15
pursuant
decision
to Rule
Virginia
complete
State Bar and
all re-
CLE’s;
quired
II.
3. Petitioner be ordered to reimburse the
[LDB] the costs of these reinstatement
STANDARD OF REVIEW
proceedings pursuant to Rule 3.15
of
long
We have
held that “[t]his
Lawyer Disciplinary
Rules of
Procedure.
legal
Court is
final arbiter of
prob
ethics
4. Petitioner be ordered to continue his
lems and must make the ultimate decisions
Anonymous
attendance at Alcoholics
public
about
reprimands, suspensions or an
Anonymous
Narcotics
meetings 3-4
attorneys’
nulments of
licenses to
week[;]
times
Syl. pt.
law.”
Legal
Committee on
Ethics
5. Petitioner
remain a member of the
Blair,
v.
ings
supported
assessing
application
are not
“in
an
tive,
given
and substantial evidence on the whole
reinstatement consideration must be
to
original
record.
the nature of the
offense for which
applicant
Obviously,
was disbarred.
3,
Syl. pt.
Legal
Committee on
Ethics v.
underlying
more serious the nature of the
286,
McCorkle, 192
452
W.Va.
S.E.2d 377
offense, the more
task
difficult the
becomes
(1994).
3,
Brown,
Syl. pt.
See also
In re
to show a basis for reinstatement.”
Id. at
(1980) (“Absent
226,
W.Va.
[t]he
rule for reinstatement
is
pri-
His misconduct includes a
attorney
admonishment;
use;
that a disbarred
in order
re-
illegal drug
multiple
arrests,
gain
admission to the
of law bears
some of which were related to his
showing
presently
the burden of
possession
illegal
that he
drugs; knowingly pos-
possesses
integrity,
sessing
moral
affecting
character
various firearms in and
in-
legal competence
prac-
being
to resume the
terstate commerce while
an unlawful
tice of law. To overcome the adverse ef- user of and addicted to a controlled sub-
disbarment,
stance,
previous
fect of the
he must
a crime for which he received a felo-
conviction;
ny
demonstrate a record of
knowingly making
rehabilitation.
a false
addition, the court must conclude that such
representation
statement and
to a licensed
justifiable
reinstatement will not have a
dealer
regarding
dependence
of firearms
substance;
public
substantial adverse effect on the
knowingly
on a controlled
mak-
justice
confidence in the administration of
purpose
false statement for the
of in-
bank,
and in this
fluencing
the seriousness of the
the actions of a
a crime for
leading
impor-
conviction;
conduct
to disbarment
an
felony
which he received a second
tant consideration.
“misappropriating”
client funds.
Brown,
recognized
560-61,
The HPS
that the conduct un-
at
678 S.E.2d at
derlying
egregious,
the two felonies was
but
66-67.
Court annulled Mr. Brown’s law
license,
DiTrapano’s drug
concluding
that Mr.
addiction was a
“[mjisappropriation
major mitigating
factor. Mr.
attorney
at-
of funds
turpi
involves moral
tude;
all
tributes
of his misconduct
it is an act infected with deceit and
*13
561,
definitively dishonesty.”
addiction. The Court has never
Id. at
Board v. 223 678 S.E.2d W.Va. high premium honesty on the attorneys (2009). 60 practice admitted to law in Virginia. West Brown, Brown, Jr., Lawyer Disciplinary Stanton, In attorney Raymond Board v. $8,000 901, 225 illegal drugs, while addicted to stole W.Va. 695 S.E.2d 908 (2010), agreed from the Court purpose his client trust account for the with the HPS’s observation that purchasing cocaine. In its recommenda- license, regarding tion Mr. Brown’s law the public expects lawyers [t]he to exhibit dependency LDB concluded that “chemical highest the standards integrity [of] should be treated like alcoholism and consid- honesty. Lawyers duty have a not to en- mitigating determining ered a factor in gage in involving dishonesty, conduct Brown, appropriate sanction.” 223 W.Va. at fraud, or interference with the administra- Therein, 678 at 65. S.E.2d the LDB justice. Lawyers tion of are officers of the Lawyer relied on this Court’s decision in operate court and must within the bounds Hardison, Disciplinary Board v. 205 W.Va. of the law and act in a manner to maintain (1999), 518 S.E.2d 108 in which integrity of the Bar. the Court “subseribe[d] to the modern view Honesty important quality is such an in at- However, that alcoholism is an illness.” in torneys Virginia that the West Rules of Pro- Brown, deciding disagreed we with the LDB specifically fessional Conduct implicitly distinguished from alcoholism ad- require attorneys honestly deal with diction, deciding that Mr. Brown’s addiction clients, courts, parties. their and with third mitigat- to illicit substances should not be a See, Conduct, e.g., Rules of Professional Rule regal’d factor with to his misconduct. (“A lawyer knowingly 3.3 shall not ... make The Court said: a false statement of material fact or law to a While this Court considered alcoholism tribunal____”); Rules of Professional Con- Hardison, mitigating as a factor in (“In duct, Rule 4.1 representing course of illegal clearly abuse substance is lawyer knowingly a client a shall not ... distinguishable. legal Alcohol is a sub- make a false statement of material fact or stance; Thus, any attorney cocaine is not. person....”); law to a third Rules of Profes- illegal who embarks on the use of an sub- Conduct, (“An applicant sional Rule 8.1 knowingly stance in the first instance is admission to the bar ... shall not ... know- violating jurisdic- the law. in Courts some ingly make a false statement of material absolutely rejected tions have the idea of fact....”); Conduct, Rules of Professional considering illegal addiction to an sub- (“It professional Rule 8.4 is misconduct for a mitigating stance as a factor. lawyer to ... commit a criminal act that adversely lawyer’s honesty,
