The chambers of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
CHARLESTON – The state Supreme Court has suspended the law license of an Elkins attorney for six months for failing to communicate with clients.
In a June 6 opinion, the court says Scott Curnutte also failed to communicate with the state Office of Disciplinary Counsel after four complaints had been filed against him within one year regarding his inaction and lack of communication.
Justice Beth Walker wrote the majority opinion for the court. Chief Justice Bill Wooton concurred in part and dissented in part, and he filed a separate opinion in the case.
“Curnutte acknowledges his neglect of ODC’s requests, and he contends that an admonishment is the appropriate sanction for that ethical violation, but he denies that ODC proved the other charged violations,” the majority opinion states. “Because we find that all charged misconduct was clearly and convincingly established before the HPS (Hearing Panel Subcommittee of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board), and due to the presence of several aggravating factors, a six-month suspension of Curnutte’s law license is called for along with the other sanctions.”
Curnutte is a solo practitioner in Elkins, and he has practiced law since 1991.
According to court filings, the HPS conducted a hearing on each of the four charges against Curnutte.
In one property dispute, Curnutte was retained to represent a man against the owners of adjoining property. Curnutte filed an action to quiet title, and the parties reached a settlement at mediation in July 2019. The terms of the settlement required the parties to survey relevant portions of their respective properties and execute and record new deeds to quiet their respective titles.
Curnutte and Frank Bush, the opposing counsel, prepared new deeds, but after they were recorded, Curnutte’s client received a notification from the tax office of an issue with the deeds. Curnutte prepared a second set of deeds, but Bush said they did not accurately reflect the parties’ mediated agreement. Curnutte prepared a third set, but Bush also found those unacceptable.
“In response to a request from ODC, Mr. Bush advised that he had conveyed an offer to Mr. Curnutte that would fully resolve the case, but Mr. Curnutte had not responded,” the opinion states. “By the time of the April 2024 hearing before the HPS, years had passed since (the) property dispute was settled, and he still did not have a corrected deed for his property. At the HPS hearing, (the client) testified that he called Mr. Curnutte numerous times to resolve the issue, but Mr. Curnutte did not respond or resolve the issue.”
In another matter, a man retained Curnutte to pursue an elective share of his wife’s estate. Curnutte filed the petition, which remained pending with the Tucker County Commission for several years before it was removed to Circuit Court. It was resolved four years after the filing and a settlement was reached, but the client never had received the money.
The client said “Curnutte refused to take action in the matter, speak with him on the phone, or meet him in person.”
In a third case, Curnutte was appointed to represent a man in a criminal matter. That man filed a complaint alleging Curnutte failed to communicate with him.
In the fourth case, Curnutte served as a mediator in a family court matter to modify a parenting plan. At mediation, the parties reached an agreement. Curnutte never memorialized the agreement as promised nor prepared the agreement. Several weeks later, the opposing party withdrew from the mediated agreement, which the client attributed to Curnutte’s failure to prepare the agreement.
In total, there were 11 ethics violations the HPS found Curnutte committed.
Curnutte admitted to four violations to Rule 8.1(b) for failing to respond to the ODC’s lawful requests for information in each dispute. But he denies the other violations.
“He also disagrees that a six-month suspension of his law license is warranted, arguing instead that an admonishment suffices,” the opinion states. “He states that the HPS failed to account for the fact that he services a ‘rural’ and ‘under-served’ community, so a suspension would leave that community ‘bereft of representation.’”
“We begin by rejecting Mr. Curnutte’s argument that our determination as to sanction must account for the fact that he practices in a rural community,” Walker wrote in the majority opinion. “Those areas must be protected just the same as more populated ones. …
“Curnutte established a pattern and practice of neglecting his clients’ cases, failing to communicate with them, and failing to take action on their behalf. His failures caused his clients frustration and brought disrepute to the profession. He neglected his responsibilities as a mediator, frustrating both Mr. Kramer and the administration of justice, and he continually ignored lawful requests for information from ODC.”
In his separate opinion, Wooton says he concurs with the majority’s factual and legal conclusions that Curnutte committed multiple violations. But his disagrees on a few of the charges of failure to act with diligence and promptness, failure to expediate litigation and knowingly disobeying an obligation and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
“Further, I believe that the imposition of a six-month suspension of Mr. Curnutte’s license was unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of this case, although I acknowledge that reasonable minds could differ – and do – as to whether Mr. Curnutte sowed the wind here and should not be heard to complain that he is reaping the whirlwind,” Wooton wrote.
“… I concur with the majority’s conclusion that an admonishment would be an insufficient sanction. I believe that a six-month suspension is unduly harsh, given the facts and circumstances of this case … Mr. Curnutte may have sowed the wind, by virtue of ignoring LDB’s lawful requests for information, but I am not convinced that he should therefore reap the whirlwind.”
Wooton says he would impose a three-month suspension with readmission conditioned on Curnutte having obtained six hours of continuing legal education credit in the area of ethics and law office management beyond the three hours required by the CLE Commission for the 2024-26 reporting period. He also would have Curnutte retain a consultant to review his office procedures to determine if and how he might better handle his extensive case load and respond to client inquiries within a reasonable period of time.
Curnutte will be required to petition for reinstatement and must reimburse the LDB for the costs of the proceedings.
In 2020, Curnutte’s law license was suspended for 90 days for falsely telling the State Bar he was covered by professional liability insurance when he knew he wasn’t. He also provided false policy information to a lawyer he hired to work in his firm, causing her to misrepresent that coverage to the State Bar.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 23-746
