Barrett

CHARLESTON – A lawsuit against Fruth Pharmacy for failing to warn about medications has lost one plaintiff after she decided to voluntarily dismiss herself from the case. The pharmacy now wants to know why.

During her deposition, a plaintiff known only as J.S. testified that the decision to withdraw as a plaintiff was made jointly by her husband, T.A.S., and herself, according to a court document filed Jan. 16.

Shortly thereafter, Fruth’s counsel asked J.S. why she didn’t want to be a plaintiff anymore, to which she responded that the decision was based upon communications between herself and her attorneys, but declined to provide additional response, according to the court document.

On May 8, the remaining plaintiff’s counsel filed a Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery.

On Sept. 13, 2011, T.A.S.’s counsel filed a complaint in which J.S. alleged loss of consortium resulting from the defendant’s negligent dispensation of medications, as well as from the defendant’s failure to warn of the known risks associated with the medications.

On Nov. 28, the plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss J.S. and the Court ordered that J.S. be dismissed, according to the court document.

The plaintiffs claim Fruth is not entitled to discover the basis for J.S.’s withdrawal as a plaintiff in the case because J.S.’s reasoning is the product of privileged, attorney-client communications, as well as the mental impressions of her counsel.

The lawsuit was initially filed against Fruth after T.A.S. and J.S. alleged it failed to warn them about T.A.S.’s medications.

Fruth Pharmacy filled prescriptions for Trazadone, Fluoxetine and Alprazolam for T.A.S., according to a complaint filed Sept. 13 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

T.A.S. and his wife, J.S., claim each of the three medications present their own individual risks, but when taken together, the combination of drugs are known to present risks for harmful interactions.

Fruth knew or should have known of the risk the interactions presented by combinations of the medications, according to the suit.

T.A.S. and J.S. claimed when filling prescriptions, pharmacists are required to perform a drug utilization review in order to screen for possible interactions with other drugs the patient may be taking, among other things.

The defendant failed to alert T.A.S. of the known interactions associated with the combination of medications, according to the suit.

T.A.S. is seeking compensatory damages. He is being represented by John W. Barrett, P. Gregory Haddad and Robert P. Lorea of Bailey & Glasser LLP.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Carrie Webster.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 11-C-1619

Tennant

CHARLESTON – A lawsuit against Secretary of State Natalie Tennant filed in 2010 by Shepherdstown Observer’s publisher was dismissed last year after there was no activity with the lawsuit for more than one year.

Circuit Judge Charles E. King Jr. filed the dismissal order on April 19, 2012, stating that the Court “on its own motion, herby dismisses said action and orders the same stricken from the docket of this Court in accordance with the provisions of Rule 41(b), West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Thomas Harding filed the lawsuit in 2010 after he claimed Tennant misapplied election law and stifled the newspaper’s investigation into alleged voting irregularities.

Harding filed a motion for judgment on March 8, 2011, to which Tennant filed in opposition on May 31, 2011.

Kanawha Circuit Judge Duke Bloom granted Thomas Harding’s motion for judgment on the pleadings June 18, 2011.

The Court concluded that “even when liberally construing both statues, as required, to give two seemingly conflicting statutes meaning, it is clear that W.Va. Code § 3-8-8(i) is in complete opposition to W.Va. Code § 3-1-50,” according to the order.

The order also stated it was clear the blanket gag order on all disclosures by any person, without regard to the purpose or circumstance, of any fact of an election law violation complaint or investigation, proscribed by West Virginia Code § 3-8-8(i) is an “overly broad restriction on speech, despite the State’s purported legitimate interests justifying such statute.”

The lawsuit was filed after Tennant’s office used a pending investigation against Harding to prevent him from publishing information about a controversial zoning referendum in Jefferson County, according to the complaint filed June 2, 2010 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Harding claimed after the Jefferson County Commission enacted a new zoning ordinance in 2008, the residents circulated a petition to collect enough signatures to put a referendum on the new ordinance on the ballot in November 2009.

The Jefferson County clerk certified the petition had enough valid signatures, and the referendum was defeated.