reflects on Although absolutely this Court does not lawyer trustworthiness or fitness as in preclude illegal drugs respeets[, engage addiction to as a or] other in conduct involv- fraud, deceit, ing dishonesty, misrepresen- consideration and while Mr. Brown’s ac- tation____”). part tions have stemmed from his Rules Professional addiction, cocaine simply provide guidelines by we cannot con- Conduct which at- accept torneys done his behavior and cannot must conform their conduct so as to Board’s recommendation. protect public public’s perception and the $5,000 justice. syl. pt.
of the administration of See he took an additional in cash without a part, Lawyer Disciplinary Sayre, legitimate justification doing v.Bd. so.16 (“Dis- (2000) attempts now to minimize attorney of an ... barment law is by stating his dishonest conduct that the loan protection public pro- for the and the ultimately paid in full and that his client fession.”). gravity was not harmed his actions. The The misconduct to which Mr. of Mr. misconduct cannot be Questionnaire replete harm; admits minimized the lack of “[t]here does activity. Although dishonest he was not con- not exist the Rules of Professional Con- knowingly making victed of harm, a false statement Lawyer duct a ‘no no foul’ Rule.” representation Blevins, licensed dealer of Disciplinary Bd. v. *14 regarding dependence (2008). firearms his on a con- Mr. DiTra- substance, Ques- trolled he admitted in pano Questionnaire also asserted in his that tionnaire that he “cheeked a box that indicat- activity culminating acquisi- the fraudulent drugs” ed was not addicted to [he] while he height tion of the loan occurred at the of his drugs. was in fact addicted to He stated drug shortly addiction and after the death of during relapse that “this occurred and [his] the child at his home. He stated that at the at a time where time, [he] was denial of [his] using drugs he was to numb his mind disease.” signing and that he did not “remember papers day.”17 at United Bank National that troubling DiTrapano’s
Far more is Mr. knowingly making conviction for a false DiTrapano’s With our examination of Mr. purpose influencing honesty, statement for the “misap- we must also consider the DiTrapano actions of a presents propriation” alleged Questionnaire. bank. Mr. he in his activity single this criminal as one deeply by report instance of We are troubled that his dishonesty resulting from his “paid addiction. former law firm a client a substantial superficially; We cannot see the crime so [approximately amount of mil- $1.4 behavior involved numerous responsible misappro- lion] instances of de- that was [he] necessarily premeditation, ceit that priating.” that, involved DiTrapano represents Mr. Moreover, planning patience. during period question, this dis- the time he was honesty relationship involved his illegal drugs with his addicted to and did not remem- client, position Stipulation of trust. The of ber how his client’s funds were used. While questioned Facts makes clear that the crime com- he was numerous times about his bank; during HPS, mitted at by least two visits to the conduct the ODC and the the facts bank, DiTrapano Mr. consulted with might why that elucidate paid the law firm left, signed and then he returned with why its client million dollars $1.4 time, span documentation. Over that DiTrapano amount was attributed to Mr. as DiTrapano lied to fully the bank about his client’s income developed. were never As we loan, above, intent ultimately recognized to be liable on the the burden Di- is on Mr. subjecting $500,000 liability. Trapano his client to a prove that he fit to resume the law, He admitted that he knew his client did not yet provided he has not this acquire desire to the loan. necessary fully Furthermore Mr. Court with the information DiTrapano forged signature. his client’s evaluate this issue. The facts before the facts give also indicate that Mr. trans- Court rise to an inference that Mr. $35,000 ferred at least proceeds DiTrapano of the loan mishandled and converted a sub- personal cheeking into his account and that stantial sum of his client’s funds.18 With minimum, $40,000 appear 18.Unfortunately, 16. At a incomplete would we find the record have been converted Mr. from its undeveloped important on this issue. We purported purpose personal to his own use. dismayed important are that so an issue as a "misappropriation” DiTrapano's which record, Upon our review of the we find that partners paid approximately $1.4 former million only portion regarding of the misconduct developed to a former client was not bank fraud that Mr. claims he does parties in this reinstatement case. signing papers not remember is loan at the bank. Therefore, alleged misappropriation, we find that Mr. DiTrapano’s major apprehen- has left us with drug addiction is not a mitigating factor with regarding integrity honesty, sions regard to his misconduct. question now return to the We whether, Now we turn to pursu DiTrapano’s drug
whether Mr.
