Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Moore
Decision Date | 12 December 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 25794.,25794. |
Citation | 591 S.E.2d 338,214 W.Va. 780 |
Parties | LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Respondent, v. Arch A. MOORE, Jr., a former member of The West Virginia State Bar, Petitioner. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Lawrence J. Lewis, Esq., Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Charleston, for Respondent.
Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Esq., Sean P. McGinley, Esq., DiTrapano, Barrett & DiPiero, Charleston, for Petitioner.
The petitioner, Arch A. Moore, Jr., ("the petitioner") has filed a Petition for Reinstatement seeking reinstatement of his license to practice law in West Virginia. The petition, materials related thereto gathered and submitted by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and a report from that Office were considered by a Hearing Panel Subcommittee ("the Hearings Panel") of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board ("the Board"). We have before us the written Recommendation of the Hearing Panel,1 briefs from the petitioner and the Board, and voluminous materials that comprise the record below.
The petitioner was born on April 16, 1923. He served in the United States Military during World War II and was wounded in combat, earning the Purple Heart and Bronze Star for valor. This Court wishes to acknowledge and state its heartfelt appreciation for the petitioner's courageous service to his country.
Following his military service, the petitioner married in 1949 and graduated from the West Virginia University College of Law. He was admitted to practice law in the State of West Virginia in 1951.
The petitioner served in the West Virginia House of Delegates, six terms as a Congressman in the United States House of Representatives, and three terms as Governor of the State of West Virginia. The Hearing Panel concluded and this Court agrees that the petitioner is an astute politician with a charismatic persona and an uncanny ability to reach across gender and income lines, all as reflected by his elected political history.
Prior to the 1990 charges that led to the loss of his law license, the petitioner had been the subject of other criminal investigations. While the factual basis for those underlying allegations was not considered by the Hearing Panel or this Court, these investigations are relevant to the present matter because they establish that the petitioner had significant experience in dealing with federal investigations, including both tax and criminal investigations, experience which can and should be considered in evaluating the petitioner's contentions about the reasons that he pled guilty to a five-count federal criminal indictment in 1990, which plea and conviction led to his disbarment.2
The specifics of the petitioner's plea and conviction are as follows. On May 8, 1990, the petitioner entered a guilty plea to a five-count federal indictment charging him with mail fraud, filing false tax returns, extortion and obstruction of justice. Subsequently, the petitioner attempted to withdraw his guilty plea. His initial motion to set aside the guilty plea in the criminal proceeding was denied by the Honorable Walter E. Hoffman, United States District Judge. Subsequently the petitioner filed two post-conviction proceedings seeking to set aside the plea. These were both denied by the Honorable Richard L. Williams, United States District Judge.
As a result of his conviction, the petitioner served a period of thirty-three months incarcerated in federal prison.
The State of West Virginia also instituted a civil action against the petitioner in 1990 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. After discovery, motions, and partial summary judgment orders, the case was settled without an admission of liability in January 1996. The petitioner paid the State of West Virginia the sum of $750,000.00 to settle the claims.
Following his conviction, the petitioner was disbarred by Order of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia on October 31, 1991. Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Moore, 186 W.Va. 127, 411 S.E.2d 452 (1991).
In the instant reinstatement proceedings, the petitioner has claimed that he was factually and legally innocent of the federal charges against him, and he asserts that he erroneously or mistakenly pled guilty, based on the advice of counsel.
The Hearing Panel's Recommendation has thoroughly reviewed, in exacting detail, the factual record relating to the underlying charges to which the petitioner pled guilty, and the Recommendation states the following regarding the petitioner's guilty plea:
Moore was, at the time of his plea, a knowledgeable attorney who had previously been personally involved in an IRS investigation and a federal criminal trial. Moreover, when he agreed to plead guilty, he had the benefit of an experienced attorney with whom he had worked before and a substantial opportunity to consider the consequences of his action. Before he pled, he was interviewed by representatives of the United States Attorney. During those interviews, Moore had the opportunity to learn, from the questions he was asked, the areas the United States Attorney was investigating and some of the information that it had learned. His counsel was allowed to review recorded and incriminating conversations involving Moore and communicated the substance of those recordings to Moore who, having been present at the original event, knew that the recordings were accurate and true.
* * * * * *
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Committee v. Ganim
...public records, for defrauding city of funds intended for representation of indigent defendants); Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Moore, 214 W.Va. 780, 783–84, 796, 591 S.E.2d 338 (2003) (denying reinstatement, after twelve years of disbarment, of former governor convicted of multiple federal ......
-
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Ball
...a client to enrich his children constituted conduct that was prohibited by the Rules. Cf. Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Moore, 214 W.Va. 780, 798, 591 S.E.2d 338, 356 (2003) (Davis, J., concurring) ("[I]t is this Court's duty to the public and the bar to deny reinstatement of a law license whe......
-
Committee v. Ganim
...public records, for defrauding city of funds intended for representation of indigent defendants); Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Moore, 214 W. Va. 780, 783-84, 796, 591 S.E.2d 338 (2003) (denyingreinstatement, after twelve years of disbarment, of former governor convicted of multiple federal ......
-
In re Petition for Reinstatement Ditrapano
...law license and the issuance of this opinion. With regard to the passage of time, the Court said in Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Moore, 214 W.Va. 780, 793, 591 S.E.2d 338, 351 (2003): Many reasons can be seen for considering of the passage of time in evaluating a petition for reinstatement ......
-
To Err is Human, to Apologize is Hard: the Role of Apologies in Lawyer Discipline
...to apologize.99 While law-yers may be increasingly willing to consider advising their clients about 88. Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Moore, 591 S.E.2d 338, 353 (W. Va. 2003); see also In re Ganim, No. CV030404638S, 2012 WL 5200337, at *13 n.4 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 27, 2012), aff’d sub nom. ......