Harding claimed the Shepherdstown Observer filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the petition, but the county clerk refused to turn over the list of names because of a decision that was upheld by Jefferson Circuit Judge David Sanders in August 2009.

The newspaper appealed Sanders’ ruling, and in January 2010, the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.

On Nov. 7, 2009, Harding claims he noticed Ronda Lehman, who had organized the petition drive, was working as the chief poll worker at his polling place when he went to vote and took a photograph of her performing her duties. Harding posted the photo, which did not contain citizens, voting booths or ballots, on the Shepherdstown Observer’s website.

Afterward, the Secretary of State’s Office informed Harding that he was under investigation for possible violations of West Virginia election law, which prohibits journalists from entering polling places while they are working as reporters, according to the suit.

Harding was charged in connection with the Election Day incident, but the criminal charges against him were later dismissed.

The Secretary of State’s Office reminded Harding that it was illegal “to divulge to anyone any part of a report or any proceeding involving an investigation,” according to the suit.

The suit said Tennant invoked the law when she issued a statement explaining why she would not reveal information about her office’s possible investigation into allegations of widespread voter fraud in Lincoln County during the 2009 primary elections.

Harding was represented by Robert M. Bastress; David M. Hammer of Hammer, Ferretti & Schiavoni; and Stephen Andrew Arnold.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 10-C-990

CHARLESTON – A George Washington High School senior is suing Kanawha County Schools for presenting an abstinence-only mandatory school assembly and not following the county-wide “Reducing the Risk” curriculum.

George Aulenbacher, individually and in his official capacity as principal of George Washington High School, and Ronald Duerring, in his official capacity as superintendent of Kanawha County Schools were also named as defendants in the suit.

The case was assigned to Circuit Judge Louis H. Bloom.

A hearing was held in Bloom’s courtroom on April 23. Bloom made the decision to deny Campbell’s request for an injunction earlier this month.

In 2011, the Kanawha County Board of Education directed the use of the curriculum “Reducing the Risk,” which is a 16-week, one hour per week course on comprehensive reproductive health education to be used in the school setting, according to a complaint filed April 15 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Katelyn McKensie Campbell claims prior to March 29, Aulenbacher requested that GWHS School Nurse Laura Barber contact LC Lead School Nurse Brenda Isaac about his desire to have an abstinence-only presentation to the student body.

Isaac expressed that abstinence education should be provided as part of a comprehensive reproductive health curriculum, according to the suit, but on April 8, Aulenbacher directed the distribution to the teachers’ mailboxes a schedule change allowing for a previously unannounced assembly the following day and a promotional flyer about the speaker, Pam Stenzel, the suit says

Campbell claims the flyer stated that Stenzel “tackles the tough issues of sex with candor, insight and humor while challenging young people to embrace God’s plan for sexual purity.”

Teachers were directed not to talk to the students about the specifics of the presentation and to say only that the assembly would be about sexually transmitted diseases, according to the suit, and on April 9 at 8:30 a.m., all students in attendance at GWHS were directed to the upper gym to listen to Stenzel in a mandatory school assembly.

Campbell claims for most other assemblies, teachers had been given instructions that, should a student prefer not to attend an assembly, that the teacher should remain in the classroom with the student, but students arriving to school late or students found in other areas of the school were directed to the auditorium for the mandatory assembly in this case.

Though teachers and administration, including Aulenbacher, stood or sat at the door of the upper gym, some students “were undeterred by this barricade and attempted to leave the upper gym, but were told that they must stay for the entire presentation,” the complaint states.

Campbell claims Stenzel’s presentation quoted false statistics and included remarks such as, “if you are on birth control, your mother probably hates you,” “small word of warning for our ninth grade girls who will date anything that walks” and “condoms aren’t safe, never have been, never will be.”

As a result of the assembly, Campbell exercised her First Amendment right to free speech by criticizing the presentation in published articles in the Charleston Gazette and Charleston Daily Mail on April 11, according to the suit.

Campbell claims the news stories sparked interest and outrage across the country after being reported in multiple national news sources, social media sites and newspapers across the country and she was requested to participate in an interview with CNN to be aired live at 10:30 a.m. on April 15.

