Altruistic Intent Does Not Excuse Improper Financial Assistance To Clients

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals imposed a reprimand and other sanctions on an attorney

The proceeding involves allegations that Mr. Nessel engaged in professional misconduct by placing small amounts of his personal funds into the prison accounts of certain inmate clients; by soliciting referrals from inmates for possible new litigation; and by refusing to dismiss allegedly frivolous personal injury actions brought on behalf of certain inmates.

 The attorney’s practice included representation of female inmate who alleged sexual abuse by corrections officers and others while held in regional detention facilities.

The attorney had provided the clients with small amounts of funds

He advised the Hearing Panel that he knew it was wrong to send money to his inmate clients and that he had taken corrective measures to ensure that it would never happen again.

 The court

There is clear and convincing evidence in the record that Mr. Nessel violated Rules 1.8(e), 5.3(b) and (c), and 8.4(a) and (d) through his provision of financial assistance to litigation clients.  Mr. Nessel’s admission that he violated Rule 1.8(e) is an implicit concession of a connection between the financial assistance he provided and the litigation in which he represented his inmate clients. While Mr. Nessel has stated that his financial assistance was given to enable his inmate clients to purchase necessary items from the prison commissary and because he felt sorry for them, his clearly impermissible conduct is not excused by his stated altruistic intent.

The court found that there was no clear and convincing evidence of the frivolous litigation and solicitation charges. (Mike Frisch)