On Wedneday, November 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia suspended Hungtington attorney David R. Tyson for three years for fraudulent conduct. The case is entitled “Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. David R. Tyson” and was brought by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board, with case no. 20-107.
The charges cited Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(a), 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c)(d), 1.2(a), 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3) which state:
A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Rule 1.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides, in part: (a) Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation.
Act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
Keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.
The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
This matter included five separate counts. The first two counts were opened in the name of ODC as a result of a review of billing vouchers that the respondent submitted to the PDS on multiple occasions. The other half of the counts are results of complaints to the respondent by former clients.
The filing states:
“With respect to Count I, on or about July 31, 2017, the ODC informed Mr. Tyson that it had opened a complaint against him based upon a review of multiple billing vouchers he had submitted for payment to the PDS. Initially, Mr. Tyson was asked to review and address forty-eight (48) vouchers submitted between August 17, 2015, and February 24, 2017. After reviewing those vouchers, Mr. Tyson indicated that some of the vouchers contained billing errors, but he asserted that the billing errors were unintentional.”
The filing continues:
“Count V involved a complaint made by A.R. against Mr. Tyson. A.R. alleged that she paid Mr. Tyson a total of $3,225.00 to represent her in a divorce, but Mr. Tyson failed to file the divorce case. Mr. Tyson attributed his failure to file a divorce action on A.R.’s behalf to her alleged indecision, which he described as a “back and forth” in relation to her desire to proceed. The HPS heard testimony from A.R., Mr. Tyson’s office manager, and Mr. Tyson regarding these allegations and determined that Mr. Tyson failed to abide by A.R.’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation in this matter. “
The Court has concluded that suspensions are the normal course of discipline in cases of fraudulent PDS billing. Thus, it should be the appropriate sanction in this case.
The Disposition states:
“For the reasons set forth herein, we order the following sanctions: Mr. Tyson’s law license is suspended for a period of three (3) years (2) Upon suspension, Mr. Tyson must comply with the mandates of Rule 3.28 of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure. (3) Mr. Tyson will be required to petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 3.32 of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure.”
As of today, Mr. Tyson is listed on the website of the law firm Tyson & Tyson as a practicing attorney. His info can be found on Tysonlaw.com. Tyson practices and is licensed in Huntington, West Virginia.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
