Committee on Legal Ethics of West Virginia State Bar v. Walker

Citation358 S.E.2d 234,178 W.Va. 150
Decision Date04 June 1987
Docket NumberNo. 16795,16795
CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
PartiesThe COMMITTEE ON LEGAL ETHICS OF the WEST VIRGINIA STATE BAR v. Geary L. WALKER.

Syllabus by the Court

1. "In a court proceeding initiated by the Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar to annul the license of an attorney to practice law, the burden is on the Committee to prove, by full, preponderating and clear evidence, the charges contained in the Committee's complaint." Syl. Pt. 1, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Pence, 216 S.E.2d 236 (W.Va.1975).

2. While we have not recognized the existence of emotional problems as a complete defense to ethics charges, they may be treated as mitigating circumstances in determining what disciplinary action is most appropriate.

3. In deciding on the appropriate disciplinary action for ethical violations, this Court must consider not only what steps would appropriately punish the respondent attorney, but also whether the discipline imposed is adequate to serve as an effective deterrent to other members of the Bar and at the same time restore public confidence in the ethical standards of the legal profession.

Sherri Dusic, State Bar, Charleston, for appellant.

William C. Forbes, Charleston, for appellee.

McGRAW, Chief Justice:

This is a disciplinary action against Geary L. Walker, a member of the West Virginia State Bar. The Bar's Committee on Legal Ethics recommends that this Court annul the respondent's license to practice law and assess against him the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

The respondent was charged with violations of three of the disciplinary rules set out in the West Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), and (6). * Specifically, the complaint charged that the respondent staged a breaking and entering and theft of property from his Berkeley Springs, West Virginia law office, and, with regard to that incident, knowingly gave false information to law enforcement officers, and falsely implicated an innocent party, that he set fire to his own home in Clarksburg, West Virginia, that he threatened physical violence against two individuals, and that he knowingly tendered to Mountain State Federal Savings and Loan Association a worthless check for back-due interest on the mortgage loan on his burnt home.

The respondent answered the complaint, acknowledging the underlying events, denying any wrongdoing, and asserting that, during the time period involved, he was suffering under extreme financial, domestic, and mental problems. The answer stated that the respondent's law practice was not economically profitable and that the respondent's marriage had failed, but detailed no other specific problems that would tend to indicate a mental disability.

A subcommittee held a hearing on the charges on April 29, 1985, but the respondent chose not to appear, either personally or by counsel, because he felt the evidence against him was such that he could not prevail. On June 29, 1985 the full Committee, after a review of the record, considered the charges against the respondent and found that he had violated the cited disciplinary rules. The Committee recommended that this Court consider (1) immediately suspending the respondent's license to practice law pending a medical examination to determine his mental capacity and (2) annulling his license based on the charged ethical violations, if the respondent was found to be mentally competent. This Court suspended the respondent's license pending receipt of the psychological reports and, on November 13, 1985, remanded the proceeding to the Committee in order to provide the respondent with a new opportunity to present a defense.

At the hearing scheduled pursuant to our order, the respondent and his counsel objected to the Committee's evidentiary use of the transcript from the April hearing, and the Committee granted the respondent's motion to hold a full rehearing on the charges. The hearing was scheduled for June 23, 1986, but the respondent again chose not to appear. His counsel did attend the hearing, however, and represented that the respondent had no objection to the advancement of the proceedings, was prepared to allow the previous testimony to go uncontradicted, and recognized that an annulment was likely. The respondent's counsel also declined the offered opportunity to amend the respondent's answer to the charges or to cross-examine any of the Bar's witnesses.

On August 1, 1986, the full Committee adopted findings and again recommended to this Court that the respondent's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
126 cases
  • Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Kupec, 23011.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1998
    ...Bar and at the same time restore public confidence in the ethical standards of the legal profession. Syl. Pt. 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Walker, 178 W.Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (1987). It is from this standard of review that we analyze the questions of law, findings of fact and recommend......
  • Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. McGraw
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1995
    ...required that ethics charges be proved by "full, preponderating and clear evidence." See syl. pt. 1, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Walker, 178 W.Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (1987); syl. pt. 1, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Tatterson, 177 W.Va. 356, 352 S.E.2d 107 (1986); syl. pt. 1, Committee on ......
  • Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Hobbs
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1993
    ...the Bar and at the same time restore public confidence in the ethical standards of the legal profession.' Syllabus Point 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Walker, , 358 S.E.2d 234 (1987). Syllabus Point 5, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Roark, 181 W.Va. 260, 382 S.E.2d 313 (1989)." Syl. Pt. 2, ......
  • Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Thompson
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • April 10, 2017
    ...role of deterrence in disciplinary sanctions as set forth in this Court's holding in Syllabus point 3 of Committee on Legal Ethics v. Walker , 178 W.Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (1987) :In deciding on the appropriate disciplinary action for ethical violations, this Court must consider not only w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT