Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Busch, 12–0174.
Decision Date | 05 February 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 12–0174.,12–0174. |
Citation | 233 W.Va. 43,754 S.E.2d 729 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner v. Richard T. BUSCH, a member of The West Virginia State Bar, Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus By The Court
1. Syllabus point 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W.Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (1994).
2. “Rule 3.16 of the West Virginia Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure enumerates factors to be considered in imposing sanctions and provides as follows: ‘In imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, unless otherwise provided in these rules, the [West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals] or [Lawyer Disciplinary Board] shall consider the following factors: (1) whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to the legal system, or to the profession; (2) whether the lawyer acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently; (3) the amount of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (4) the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.’ ” Syllabus point 4, Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel v. Jordan, 204 W.Va. 495, 513 S.E.2d 722 (1998).
3. “Mitigating factors in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding are any considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed.” Syllabus point 2, Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Scott, 213 W.Va. 209, 579 S.E.2d 550 (2003).
4. “Mitigating factors which may be considered in determining the appropriate sanction to be imposed against a lawyer for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct include: (1) absence of a prior disciplinary record; (2) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) personal or emotional problems; (4) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct; (5) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings; (6) inexperience in the practice of law; (7) character or reputation; (8) physical or mental disability or impairment; (9) delay in disciplinary proceedings; (10) interim rehabilitation; (11) imposition of other penalties or sanctions; (12) remorse; and (13) remoteness of prior offenses.” Syllabus point 3, Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Scott, 213 W.Va. 209, 579 S.E.2d 550 (2003).
5. “Aggravating factors in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding are any considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed.” Syllabus point 4, Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Scott, 213 W.Va. 209, 579 S.E.2d 550 (2003).
6. “ .” Syllabus point 7, Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel v. Jordan, 204 W.Va. 495, 513 S.E.2d 722 (1998).
7. “Ethical violations by a lawyer holding a public office are viewed as more egregious because of the betrayal of the public trust attached to the office.” Syllabus point 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Roark, 181 W.Va. 260, 382 S.E.2d 313 (1989).
Rachael L. Fletcher Cipoletti, Esq., Chief Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Charleston, WV, for Petitioner.
J. Michael Benninger, Esq., Benninger Law, PLLC, Morgantown, WV, for Respondent.
This lawyer disciplinary proceeding against Richard T. Busch (hereinafter “Mr. Busch”) was brought to this Court by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (hereinafter the “ODC”) on behalf of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board (hereinafter the “Board”). The Board's Hearing Panel Subcommittee (hereinafter the “Subcommittee”) determined that Mr. Busch committed numerous violations of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended that his law license be suspended for a period of three years, among other sanctions that will be fully set forth in this opinion. Mr. Busch filed an objection to the recommendations,1 arguing that his conduct was merely negligent, not intentional. Therefore, he suggests a lesser suspension. Based upon the parties' arguments to this Court, the appendix record designated for our consideration, and the pertinent authorities, we adopt the recommendations of the Subcommittee.
Mr. Busch was admitted to practice law by the West Virginia State Bar on April 23, 2002. Initially, Mr. Busch practiced law at his father's firm in Elkins, West Virginia. The conduct in question began in January 2009 during Mr. Busch's tenure as the Randolph County Prosecuting Attorney and ended with his resignation from the position on December 5, 2011.2 A background of the alleged misconduct is summarized herein.
J. Ronald Blake, Jr., and his wife, Judy Mae Blake, were the co-directors of the Community Response Foundation (hereinafter the “CRF”), a non-profit organization specializing in representative payee services for Social Security recipients. Mr. Blake died November 29, 2009, and Mrs. Blake continued in the role of the CRF's director. A warrant was issued on December 4, 2009, for the arrest of Mrs. Blake for embezzlement by a fiduciary related to her work as the CRF's director. Subsequently, on December 7, 2009, a warrant was issued for all records and computers pertaining to the Blakes and the CRF.
A hearing was held before the Honorable Judge Jaymie Wilfong on April 7, 2010, pertaining to a request from Appalachian Benefits Assistance, Inc., the court-appointed conservator for the CRF, to receive an archival copy of the records of the seized computers. Judge Wilfong entered an order on April 8, 2010, “that such computers be turned over, FORTHWITH, to the State Police Crime Lab and that a complete archival record for each computer be made and forwarded to Appalachian Benefits on an EXPEDITED basis.” During a status conference, thereafter, on July 21, 2010, the contention was made that Mr. Busch failed to comply with the directive in the April 8, 2010, order. In response, Mr. Busch made the following statement to the circuit court:
And, what he [referring to Sergeant Casto of the West Virginia State Police in Morgantown] is doing is he is duplicating the hard drive while keeping it in the chain of custody so we can get that hard drive out and get it to Mr. Jory [counsel for Mrs. Blake] and also to the benefit services group, the Appalachian Benefits, has taken over the accounts.
Additionally, Mr. Busch proffered,
On July 22, 2010, a staff person in Mr. Busch's office inquired as to the location of the computers and was advised that the computer equipment remained in the evidence locker at the Randolph County Sheriffs Office. Additional communication occurred between Mr. Busch's staff and Sergeant Casto via e-mail messages on July 21 and July 22, 2010, concerning the computer hard drives and the duplication of the same.3
On July 26, 2010, Mr. Busch submitted a proposed order to Judge Wilfong for the July 21, 2010, hearing. Despite his awareness that the evidence remained in Randolph County and that his prior statements to the court regarding Sergeant Casto had been false, Mr. Busch took no remedial action to correct his prior misstatements to the court and, instead, memorialized the same in a draft order. The following day, in response to receiving the proposed order from Mr. Busch, Mr. Jory requested modifications. Specifically, Mr. Jory stated, Later, on July 30, 2010, Mr. Busch directed that the computer equipment be transported to the State Police Forensics Lab in Morgantown, West Virginia.
By correspondence dated August 3, 2010, Mr. Busch advised the circuit court:
The State's investigation may or may not include the said hard drives that are being provided to Appalachian Benefits Services, and therefore the State is of the opinion that the Defendant is not entitled to copies of said hard drives at this time. Please advise how the Court wishes the State to proceed, through correspondence or by order.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Munoz
...that he undergo two years of supervised practice upon a successful petition for reinstatement. Id. In Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Busch, 233 W.Va. 43, 754 S.E.2d 729 (2014), a prosecuting attorney made false representations to a circuit judge and to opposing counsel in two separate crimina......
-
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Plants
...betrayal of the public trust attached to the office." Id. at 260, 382 S.E.2d at 313, syl. pt. 3. See also, Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Busch , 233 W.Va. 43, 754 S.E.2d 729 (2014) (license of prosecuting attorney who failed to cooperate with opposing counsel, lied to circuit court, and avoi......
-
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Schillace
...and in court documents on multiple occasions, in an attempt to withhold information from defense counsel in two criminal cases. Id. at 47-51, 754 S.E.2d at 733-37. This Court that the respondent's actions were intentional, and that he "was provided with many opportunities to correct the mis......
-
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Marcum
... ... time he violated the Rules is an additional aggravating ... factor. See Lawyer ... Disciplinary Bd. v. Busch , 233 W.Va. 43, 56, 754 ... S.E.2d 729, 742 (2014); Scott , 213 W.Va. at 216-17, ... 579 S.E.2d at 557-58. Further, the HPS found that ... ...