
The chambers of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
CHARLESTON – The state Supreme Court has denied the reinstatement request of an attorney with a “pattern of intentional deceit and dishonesty.”
The court recently denied the request by Edward R. Kohout. He was disbarred in 2016 for “extensive” misconduct that included dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Court documents say he committed 15 acts that affected three separate clients and violated 11 different provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Several of his actions violated multiple rule provisions, so the state Office of Disciplinary Counsel proved a total of 28 violations.
Kohout wrongfully misappropriated and converted client settlement funds and funds he owed to a third party for payment of the client’s medical debt.
“Kohout bears a heavy burden to prove that he now possesses the integrity, high moral character and legal competence to justify reinstating his law license,” Justice C. Haley Bunn wrote in the Supreme Court opinion. “We find that Mr. Kohout has failed to meet his burden. Due to the lack of clear and convincing evidence permitting us to conclude that Mr. Kohout’s reinstatement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the public confidence in the administration of justice, we deny his petition for reinstatement.”
Before he seeks reinstatement again, the court says Kohout must fully reimburse the disciplinary board for the cost of the proceedings in which he was disbarred and for the cost of the reinstatement proceedings. He also must obtain an affidavit from a licensed attorney agreeing to supervise him upon reinstatement.
Kohout had to wait five years to apply for reinstatement. He did so in December 2021. A reinstatement hearing took place in May 2024. Character witnesses spoke on behalf of Kohout, including his then-wife who read a prepared statement and admitted her husband had typed her statement for her and that they “tweaked it a little bit” together.
“Because we cannot determine whether Ms. Kohout had a clear understanding of the offenses that led to Mr. Kohout’s disbarment, and her knowledge of his disciplinary history was limited, we give little weight to the character testimony she offered on his behalf,” Bunn wrote.
Kohout testified on his own behalf as well.
“His primary theme was that ‘all this ethics case is about’ is the fact that his ‘money ran out,’” the opinion states. “Although he expressed remorse and stated that he accepted full responsibility ‘for this ethics case,’ Mr. Kohout repeatedly defended his conduct and refuted this court’s conclusions about the misconduct that led to his disbarment.”
The hearing panel recommended the denial of Kohout’s petition for reinstatement, and he requested a hearing with the Supreme Court. That took place in March.
“Kohout’s dishonest and deceitful character … which developed into a long-standing pattern of intentional misconduct, combined with his failure to accept responsibility for his actions and lack of remorse, provide no basis for attributing the misconduct underlying his disbarment to inexperience or mistake,” Bunn wrote. “Rather, given his lengthy disciplinary record and years of practice, Mr. Kohout should, by now, have a thorough understanding of the high moral standards and integrity required of those who are granted the privilege to practice law.”
Kohout was admitted to practice in the state in 1987. In 2015, the Investigative Panel of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board issued a four-count statement of charges based on four complaints against him. One of those counts was dismissed, but the other three led to the annulment of his license in 2016.
He also had previous disciplinary offenses, one of which led to his license being suspended for two years. Other previous disciplinary action dated back to 1992 and some that happened while he still was in law school in the 1970s.
“We perceive little evidence that Mr. Kohout has recognized the wrongfulness of his prior conduct,” Bunn wrote. “Rather, he continues to deny or minimize his misconduct, revealing that he has neither rejected the conduct nor developed a correct sense of his professional responsibility.
“Although Mr. Kohout professes to have accepted responsibility for his transgressions and claims remorse, his testimony during the Hearing Panel’s reinstatement hearing and his brief to this court in support of his reinstatement demonstrate otherwise. … Mr. Kohout’s characterization of his misconduct as being solely due to running out of money demonstrates his profound misunderstanding or willful denial of the conduct that led to his disbarment.”
The 53-page filing also says Kohout accused a former employee of lying when she testified before the Hearing Panel, and he then insulted the same woman by commenting, “Looks like you’ve gained some weight since we spoke last time; is that true?” at the beginning of his cross examination of her.
It says Kohout also left a message on Ron Kramer’s law firm website at 3:14 a.m. the day after Kramer testified before the Hearing Panel.
“You’re a disposable person, Ron,” Kohout said, according to the court filing. “You’re a liar and vindictive, deceitful and conniving. And a fraud. You didn’t accomplish a thing yesterday. I just still cannot understand why you and K.T. (another former employee) continue to stalk me and try to hurt me. It’s been 10 years!
“When will your hate ever end? You’re no Marine! You may have served in the Corps, but you are without honor. I would love to see your service record. … Your day will come.”
It says Kohout also has publicly portrayed the ODC as stupid, incompetent, corrupt and malevolent. In a 2017 online writing, Kohout called the state’s legal system “broken and corrupt.”
And in a 2018 post on The West Virginia Record’s Facebook page, Kohout commented, “The people have no idea how corrupt and stupid and unfair the lawyer disciplinary process is … First of all, the women (and it’s all women) running the ODC are stupid, incompetent, corrupt and lazy. And they play favorites. They go after lawyers they don’t like. They go after lawyers whom they’re told to go after. They couldn’t find their fat asses with both hands. They are pure evil.
“They are puppets of the (Supreme Court) and the big law firms. They are not doing their job properly and they don’t care one bit about the ‘public’ whom they claim to be protecting. Someone needs to be protecting the public and the Bar from these stupid evil bitches!”
Bunn says the disbarment of an attorney is not just a punishment, but it’s also for the protection of the public and the profession.
“Our discussion of the five factors used to evaluate a petition for reinstatement demonstrate that Mr. Kohout has failed to carry his heavy burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that he possesses the integrity, moral character and legal competence necessary to resume the practice of law,” Bunn wrote. “This lack of evidence prevents us from reaching the mandatory conclusion that his reinstatement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the public confidence in the administration of justice, and we must deny Mr. Kohout’s petition for reinstatement.”
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 21-1033