# Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Scott

> West Virginia Supreme Court · March 14, 2003 · 213 W. Va. 209

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570064

## Case

- **Full name:** LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant, v. John A. SCOTT, a Member of the West Virginia State Bar, Respondent
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 14, 2003
- **Citations:** 213 W. Va. 209; 579 S.E.2d 550; 2003 W. Va. LEXIS 17
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McGRAW
- **Judges:** Davis, McGraw
- **Cited by:** 85 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570064

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that lawyer’s violation of Rules of Professional Conduct while holding public office was an aggravating factor
- holding that aggravating factors may justify increasing the degree of discipline imposed

## Opinion text

McGRAW, Justice,
dissenting:
I dissent because I believe that a fixed term for suspension is inappropriate in this case. I agree that the Bar and this Court have a duty to protect the public. However, I also believe that where illness is the basis for limiting an attorney’s practice, the period of limitation should be determined by the duration of the illness, rather than by some arbitrary standard. As the majority observed, “[djisbarment of an attorney to practice law is not used solely to punish the attorney but is' for the protection of the public and the profession.” Syl. pt. 2, In re Daniel, 153 W.Va. 839 , 173 S.E.2d 153 (1970).
I agree that the attorney here should not practice law until he can show that his condition has improved. However, I would permit reinstatement of the attorney’s law license upon a showing that his illness is under control and will not adversely affect the public interest. Furthermore, I believe that my position is consistent with the logic of the majority opinion.
The majority opinion adopts the ABA’s list of mitigating factors to consider in lawyer disciplinary procedures. After analyzing the mitigating factors in this case, the majority concludes that the suggested penalty of annulment of his license was an inappropriate sanction. I feel that a logical extension of the majoiity’s reasoning is that the attorney should have his license reinstated once he can demonstrate that his illness is under control. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570064. Public record. Not legal advice.