Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Hatfield
Citation | 852 S.E.2d 785 |
Decision Date | 20 November 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 18-0101,18-0101 |
Parties | LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner v. McGinnis E. HATFIELD, Jr., Respondent |
Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
Rachel L. Fletcher Cipoletti, Chief Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel, Renee N. Frymyer, Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel, Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Petitioner.
John W. Feuchtenberger, Princeton, West Virginia, Attorney for the Respondent.
This lawyer disciplinary proceeding against McGinnis E. Hatfield, Jr. ("Mr. Hatfield") was brought to this Court by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") on behalf of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board ("LDB"). The Hearing Panel Subcommittee ("HPS") of the LDB recommended the following disposition in its report to this Court: that Mr. Hatfield's license to practice law be annulled and that he pay the costs of these proceedings pursuant to Rule 3.15 of the West Virginia Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure. Thereafter, the ODC submitted its consent to the recommendation, and Mr. Hatfield filed his objection. After a thorough review of the record developed before the HPS, and upon careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and oral arguments and the relevant law, this Court concludes that Mr. Hatfield has violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct and agrees with the recommendations of the HPS. Accordingly, this Court finds that the recommended sanctions are warranted.
Mr. Hatfield is a currently suspended1 lawyer who last practiced in Bluefield, located in Mercer County, West Virginia. Mr. Hatfield was admitted to the West Virginia State Bar on May 20, 1975, by diploma privilege. Accordingly, he is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court and its properly constituted LDB. Below we set out the conduct underlying this disciplinary matter as well as the relevant procedural history.
The events relevant to the instant proceeding occurred in 2013. At some point in 2013, Mr. Hatfield visited the Cherry Bomb Gentlemen's Club with a friend. While at the club, the friend introduced Mr. Hatfield to B.W.2 Mr. Hatfield claims that he then proceeded to pay B.W. for a lap dance.3 Subsequent to this interaction,4 on August 29, 2013,5 B.W. filed a complaint before the LDB alleging that during that same month she had asked Mr. Hatfield to represent her in a divorce action in Mercer County, West Virginia. B.W. further asserted that Mr. Hatfield "asked whether [B.W.] had $1,500 for his services and [she] told him [she] did not." B.W. alleged that based on her inability to pay, Mr. Hatfield indicated he would only represent her if she engaged in explicit sexual acts with him in lieu of the $1,500. "He then persisted in trying to get sexual favors in exchange for representation." B.W. asserted that she "told him that [she] was not interested in him and that [she] had recorded his requests for sexual favors[,]" and he responded to her that "he did not care because he was ‘untouchable.’ " In addition to the written complaint, B.W. attached six separate audio recordings to her complaint, which she claimed contained telephone conversations with Mr. Hatfield wherein he requested sex from B.W. in exchange for his representation of her in her divorce proceeding. In one such recording, the following exchange occurred:
Mr. Hatfield formally responded to the complaint on September 9, 2013. His response consisted of one sentence: "In response to your letter dated August 30, 2013, in regards to the complainant [B.W.], there was no client/attorney relationship."
On November 5, 2013, B.W. provided a sworn statement to the ODC. She testified that she met Mr. Hatfield through a mutual friend, a physician that she sometimes worked for. Specifically, she stated that she had met Mr. Hatfield twice: once at the Cherry Bomb Gentlemen's Club and once at a Mexican restaurant. At some point B.W. had spoken with Mr. Hatfield about representing her in her divorce proceeding. He said he would represent her, and she gave him her phone number. Subsequently, Mr. Hatfield told her he would not represent her unless she had sex with him. B.W. verified that the female voice on the audio recordings was hers and the male voice was Mr. Hatfield's. She further stated that following the discussions and messages with Mr. Hatfield, she quit her job as an exotic dancer because of how uncomfortable she felt and because everybody was looking at her as someone "[t]hat they could just have sex with" and she would "do whatever they wanted."
In late 2013, Mr. Hatfield was involved in an incident that resulted in a traumatic brain injury
. As such, in early 2014, the ODC requested an administrative stay of the investigation of the complaint against Mr. Hatfield. On March 31, 2014, the Investigative Panel6 of the LDB granted the requested administrative stay. Additionally, due to his significantly impaired medical condition, during this time, Mr. Hatfield was placed on inactive status with the West Virginia State Bar.
Subsequently, on May 25, 2017, the ODC received a letter from an attorney, James Palmer, III, notifying it that Mr. Hatfield agreed to reactivate his law license to supervise Mr. Palmer's practice.7 The ODC sent Mr. Hatfield a letter inquiring about his current medical status and asking whether there were any updates on the pending disciplinary complaint against him. On July 24, 2017, Mr. Hatfield responded to the ODC by informing it that his health was currently "good" and that he had "completely recovered from the traumatic brain injury
[.]" He further reiterated that he did not ever represent B.W. Thereafter, the ODC moved the Investigative Panel to lift the administrative stay previously granted. The motion to lift the stay asserted that upon information and belief, on July 18, 2017, Mr. Hatfield returned to the active practice of law in West Virginia. On September 23, 2017, the Investigative Panel lifted the stay.
Following the lift of the stay, the ODC notified Mr. Hatfield that it wished to take his sworn statement. In an attempt to forego the sworn statement, Mr. Hatfield submitted a written sworn response. In his written sworn response, Mr. Hatfield explained that he first met B.W. at a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- W. Va. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v. Grove
-
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Schillace
... ... Disciplinary Bd. v. Hart [Hart II] , 241 W.Va. 69, 818 ... S.E.2d 895 (2018); Law. Disciplinary Bd. v. Ryan , ... 241 W.Va. 264, 823 S.E.2d 702 (2019); Law. Disciplinary ... Bd. v. Morgan , 243 W.Va. 627, 849 S.E.2d 627 (2020); ... Law. Disciplinary Bd. v. Hatfield , 244 W.Va. 285, ... 852 S.E.2d 785 (2020) ... [ 5 ] In Lawyer Disciplinary Board v ... Sidiropolis , 241 W.Va. 777, 828 S.E.2d 839 (2019), the ... two-year suspension imposed on the respondent was stayed ... after two months, and in Lawyer Disciplinary Board v ... ...