addiction
Brown,
ant to In re
the seriousness of the
mitigating
should be considered a
factor with
underlying
ease,
offenses in this
as a thresh
regard to his dishonest conduct. We are
matter, precludes
old
reinstatement
such
with,
begin
loath to find that it should. To
inquiry
that further
as to
DiTrapano’s
the misconduct involved
this case is noth
rehabilitation is not warranted. Undoubted
Hardison,
recog
like
in which the Court
misconduct,
ly, his
some of which involves
mitigating
nized alcoholism as a
factor.
deceit
dishonesty,
is serious and would
Hardison,
gravamen
complaints
“[t]he
itself warrant sanction if he still had his law
against
pattern
Hardison
show[ed]
of ne
3.18(d)
license. Rule
of the Rules of Disci
glect or inattention to the needs of his
plinary
provides
Procedure
attorney’s
that an
clients,
clients,
lack of communication with
law license
suspended
be
or annulled
pursue
and failure to
his clients’ cases and
upon
attorney’s
conviction of a crime
meet deadlines.” 205
at
adversely
that reflects
attorney’s
on the
hon
S.E.2d at 108. Mr.
misconduct
*15
trustworthiness,
esty,
or fitness. We have
Hardison;
passive
was not
like the conduct in
held that “[detaining money collected in a
Mr.
affirmatively
acted
a de
professional
fiduciary
capacity without
ceitful and dishonest manner.
bona
coupled
fide claim
-withacts of dishones
Furthermore, while Brown states
that
fraud,
ty,
misrepresentation
deceit or
justify
“this
absolutely preclude
Court does not
ad-
attorney’s
annulment of an
license to
consideration,”
illegal drugs
diction to
as a
5,
Syl. pt.
law.”
Legal
Committee on
Ethics
only
we indicated that we would
consider
Pence,
v.
attorney,
they
purchased
were not
to be
original
petitioner
offense for which the
of his
addiction.
disbarred, (2)
used in furtherance
petitioner’s
charac-
However, this misconduct does reflect on his
ter, maturity,
experience
at the time of
honesty,
disregard
and it too shows a
for the
(3)
disbarment,
petitioner’s occupa-
law.
tions and conduct in the time since his
(4)
disbarment,
elapsed
the time
since the
Undoubtedly,
misconduct
(5)
disbarment,
petitioner’s pres-
regarding
would
the bank loan
have warrant-
competence
legal
ent
skills.
in the
ed his disbarment even
absence of
gives
misconduct. His behavior
us
other
ser-
already
majority
We have
discussed the
integrity
ability
ious doubt as to his
and his
regarding
relevant material
the first and sec-
adequately represent
protect
clients’
ond factors of the In re Smith rehabilitation
are, however, cognizant
interests. We
of Mr.
test, finding
many
the nature of his
DiTrapano’s argument
primary pur-
that his
egregious
offenses is
and that his actions
pose
taking
protect
the loan
out
was to
truthfulness,
poorly
integrity,
reflected
on his
acknowledge
Di-
his client’s assets. We
and character. We add that he committed
Trapano’s argument
although
the fraud
experienced
his offenses as an
and mature
perpetrated
on the bank resulted
un-
attorney, having been admitted to the West
client,
liability being placed
wanted
on his
his Virginia
years.
