Powell v. WOOD COUNTY COM'N

• Decision Date: 08 June 2001
• Docket Number: No. 28456.,28456.
• Citation: 209 W.Va. 639,550 S.E.2d 617
• Parties: James M. POWELL, Esquire, and J.C. Powell, Esquire, Doing Business as Powell Law Offices, Petitioners Below, Appellants, v. WOOD COUNTY COMMISSION, David Couch, Commissioner, Robert Tebay, Jr., Commissioner, Holmes R. Shaver, Commissioner, Respondents Below, Appellees
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

550 S.E.2d 617

209 W.Va. 639

James M. POWELL, Esquire, and J.C. Powell, Esquire, Doing Business as Powell Law Offices, Petitioners Below, Appellants, v. WOOD COUNTY COMMISSION, David Couch, Commissioner, Robert Tebay, Jr., Commissioner, Holmes R. Shaver, Commissioner, Respondents Below, Appellees

No. 28456.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted January 23, 2001.

Decided June 8, 2001.

James M. Powell, Esq., J.C. Powell, Esq., Parkersburg, West Virginia, Attorneys for Appellants.

Honorable Virginia A. Conley, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, Parkersburg, West Virginia, Attorney for Appellees. MCGRAW, Chief Justice:

Members of a law firm appeal the lower court's denial of their request for a writ of mandamus. An employee of the firm had been appointed by the circuit court to represent an indigent client, and the client subsequently sued the law firm for malpractice. The firm's members sought a writ of mandamus to compel the appellee, the Wood County Commission, to indemnify the law firm for costs it incurred in defending the malpractice suit. The Circuit Court of Wood County dismissed appellants' case and we reverse, granting the writ as moulded.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

James M. Powell and J.C. Powell practice law in Wood County, West Virginia under the business name of Powell Law Offices. On August 13, 1996, the Circuit Court of Wood County appointed a lawyer who then worked for Powell Law Offices to represent one Luly Bell Parkins in a dispute over her parental rights. The court made this appointment pursuant to W. Va.Code § 29-21-9 (1996), which establishes procedures for the appointment of legal counsel to indigent citizens, and W. Va.Code § 29-21-20 (1989), which shields appointed counsel from liability from suit.

The underlying litigation displeased Ms. Parkins, who on December 23, 1996, filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of West Virginia seeking $40,000,000 in compensatory damages and $40,000,000 in punitive damages for alleged wrongs she suffered in connection with the state's efforts to terminate her parental rights. Casting a wide net, Ms. Parkins sued her appointed counsel, then employed by Powell Law Offices, and two Wood County judges, an assistant county prosecutor, the circuit court clerk, a deputy sheriff, and a state child welfare worker.

Appellants gave notice to their own, private malpractice insurance carrier in December of 1996. Appellants attempted, without success, to contact the insurance carrier for the Wood County Commission, whom they either considered to be their nominal "employer" while their firm represented Ms. Parkins, or whom they considered to be responsible for the defense of any action against them. In the absence of any defense efforts made by the county or state on behalf of the appellants, their own insurance carrier advised them to forward the federal complaint to the firm of Bowles, Rice, McDavid, Graff and Love for legal representation.

On April 9, 1997, the federal court dismissed Ms. Parkins' lawsuit, but denied appellants' motion for attorney fees. According to appellants, those fees amounted to $5,839.35. The appellants filed suit against the Wood County Commission, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel indemnification for the costs of defending the malpractice suit. On February 4, 2000, the circuit court dismissed the case, and appellants now seek redress before this Court.¹

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Appellants seek a reversal of the circuit court's dismissal of their case. We have held that: "Appellate review of a circuit court's order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de novo." Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995). Appellants request a writ of mandamus requiring the appellee to pay the costs they incurred. As we stated in our oftencited case of Cooper v. Gwinn, 171 W.Va. 245, 298 S.E.2d 781 (1981):

Before this Court may properly issue a writ of mandamus three elements must coexist: (1) the existence of a clear right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) the existence of a legal duty on the part of the respondent to do the thing the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy at law.

Syl. pt. 3, Cooper v. Gwinn, 171 W.Va. 245, 298 S.E.2d 781 (1981); Accord, Parks v. Board of Review, 188 W.Va. 447, 425 S.E.2d 123 (1992)

.

III. DISCUSSION

Appellants argue that, because appointed counsel is statutorily immune from liability in cases such as these, that they should also be indemnified for any costs they incurred. They point out that, in the absence of indemnification, immunity offers limited protection. The county commission argues that, while appointed counsel is immune, nothing in the law requires the commission to indemnify the appellants for amounts not covered by their malpractice insurance, or for any costs incurred in the defense of a malpractice action.

The statute that governs this case clearly limits the liability of any attorney appointed by a court pursuant to W. Va.Code § 29-21-1, et seq.:

Appointed counsel immune from liability

Any attorney who provides legal representation under the provisions of this article under appointment by a circuit court or by the supreme court of appeals, and whose only compensation therefor is paid under the provisions of this article, shall be immune from liability arising from that representation in the same manner and to the same extent that prosecuting attorneys are immune from liability.

W. Va.Code § 29-21-20 (1989)(emphasis added). While very specific regarding immunity from liability, the statute is silent as to the appointed attorney's immunity from the costs of defending any suit. When faced with this silence, it is our obligation to ascertain, as best we can, the intent of the Legislature in enacting the statute in question:

It is the duty of a court to construe a statute according to its true intent, and give to it such construction as will uphold the law and further justice. It is as well the duty of a court to disregard a construction, though apparently warranted by the literal sense of the words in a statute, when such construction would lead to injustice and absurdity.

Syl. pt. 2, Click v. Click, 98 W.Va. 419, 127 S.E. 194 (1925). Accord, Roberts v. Consolidation Coal Co., 208 W.Va. 218, 539 S.E.2d 478 (2000)

. Or, in other words: "The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Syl. pt. 1, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).

We note that the hourly compensation paid by the state for representation of indigent parties is not highly remunerative. While some attorneys may specialize in such cases and find them rewarding, all face a limited financial recovery for this serious and demanding work. It may be that part of the reason attorneys take such cases is that our law protects them from personal liability. However, if the immunity offered by W. Va.Code § 29-21-20 (1989) does not also protect the attorney from expenses incurred in defending a malpractice suit, then the appointed attorney may face enormous financial uncertainty. Because of the challenges we already face in attracting competent attorneys to the appointed defense of indigent clients, we wish to take no action that might further discourage members our bar from taking such cases.

The appellants' firm provided, from all accounts, competent representation to their appointed client. When sued, appellants incurred reasonable expenses in their defense. The statute promises that appointed counsel "shall be immune from liability arising from that representation in the same manner and to the same extent that prosecuting attorneys are immune from liability. "When the lower court refused to indemnify the appellants for the reasonable costs of their defense, it essentially stripped appellants of some of that promised immunity.

The Legislature was extremely specific in placing appointed counsel on the same footing with prosecuting attorneys with respect to immunity from liability. Thus we find that the lower court erred by refusing to grant the appellants full immunity under W. Va.Code § 29-21-20 (1989). We hold that when a court appoints a private attorney to represent a client pursuant to W. Va.Code § 29-21-1, et seq., and that client then sues the attorney for malpractice in connection with that representation, the attorney shall be immune from...