On April 11, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Aulenbacher had Campbell removed from her regular class and directed that she report to the principal’s office and, while in the principal’s office, Aulenbacher stated to her that he was disappointed in her and asked her “how [she] could go to the press without telling [him].”

Campbell claims Aulenbacher further stated “how would you feel if I called your college and told them what bad character you have and what a backstabber you are.”

Should Aulenbacher follow through with his threats to call Wellesley College to spread misinformation, Campbell would be irreparably harmed and subject to ridicule and possibly the loss of scholarships, according to the suit.

Campbell claims Aulenbacher’s threats were a direct retaliation for her exercising her constitutional right to free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Campbell was seeking for the court to enter a preliminary injunction to prohibit the defendants from retaliating against her. She is being represented by Michael O. Callaghan and Richard F. Neely of Neely & Callaghan.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-723

Sunbridge Care Enterprises Inc.; Sunbridge Mountain Care Management Inc.; John Does 1 through 10; and Unidentified Entities 1 through 10 (as to New Martinsville Healthcare Center) were also named as defendants in the suit.

Tiffany Garrison was a resident in the defendants’ facility from Dec. 16, 2010, until July 27, 2011, according to a complaint filed May 6 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Garrison claims the defendants accelerated the deterioration of her health and physical condition beyond that caused by the normal aging process and resulted in physical and emotional trauma, including malnutrition, dehydration and infections.

The defendants’ conduct caused Garrison to lose her personal dignity; extreme and unnecessary pain; degradation; anguish; otherwise unnecessary hospitalizations; disfigurement; and emotional trauma, according to the suit.

Garrison claims as a result of the defendants’ negligence, she was seriously injured and suffered loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, disability and mental anguish.

The defendants violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act and used deception, false pretense, false promises and/or misrepresentations, and/or the concealment, suppression and/or omission of material facts with the intent that Garrison and others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission in connection with the sale of nursing home services, according to the suit.

Garrison is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. She is being represented by James B. McHugh, Michael J. Fuller Jr. and Amy J. Quezon of McHugh Fuller Law Group PLLC.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Carrie Webster.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-877

Jeffrey T. Kemp was also named as a defendant in the suit.

On Sept. 21, Donald Hugle was a patron at Grumpy’s, where he was over-served alcoholic beverages, according to a complaint filed May 3 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Margaret Lorraine Hugle claims Grumpy’s failed to monitor Donald Hugle, allowing him to leave Grumpy’s by foot with an alcoholic beverage, and he was struck by Kemp on U.S. 60 just outside Grumpy’s.

Donald Hugle’s blood alcohol level was more than three times the legal limit and Grumpy’s allowed him to leave with a beer bottle, with full knowledge that the roadway outside its establishment was extremely dangerous due to the high volume of accidents and deaths occurring on U.S. 60 in or around the area of Grumpy’s in the several years preceding Donald Hugle’s injuries and death on Sept. 22, according to the suit.

Margaret Hugle claims Kemp had a duty to drive his vehicle in a reasonable and prudent manner, exercising due care for pedestrians crossing the roadway and also had a duty to obey the rules of the road.

As a result of Kemp’s negligence, Donald Hugle suffered bodily injury that lead to his death; conscious pain and suffering; and loss of enjoyment of life, according to the suit.

Margaret Hugle claims she incurred medical, funeral and burial expenses resulting from Donald Hugle’s death.

The defendants’ actions also caused Margaret Hugle to suffer sorrow, mental anguish and solace, including loss of society, companionship, comfort, guidance, kindly offices and advice of Donald Hugle, according to the suit.

Margaret Hugle is seeking compensatory damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. She is being represented by Scott H. Kaminski of Balgo & Kaminski LC.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-863

The Fast Auto Loans location in Annandale, Va. (Photo by Ellie Ashford)

CHARLES TOWN – State Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is seeking to add a third company making title loans in Virginia to a lawsuit that alleges the loans are being illegally made to West Virginians.

On April 26, Morrisey’s office asked Jefferson County Circuit Judge David Sanders to allow it to amend its complaint, originally filed in June, to include Virginia Auto Loans as a party. The defendants named in the original complaint are Fast Auto Loans, Community Loans of America and Robert I. Reich, the president and CEO of both.