State Bar for at least ten
entirely
argu-
motive was not
selfish. This
factor,
Regarding
years
the fourth
seven
ment, however, ignores the uncontested fact
passed
have
since the annulment of
Di-Mr.
that Mr.
diverted some of these
Trapano’s law license and the issuance of this
proceeds
personal
loan
checking
to his
ac-
time,
opinion.
passage
With
only
count. This misconduct not
involves
Lawyer Disciplinary
the Court said in
law,
dishonesty
disregard
and a
for the
it
*16
Moore,
780, 793,
Board v.
214
591
W.Va.
“[m]isapproriation
constitutes an act of
of
(2003):
338,
S.E.2d
351
by
attorney [involving]
turpi-
an
funds
moral
tude ...
an act
infected
deceit and
Many
considering
reasons can be seen for
Brown,
561,
dishonesty.”
223
at
678
passage
evaluating
of the
of time in
a
Lawyer
(quoting
Disciplinary
S.E.2d at 67
petition for reinstatement
from disbar-
Coleman,
Bd. v.
219 W.Va.
639
may bring greater maturity
ment. Time
882,
(2006)).19
S.E.2d
889
misconduct;
than at the time of the
time
may give
opportunity
person
for a
to
have held that “[rehabilitation
We
is
address,
recognize,
and overcome the cir-
by
demonstrated
of
course
conduct that
cumstances and conditions that led to the
enables the court to conclude there is little
misconduct;
percep-
time
reduce the
likelihood that after such rehabilitation is
gravity, perhaps
tion of the misconduct’s
completed
applicant
and the
is readmitted to
changing
by
because of
placing
mores or
practice
engage
unpro
of law he will
perspective.
the conduct in a historical
2,
Brown,
Syl. pt.
fessional conduct.”
In re
166 W.Va.
same sign conclusion. his client’s name to the loan documents. We find that DiTrapano’s Mr. In our consideration of the third In re continued reference to and pow- reliance on a factor, i.e., Smith DiTrapano’s conduct attorney attempt er of is an to minimize his license, since the annulment of his law we responsibility for his misconduct. applaud remaining clean April and sober since 2007. From the Second, HPS, testifying when before the involving eases addiction that come before DiTrapano repeatedly stated that he state, keenly the courts this Court is thought authority he had the sign devastating aware of the effects of addiction client’s name to the loan documents.20 How- treating and the difficulties in and overcom- ever, Stipulation of Facts states that Mr. recognize addiction. We also the exten- DiTrapano was aware that the known indi- community performed by sive service vidual portion intended to fund his DiTrapano. clearly great He has made ef- assets, liquid investment from his not from a forts to rebuild his life outside of his addic- positions loan. The are inconsistent. We tion, sustaining through gainful himself em- again must conclude that this behavior indi- ployment prison. since his release from His DiTrapano’s unwillingness cates Mr. to take gone labors have not unnoticed in com- responsibility full for his misconduct. relatives, munity; neighbors pro- friends and testimony support vided and letters in of his Third, Questionnaire is not consistent readmission. with Mr. testimony before the record, Upon our careful review of the Questionnaire, HPS. In the he stated that his however, we found inconsistencies between paid former firm his client “a substantial HPS, Question- his statements to the responsible amount of [he] *17 naire, and the Statement of Facts that lead However, misappropriating.” for before the question appreciation wrong- us to his of the HPS, changed position, stating he his ability fulness of his misconduct and his money “may the misappropriated have been conform his behavior to the Rules of Profes- Furthermore, may not have been.” sional Conduct at this time. Because of Questionnaire admitted in the that his behav- inconsistencies, these we do not believe that “categorically wrong,” ior was but before the DiTrapano adequate has demonstrated any HPS he testified that he had not seen of honesty rehabilitation with to his and and, accounting the done the firm “I don’t integrity. happened know what with of that mon- First, ey.” having any Without recollection of Questionnaire, his DiTrapano in the actions, seeing accounting and without the made a regarding false statement the sen- firm, performed by his we fail tencing hearing to see how Mr. on his bank fraud conviction. affirmatively honestly could alleged He and that one of the facts considered Questionnaire judge state in the that he determining the in his was “cate- sentence was gorically wrong” regarding the power attorney handling existence of a valid of his of affording authority sign question. Again, him the the funds in his we must con- client’s name. We have reviewed the entire clude that Mr. is reluctant to take transcript sentencing hearing, responsibility and we for his misconduct. loan, jointly
20. Mr. did not on comment his au- client's intent to be liable on the and thority regarding to tell the bank falsehoods his own intent to take the loan documents to the documents, signature. client’s intent to execute the loan client for the client’s 772 Moore, quoted seriously ques- Court the HPS’s duet ... In is another reason to n ‘integrity tion whether Moore non-acceptance the role of the has the
discussion of
high moral character’ that both the Bar and
responsibility
wrongful
acts in rein-
public
right
expect
have a
of those who
said,
It
statement cases.
practice
Virginia.”
law in
214
West
W.Va. at
important
The notion of remorse is an
791,
bar,
591
S.E.2d at 349.
the case at
many
in
areas of
consideration
law.
