On Tuesday, October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied the petition for reinstatement of C. Michael Sparks, a disbarred attorney. Sparks was initially disbarred by consent in October 2013, following a federal misdemeanor conviction stemming from a political corruption investigation in Mingo County, West Virginia.
The court’s decision overturns a recommendation from the Hearing Panel Subcommittee (HPS), which had suggested Sparks be reinstated with a two-year supervision period. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) initially opposed Sparks’ reinstatement but later consented to the HPS recommendation, a reversal the Supreme Court noted without explanation.
Sparks, admitted to the West Virginia State Bar in 1996, served as Mingo County Prosecuting Attorney from 2004 until his resignation in 2013. His disbarment was a condition of his plea agreement for violating 18 U.S.C. § 242, aiding and abetting the deprivation of a constitutional right under color of law. The charge arose from his involvement in a scheme to encourage a criminal defendant, George White, to dismiss his attorney, Charles “Butch” West, who was perceived as a political adversary.
According to the federal information, Sparks offered White a more favorable plea agreement to coerce him into firing West. This agreement included pleading guilty to two of five charges, a lesser monetary forfeiture, and a recommendation for concurrent sentences or probation.
In his petition for reinstatement, Sparks claimed he merely failed to intervene in the scheme and that the plea deal offered to White was consistent with his standard practice. He denied being a “conspirator” and claimed the stipulation of facts in his plea agreement may not have been entirely accurate.
The Court found Sparks’ testimony inconsistent with the factual basis upon which his guilty plea was accepted by the United States District Court. The court emphasized that Sparks had expressly agreed, under oath, to being aware of and assenting to the scheme, granting a more favorable plea deal to protect the sheriff.
Chief Justice Wooton, who delivered the opinion of the court, highlighted that ethical violations by a lawyer holding public office are viewed as more egregious due to the betrayal of public trust. The court concluded that Sparks’ current position reflected poorly on his rehabilitation, fitness, and integrity.
The court also addressed Sparks’ prior disciplinary record, which included three admonishments and five open disciplinary complaints at the time of his disbarment.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
