CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court suspended the law license of a Charleston attorney for being in criminal contempt in a 2019 case.
The disciplinary proceeding was brought against Leah Perry Macia by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board for three rules of professional conduct violations, according to the April 8 majority opinion. Justice Tim Armstead delivered the majority opinion.
Justice Alan Moats did not participate in the case. Judge H.L. Kirkpatrick, who is sitting by temporary assignment, and Justice Bill Wooton dissented and filed separate opinions.
Macia
"The parties also stipulated to the recommended sanctions, which included that Ms. Macia’s law license would be suspended for one year but that she would only serve ninety days of this suspension," the opinion states. "The Hearing Panel Subcommittee recommended reducing the period of Ms. Macia’s actual suspension from ninety days to thirty days. The HPS’s report did not explain why it determined that the suspension should be reduced."
The ODC filed an objection to the HPS’s report, arguing that the agreed-upon 90-day suspension should be imposed, which the majority of the Supreme Court agreed with.
Macia has been practicing in Charleston since 1998 and is a public defender.
During a hearing for her client in 2019, Macia informed Kanawha Circuit Judge Louis "Duke" Bloom that her client, Charles McLanahan Jr., had been accepted into a substance abuse program at Prestera, but she did not independently verify the information before she informed the court.
Macia asked Bloom to let her client off with probation instead of jail time due to him entering the program.
It was discovered later that day, that McLanahan did not have a bed waiting on him at the center, even though Macia had "affirmatively guaranteed" that McLanalan had a placement at Prestera and "never even hinted" that the information was from anyone else but her, according to court documents.
Macia was then directed to appear before the court and show cause why she should not be held in criminal contempt. She was found in direct criminal contempt, which she appealed. The court rejected her argument.
Formal disciplinary charges were filed against Macia in November 2020.
"Ms. Macia’s license to practice law is suspended for one year and she must serve ninety days of this suspension," Armstead wrote.
Macia must also issue a written apology to the circuit court judge for her misconduct and at the end of 90 days, if she's satisfied the sanctions, the remaining period of suspension will be held in abeyance while she is on probation with supervised practice by an experienced lawyer for a period of one year.
In his dissent, Kirkpatrick wrote that Maci did not attempt to perpetuate a concerted scheme for personal or pecuniary gain.
"Moreover, upon learning of her mistake, to her credit, the respondent promptly took corrective steps in an effort to mitigate the effects of her misrepresentation," Kirkpatrick wrote. "Lastly, it is important to consider that the respondent’s record is wholly unblemished by ethics complaints, violations, or disciplinary actions."
Kirkpatrick wrote that he sees no useful purpose in continuing to continue to punish Macia.
"Accordingly, I would implement the sensible recommendation of the Hearing Board and require the respondent to serve the lesser penalty of thirty (30) days of the one-year suspension," Kirkpatrick wrote.
In Wooton's dissenting opinion, he wrote that he would have also gone with the 30-day suspension. Wooton wrote that the HPS found that she had agreed to serve a longer period of actional suspension than the HPS had found adequate and that that was the reason why the HPS had recommended the shorter sanction.
"Therefore, I would defer to the HPS’s recommended thirty-day actual suspension for Ms. Macia’s conduct," Wooton wrote. "This deference, however, should in no way be read as excusing or condoning Ms. Macia’s clear violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct."
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 20-0908
