On Friday, July 11, 2025, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals denied Edward R. Kohout’s petition for reinstatement. The court’s decision, certified as final under Rule 26 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, also imposed specific conditions for any future reinstatement petitions by Kohout.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Edward R. Kohout,” with case number 21-1033.
Kohout was disbarred on November 15, 2016, following findings by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board. The board’s investigation, prompted by four complaints, resulted in a recommendation to annul Kohout’s license due to 15 ethical violations across three client cases, including four instances of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation under Rule 8.4(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. The court upheld these findings, noting aggravating factors such as Kohout’s prior disciplinary history, which included a two-year suspension, and his failure to acknowledge the harm caused or make timely restitution.
In December 2021, Kohout filed for reinstatement, submitting a required questionnaire and proposing a payment plan to address $10,737.77 in disciplinary proceeding costs. However, he defaulted on the plan, making sporadic payments totaling approximately $1,500 by March 2025. Kohout also delayed filing a mandatory affidavit notifying clients of his disbarment until May 2020, over three years late, and paid $2,060 in client restitution only in September 2021.
During a May 2024 reinstatement hearing, the Hearing Panel Subcommittee reviewed testimony from Kohout, his employer, a former client, and his wife, alongside letters of support. Kohout’s employer described him as a professional insurance agent since 2016, while a gun club associate praised his contributions to the organization’s nonprofit status. However, the court found insufficient evidence of rehabilitation, noting Kohout’s minimization of his misconduct, lack of remorse, and derogatory public statements about the disciplinary process.
The court’s review, conducted de novo, emphasized Kohout’s failure to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required for reinstatement, as outlined in prior cases like In re Brown (1980). Key factors included the severity of his original offenses, his conduct since disbarment, and the lack of recent legal education, with Kohout completing 12 hours of continuing legal education in a single day in January 2025.
The court mandated that Kohout fully reimburse the Disciplinary Board for costs from both the disbarment and reinstatement proceedings and secure a supervising attorney’s affidavit before filing future petitions.
According to Avvo, Mr. Kohout was an attorney in Morgantown, WV. He acquired his law license in West Virginia in 1987.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
