Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Taylor
Annotate this Case
_____________
No. 22452
_____________
LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Complainant
v.
WILLIAM DOUGLAS TAYLOR, A
MEMBER OF THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BAR,
Respondent
___________________________________________________________
Recommendation of the Committee on Legal Ethics
L.E.C. Nos. 93-02-193, 93-02-292,
93-02-306, 93-02-333, 93-02-352,
94-02-033, 94-02-097 and 94-02-104
LICENSE ANNULLED, PLUS COSTS
___________________________________________________________
Submitted: January 10, 1995
Filed: February 17, 1995
Sherri D. Goodman, Esq.
Chief Disciplinary Counsel,
West Virginia State Bar
Charleston, West Virginia
William Douglas Taylor, Pro Se
Martinsburg, West Virginia
The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
JUSTICE BROTHERTON did not participate.
JUDGE FOX sitting by temporary assignment.
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." Syllabus Point 1,
Committee on Legal Ethics v. Pence, ___ W. Va. ___, 216 S.E.2d 236
(1975).
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." Syllabus Point 2, Committee on Legal Ethics v.
Six, 181 W. Va. 52, 380 S.E.2d 219 (1989).
Per Curiam:
The Lawyer Disciplinary Board of the West Virginia State
Bar seeks to annul the law license of William Douglas Taylor, an
inactive member of the Bar. On September 15, 1994, the United
State District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
accepted Mr. Taylor's guilty plea to a one count violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 860, distribution of crack cocaine within
1,000 feet of a school. Based on our review of the record, we find
that Mr. Taylor is guilty of ethical violations and, therefore, we
adopt the recommendations of the Board and also require Mr. Taylor
to pay the Board's costs.
"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, ___ W. Va. ___, 216 S.E.2d 236 (1975). In
accord Syl. pt. 1, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Moore, 186 W. Va.
127, 411 S.E.2d 452 (1991); Syl. pt. 1, Committee on Legal Ethics
v. Six, 181 W. Va. 52, 380 S.E.2d 219 (1989); Syl. pt. 1, Committee
on Legal Ethics v. Walker, 178 W. Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (1987).
Proof of a final conviction satisfies the Board's burden
of proof. Syl. pt. 2, Committee v. Six, supra, states:
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.
In accord Syl. pt. 2, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Moore, supra;
Syl. pt. 1, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Boettner, 183 W. Va. 136,
394 S.E.2d 735 (1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 113 S. Ct. 209,
121 L. Ed. 2d 149 (1992). The Board in this case satisfied its
burden of proving Mr. Taylor's conviction by providing a copy of
the September 21, 1994 order of conviction.See footnote 1
Rule 8.4 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional
Conduct [1989] provides, in pertinent part:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer
to: . . .
(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. . . .
In Committee on Legal Ethics v. Boettner, 183 W. Va. at 139, 394 S.E.2d at 738, we noted that Rule 8.4 concentrates on "a criminal
act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects."
In this case, we find that the Board met its burden of
proof to annul Mr. Taylor's license. Accordingly, the Court adopts
the Board's recommendation and orders the annulment of Mr. Taylor's
license to practice law in the State of West Virginia. We also
required Mr. Taylor to reimburse the Board for the costs it
incurred in connection with this proceeding.
License annulled.
Footnote: 1
The State Bar By-laws, Art. VI, §25 [1991] provide, in
pertinent part:
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.
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.