DiTrapano’s unwilling-
the evidence of Mr.
routinely consider remorse in sen-
Courts
actions,
accept responsibility
ness to
for his
Moreover,
tencing.
in other reinstatement
compels
question
integrity
which
us to
cases,
recognized
the Court has
that re-
character, weighs against finding
and moral
positive
pentance can be a
factor for rein-
that he is rehabilitated.21
See, e.g., Lawyer Disciplinary
statement.
compelling
More
are the
falsehoods.
Pence,
194
Board v.
W.Va.
461
These also indicate
in-
that Mr.
(1995) (“We
114,
S.E.2d
122
are also mind-
regarding
clinations
the truth have not been
remorse,
personal
ful of Mr. Pence’s stated
amended to an extent that would overcome
and shame for the
embarrassment
conduct
prior
nature of his
dishonest conduct.
disciplinary
being
action
led to
taken
may
longer
While he
no
be under the influ-
him”)
against
Lawyer Disciplinary
illegal drugs,
ence of
we cannot overlook his
Vieweg,
Board v.
194 W.Va.
461
thoroughly
failure to
forthright
be
with the
(1995) (“the
S.E.2d
record demon-
LDB and this Court.
Vieweg
strates that
has been forth-
foregoing,
In view of the
we choose not to
right
admitting
his misconduct and has
HPS,
adopt the recommendation of the
discussed his actions
some of those
deny
DiTrapano’s petition
we
for rein-
misconduct”).
who have suffered from the
statement of his law license. Mr.
Certainly,
repentance
positive
if
is a
factor
carry
has failed to
showing
his burden of
cases,
repentance
some
the absence of
currently
Court
possesses
integ-
that he
may
to a
be relevant
decision in others.
rity
necessary
and moral character
to resume
Moore,
at
S.E.2d at 352.
of law. We conclude that rein-
The Court concluded that while “the fact that
justifiable
statement would have a
and sub-
person
acknowledge
does not
past
their
stantial
public’s
adverse effect on the
confi-
misconduct,
reason,
for whatever
per
will not
dence in
justice.
the administration of
granting
se bar the consideration or
of a
3.33(g)
Lawyer
Rule
Disci-
Rules
reinstatement,”
petition for
the fact “is sim-
plinary Procedure states that when the Court
ply
piece
consider,
another
of evidence to
petition
reinstatement,
denies a
“the
given
weight
to be
light
such
as it
deserves
judgment
enter an order of
re-
of the circumstances.” Id. at
quiring
petitioner
to reimburse the Office
353;
syl.
Dortch,
pt.
part,
at
In re
cf.
Disciplinary
ordinary
Counsel for the
(1997) (“When
years
drug
because of his
and alcohol addic-
forgery,
With
to the loan document
However,
tion.
he has been
and alcohol
DiTrapano pled guilty
Mr.
felony
to federal
years
straightened
free for over seven
charges
upon misrepresentations
based
fact,
up his life.
In
more
has
than met
the United Bank in Charleston in
attempt
our five-factor
test
rehabilitation
order
to secure a loan
forgery
and his
See,
to be readmitted to the
of law.
signature
client’s
on those documents. He
Smith,
Re:
775
”
transgression bespeaks ir-
dishonesty.’
This ethical
act infected with deceit and
dishonesty
Coleman,
797,
untrustworthi-
remediable
preclude illegal addiction to as a DiTrapano’s Refusal to reinstate Mr. li- consideration and while Mr. Brown’s ac- appropriate cense at this time is the action. part tions have stemmed from his respectfully I therefore concur with the ma- addiction, simply cocaine we cannot con- jority decision this ease. accept done his behavior and cannot Board’s recommendation. There is never stealing a valid excuse for client trust “ ‘Misappropriation
funds. of funds
attorney turpitude; involves moral it is an Lawyer Disciplinary 5. This Court was careful in 6. This Court would have benefitted from a more Brown, Board v. investigation S.E.2d 60 extensive of the issues related to (2009), distinguish legal illegal between misappropriation. client fund 560-61, drugs. Id. at at 66-67.