CHARLESTON – The state Supreme Court has found an already suspended attorney and former Pleasants County assistant prosecutor to be in contempt.
In a recent memorandum decision, the court says M. Paul Marteney failed to comply with an earlier Supreme Court order suspending his license for 90 days and imposing other sanctions after he failed to make arrangements to pay $1,885.09 to cover the cost of those proceedings against him.
On December 14, the state Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel filed the petition to show cause in contempt. In that petition, Chief Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel Rachael L. Fletcher Cipoletti said Marteney failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s September 12 order suspending his license.
In November 2022, the ODC filed a one-count statement of charges against Marteney alleging he violated the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct related to a civil lawsuit filed in Pleasants County that was dismissed because of inactivity. That led to the 90-day suspension of his law license by the Supreme Court as well as other sanctions.
In the underlying matter, Jinjer Nutter filed her ethics complaint against Marteney in December 2021 claiming he refused to refund the $200 filing fee after he failed to handle her traffic accident civil lawsuit properly. After the suit was filed, Nutter said she was unable to contact Marteney.
Marteney was charged with failing to handle Nutter’s case competently and timely, failing to reduce a contingency fee agreement and provide her the agreement in writing and failing to keep her informed about the case as well as using his job and staff as assistant prosecutor for private matters and failing to respond to the ODC.
The ODC says Marteney did refund Nutter he was representing the $200 filing fee, but it says he has neither paid the court costs nor disclosed to his clients of his suspension and filed an affidavit with the Supreme Court Clerk’s office and provide proof of compliance to the ODC.
The ODC sent Marteney a letter in October reminding him of the obligation, but he did not respond to it. That’s when the ODC filed the contempt charge.
And on March 4, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause, but it was not rendered moot by Marteney’s compliance. During an April 30 show cause hearing, Marteney “indicated that he would not address the court absent specific questions, and he remained silent.”
“Because Mr. Marteney was scheduled for automatic reinstatement, ODC argues that he should be held in contempt and that his suspension should continue indefinitely until he demonstrates full compliance with this court’s September 12, 2023, order,” the memorandum decision states. “Due to his failure to comply with the … suspension order, this court holds M. Paul Marteney in contempt of court.
“Mr. Marteney’s license to practice law in the State of West Virginia remains suspended until he demonstrates full compliance with this court’s order and successfully petitions for reinstatement.”
The Justices say Marteney must demonstrate to the court that he complied with Rule 3.28 requiring disclosure of his suspension to his clients, filing the affidavit with the Supreme Court Clerk’s office and providing proof of that compliance to the ODC as well as make arrangements with the ODC to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3.15.
As of August 9, the ODC says Marteney still has not complied with the order and remains suspended and in contempt.
Since his suspension, Marteney no longer serves as an assistant prosecutor. But he and Pleasants County Prosecuting Attorney Brian Carr still are under investigation for their part in the Slow Down for the Holidays program that began in 2008 when Carr was a municipal judge for the City of St. Marys.
The program would dismiss minor traffic infractions in exchange for donations of $50 in gift cards, toys or cash to dismiss certain charges. Investigators claim these donations were bribes, and Carr and Marteney were charged by the state Lawyer Disciplinary Board of rules violations. That case is on hold as the U.S. Attorney’s Office investigates the matter as well.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 24-219
