Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Howard J. Blyler (Separate)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14-0365 – Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Howard J. Blyler Chief Justice Ketchum, dissenting: FILED June 3, 2016 released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA I agree with the discipline recommended by the hearing panel. Lawyer Blyler was inattentive to the confiscation of his client’s money by the State. His inattentive conduct was caused by caring for his wife who was dying from Alzheimer’s disease. He did not have the financial resources to hire others to provide her with full time, in-home care that she required. The majority is requiring Lawyer Blyler to pay back the approximately $47,000 he owes to the estate. At the same time, the majority is taking away his opportunity to earn an income by suspending his law license. These are self-defeating sanctions that defy common sense. Even the complaining party agrees that Lawyer Blyler should be permitted to continue to practice so that restitution can be made. I dissent.

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.