CHARLESTON – The state Supreme Court has annulled the law license of a former circuit judge who displayed a gun in court last year.
The order accepting the voluntary annulment of David W. Hummel’s license was filed March 24. In the accompanying Petition for Disbarment, the Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel included an order stating it had received an affidavit from Hummel consenting to disbarment. It was entered February 21.
In November, Hummel resigned from his position as judge in the state’s Second Judicial Circuit that includes Marshall, Wetzel and Tyler counties. He agreed to never again seek judicial office in the state by election or appointment.
On December 2, he was publicly admonished by the state Judicial Investigation Commission. That admonishment said formal discipline wasn’t necessary because Hummel already had resigned.
According to the 12-page admonishment, the state Judicial Disciplinary Counsel filed the complaint with the JIC against Hummel in March shortly after the matter was referred to the JIC. The filing focuses on three issues with Hummel, and only one focuses on the gun incident from earlier this year.
The JIC ruled 7-0 that probable cause exists to find Hummel violated the Code of Judicial Conduct regarding compliance with the law, confidence in the judiciary, avoiding abuse of the prestige of judicial office as well as decorum, demeanor and communication with jurors.
“Respondent knew or should have known better,” the JIC admonishment states. “He is a longtime lawyer and former assistant prosecutor. At the time of the incident, he was a seasoned veteran of the court.”
In the gun matter, the JIC says Hummel, as chief judge of the Second Circuit entered an order in 2013 allowing judges to possess a firearm in and about the premises constituting Courthouses and/or Magistrate Courts throughout the circuit. The order also said those persons should take reasonable and necessary measures to ensure the guns are concealed and not displayed.
“During a rare Saturday morning hearing in a civil case that occurred on March 12, 2022, Respondent (Hummel) removed a firearm from a place of concealment on his person and put it on the bench in open view for the remainder of the proceeding,” the JIC states. “At one point, he picked up the gun and displayed it for all to see. The act was captured on court security video. Stories about the incident went viral in the national news subsequent to the incident. …
“It is incredulous for a judge to violate his own administrative order but that is what Respondent did when he pulled out a gun and showed it in a courtroom. It is no wonder to this commission that his conduct resulted in nationwide publicity. He not only humiliated himself but he also caused great embarrassment to the court system as a whole and is admonished for his actions.”
In the second matter, the admonishment says Hummel was overseeing an abuse and neglect petition filed by the state Division of Health and Human Resources alleging the natural father had sexually abused two minor daughters. Despite consistent testimony from the two girls and from other witnesses, Hummel held in person interviews with the girls with only the guardian ad litem, Hummel and his staff present.
The filing says both girls were reluctant witnesses and easily distracted during the interviews. The elder child said she didn’t want to discuss the allegations, and both hid under a table during their interviews.
“Respondent (Hummel) repeatedly accused the elder daughter, then age seven, of lying which in turn brought her to tears,” the admonishment states. “Respondent concluded that the younger daughter, then age six, had implicated the mother in a ‘sinister’ plot to falsify allegations against the father even though the judge was the first person to use the word ‘plan’ when questioning the little girl.”
Hummel ruled the children had not been abused or neglected and dismissed the petition. But, Hummel apparently failed to make the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by state code, so the state Supreme Court remanded the matter back to Hummel to “issue a new order containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to establish whether the children were abused and/or neglected.”
A few weeks later, Hummel issued a revised order holding there was no clear and convincing evidence of any abuse or neglect by the father and dismissed it. It again was appealed the state Supreme Court, which ruled Hummel violated state Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings by leading witnesses in his questioning of the children. The ruling was vacated and remanded back to a different judge for proceedings.
“The manner in which the circuit court conducted the interviews of the children violated the protection from psychological harm afforded by (state rules),” the Supreme Court said, adding Hummel not only failed to protect the older girl from harassment but also by “perpetrating the harassment insofar as it repeatedly accused her of lying and left her in tears. …
“Even assuming … that (the elder girl’s) bursting into tears was an acceptable risk in taking the child’s testimony, we cannot conceive of any reasonable method or purpose of questioning a child which involves openly and directly accusing the child of lying. …
“He had absolutely no business calling a child of tender years a liar or suggesting to an impressionable 6-year-old that she had engaged in some ‘sinister plan’ regarding her father. … When dealing with young children, judges should remember at all times that they are not wooden toys that can be repaired with ease. They are living beings with thoughts and feelings who are coming into a huge unknown called ‘court’ to talk to what a child may perceive as a scary individual called ‘judge’ and must be treated with charity, understanding and patience. Respondent failed to do so and is admonished for his conduct.”
In the third matter, the JIC says Hummel served as the Adult Drug Court judge for the Second Circuit from 2009 until his resignation. In 2019, it says he sought to change the service provider from the Day Report Center to a local private mental health facility. He went to the three county commissions in his circuit (Marshall, Wetzel and Tyler counties) and asked for $15,000 from each to continue funding a Case Coordinator as well as $15,000 from each to cover other Adult Drug Court expenses. He received the $30,000 from each county.
But, only half of the money was maintained by the mental health provider for the Case Coordinator. Hummel received the rest of it back from the mental health provider and had it improperly placed with a general receiver. The state Supreme Court, however, has said a receiver may only be appointed in a pending case.
“From soliciting the money from the County Commissions to placing it with the general receiver, Respondent (Hummel) repeated the whole process again in 2020,” the JIC states. “As a result of his actions, Respondent had direct control over the money placed with the general receiver. Importantly, during this time, Respondent used thousands of dollars housed with the general receiver for improper purposes. …
“Respondent used his position as judge to obtain money from the County Commissions. He then incorrectly placed half the money with a general receiver when that process is clearly designed for active court cases and not the funding in question. He inappropriately retained absolute control of the money and spent several thousands of dollars for improper purposes.”
Attorney Lauren Varnado is one of the attorneys in the hearing where Hummel displayed a gun. She was representing EQT in a royalties case and is the managing partner for Michelman & Robinson in Houston.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing,” Varnado previously The West Virginia Record. “Here, the good people of West Virginia did something. After our story went public, they called, emailed and filed their own reports with state investigators about Judge Hummel.
“Judge Hummel's resignation is a testament not to the power of one voice, but to the power of many, unified voices, in effecting change. Thank you to the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission for their diligent investigation and to local journalists like … The West Virginia Record for bravely reporting the truth.”
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 23-92 (Judicial Investigation Commission complaint 37-2022)