*1 S.E.2d 8 LAWYER DISCIPLINARY
BOARD, Complainant,
v. WHEATON, a Keith L. Member of the West State Bar, Respondent.
No. 31275. Supreme Appeals Court Virginia. Sept.
Submitted Nov. Decided
determined that committed thirty-one violations of the West Consequent- Rules of Professional Conduct. ly, the Board recommended Mr. Whea- ton’s law be annulled.1 license *3 the Mr. Wheaton does not contest Board’s findings finding fact or that he com- the thirty-one mitted violations Rules However, Conduct.2 Mr. Professional Whea- li- ton that annulment of law contends remedy. cense too harsh the alterna- tive, suggested eighteen- an suspension, supervised month for years, good period of three and a faith effort satisfy the rendered him Bankruptcy the United States Court. parties’ upon arguments Based to this Court, designated record for our consid- eration, authorities, pertinent we Mr. conclude that law license Wheaton’s should be annulled.
I. AND
FACTUAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY was Wheaton admitted 1, Initially, May law on he worked Charleston, Department at the Tax State Virginia, investigation West the criminal Thereafter, moved to division. Martins- Virginia, burg, opened his own law Fletcher, Lawyer Disciplinary L. Rachael May allegations mis- office in 1996. The Counsel, Counsel, Disciplinary Office of subsequent to his move to conduct occurred Charleston, Complainant. for the Martinsburg and are heretofore summarized corresponding findings of with the Board’s Dooley Dooley, Katherine L. The Law misconduct. Charleston, Firm, P.L.L.C., Respon- dent. Margo Complaint Bruce A. Count 1—
PER CURIAM: Margo Ms. Bruce retained Wheaton represent 1999 to her in a civil action. She proceeding This $300.00, fee of then paid an initial a second (hereinafter against Keith L. Wheaton on fee of A settlement was reached Wheaton”) $150.00. brought as ferred to “Mr. 2000, 21, September in the amount or about Disciplinary Coun- this Court the Office “ODC”) $15,000.00. deposited the (hereinafter referred to as the sel account, into Lawyer settlement check his business Disciplinary Board behalf of “Board”). (hereinafter he did have an account activat- not IOLTA3 referred proceeded Hearing at Panel Subcommittee ed the time. The Board’s Board, Lawyer acronym an Interest of 3."IOLTA is 1. For additional recommendations 30, Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. As see note Trust Accounts.” infra. kin, W.Va. n. 507 S.E.2d 203 324 (1998). Lawyers required main n. 8 Board and Mr. submitted Pro- 2. The under 1.15 of Stipulations adopted tain such account posed which were See note 4. Hearing Professional Conduct. Panel Subcommittee. infra to Ms. Bruce trust found a write a cheek amount account. Board second $10,000.00, portion of for her the settlement violation of Rule 1.15 because Mr. Wheaton funds, The check to clear proceeds. failed due failed to deliver Ms. her Bruce lack of funds. Wheaton ex- additionally, sufficient converted the same plained banking situation as a error failing As a use. result of to have a prompt payment promised to Ms. Bruce. contingency agreement written fee fail Bruce, pay Mr. Wheaton failed When statement, ing provide an itemized enforcement, local law she contacted Board found Mr. violated Rule felony check worthless warrant was issued. 1.5(c)5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Moreover,
Thereafter, Mr. Wheaton obtained a cash- taking of intentional a client’s funds for his $10,000.00. Mr. ier’s cheek for Wheaton told own use and his to both misrepresentations both and the local law the ODC enforcement *4 his client and law enforcement officials shortly that Ms. Bruce would authorities Additionally, was a violation of Rule 8.4.6 money copies ceive her sent of the cash- misrepresentations Mr. “Wheaton’s made to ier’s cheek to both law enforcement and the during payment. investigative process the ODC the proof ODC of Ms. Bruce as never However, check. 8.1.7 received this it was later violated Rule discovered that the check had been cashed. Complaint Count B. of investigated Local law enforcement 2— Pamela D. Mason redeposited check had learned the been into During own account. the evi- D. Ms. Pamela Mason retained Mr. Whea- Board, hearing dentiary before the pursue May ton a discrimination claim in redeposited Wheaton admitted that he 1997, and tendered to him. After $500.00 personal same into account to cover the many attempts Mason’s contact Mr. closing of his costs residence. regarding of the status her conduct, Mr. sent January of a letter dated As a result the abovementioned 1999, stating found that he had Mr. Wheaton violated filed suit enclosed a copy signed of the complaint. Rule 1.15 Rules of Professional of the Ms. Mason Cond maintain, by failing to up, bankruptcy Chapter uct4 set filed for under 7 of the and/or Code, deposit the settlement into a proper Bankruptcy check United States where she 1.15(a) determined, portion percentage including The relevant of Rule of the to be West or Virginia provides of Professional Conduct percentages Rules lawyer that shall to the accrue in settlement, as follows: appeal, litiga- of the event trial or (a) lawyer expenses property tion and other be A shall hold deducted from clients or lawyer’s persons possession recovery, expenses third that is in a in and whether are such representation separate with connection contingent be deducted before or after the fee lawyer’s property. from Funds shall Upon contingent is calculated. conclusion kept separate designated matter, be in a account as provide lawyer fee shall the client trust "client's account” in an institution whose stating with a written statement the outcome of federally insured and accounts maintained and, recovery, showing if the matter there is a lawyer’s where the office state is situat- the remittance to the and the method ed, separate or in a elsewhere account with the determination. its person. of the client consent or third Other property appro- shall be as identified such and portions 6. The relevant 8.4 of the safeguarded. Complete priately records of Virginia provide Rules Professional Conduct property such account and other shall be professional ”[i]t follows: misconduct for a kept by lawyer preserved and shall be for a (c) engage involving ... to: in conduct period years five after termination of the fraud, dishonesty, misrepresentation; deceit or representation. (d) engage prejudicial in conduct that is justice[.]” administration of portion 5. The relevant 1.5 of Rule of the West Virginia provides, Professional Conduct part: pertinent in Rule 8.1 of West Rules of Profes- provides, pertinent part: (c) sional Conduct may ”[a]n contingent A fee on the outcome bar, rendered, applicant for admission to or a of the matter for which the service is application with a except contingent connection bar admission in a matter in which fee is matter, (d) prohibited by paragraph in connection with a shall or other law. A (a) knowingly contingent agreement writing fee shall be in not: make a false statement of state fact[.]" shall the method which the fee is material a civil representing that he had filed falsely in the claim interest as an asset listed when, had not. The Board by Mr. action Whea- on her behalf being pursued of the of Rule 1.169 special found a violation also appointed ton. a result of pursue Conduct as claim to Rules of Professional bankruptcy counsel adequately failure to on behalf Mr. Wheaton’s claim the discrimination affidavit failure to withdraw then filed an matter and his He bankruptcy estate. not, could and enclosed clear that he bankruptcy court the case when it was with the not, had sent services. complaint perform that he earlier copy or chose attempts get Moreover, many that Mr. Whea- After the Board found Ms. Mason. the bank- payment from Mr. the advance information failed to refund ton circuit court contacted the earned. Ad- ruptcy paid trustee which was but not the fee allegedly had civil action ditionally, where Ms. Mason’s that Mr. Wheaton the Board found bankruptcy filed Mr. Wheaton. by failing been to return 1.410 violated Rule that, fact, no civil action calls, failing provide trustee discovered her phone client’s further, filed, been had ever participate information to with sufficient as the time barred would now be decisions, action that he had failing to advise her run. limitations had applicable statute behalf, failing to her not filed a civil action on appear at several then failed to of limitations her that the statute advise court and hearings before claim, failing to fulfill reason- run on her *5 bankruptcy trustee’s respond to failed to for information con- expectations client able requests for information. further The interests. with the client’s best sistent dilatory also found that Mr. Wheaton’s 26, 2001, Board adversary pro- an On November ef- to make reasonable practices and failure against filed Mr. Wheaton ceeding was in a viola- litigation resulted forts to further partial A motion for sum- bankruptcy court. Furthermore, liability, of Rule 3.2.11 granted as to tion mary judgment falsely indicated damages was held that Mr. Wheaton hearing on and a later when, in had been filed By entered Octo- that a civil action September order fact, had, Rule 8.4.12 ordered in violation of bankruptcy court none ber paid to to be to reduce judgment against Lastly, Mr. Wheaton failed writing in vio- agreement estate to contingency Mason’s fee Ms. $45,000.00. 1.5(e).13 amount of lation of misconduct upon Mr. Wheaton’s Based Complaint of C. Count 3— Mason, found that the Board lated to Ms. Nancy Christensen the Rules Rule 1.3 of violated Wheaton retained Nancy Christensen failing pursue by to Conduct of Professional against in a suit represent to her retained and Wheaton which he was a matter for reasonably (a) lawyer keep A shall the West portion of Rule 1.3 of The relevant and provides a matter the status of Virginia Conduct informed about Rules of Professional lawyer requests comply shall act with reasonable promptly "[a] with reasonable as follows: representing a promptness in diligence and information. client.” (b) lawyer explain a matter to the A shall permit reasonably necessary extent Virginia of Profes- West Rules 9. Rule 1.16 of the regarding informed decisions client to make pertinent part: provides, in sional Conduct representation. (d) representation, a Upon termination reasonably steps to the extent take shall Virginia Rules of Profes- West 11. Rule 3.2 of the interests, such practicable protect a client’s lawyer shall "[a] that: sional Conduct states client, allow- giving notice to the reasonable as ing litigation expedite make reasonable efforts counsel, employment sur- of other time for the client.” the interest of consistent with property which the rendering papers and refunding any advance and client is entitled of Rule supra the relevant text note 6 for earned. The 12. See payment has not been of fee that relating may papers to the client retain 8.4. law. permitted to the extent 1.5(c), supra note 5. see the text of Rule 13. For Conduct Rule of Professional 10. 1.4 directs: proposed Veteran Center in June advising Affairs Medical settlement offer without that Ms. Christensen of the same violated Rule 1998. When Mr. Wheaton determined 1.2(a)16of the Rules of Professional Conduct. proceeding case was not toward media- also The Board found that Mr. vio- hoped, Ms. Christensen tendered tion lated Rule 3.217 of the Rules Professional to Wheaton to cover costs $150.00 dilatory practices Conduct and failure filing attempts a civil action. After several to make reasonable efforts with consistent to check on the status of her Ms. Chris- his discussions with Mr. Fur- Christensen. received a letter from Mr. Wheaton tensen thermore, the Board found that Mr. Wheaton 5, 2000, July wherein he indicated he dated violated Rule 1.1618 of the of Profes- unilaterally rejected proposed had settle- by failing sional the mat- Conduct $5,000.00. offer in the ment amount of Christensen, by failing ter on behalf of Ms. letter also indicated that was the mediation representation he chose withdraw when proceed the court had best services, perform legal failing not to removed case from its docket. The same payment to refund advanced the fee questioned letter also a federal whether Finally, that was not earned. the Board Claim completed Torts Act form had been found that Wheaton violated Rule 8.419 pre- whether the failure so would to do of the Rules of Professional when he Conduct system. clude action the court After falsely represented to Ms. Christensen that letter, receipt of the Ms. Christensen at- had, filed a civil on her action tempted to see Mr. discuss her behalf. She arrived at ease. Mr. Wheaton’s office however, meeting; scheduled Complaints D. Count of Keith 4— appeared. never Ms. Christensen Short, Lurito, Marianne Dr. returned home and called the courthouse. Dr. Gerwin then discovered action She that no civil Keith Marianne Short retained Mr. been filed on her behalf the Veteran represent them in a *6 Medical Affairs Center. injury which action was scheduled for trial in misconduct, light of the foregoing gave one The month. Shorts Mr. Wheaton Board found that Mr. violated Rule $7,500.00 payments to cover the advance 1.314of by the Rules of Conduct Professional expert for the needed witnesses who would failing pursue to a which matter for he was testify juryA at trial. verdict awarded was retained; by falsely representing that he had $34,726.30, in the amount of which Mr. Whea- fact, when, not; filed a civil action deposited in he had ton into his IOLTA account. Mr. by then failing protect and to wrote a cheek his client’s claim to the Shorts portion award, for their against the and wrote statute of Mr. limitations. Whea- himself a check for his fee. writ- The check ton’s failure to return Christensen’s ten to the Shorts was returned for insuffi- calls, phone provide failure to her with infor- felony cient funds. A second worthless case, mation about her to and failure advise against cheek was warrant issued Mr. Whea- regarding filing her the status of the of her ton as a result. case resulted in a violation Rule 1.415 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. More- During representing course of over, Shorts, rejection Mr. Wheaton’s unilateral Mr. Wheaton hired Lurito to Dr. supra by accept 14. See note 8 for the relevant text of Rule a client’s to abide decision whether 1.3. an of settlement of offer a matter. supra 17. See note 11 for the text relevant of Rule 1.4, 15. For the relevant text of Rule see note 3.2. supra. 