LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD v. FORD, No. 29463 (Per Curiam) (May 3, 2002).

Issuing admonishment, rather than the 45-day suspension recommended by the Hearing Panel Subcommittee, arising from respondent's conduct in improperly retaining fees due the law firm partnership. Respondent made full restitution and no clients were harmed. Admonishment issued.

LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD v. MORTON, No. 27051 (Per Curiam)(Davis, C.J. and Maynard, J., dissenting)(Starcher, J., concurring)(May 3, 2002).

Dismissing charges and rejecting a hearing panel subcommittee recommendation that respondent be publicly reprimanded, repay the client $1500, and pay costs of the proceeding based upon a violation of Rule 1.5(a)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by obtaining a fee of $1500 from medical payments obtained on behalf of a client. Finding that respondent documented forty hours of work prior to termination of services, and in view of the language of the agreement and all relevant circumstances, the fee received "was not grossly proportionate to the services rendered and was not excessive." In future cases, the Board must examine "all of the relevant circumstances of a lawyer's engagement and the professional services in fact rendered when considering whether compensation is excessive, and that focusing on a single component of that compensation without consideration of the entire engagement and services rendered may lead, as it has here, to an unjust conclusion of impropriety."

WESTFIELD INSURANCE CO., et al. v. TRIPLE CROWN FLOORING, Inc., No. 29962 (Per Curiam)(Starcher, J. and McGraw, J., dissenting)(May 3, 2002).

Reversing an order entered in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County that denied Triple Crown's motion to vacate a default judgment previously entered against it. Remanded for further proceedings and specific directions that the circuit court make the appropriate findings required by Syllabus Point 3 of Parsons v. Consolidated Gas Supply Corp., 163 W.Va. 464, 256 S.E.2d 758 (1979).

STATE v. SUZANA M. VETROMILE, No. 29703 (Per Curiam)(May 3, 2002).

Affirming a conviction for first degree murder and sentence of life without mercy obtained in the Circuit Court of Ohio County.  Rejecting arguments: that the trial court erred in denying a motion for new trial; that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction; and that the trial court erred in denying a motion for new trial due to possible juror bias, based on information arising after trial indicating that one of the jurors may have had inaccurate information regarding a collateral crime that was not presented at trial.

LANG v. DERR, No. 29959 (Per Curiam)(May 3, 2002).

Reversing an order entered in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County that declared valid and enforceable a contract between the appellant and her parent's caregivers. In the contract, signed a week after her father's death, the appellant "agreed to accept $100 for assets which were worth some 600 to 900 times that amount." In light of the gross disparity in the values to be exchanged, the unequal bargaining positions of the parties, and the record's failure to establish that the appellant entered into the contract with a full understanding of its consequences, the Court held that the contract was unconscionable.