The title loans offered by the defendant include the lender putting his or her car title up as collateral. The lawsuit alleges the interest rates charged can go as high as 300 percent.

The interest rates exceed the 18 percent maximum allowed in West Virginia, and the loans themselves are a type not allowed by state law, the AG’s office is arguing.

“The interest rates charged by Fast Auto Loans violate the long-standing public policy established by the Legislature to protect West Virginia residents from predatory, usurious loans,” the complaint says.

The complaint says the companies have placed liens on 512 West Virginia vehicles in 24 different counties worth a total of $371,883.48.

However, since the loans are being made in Virginia at locations in Wytheville and Winchester, the companies argue they’ve done nothing wrong.

In a motion to dismiss filed Feb. 11, one month after it was remanded from federal court by U.S. District Judge Gina Groh, the companies wrote that the AG’s office has “not alleged that either (business) resides or transacts business and where not even WVAG can attribute a single contact between these defendants and West Virginia.”

The claims in the complaint are “rank, globalized allegations” and “incurably deficient,” the motion to dismiss adds.

The company had removed the case to federal court in July, and Groh decided it should be heard in Jefferson Circuit Court.

“(T)he court finds that to the extent the defendants seek to argue that the relief sought by the plaintiff conflicts with the Commerce Clause, such an argument merely constitutes a federal defense to the plaintiff’s complaint, which is not grounds for removal,” Groh wrote, citing a 2009 decision in McGraw’s case against CashCall.

“A defense to the plaintiff’s sought-after injunction, even a defense which is based upon federal law, is an issue that can and should ordinarily be raised in state court. After all, state courts ‘are presumed competent to resolve federal issues,’ and ‘ when a state proceeding presents a federal issue, even a preemption issue, the proper course is to seek resolution of that issue by the state court.’”

Former Attorney General Darrell McGraw’s first lawsuit against Fast Auto Loans sought to enforce a subpoena sent to the company. He filed it in April 2011.

Kanawha County Circuit Court Judge Charles King ruled the subpoena was procedurally defective after Fast Auto Loans argued McGraw ignored procedural requirements for the issuance of an out-of-state subpoena.

McGraw did not directly appeal to the state Supreme Court. Instead, he filed a petition for writ of prohibition.

The court denied the request and said McGraw should have filed a direct appeal. His lawsuit followed months later.

Assistant attorneys general Norman Googel and Tayna L. Godfrey are handling the case for Morrisey. The title lenders are represented by Christopher Robertson and William J. Powell of Jackson Kelly.

From the West Virginia Record: Reach John O’Brien at jobrienwv@gmail.com.

Arbutus Beaver, McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s Restaurants of West Virginia Inc. were also named as defendants in the suit.

On June 20, 2011, Brittany Evans was operating a 2011 Toyota Corolla and was traveling southbound on Interstate 77 with Nicholas Evans as a passenger, according to a complaint filed May 8 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

The Evanses claim Beaver, who was operating a 2008 Ford Taurus owned by McDonald’s, struck their vehicle in the rear and caused them injuries.

While the Evanses and the two cars directly in front of their vehicle slowed  as a result of slow-moving traffic caused by a motor vehicle collision further down the roadway, Beaver approached the plaintiffs’ vehicle from the rear and carelessly, negligently and/or recklessly failed to slow her vehicle so as to prevent it from striking the rear of the plaintiffs’ vehicle, according to the suit.

The Evanses claim Beaver struck the rear of their vehicle with such force that it was propelled forward into the rear of a Honda Civic operated by Michael Ramos, which was then thrust forward into the rear of a Suzuki XL7 operated by Gregory Reeves.

Beaver’s actions caused the Evanses to suffer medical expenses; pain and suffering; physical limitations; diminished capacity to enjoy life; annoyance and inconvenience; and other consequences and damages, according to the suit.

The Evanses claim Beaver’s actions also caused Nicholas Evans to suffer lost wages and impairment of future earning capacity.

As a result of the defendants’ wrongful conduct, Brittany Evans has suffered a loss of her husband’s consortium as a consequence of his injuries, according to the suit.