1.16, supra 18. For the relevant text of see 1.2(a) Virginia 16. Rule of the West Rules of Pro- note 9. provides, pertinent part: Conduct fessional (a) lawyer by portion A a shall abide client’s deci- 19. The relevant Rule 8.4 of West concerning objectives representa- provides sions tion, Rules of Professional Conduct (d) (e), (c), subject paragraphs professional and and ”[i]t as follows: misconduct for a (c) by engage involving shall consult with the which to the to:... client as means in conduct fraud, they dishonesty, pursued. misrepresentationf.]” are to be A shall deceit or Pruden that ne- informed Mr. report future Mr. Wheaton testify regarding a produce planned, proceeding as gotiations were not damages. Dr. Lurito’s past economic by additional $2,500.00. $150.00 The written Pruden tendered an checks Mr. fee was attempts filing for After several failed Dr. Lurito were returned for fees. Mr. Wheaton to eventually regarding the Dr. Lurito Mr. Wheaton status insufficient funds. contact case, ODC complaint with the a letter filed an ethics Mr. Pruden received 5, 2000, Dr. was also against July Gerwin where- Wheaton. Mr. Wheaton dated unilaterally rejected fees expert in the and his he had hired to be an in he indicated $2,300.00. Although re- Dr. Gerwin in the amount of proposed totaled settlement offer cleared, me- $5,000.00. check which letter indicated that ceived a The also $50.00 $2,250.00 in returned and that maining proceed checks were was the best diation eventually Dr. funds. Gerwin case from insufficient had removed the its the Court complaint ODC an with the point, also filed ethics At some Pruden docket. later newspaper about Mr. Wheaton. an article read problematic representation Ms. Wheaton’s investigated complaints The went Margo Bruce. Pruden found by Lurito and Gerwin and filed Drs. that no civil action and discovered courthouse 1.15(b)20by Mr. viol'lions of Rule been filed his behalf. had ever funds, pay client failure to failure to deliver services, expert misappropriation complaint filed with the Mr. Pruden and, proceeds ODC, following investigation, advanced funds and settlement It was further found that his own use. that Mr. violated Rule Board found intentionally his clients’ Conduct converted the Rules of Professional 1.323of use violation of Rule 8.421 which he failing to his own matter for falsely representing of Professional Conduct. that he retained when, vio- Board further found action he had filed a civil had lated of the Rules of Professional also that Mr. Whea- Rule 8.122 The Board not. misrepresen- failing made material conduct when he 1.424 return violated Rule ton calls, with the provide tations the ODC connection phone failing his client’s complaints, partici- ethics investigation of the Pruden with sufficient information decisions, falsely that his him that represented pate failing to the ODC to advise behalf, either experts clients and the retained had a civil on his not filed action expectations paid been in full or would be paid failing to fulfill reasonable certain date. with the consistent client’s for information *7 Moreover, Mr. Wheaton’s best interests. Complaint
E. of Edward Count 5— settlement rejection proposed of a unilateral Pruden, K. Sr. offer, of advising Mr. Pruden the without 1.2(a)25 same, the Rules Pruden, Rule of of Sr., violated Edward K. retained Board additional- Conduct. The represent wrongful him in ter- Professional Wheaton to a 26 1.16 ly a violation of Rule the found case and tendered When $150.00. mination 1.15(b) supra text of Virginia note 7 the relevant Rule Rules of 22. See for 20. of the West Rule part: provides, pertinent Conduct Professional 8.1. 1.3, supra see the relevant text of Rule 23. For (b) receiving property Upon funds or other note 8. person or third has an inter- which a client est, notify promptly the client or a shall portion of the Rule 1.4 The relevant 24. Except person. in this rule or third stated provides Virginia Conduct Professional by agreement permitted law or otherwise as follows: client, promptly deliver shall with the (a) reasonably keep lawyer shall a client A person or other client or third the matter the and informed about status property person is enti- that the client third requests comply promptly with reasonable and, upon request the tled to receive information. promptly person, render a full or third shall text of supra 16 for relevant Rule See note the 25. regarding accounting property. such 1.2(a). 8.4, 1.16, supra supra text of see see 21. the relevant Rule relevant text of Rule For For the 26. note note 9. 680 Disposition Disciplinary G. Professional Conduct Mr. Whea-
