Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Howard J. Blyler
Opinion
No. 14-0365 – Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Howard J. Blyler FILED June 3, 2016 released at 3:00 p.m.
Chief Justice Ketchum, dissenting: RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA
I agree with the discipline recommended by the hearing panel.
Lawyer Blyler was inattentive to the confiscation of his client’s money by
the State. His inattentive conduct was caused by caring for his wife who was dying from
Alzheimer’s disease. He did not have the financial resources to hire others to provide her
with full time, in-home care that she required.
The majority is requiring Lawyer Blyler to pay back the approximately
$47,000 he owes to the estate. At the same time, the majority is taking away his
opportunity to earn an income by suspending his law license. These are self-defeating
sanctions that defy common sense. Even the complaining party agrees that Lawyer
Blyler should be permitted to continue to practice so that restitution can be made.
I dissent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Howard J. Blyler (Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Howard J. Blyler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.