Legal Ethics v. Grubb
Annotate this Case
January 1992 Term
_____________
No. 21200
_____________
THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL ETHICS
OF THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BAR,
Complainant
v.
JAMES NED GRUBB, AN INACTIVE MEMBER
OF THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BAR,
Respondent
___________________________________________________________
Recommendation of the Committee on Legal Ethics
LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW ANNULLED
___________________________________________________________
Submitted: July 7, 1992
Filed: July 15, 1992
Sherri D. Goodman, Esq.
West Virginia State Bar
Charleston, West Virginia
Attorney for the Complainant
Robert P. Martin, Esq.
Meyer, Darragh, Buckler,
Bebenek & Eck
Charleston, West Virginia
Attorney for the Respondent
The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. "'"In a court proceeding initiated by the Committee
on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar to annul the license
of an attorney to practice law, the burden is on the Committee to
prove, by full, preponderating and clear evidence, the charges
contained in the Committee's complaint." Syl. Pt. 1, Committee on
Legal Ethics v. Pence, 216 S.E.2d 236 (W. Va. 1975).' Syllabus
Point 1, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Walker, 178 W. Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (1987). Syl. pt. 1, Committee on Legal Ethics of the
West Virginia State Bar v. Six, 181 W. Va. 52, 380 S.E.2d 219
(1989)." Syllabus Point 1, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Moore, 186
W. Va. 127, 411 S.E.2d 452 (1991).
2. "'Where there has been a final criminal conviction,
proof on the record of such conviction satisfies the Committee on
Legal Ethics' burden of proving an ethical violation arising from
such conviction.' Syl. pt. 2, Committee on Legal Ethics of the
West Virginia State Bar v. Six, 181 W. Va. 52, 380 S.E.2d 219
(1989)." Syllabus Point 2, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Moore, 186
W. Va. 127, 411 S.E.2d 452 (1991).
Per Curiam:
This disciplinary proceeding was instituted by the
Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar against
James Ned Grubb, an inactive member of the Bar.See footnote 1 The Committee
recommends that Mr. Grubb's license to practice law be annulled
based on his criminal conviction in United States of America v.
James Ned Grubb, Criminal No. 2:92-00047-01 (S.D.W.V. filed May 7,
1992). If Mr. Grubb's conviction is reversed on appeal, the
Committee recommends that his license be reinstated, and the
Committee proceed with a formal complaint. Because of Mr. Grubb's
conviction, we adopt the Committee's recommendation for discipline.
Mr. Grubb, an inactive member of the Bar, was an elected
circuit court judge when the alleged violations occurred. Mr.
Grubb's case was tried by a jury and on May 7, 1992 Mr. Grubb was
found guilty of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) (bribery of a
public official), § 1341 (mail fraud), § 371 (conspiracy), § 1512
(witness tampering), § 1503 (obstruction of justice), § 1962 (RICO)
and § 2 (aiding and abetting).
The Committee on Legal Ethics contends that because Mr. Grubb violated Rule 8.4 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional
Conduct [1990]See footnote 2, his license should be annulled. If Mr. Grubb's
conviction is reversed on appeal, the Committee recommends that Mr.
Grubb's license be reinstated.See footnote 3
The Committee has the burden of proving the charge against Mr. Grubb by full, preponderating and clear evidence. "'In a court proceeding initiated by the Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar to annul the license of an attorney to practice law, the burden is on the Committee to prove, by full,
preponderating and clear evidence, the charges contained in the
Committee's complaint.' Syl. Pt. 1, Committee on Legal Ethics v.
Pence, 216 S.E.2d 236 (W. Va. 1975). Syllabus Point 1, Committee
on Legal Ethics v. Walker, 178 W. Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (1987).
Syl. pt. 1, Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State
Bar v. Six, 181 W. Va. 52, 380 S.E.2d 219 (1989)." Syllabus Point
1, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Moore, 186 W. Va. 127, 411 S.E.2d 452 (1991).