The Evanses are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. They are being represented by Robert D. Cline Jr. and Brian E. Bigelow of Farmer, Cline & Campbell PLLC.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge James C. Stucky.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-905

May 2
Edward Lang and Georgiana Lang vs. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., a division of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. And HSBC Bank USA N.A.
PA: Andrew Skinner; J-David Sanders
*Plaintiff alleges breach of promise regarding refinancing of home. Plaintiff also alleges unconscionable inducement, contract defense of fraud and illegal debt collection. Plaintiff seeks actual damages and civil penalties for each alleged violation.
Case Number: 13-C-150

May 6
West Virginia Human Rights Commission, on its own behalf and on behalf of Marcia Grace vs. Amy Associates WV, LLC
PA: J. Robert Leslie J-David Sanders
*Plaintiff Grace alleges she contacted Defendant when she saw an advertisement for an apartment at a Charles Town location and told Defendant that she had a mental disability. She says she never received a requested application for leasing the apartment. She alleges discrimination based on a disability or perceived disability. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages, actual damages and civil penalties.
Case Number: 13-C-157

May 7
Jessica Cantner vs. American Red Cross, Mid Atlantic Region and John or Jane Doe
*Plaintiff alleges that on June 7, 2011 she attempted to donate blood. Defendant Doe stuck several times to find a vein, the suit says. Plaintiff alleges that she felt a sharp pain from elbow to wrist and later suffered pain and numbness for several weeks. Plaintiff was diagnosed by a neurologist with left-sided ulnar neuropathy and left-sided median neuropathy, the suit says. She says underwent surgery in March 2012. Plaintiff alleges vicarious liability/respondeat superior and negligence. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages past and future, medical costs, lost wages and any other award.
Case Number: 13-C-158

May 9
Robert Harker vs. Steven T. Smoot
PA: Lawrence M. Schultz; J-David Sanders
*Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to stop his vehicle, which resulted in a collision in a May 2011 incident. Plaintiff alleges negligence and recklessness. Plaintiff incurred medical expenses in excess of $36,000 and seeks all damages from the court case.
Case Number: 13-C-160

May 2
Betty Coleman vs. the Kroger Co.; Kroger Limited Partnership I; and KRCP Inc.
PA- G. Patrick Jacobs; J- Louis H. Bloom
* On Dec. 8, 2011, Coleman was at Kroger in St. Albans when she slipped and fell in the defendants’ store. Coleman is seeking compensatory damages with pre- and post-judgment interest.
Case number: 13-C-857

May 3
Margaret Lorraine Hugle, as administratrix of the Estate of Donald Hugle vs. Grumpy’s Grille LLC and Jeffrey T. Kemp
PA- Scott H. Kaminski; J- Jennifer Bailey
* On Sept. 21, Donald Hugle was a patron at Grumpy’s where he was over-served alcoholic beverages and Grumpy’s failed to monitor Hugle, allowing him to leave Grumpy’s by foot with an alcoholic beverage when he was struck by Kemp on U.S. 60 just outside Grumpy’s, the suit says. The injuries Donald Hugle sustained led to his death on Sept. 22, the suit says. Margartet Hugle is seeking compensatory damages with pre- and post-judgment interest.
Case number: 13-C-863

May 6
Tiffany Garrison vs. Genesis Healthcare LLC; Sunbridge Care Enterprises Inc.; Sunbridge Mountain Care Management Inc.; John Does 1 through 10; and Unidentified Entities 1 through 10 (as to New Martinsville Healthcare Center)
PA- James B. McHugh, Michael J. Fuller Jr., Amy J. Quezon; J- Carrie Webster
* Garrison was a resident of the defendants from Dec. 16, 2010, until July 27, 2011. She claims she suffered personal injuries and damages during her residency. Garrison is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
Case number: 13-C-877

Gerald C. Boggs vs. United Dairy Inc. and John Duty
PA- Matthew S. Criswell, Mark L. French, Steven M. Condaras; J- Paul Zakaib Jr.
* Boggs was employed by United Dairy until he was discriminated against based upon his age when he was discharged from his employment in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act, the suit says. Duty was United Dairy’s general manager. Boggs is seeking backpay and reinstatement; compensatory and punitive damages; and pre- and post-judgment interest.
Case number: 13-C-882

