WV Supreme Court takes up case questioning disciplinary board ju - Beckley, Bluefield & Lewisburg News, Weather, Sports

WV Supreme Court takes up case questioning disciplinary board jurisdiction

Posted: Updated:
Photo courtesy of the West Virginia Supreme Court Photo courtesy of the West Virginia Supreme Court
  • Local NewsLocal NewsMore>>

  • Mass.-based fighter jet crashes in Virginia

    Mass.-based fighter jet crashes in Virginia

    A sheriff's dispatcher says authorities are searching for a military jet that crashed in western Virginia.
    A Massachusetts Air National Guard officer says authorities are still searching for the pilot of a fighter jet that crashed in Virginia and do not know whether the pilot may have ejected.
  • UPDATE: Search for suspects in Beckley shooting continues

    UPDATE: Search for suspects in Beckley shooting continues

    Wednesday, August 27 2014 11:49 AM EDT2014-08-27 15:49:18 GMT
    Three people are in the hospital Tuesday night after a shooting along Antonio Avenue in Beckley.Police said around 5 PM two men rushed up to a basketball game on a court near an apartment complex and started firing guns.Three men suffered injuries as a result.The three men were taken to a nearby hospital.Detective Morgan Bragg with Beckley Police said one man was in surgery around 6 PM Tuesday night.The other two men were in stable condition. Surveillance video from a camera near the basketba...
    Three people are in the hospital Tuesday night after a shooting along Antonio Avenue in Beckley.Police said around 5 PM two men rushed up to a basketball game on a court near an apartment complex and started firing guns.Three men suffered injuries as a result.The three men were taken to a nearby hospital.Detective Morgan Bragg with Beckley Police said one man was in surgery around 6 PM Tuesday night.The other two men were in stable condition. Surveillance video from a camera near the basketba...
  • Residents Without A Home Following Fire

    Residents Without A Home Following Fire

    Wednesday, August 27 2014 10:58 AM EDT2014-08-27 14:58:25 GMT
    Residents in a Shady Spring home are displaced after a fire burnt down their home on Tuesday evening.
    Residents in a Shady Spring home are displaced after a fire burnt down their home on Tuesday evening.

Do the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board have jurisdiction to prosecute alleged state code violations against a patent lawyer, who is not a West Virginia State Bar member?

This was the question Milton patent lawyer Olen L. York presented to West Virginia Supreme Court justices in an April 24 oral argument hearing at West Virginia State University.

The WVSU argument hearing was part of the court's community outreach.

"We are happy to visit the campus of West Virginia State and to be in the company of students, faculty, administrators and neighbors," Chief Justice Brent Benjamin said in a news release.

York filed the petition for writ of prohibition against the West Virginia Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board.

In his petition, York said he is admitted as a licensed member of the Ohio Bar and he also was admitted to practice law before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Additionally, York said he performed patent and trademark work as an independent contractor for the Waters Law Firm. York said he only handled these types of issues before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, representing clients from Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, California and West Virginia.

He said he never appeared in any West Virginia court.

However, the disciplinary board and the disciplinary counsel disagree, asserting they could pursue the charges because York practiced law in West Virginia.

Robert Waters, head of the Waters Law Group, later initiated a complaint against York and a statement of charges was issued against York in September 2012.

The charges stemmed from a dispute between the two over fees York earned for work he did for the firm. The statement alleged York left the Waters Law Group to work for a Charleston law firm, receiving payments for legal work he performed for two patent clients he had represented while associated with the Waters Law Group.

The statement also asserts York violated rules of professional conduct for failing to have a separate client account, failing to notify the Waters Law Group of money received by a client and failing to have an IOLTA account.

Additionally, the statement of charges alleged York commingled, misappropriated and converted funds for his own use.

York says both entities, the disciplinary board and the disciplinary counsel, do not have jurisdiction because his practice was limited to patent and trademark issues before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

"When the regulation of the practice of law by a state court conflicts with federal courts, the state court regulation is preempted by federal law, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution," York argues in his petition. "In this case, because (York) was authorized by the USPTO to represent clients before that federal agency, he was authorized to take whatever actions were necessary to represent his clients, even if such actions occurred in West Virginia."

However, the disciplinary board and disciplinary counsel say they do have jurisdiction because "the practice of law in West Virginia is not limited to actions that can only be filed before a West Virginia court or tribunal, but encompasses any instance a party provides another with advice or service under circumstance which imply the possession or use of legal knowledge or skill."

Both entities say he engaged in the practice of law in the Mountain State. Thus, the court has authority to regulate and control the practice of law within state lines, the response asserts.  

"Such jurisdiction is necessary to protect the public, to reassure the public as to the reliability and integrity of attorneys, to safeguard the public interest in the administration of justice, to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct and is not in conflict with or preempted by federal law," their response asserts.