Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Marcum

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed disciplinary charges against attorney and state legislator Justin J. Marcum. The court adopted a two-year suspension, required Marcum to serve six months of the suspension, and imposed additional sanctions arising from violations involving lawyer advertising, a conflict of interest, illegal drug purchases, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court generally adopted the Hearing Panel Subcommittee’s recommended sanctions but rejected automatic reinstatement after six months.

Holdings

1. Questions of law, application of law to facts, and appropriate sanctions are reviewed de novo; factual findings receive substantial deference unless unsupported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.
2. A two-year suspension of Marcum's law license was appropriate, but the suspension could not be stayed in its entirety; Marcum was required to serve six months, with the remaining one and one-half years stayed subject to supervised probation and specified conditions.
3. The Supreme Court of Appeals is the final arbiter of legal ethics issues and independently determines whether to impose a reprimand, suspension, or annulment of a lawyer's license.

Questions Presented

1. What standard governs the Supreme Court's review of the Hearing Panel Subcommittee's findings, legal conclusions, and recommended sanction?
2. What disciplinary sanction is appropriate for a lawyer who purchased illegal drugs from a criminal client, represented that client in a related criminal matter despite the conflict, and committed related professional misconduct while holding public office?
3. Whether the respondent's rehabilitation and mitigating circumstances justified staying the entire two-year suspension recommended by the Hearing Panel Subcommittee.

Disposition

other