Rules of Proceeding adequately pursue ton’s failure the matter by his failure to withdraw it and when was transgressions, As a result of these the not, not, clear that he could or chose investigative Lawyer panel of the Disciplin- perform legal services for which he had ary Board issued Statement of Charges Finally, been the Board found Mr. retained. April Wheaton violated Rule 8.427 of the Rules of joint Upon Disciplinary motion Counsel misrepre- Conduct because he Professional allegations and Mr. certain factual sented his client that civil action had Charges stipulated, in the Statement were and, furthermore, been filed that the court Hearing and Panel Subcommittee en- had removed ease its docket. accepting stipulations. tered an order September
The Board heard evidence on 9, 2003, including and evidence of both miti- Complaint F. Count 6— gating aggravating upon factors. Based Elizabeth Crawford evidence, such the Board found that Mr. July Ms. Elizabeth Crawford and remorse, expressed during approximately fifty people met with hearing, together with inexperience law, discuss class action lawsuit practice of were insufficient regarding possible infringements. rights civil outweigh five-year factors to span misconduct, Ms. Crawford tendered a proper- check which included failure to ly amount of account for $300.00 be included class clients’ funds and failure to clients, honestly courts, filing deal with fees. After several failed Therefore, other counsel. the Board attempts regarding to contact Mr. Wheaton thirty-one that Wheaton committed vio- status Crawford eventu- Conduct, lations the Rules of Professional ally that no suit discovered class action recommended Mr. Wheaton’s law been filed. be license annulled.30 misconduct, As a result of this the Board found Mr. Wheaton violated Rule 1.328of the II. Rules of Professional Conduct because he STANDARD OF REVIEW pursue failed to the matter on behalf of Ms. Although the Board makes recom
Crawford after she retained his services. regarding mendations to this Court sanctions The Board also found violations imposed upon attorney for ethical 1.16 of West Rules of Profes- violations, held we have sional Conduct because Wheaton failed matter, ‘[tjhis failed to withdraw from legal “ Court is the final arbiter of representation when it was clear he could problems ethics make must the ulti- not, not, perform or chose ser- public reprimands, mate decisions about vices, failed to pay- suspensions refund the advanced attorneys’ or annulments of *8 ment of the fee 3, not been earned. practice Syllabus point licenses to law.’ supra 27. See note 19 for relevant text of Rule as follows: Ms. Christensen in the amount of $450.00, $300.00, 8.4. Mr. Pruden in the amount of $500.00; (2) and Ms. of Mason amount 1.3, 8, fully satisfy relevant of For the text Rule note see assessed him supra. the federal court due to his miscon- client, underlying duct in the case of his Mason; (3) supra 29. See note of demonstrate has 9 for relevant text Rule that he an under- standing 1.16. of the Rules of Professional Conduct eighteen that he undertake an additional management hours of office The Board also recommended that ethics and should Mr. continu- education; (4) ing legal supervised prescribed Wheaton seek submit to reinstatement after the period five-year practice period years; under for a of at Rule 3.33 of the Rules of least two Procedure, (5) Lawyer Disciplinary be re- reimburse the Board for the costs of should these (1) quired proceedings pursuant to: reimburse were in- clients who Rule 3.15 of of Rules jured by Lawyer repaid Disciplinary misconduct who he never Procedure.
681
Instead,
argues
mitigating
Mr. Wheaton
Legal Ethics
on
Committee
of
494,
Blair,
severity
punish-
174
to lessen the
W.Va.
factors exist
Virginia State Bar v.
(1984).”
hand, the ODC contends
671
ment. On the other
327 S.E.2d
exist,
if
mitigating factors
and even
that no
Scott,
1,
v.
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd.
Syl. pt.
presence
mitigating
this Court finds the
(2003).
209,
550
579 S.E.2d
213 W.Va.
factors, aggravating
sup-
exist that
factors
proceedings be-
of review of
Our standard
port the sanction of annulment of Whea-
syllabus point 3
set out in
fore the Board was
ton’s law license.
McCorkle,
Legal
on
Ethics v.
of Committee
(1994),
286,
377
192
452 S.E.2d
W.Va.
Mitigating
A.
Factors
follows:
in a
dis
“Mitigating factors
applies to a review
A de novo standard
proceeding
considerations
ciplinary
adjudicatory
made before the
of the
record
Disciplinary
ques-
may justify
as to
or factors that
a reduction
[Lawyer
Board]
law,
of the
questions
application
imposed.” Syl. pt.
degree
discipline
tions of
to be
facts,
appropri-
questions
Scott,
2,
law to the
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v.
