Rule 3.18 - Conviction of crime that reflects adversely on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness(a) A lawyer who has been convicted of a crime that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall, within thirty days of entry of the order of judgment of conviction, forward a copy of the order or judgment to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Failure to forward a copy shall constitute an aggravating factor in any subsequent disciplinary proceeding.(b) Any court in which any lawyer shall be convicted of any crime that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall, as part of the judgment, direct its clerk to forward a certified copy of the order or judgment of conviction to the office of Disciplinary Counsel.(c) 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 rule.(d) A lawyer shall be deemed to have been convicted within the meaning of this rule upon the entry of the order or judgment of conviction and such lawyer's license may be suspended or annulled thereupon notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal from such conviction.(e) Upon receipt of the order or judgment, which shall be conclusive evidence of the guilt of the crime or crimes of which the lawyer has been convicted, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel shall prepare formal charges to be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals, with a copy provided to the Chairperson of the Hearing Panel of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board. The formal charge shall inform the lawyer of the right to file a written request with the Chairperson of the Hearing Panel of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board for a mitigation hearing within thirty days of the date of the charge. Service of the formal charge shall be made in accordance with Rule 2.11.(f) The Chairperson of the Hearing Panel of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board shall determine whether a mitigation hearing is warranted. Whether a mitigation hearing is warranted in a particular instance will depend upon a variety of factors, including but not limited to, the nature of the respondent's misconduct, surrounding facts and circumstances, previous ethical violations, the willfulness of the conduct, and the adequacy of the respondent's previous opportunity to present evidence for a determination of appropriate sanctions. If the Chairperson determines a mitigation hearing is not warranted, a written ruling on the request for a mitigation hearing shall be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals. The lawyer may file written objections to this ruling with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals within ten days, and the Supreme Court of Appeals will review the decision.(g) When the Chairperson of the Hearing Panel of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board determines a mitigation hearing is warranted, or the Supreme Court of Appeals reverses the Chairperson's decision not to conduct a mitigation hearing and remands the matter to the Hearing Panel, a Hearing Panel Subcommittee of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board shall be appointed to conduct the hearing. The procedure for such hearings shall be in accordance with the rules governing other lawyer disciplinary hearings. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel may introduce evidence of aggravating factors at any mitigation hearing. The matter will be referred to the Supreme Court of Appeals for disposition upon the report of a Hearing Panel Subcommittee of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board in accordance with the rules governing other disciplinary matters.W. Va. R. Law. Disci. Proc. 3.18
Amended by order entered May 6, 1999, effective 7/1/1999.