Denial of Reinstatement for Public-Office Misconduct and Inconsistent Admissions Undermining Rehabilitation

Introduction

In the matter of In re Petition for Reinstatement of C. Michael Sparks, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia addressed whether a ten-year-disbarred lawyer, who served as the elected Prosecuting Attorney of Mingo County and pled guilty to a federal misdemeanor for depriving a criminal defendant of the right to counsel, had demonstrated sufficient integrity, moral character and rehabilitation to warrant reinstatement. The petition stemmed from petitioner’s disbarment-by-consent in October 2013—an express term of his plea agreement in a corruption scandal involving public officials—and his request, a decade later, to return to the bar under a recommended two-year supervision. Key issues included: (1) the gravity of petitioner’s admitted misconduct under color of law; (2) his obligation to bear the burden of proof on rehabilitation; (3) the deference owed to the Hearing Panel Subcommittee’s findings versus the Court’s independent judgment; and (4) the impact of petitioner’s inconsistent testimony regarding the factual basis he once stipulated under oath.

Summary of the Judgment

Chief Justice Wooton, writing for the majority, denied C. Michael Sparks’s petition for reinstatement. The Court concluded that:

• Petitioner’s misconduct as a public officer—agreeing to a more favorable plea deal to deprive a defendant of counsel in order to protect another public official—was a direct affront to the integrity of the justice system.
• His sworn admissions at sentencing (stipulating he knowingly participated in the scheme) conflicted materially with his later testimony before the Hearing Panel Subcommittee (minimizing his role as a mere bystander), undermining any credible demonstration of rehabilitation.
• The Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s change of position in support of reinstatement did not bind the Court; the Court must exercise its own de novo review of the record.
• Given the seriousness of the misconduct and petitioner’s inconsistent accounts, he failed to satisfy the burden of proving present fitness, moral character and rehabilitation—and reinstatement would risk eroding public confidence in the administration of justice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• McCorkle (192 W. Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377, 1994): Establishes that appellate review of disciplinary reinstatement is de novo on legal questions, with substantial deference to fact-findings by the Hearing Panel Subcommittee.
• In re Brown (166 W. Va. 226, 273 S.E.2d 567, 1980), Syllabus Points 1, 2 and 3:
  • Sets the general rule: a disbarred attorney seeking reinstatement bears the burden to prove present integrity, moral character, legal competence and rehabilitation.
  • Requires the Court to ensure reinstatement will not harm public confidence.
  • Directs that panel recommendations are given substantial consideration absent mistake of law or arbitrary fact assessment.
• Roark (181 W. Va. 260, 382 S.E.2d 313, 1989): Holds that an ethical violation by a lawyer in public office is “more egregious” due to the betrayal of public trust.
• DiTrapano decisions:
  • DiTrapano I (233 W. Va. 754, 760 S.E.2d 568, 2014): Denial of reinstatement where attorney minimized and rationalized misconduct despite expressions of remorse.
  • DiTrapano II (240 W. Va. 612, 814 S.E.2d 275, 2018): Reaffirms the Court’s independent judgment on reinstatement despite panel recommendations.

Legal Reasoning

The Court employed the well-established five-factor test for reinstatement:

1. Nature of the original offense;
2. Petitioner’s character, maturity and experience at disbarment;
3. Occupations and conduct since disbarment;
4. Time elapsed since disbarment;
5. Present competence in legal skills.

Although petitioner demonstrated commendable post-disbarment conduct and competence, the Court found two elements dispositive:

• Gravity of misconduct as public official: Intentionally using prosecutorial power to deprive a defendant of chosen counsel, to protect corrupt colleagues, strikes at the heart of the justice system and public trust.
• Inconsistent sworn admissions: Under oath at sentencing, petitioner admitted active knowledge and assent to the coercion scheme; before the reinstatement panel, he recharacterized his role as passive and denied offering a more favorable plea—demonstrating a lack of consistent acceptance of responsibility and undermining rehabilitation.

The Hearing Panel Subcommittee’s reasoning—that the discrepancies were “misperceptions” and that petitioner’s cooperation and remorse outweighed them—was deemed insufficient to overcome the objective record. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that rehabilitation requires unwavering candor and sincere acceptance of wrongdoing.

Impact

This decision clarifies and reinforces several points for future reinstatement proceedings:

• Attorneys who misuse public office and betray the public trust face a high bar to reinstatement, regardless of subsequent good conduct.
• Inconsistent or self-serving accounts of the misconduct—especially when they conflict with prior sworn stipulations—will likely preclude a finding of rehabilitation.
• The Hearing Panel Subcommittee’s recommendation, even if unanimous or consented to by Disciplinary Counsel, does not bind the Court’s de novo review; the Supreme Court will scrutinize the totality of the record for sincerity and integrity.
• Disbarred attorneys should carefully consider that closing pending disciplinary complaints by consent to disbarment does not erase those allegations from subsequent reinstatement evaluations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• De novo review: The Supreme Court independently reviews legal questions and the application of law to facts, though it defers to a hearing panel’s basic findings of fact.
• Rehabilitation: Beyond mere passage of time, it requires a demonstrated change in attitude, full acceptance of past misconduct, and objective evidence that the attorney will not reoffend.
• Stipulation of facts in plea cases: A written agreement under oath that certain facts are true; inconsistent later testimony about those facts undermines credibility and rehabilitation.
• Public-office misconduct: Misconduct by a lawyer holding elected or appointed governmental office is treated more severely because the offense involves a betrayal of the public trust.

Conclusion

In In re Petition for Reinstatement of C. Michael Sparks, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied reinstatement based on the gravity of petitioner’s betrayal of public trust and his inconsistent, self-exculpatory testimony contradicting sworn stipulations. The decision underscores that reinstatement demands more than exemplary post-disbarment behavior: it requires steadfast acknowledgment of wrongdoing, consistent candor, and an unimpeachable demonstration of moral character and rehabilitation. By reaffirming these standards, the Court protects public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice.