Clarifying Sanctions for Repeated Lawyer Neglect and Non-Compliance: Standards Reinforced in Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Curnutte

Introduction

In Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Scott A. Curnutte, 2025 WL XXXXX (W. Va. June 6, 2025), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed disciplinary charges arising from four separate client matters in which Attorney Scott Curnutte neglected his clients, failed to communicate, disregarded court‐ordered mediation duties and repeatedly ignored requests from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC). The Lawyer Disciplinary Board’s Hearing Panel Subcommittee (HPS) found multiple ethics violations and recommended a six-month license suspension. On de novo review of the legal issues (and with respectful deference to the HPS’s factual findings), the Court affirmed all findings and imposed the six-month suspension plus standard reinstatement requirements and cost reimbursement.

Key issues:

• Scope and effect of the de novo review standard versus deference to factual findings;
• Clear and convincing proof of violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) and disciplinary procedure rules;
• Appropriate sanction for repeated lawyer neglect, failure to communicate, tribunal rule violation and non-cooperation with disciplinary investigations.

Parties:

• Petitioner: Lawyer Disciplinary Board, by Office of Disciplinary Counsel
• Respondent: Scott A. Curnutte, long-time solo practitioner

Summary of the Judgment

Over a one-year span ODC received four complaints against Curnutte:

1. McFarlan Property Dispute – failure to complete corrected deeds, to keep the client informed, to expedite litigation, and non-cooperation with ODC.
2. Lambert Estate Matter – failure to pursue settlement proceeds and repeated non-response to ODC inquiries.
3. Orrillo Criminal Representation – charged and found only for non-cooperation with disciplinary counsel.
4. Kramer Family-Court Mediation – failure to reduce a court-ordered mediated agreement to writing, prejudicial conduct, and non-cooperation with ODC.

The HPS found eleven violations of RPC 1.3, 1.4(a)(3),(4), 3.2, 3.4(c), 8.4(d) and 8.1(b), and recommended:

• Six-month suspension of law license
• Compliance with Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure 3.28 (suspension duties), 3.32 (reinstatement), 3.15 (costs)

The Supreme Court affirmed all findings, applied a de novo standard to legal questions, gave deference to factual findings supported by clear and convincing evidence, and imposed the recommended sanction.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Committee on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W. Va. 286 (1994) – establishes de novo review for law questions and deference for fact findings supported by substantial evidence.
• Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Cain, 245 W. Va. 693 (2021) – reaffirms the Court’s ultimate authority in lawyer discipline.
• Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. McGraw, 194 W. Va. 788 (1995) – clear and convincing proof required for formal charges.
• Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel v. Jordan, 204 W. Va. 495 (1998) – enumerates factors for imposing sanctions under Rule 3.16.
• Comm. on Legal Ethics v. Walker, 178 W. Va. 150 (1987) – mandates that sanctions serve punishment, deterrence, and public confidence.

2. Legal Reasoning

Standard of Review:

• Questions of law, application of law, and appropriate sanctions – de novo.
• Findings of fact – respectful deference if supported by reliable, probative, substantial evidence.

Proof and Credibility: ODC met its burden by clear and convincing evidence on all counts. The HPS credited client testimonies about repeated unreturned calls, delayed deeds and unprepared mediation agreements. The Court deferred to those credibility determinations.

Rule Violations:

• RPC 1.3 (diligence): Documents remained incomplete for years after settlement.
• RPC 1.4(a)(3),(4) (communication): Clients repeatedly testified to unanswered calls and status inquiries ignored.
• RPC 3.2 (expediting litigation): Multi-year delays without justification.
• RPC 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party/counsel): Non-compliance with family-court mediation rule requiring written agreement within five days.
• RPC 8.4(d) (misconduct): Prejudicial conduct in failing to memorialize a mediation agreement he had promised to prepare.
• RPC 8.1(b) (bar admission/disciplinary matters): Eleven instances of failing to respond to lawful ODC requests.

Sanction Analysis (Rule 3.16 factors):

1. Duty violated: to clients, public, legal system, profession.
2. Mental state: intentional and knowing breaches of duty.
3. Actual injury: client frustration, delay of property rights and estate distributions, erosion of public trust.
4. Aggravating factors: pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, prior discipline, substantial experience.
   Mitigating factor: late-stage cooperation at hearing only.

The Court compared Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Davis (2022) – six-month suspension under similar facts and prior record – and concluded the same sanction is appropriate here to punish, deter peers, and restore public confidence.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces that:

• Attorneys must act diligently, communicate promptly with clients, and respect tribunal rules governing mediation.
• Rule 8.1(b) cooperation with disciplinary counsel is non-negotiable; repeated non-response constitutes an aggravating factor.
• The Supreme Court will continue rigorous de novo review of legal questions while deferring to well-supported factual findings.
• Consistent application of suspension guidelines—especially for experienced attorneys with prior discipline—serves as a caution to all practitioners.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• De novo review: The Court re-examines legal issues from scratch, though it defers to factual findings if properly supported.
• Clear and convincing evidence: A higher proof standard than “preponderance,” requiring a firm belief that the allegations are highly probable.
• RPC 1.3 and 1.4: Lawyers must act promptly and keep clients informed; ignoring client calls violates these duties.
• RPC 3.4(c) & Rule 43: Court-ordered mediators must reduce agreed terms to writing within five days to ensure enforceable outcomes.
• Aggravating vs. mitigating factors: Circumstances that make misconduct more or less severe when deciding the discipline.

Conclusion

Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Curnutte stands as a clear reaffirmation of the West Virginia Supreme Court’s disciplinary standards: attorneys must diligently pursue client matters, communicate promptly, obey tribunal rules, and fully cooperate with disciplinary investigations. The six-month suspension—mirroring prior decisions—demonstrates a consistent approach to sanctioning experienced attorneys with repeated misconduct and prior discipline. By balancing punishment, deterrence, and public confidence, the Court provides a guiding framework for future disciplinary cases.