May 7
Carla L. Persinger and Billy R. Persinger vs. Hibachi of Southridge Inc. d/b/a Hibachi Japanese Steakhouse
PA- Barry L. Bruce, Christine Stump, Jesseca Church; J- Louis H. Bloom
* On May 9, 2011, Carla Persinger allegedly slipped on a substance believed to be cooking oil/grease that was on the floor and caused her injuries. The Persingers are seeking compensatory damages.
Case number: 13-C-893

May 8
Nicholas Evans and Brittany Evans vs. Arbutus Beaver; McDonald’s USA LLC; McDonald’s Corporation; and McDonald’s Restaurants of West Virginia Inc.
PA- Robert D. Cline Jr., Brian E. Bigelow; J- James C. Stucky
* On June 20, 2011, Brittany Evans was operating a 2011 Toyota Corolla and was traveling southbound on Interstate 77 with Nicholas Evans as a passenger. They claim Beaver’ who was operating a 2008 Ford Taurus owned by McDonald’s struck their vehicle in the rear and caused them injuries. The Evanses are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest.
Case number: 13-C-905

Rachel E. Perry vs. Charleston Area Medical Center Inc.
PA- Richard W. Walters, Frank J. Venezia; J- James C. Stucky
* Perry was employed by CAMC as a registered nurse. She claims she was discriminated against because of her disability when her employment was terminated. Perry is seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre-judgment interest.
Case number: 13-C-906

May 9
Beverly A. Chafin vs. Nail Time Inc.; Lan Quoc Tran; and John Doe
PA- Robert D. Cline Jr., Robert A. Campbell, Jennifer D. Roush; J- Paul Zakaib Jr.
* On June 10, 2011, Chafin went to Nail Time to receive a manicure and pedicure and Tran and/or Doe performed her pedicure. She claims the defendants cut her during the pedicure. Chafin is seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest.
Case number: 13-C-914

Lisa D. Jenkins, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated vs. Prima Marketing LLC d/b/a Prima 7-11 #5722 and Prima 7-11; 7-Eleven Inc. d/b/a 7-Eleven and 7-Eleven 35901-35969; and 7-Eleven Sales Corporation
PA- Todd S. Bailess, Joy B. Mega, Rodney A. Smith, Jonathan R. Marshall; J- Carrie Webster
* Jenkins was employed by the defendants. She claims the defendants failed to pay her final wages within 72 hours of discharge. Jenkins is seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief.
Case number: 13-C-919

A legacy, good or bad, is not erased overnight, nor a new one established in one day.

However much we might like to see an immediate end to the patronage and self-promotion that characterized the previous administration of the state Attorney General’s Office for five terms, vestiges are likely to endure for a while.

Nevertheless, we see encouraging signs.

In March, current Attorney General Patrick Morrisey fulfilled a campaign promise to reform the way the AG’s office hires private attorneys, introducing a competitive bidding process for outside counsel and creating a web page to publicize the terms of any agreements with them.

This was a big step in the right direction.

But Morrisey is not the only one addressing the issue.

Just this week, the state Supreme Court heard appeals from credit card companies targeted by Morrisey’s predecessor for alleged improprieties in their payment protection plans. The companies contend that the state attorney general should not be allowed to contract work out to private lawyers on a contingency-fee basis.

“In the past two decades, supreme courts in other states have written multiple opinions addressing the legality of similar arrangements; academics and the media have widely criticized the practice; and the Auditor of the West Virginia Legislature has seriously questioned its propriety,” the companies argue.

The companies say such practices are “tainted by at least three violations” of state law.

They point out that the state’s Government Ethics Act prohibits public employees from using their offices for their own private gain, that its Rules of Professional Conduct bar lawyers from representing clients with whom they may have conflicting interests, and that the Legislature has limited the AG to paying assistants exclusively from legislative appropriations.

If our supreme court agrees with their interpretations of West Virginia law, the dubious practice of hiring outside counsel to represent the state in court may come to an end.

This would be an even bigger step in the right direction.