213
sanctions;
respectful
gives
this Court
209,
ate
opin
DISCUSSION
(10)
rehabilitation;
(11)
ceedings;
interim
sanctions;
that Mr. Wheaton
imposition
penalties
The Board found
of other
or
thirty-one provisions
(13)
(12)
had violated
remorse;
prior
remoteness
The ODC
Rules of Professional Conduct.
offenses.
allegations of
proving
burden of
carries the
has identified six
Mr. Wheaton
convincing
attorney
misconduct
clear and
(1)
case:
being applicable
factors
Syl. pt.
Lawyer Disciplin
See
evidence.
(2)
record;
disciplinary
prior
absence
McGraw,
ary
Bd. v.
(3)
law;
inter-
inexperience
(1995) (relying
Rule 3.7 of the
S.E.2d 850
rehabilitation;
(4)
im
full and free disclosure
Procedure).
Lawyer Disciplinary
cooperative atti-
board or
the facts or
does not contest
(5)
proceedings;
imposition of
tude toward
by the Board.
the ethical violations as found
(6)
sanctions; and
penalties
Therefore,
this Court to
there is no need for
these factors
discuss each of
morse. We
findings that Mr. Whea
disturb the Board’s
*9
turn.
the Rules of
provisions
ton violated
thirty-one occasions.
Professional Conduct on
prior disciplinary
1. Absence of a
First,
argues that he
Mr. Wheaton
record.
oppose the
does Mr.
Neither
Wheaton
complaints filed with
prior record or
had no
by the
finding
ethical
as found
violations
prior record or
lack of a
the ODC. While
However,
challenge the
he does
Board.
factor,
may
mitigating
it is
complaints
be a
appropri-
recommendation that
Board’s
persuasive one in this case.
Whea-
not a
annulment of his law license.
ate sanction be
misconduct,
pattern
ton’s
which is
tinued misappropriating
clients’ funds in 2001
subject
disciplinary
this
proceeding,
Further,
and 2002.
this Court has held that
spanned from 1997 to 2002. He
open
did not
if restitution was made after commencement
May
practice
his own
until
1996. The con-
disciplinary
proceedings,
pres
or under
giving
complaints began
duct
rise to the
soon
sure of
disciplinary
threat of
proceedings,
opened
practice
after Mr. Wheaton
his own
courts can refuse
mitigat
to consider it as a
2002,
through
and continued
which was the
ing
Lawyer Disciplinary
factor.
Bd. v. Ku
inquiry
end of
in
disciplinary pro-
this
pec,
(1998).
the Board in the case
convert clients’
he
timely
the Board recommended annulment in Mr.
also failed to
restitution in
make full
case,
imposed three-year
Any
eventually
manner.
that
Scott’s
this Court
were
suspension.
paid only
Mr. Wheaton’s reliance on
refunded were
after
Scott
the threat or
misguided, however,
imposition
of disciplinary proceedings. Sig-
lenience is
because
paled
comparison
nificantly,
Mr.
Scott’s behavior
still
owes refunds
the misconduct
which were
fees for
Wheaton.
retainer
services he nev-
committed
mitigating
present
performed,
Several
factors were
er
and he also owes a
significant being
Scott’s
the most
assessed
him
the bankruptcy
underlying
bipolar
illness
disorder.
In
court.
factors,
mitigating
addition to substantial
sanction,
fashioning
this
aggravating
Scott’s
case lacked
factors
prior
Court is mindful
its
holding
that
present
case. Mr.
Mr. Wheaton’s
Scott
“
on
deciding
appropriate
‘[i]n
disci
misappropriate
did
not convert or
plinary
violations,
action for ethical
this
funds.
Scott’s behavior
While Mr.
only
Court must
not
steps
consider
what
disparate
impact
financial
his
clients
on
appropriately punish
would
respondent
hearings,
that he
court
failed to attend
attorney, but also whether the discipline
his clients’ cases were dismissed because of
imposed
adequate
to serve as an effec
inaction,
money
he never took
that be-
tive deterrent to other members of the Bar
longed
to his clients
converted it to his
public
and at the same time restore
confi
use.
on the
dence in
the ethical standards of the
hand,
took retainer fees for which he
3,
profession.’ Syllabus Point
Committee
performed
then
no services. He also re-
Walker,
150,
Legal
v.
Ethics
178 W.Va.
ceived
monies on behalf
his clients due to
(1987).” Syl.
5,
ment. has agree
I that Mr. Wheaton’s conduct time, should, that he at this been such