Davis, C.J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part:
In this lawyer disciplinary matter, the Hearing Panel Subcommittee (hereinafter
referred to as the Panel) concluded that the respondent, John G. Sims (hereinafter referred
to as Mr. Sims), violated Rules 3.6, 3.8 and 8.4 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional
Conduct. The majority opinion agreed with this finding and held that [t]here is no question
or dispute that the allegations in this case were proved by clear and convincing evidence.
The Panel recommended that this Court suspend the law license of Mr. Sims for ninety days
and assess the costs of the proceeding against him. Unfortunately, the majority opinion
rejected the Panel's recommendation to suspend Mr. Sims' law license. Instead, the majority
concluded that Mr. Sims should simply be reprimanded and required to pay the costs of the
disciplinary proceeding. For the reasons set out below, I concur in the decision to impose
costs against Mr. Sims. I dissent from the majority's decision to reject the Panel's
recommendation of a ninety-day suspension of Mr. Sims' law license.
In making the determination not to suspend Mr. Sims' law license, the majority
failed to list all of the facts and circumstances forming the basis of the Panel's
recommendation. The majority acknowledged that the Panel's recommendation was based
upon many of the same facts which provided the foundation for the removal proceeding in
which Sims was removed by this Court from the elected office of prosecuting attorney for
Logan County. The majority, however, decided that [t]he only facts that we need to
enumerate in this opinion are those which we did not previously consider. Consequently,
the majority merely recites only those facts surrounding Mr. Sims' improper use of the media
to prejudice cases pending before a grand jury. I strongly suggest that the majority chose to
omit all relevant facts in an attempt to legitimize its decision to not suspend Mr. Sims' law
license.
[2]. On the 20th day of April, 1998, the Respondent
Sims filed the sworn affidavit which is . . . false and was filed
by the Respondent with the intent to deceive;
[3]. The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of making
improper public statements about pending cases, about
defendants, and about prospective cases and prospective
defendants:
embodied in Rules 3.6 and 3.8;
. . . .
The implication of the majority opinion is simple: A lawyer who holds public
office can be assured that, if the lawyer engages in egregious conduct that undermines the
integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice, the lawyer's license will
not be adversely affected. This proposition insults the public and casts grave doubt regarding
the willingness of this Court to demand that lawyers remain faithful to the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
In view of the foregoing, I concur in part and dissent in part.
This Court has recognized that attorney disciplinary proceedings are primarily
designed to protect the public, to reassure it as to the reliability and integrity of attorneys and
to safeguard its interest in the administration of justice[.] Committee on Legal Ethics of the
West Virginia State Bar v. Keenan, 192 W. Va. 90, 94, 450 S.E.2d 787, 791 (1994). The
majority's decision to not suspend Mr. Sims' law license constitutes an abandonment of this
Court's duty to reassure the public that we will not tolerate egregious conduct by lawyers that
undermines public trust in the legal profession.
Unlike the majority, I will fully outline the improper conduct that Mr. Sims
engaged in while holding the office of Logan County Prosecutor and upon which the Panel
relied to recommend the suspension of his law license. The following conduct by Mr. Sims,
relevant to the instant proceeding, was set out in In re Sims, 206 W. Va. 213, 215-217, 523
S.E.2d 273, 275-277 (1999) (per curiam), as follows:
[1]. On the 7th day of November, 1997, the Respondent
Sims filed with the Circuit Court of Logan County the sworn
affidavit which is . . . false and was filed by the Respondent with
the intent to deceive;
. . . .
. . . .
(i) On March 17, 1998, when Petitioners
Grimmett, Porter and other public officials approached
the Logan County Commission to inquire about their
right to hire outside counsel to represent them in that the
Respondent had been making accusations against them
and issuing Freedom of Information requests and
subpoenas to them for records which were in fact public
records, Respondent Sims told the Logan Banner
newspaper that The reason they don't trust me is that
they can't control me and most criminals don't trust
prosecutors. The above comment is both libelous per se
and contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct as
(ii) On March 16, 1998, Respondent Sims signed
a criminal complaint charging Petitioner Alvis Porter
with violating West Virginia Code § 61-5-27, a felony,
which charge was subsequently dismissed by a Circuit
Judge sitting by designation. Approximately three (3)
weeks earlier, in late February 1998, Respondent Sims
told the Managing Editor of the Logan Banner
newspaper that he was going to charge Mr. Porter with a
crime, a violation of Rules 3.6 and 3.8 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct. When these same charges were
filed, Respondent Sims provided extensive interviews to
television and newspaper reporters in further violation of
said Rules;
(iii) On October 17 and 19, 1997, Respondent
Sims told the Logan Banner newspaper that an
investigation from the State Tax Department, identified
by Sims as a special tax commissioner, was ongoing
into practices of the Logan County Assessor's Office
because the county had one of the highest number of
exonerations in the state. Said comment is false and
libelous and was intended by the Respondent to discredit
Petitioner Rick Grimmett, who is the Logan County
Assessor;
(iv) On March 18, 1998, Respondent Sims told
the Logan Banner newspaper that he could not comment
on a case before the grand jury because of the
requirement of secrecy; however, the Respondent then
stated that the case was one in which Petitioner Alvis
Porter had a personal interest, albeit indirectly. . . .
Said comment is a violation of Rule 6 of the West
Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure and of Rule 3.6 of
the Rules of Professional Conduct;
[4]. The Respondent has operated his office for
political purposes by targeting for investigation those
whom he believes to be his political enemies by:
(i) Issuing subpoenas for improper purposes and
making subpoenas returnable at phantom proceedings,
thereby committing the tort of abuse of process;
(ii) Instituting improper criminal charges which
were thereafter dismissed, thereby committing the tort of
malicious prosecution;
(iii) Instituting improper civil actions. . .
. . . .
[5]. In 1997, Respondent Sims, when angry, made a
threat to Logan Magistrate Danny Wells in the Magistrate's
office and in the presence of another that he would more
vigorously prosecute the Magistrate's son on pending criminal
charges after being informed by the Magistrate that he had
dismissed a case because the Prosecutor had not timely appeared
for a scheduled hearing;
[6]. On various dates between July 1, 1992 and June 30,
1995, Respondent Sims submitted duplicate vouchers to the
Circuit Court of Logan County and to the Public Defender
Services for payments associated with court-appointed cases.
Between July 1995 and January 5, 1998, and including the time
after his election to the office of Prosecuting Attorney, the
Public Defender Services forwarded demands of repayment for
such duplicate payments which Respondent Sims ignored. The
acts of duplicate billing and refusal to respond to demands for
repayment [on] the part of Respondent Sims constitute larceny
and fraud;
[7]. On June 24, 1998, the Respondent did knowingly
make false representations to Circuit Judge Roger L. Perry of
Logan County in the case of State v. Robert Adams, 97-F-62P,
when the Respondent denied making statements to the press
which were attributed to him in quotes contained in the Logan
Banner. . . .
Mr. Sims engaged in the above conduct as an elected official. Such conduct
was deemed to justify his removal from office. See In re: Sims. However, for lawyer
disciplinary purposes, the majority has determined that this same conduct warrants only a
reprimand. To me, this is an unacceptable result. There is simply no justification for
permitting Mr. Sims' ability to practice law to go unimpeded after he engaged in such
egregious conduct as a public official. Moreover, the majority decision is inconsistent with
this Court's holding in syllabus point 3 of Committee On Legal Ethics of West Virginia State
Bar v. Roark, 181 W. Va. 260, 382 S.E.2d 313 (1989), wherein we held that [e]thical
violations by a lawyer holding a public office are viewed as more egregious because of the
betrayal of the public trust attached to the office. See also Committee on Legal Ethics of the
West Virginia State Bar v. White, 189 W. Va. 135, 428 S.E.2d 556 (1993) (lawyer was
prosecuting attorney who pled guilty to possession of cocaine and had his law license
suspended for two years); Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v.
Boettner, 188 W. Va. 1, 422 S.E.2d 478 (1992) (lawyer was state senator who pled guilty
to evading payment of federal income taxes and had his law license suspended for three
years); Committee on Legal Ethics of West Virginia State Bar v. Grubb, 187 W. Va. 608, 420
S.E.2d 744 (1992) (lawyer was judge who was convicted in federal court of criminal charges
and had his law license annulled); Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar
v. Moore, 186 W. Va. 127, 411 S.E.2d 452 (1991) (lawyer pled guilty to criminal acts that
grew out of his position as governor and had his law license annulled); Committee On Legal
Ethics of West Virginia State Bar v. Roark, 181 W. Va. 260, 382 S.E.2d 313 (1989) (lawyer
was prosecuting attorney and former mayor who pled guilty to possession of cocaine and had
his law license suspended for three years).