However, a final criminal conviction satisfies our burden
of proof. "'Where there has been a final criminal conviction,
proof on the record of such conviction satisfies the Committee on
Legal Ethics' burden of proving an ethical violation arising from
such conviction.' Syl. pt. 2, Committee on Legal Ethics of the
West Virginia State Bar v. Six, 181 W. Va. 52, 380 S.E.2d 219
(1989)." Syllabus Point 2, Moore supra.
In the present case, Mr. Grubb was found guilty by a jury
of the seven charges listed above. Mr. Grubb contends that he will
appeal the decision and, therefore, agrees with the Committee's
recommendation that his license be suspended pending the outcome of
his appeal.
Mr. Grubb was convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude or professional unfitness. Article VI, § 23 of the By-Laws of the State Bar [1991] states, in pertinent part: "The
license of any attorney shall be annulled and such attorney shall be disbarred upon proof that he has been convicted . . . of any crime involving moral turpitude or professional unfitness . . . ." Article VI, § 25 of the By-Laws of the State Bar [1991] states that if an attorney is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or professional unfitness or a felony "such attorney's license shall thereupon be suspended notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal from such a conviction."See footnote 4 Section 25 of Article VI also provides
that "[w]here a conviction is reversed upon appeal the license of
such attorney shall be reinstated but the reinstatement shall not
terminate any formal proceeding then pending against the attorney,
the disposition of which shall be determined by the committee on
legal ethics on the basis of the available evidence."
We find that the Committee has met its burden of proof to
annul Mr. Grubb's license; however, if his conviction is reversed
on appeal, Mr. Grubb's license shall be reinstated and the
annulment ordered by this decision shall be considered a
suspension. If Mr. Grubb's license is reinstated, the Committee
may continue with its proceeding against Mr. Grubb on the basis of
the available evidence.
Accordingly, the Court annuls Mr. Grubb's license to
practice law.
License annulled.
Footnote: 1In order to be reinstated as an active member of the Bar, an
inactive member needs to meet certain continuing legal education
requirements and to pay dues.
Footnote: 2Rule 8.4 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct
[1990] provides:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer
to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules
of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or
induce another to do so, or do so through the
acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to
the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence
improperly a government agency or official; or
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial
officer in conduct that is a violation of
applicable rules of judicial conduct or other
law.
Footnote: 3The parties request Mr. Grubb's license be suspended pending
his appeal, and pending the outcome, this Court make a final
decision.
Footnote: 4Article VI, § 25 of the By-Laws of the State Law [1991]
provides:
In any proceeding to suspend or annul the
license of any such attorney because of his
conviction of any crime or crimes mentioned in
sections twenty-three or twenty-four, a
certified copy of the order or judgment of
conviction shall be conclusive evidence of
guilt of the crime or crimes of which the
attorney has been convicted. A plea or
verdict of guilty or a conviction after a plea
of nolo contendere shall be deemed to be a
conviction within the meaning of this section.
The committee on legal ethics, the president,
or the board may procure and transmit a
certified copy of the order or judgment of
conviction to the supreme court of appeals.
Upon the filing of such judgment order of
conviction, the court shall issue an order
addressed to the attorney to show cause why
his license should not be suspended or
annulled. Such order shall be served and
executed on the attorney in accordance with
the provisions of section thirty-nine of this
article. An attorney shall be deemed to have
been convicted within the meaning of sections
twenty-three and twenty-four upon the entry of
the order or judgment of conviction by the
trial court and such attorney's license shall
thereupon be suspended notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal from such a conviction.
An attorney whose license has been suspended
or annulled by a trial court as a part of the
judgment of conviction may within ten days
after the entry of said judgment order of
conviction file with the supreme court of
appeals a petition showing good cause why his
license should not be so suspended or annulled
pending appeal. The supreme court may permit
the attorney to present oral argument in
support of his petition and shall promptly
grant or deny the same.
Where a conviction is reversed upon appeal the license of such attorneys shall be reinstated but the reinstatement shall not terminate any formal proceeding then pending against the attorney, the disposition of which shall be determined by the committee on legal ethics on the basis of the available evidence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.