No. 31275 - Lawyer Disciplinary
Board v. Keith L. Wheaton, A Member of the West Virginia State Bar
Starcher, J., dissenting:
Mr. Wheaton, inexperienced and
on his own in a new area, got in way over his head, and made some serious errors
of judgment. The majority details Mr. Wheaton's errors in several cases; but
it does not discuss the many legal matters that Mr. Wheaton did handle properly;
nor does it take into serious consideration how his work did bring an important
degree of racial diversity to the legal community in the Eastern Panhandle.
Mr. Wheaton's attorney before
this Court, Ms. Katherine Dooley, ably argued that this Court should weigh in
the balance the importance of encouraging diversity in the practice of law. I
thoroughly concur in this argument.
I agree that Mr. Wheaton's conduct
has been such that he should, at this time, be suspended from practicing law
for some period of time. I part company from the majority on the degree of sanction
that he should receive, and the burden that Mr. Wheaton should have in seeking reinstatement.
Generally speaking, a full
annulment sanction places a different burden on the person seeking reinstatement
than does a suspension sanction. See generally Lawyer Disciplinary
Bd. v. Moore, 214 W.Va. 780, 591 S.E.2d 338 (2003).
Mr. Wheaton is a young man who
made some grievous errors. Because I fully support the effort that former Justice
Cleckley began when he urged Mr. Wheaton to begin a solo practice in the Eastern
Panhandle, I would like to see Mr. Wheaton return to the bar _ if and only if
he demonstrates his fitness to do so. To make such a demonstration much more
realistically feasible, while still fully protecting the public interest, I would
impose a three-year suspension with strict reinstatement conditions, including
full restitution.
Accordingly, I dissent.
I am authorized to state that
Justice McGraw joins in this dissent.