CHARLESTON – An attorney with a “lengthy disciplinary history” now has his license suspended even longer than it already had been two years ago.
The Supreme Court suspended the law license of Jeffery A. Davis for three years, served retroactively based upon a previous six-month suspension in March 2022. He also will be required to pass a psychological evaluation before he is allowed to practice law again and will be supervised under probation by another attorney for two years. Davis also will be required to pay the costs of his disciplinary proceedings.
In the March 21 opinion written by Justice Bill Wooton, the court said Davis violated multiple violations of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. The justices agreed with the discipline recommended by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board’s Hearing Panel Subcommittee. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel also consented to the HPS suggestion that followed a May 2023 hearing.
Davis was admitted to practice law in West Virginia in 1993, most recently practicing in Spencer in Roane County. The latest action focuses on two formal charges against him.
In the first count, Davis was the court-appointed representative of Samantha Shafer in a criminal case. In a document submitted to the circuit court following a hearing on her entry of a guilty plea and sentencing, Shafer asked for a new public defender after she says Davis made sexual overtures toward her and asked “if she wanted to go to the beach with him while she was his client.”
Davis denied the allegation, saying Shafer became angry after she reviewed her pre-sentence investigation and was told by a probation officer that she had to enroll in a drug rehabilitation facility to be considered for alternative sentencing after she failed a drug screen.
At Davis’ disciplinary hearing, Shafer said he picked her and her son up in his vehicle and took them to get food.
“After getting food, (Davis) then drove to an abandoned school parking lot and parked the car so that they could talk,” court documents state. “She stated that (Davis) never discussed her case with her but they talked about trips, and he offered to take her on an all-expense paid trip to the beach.
“She felt the conversation was inappropriate and unprofessional. She stated that he also gave her compliments on her looks.”
Shafer said she felt Davis was flirting, which he also denied.
“I feel like if I would have went along with it, that I would have been represented differently,” she testified, adding Davis wouldn’t discuss her case further.
After her bond was revoked, Shafer was incarcerated for about six weeks before she was re-released when her bond was reinstated. During that time, she testified Davis made no attempt to contact her and “never answered her phone calls even though she placed a call to his office every day.”
Davis testified he “believed that he had adequately communicated with Ms. Shafer during her incarceration and that it would have been a ‘waste of time and the state’s money’ to visit with her while she was in jail,” according to court documents.
Because Davis failed to respond to Shafer’s calls while she was incarcerated, the HPS ruled he violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4.11 It also found Davis made “unwelcome advances in an attempt to create an inappropriate relationship of a sexual nature with his court-appointed client” in violation of “Rule 8.4(a) and (d)12 [attempted violation of Rule 1.8(j) of the Rules of Conduct].”
In the second count, Cletis W. Rogers said he hired Davis to represent him in a civil matter in September 2021 and paid him $500 to file an injunction on his behalf regarding a blocked right of way involving his property. Rogers claimed Davis didn’t file the injunction and wanted his money back.
Davis testified Rogers told him there was no rush in filing it until spring because of bad weather. But Rogers filed a suit against Davis in magistrate court in December 2021 and testified he never told Davis to wait for spring. The court awarded Rogers $700 for the refund plus magistrate filing fees.
The HPS found Davis failed to take appropriate action in violation of Rule 1.3,14, failed to make reasonable efforts consistent with the stated and agreed upon objectives of Rogers in violation of Rule 3.2,15 and failed to promptly return the unearned fee paid to him by Rogers upon termination of representation in violation of Rule 1.16(d).
The HPS found the clear and convincing evidence established Davis violated the duties he owed to his clients and the profession and that Davis “acted in a negligent manner in these matters.”
Davis’ prior disciplinary offenses include 33 complaints, eight disciplinary sanctions consisting of six admonishments and two suspensions over a 15-year period.
“The entire record demonstrates an ongoing pattern of misconduct that has not been corrected by past minimal sanctions,” the HPS stated.
The justices agreed, saying the sanctions are “consistent with this court’s obligation to protect the public interest and dissuade similar conduct in the future.”
“Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances in this case, we agree with the HPS that the public, the legal system and the profession will be best served by the imposition of the sanctions recommended by the HPS,” Wooton wrote in the opinion.
In February 2022, the Supreme Court suspended Davis’ license for six months after finding he committed six violations of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct arising from a single disciplinary complaint involving failure to communicate and timely file motions in a privately retained criminal matter.
Following the completion of that six-month suspension, Davis filed a petition seeking to reinstate his law license pursuant. But the HPS recommended it not be reinstated, and the Supreme Court entered an order adopting that recommendation on May 12, 2023.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 22-916 (Lawyer Disciplinary Board case numbers 21-03-363 and 22-03-255)