CHARLESTON – The state Supreme Court has suspended the law license of a Lewisburg attorney who committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for one year.
In an October 18 opinion written by Justice John Hutchison, the court also said J. Steven Hunter must complete an additional nine hours of continuing legal education during the current reporting period – three hours of which should be about IOLTA accounts and the other six about ethics and law office management. In addition, the court says Hunter must comply with a rule regarding notification of all current clients about his suspension and to not accept new retainers.
The 29-page opinion details the facts of the case against Hunter, who has practiced law since 1973.
Hunter was retained by Raymond Peters and Karen Bordonaro in late 2018 to represent them after Peters’ son Stephen L. Peters had filed an emergency petition to declare his elderly father a “protected person” and to gain temporary guardianship and conservatorship for his father. Stephen L. Peters said his father was suffering from dementia, and Bordonaro was his father’s friend and caregiver who lived on the property in a house built for her. She also is a convicted felon.
Bordonaro talked to the son about his father. In late 2017, she said he began having memory lapses and confusion. Early in 2018, Raymond Peters granted his son medical power of attorney, and Bordonaro was listed as successor representative. He also signed a living will and durable power of attorney listing his son as his agent.
Later in 2018, the son says communication between he and Bordonaro became strained. The father said he planned to sell his property in Alderson and move to Rhode Island with Bordonaro. The son said he would travel to Alderson to discuss the matter. The day before he arrived, the father and Bordonaro were married in Greenbrier County. Soon after is when the son filed the emergency petition, which caused the father and Bordonaro to retain Hunter.
The opinion says Hunter charged the couple a flat fee of $2,500. That check wasn’t cashed, but Bordonaro later wrote Hunter two other checks for $2,500 each. His wife and office manager, De’Etta Hunter, deposited those funds into the law office checking account rather than his client trust (IOLTA) account.
On November 16, 2018, Hunter filed a motion to terminate Stephen L. Peters’ temporary appointment of guardian and conservator of his father. A psychological exam found Raymond Peters had possible Major Neurocognitive Disorder because of Alzheimer’s Disease and found he met the requirements of a protected person under state code. It was recommended his son be appointed full guardian and conversator and that the court examine the marriage given his significant cognitive impairment. A March 2019 report by the father’s guardian ad litem agreed, also saying Bordonaro should not be appointed because of her previous felony conviction.
During a hearing later in March 2019, the father was declared a protected person, and the son was named his full guardian and conservator. The father would receive a $300 cash allowance each month, and any amount above that had to be approved by his son.
In June 2019, Hunter’s wife helped the father request $5,000 from Discover Bank for additional legal fees. That money was deposited into the law office checking account again rather than the IOLTA account.
“Well, I know … I knew taking the money was wrong,” Hunter testified during a hearing on this matter. “Saying I represented Mr. Peters at some point obviously became wrong.”
Hunter then filed another motion to terminate the son’s conservatorship and guardianship and a notice to appeal. In a September 2019 order, the court denied the motion as untimely and said there was a direct conflict in Hunter’s representation of both Raymond Peters and Bordonaro “as their interests are directly adverse.”
The court also ordered Bordonaro to have no contact with the father. So Hunter, representing her, filed a motion for emergency stay of judgment. It later was denied.
Later in 2019, court documents show Hunter’s wife had visited the father, which had been prohibited by the court. The documents also show Hunter failed to return the $5,000 he had been paid by the father and that Hunter’s wife continued to take the father to financial institutions to withdraw funds.
The son, who filed the petition against Hunter, also claimed Hunter and Bordonaro “engaged in the financial exploitation” of his father and requested a protective order and a show cause order as to why those parties should not be held in contempt of the court’s prior order.
At a November 8, 2019, hearing, Hunter said he was retained to represent both the father and Bordonaro and was paid $5,000. He testified that he didn’t know if the funds were deposited into his client trust account. He also said he would return the $5,000 “if I’m required to after a proper hearing.” He also said his wife visited the father because she had “developed a close personal relationship with him and Ms. Bordonaro.”
The court held Hunter and Bordonaro in contempt and ordered Hunter to immediately reimburse the $5,000. Following the filing of the ethics complaint, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel learned the $5,000 was repaid 14 months after the court ordered Hunter to do so.
The statement of charges was filed against Hunter on February 10, 2022. Following an August 9, 2022, evidentiary hearing, the Hearing Panel Subcommittee of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board issued its report finding the ODC proved he had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
According to the opinion, Hunter failed to execute a written engagement letter or fee agreement, failed to communicate the scope of his representation or changes in basis or rate of the fee when it was later increased, failed to deposit the retainer fee into his client trust account and failed to provide an accounting when fees were earned or expenses incurred.
In addition, Hunter represented both his elderly client and the client’s wife whose “interests were directly adverse, and then, after a court expressly determined that a conflict of interest existed, continued to represent both interests without obtaining the client’s written informed consent.”
He then also failed to comply with a court order directing him to immediately reimburse the client for the retainer fee, failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure his office manager comport her conduct to the Rules of Professional Conduct and failed to refrain from contacting his elderly client, a protected person, without first obtaining consent from his designated legal representative.
Hunter, according to the opinion, does not challenge the findings, admitting he “made mistakes in handling” the matter, also noting his “negligent and overzealous acts may have caused potential injury. Hunter also says he and his wife “allowed our moral obligations (to an elderly client) to interfere with my ethical obligations.”
Once he petitions for reinstatement, Hunter will be placed on a one-year supervised probation if he is reinstated. Hunter also must pay costs of these proceedings.
Hunter represented himself in the matter. The LDB was represented by Chief Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel Rachael Fletcher Cipoletti and Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel Kristin P. Halkais.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 22-0123