On Thursday, May 9, 2024, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia refused to grant the emergency petition from the Office of Disciplinary Council seeking the immediate and indefinite suspension of James W. Keenan’s law license.
The case is entitled “Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel v. James W. Keenan,” with case no. 23-619.
Keenan is an attorney who was already suspended from practicing law for six months based on earlier disciplinary charges brought against him. In late October 2023, while those charges were pending, the ODC filed an emergency petition under Rule 3.27 of the West Virginia Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure seeking to immediately suspend Keenan’s license indefinitely based on new allegations of misconduct.
The ODC argued that Keenan’s misconduct was so severe that it justified an emergency suspension to protect the public. However, in its memorandum decision, the Court found that because Keenan’s license was already suspended, and he could not practice law without reinstatement, he did not pose a “substantial threat of irreparable harm to the public,” which is required for approval of an emergency petition under Rule 3.27.
While the new allegations against Keenan, such as criminal charges for brandishing a gun in public and concerning messages sent to a judge and probation officer, indicated escalating issues, the Court determined the standard disciplinary process was sufficient to handle the situation since Keenan is barred from practicing during his current six-month suspension. It noted that the ODC could still investigate the new complaints and potentially bring charges later.
In its analysis, the Court reviewed the requirements of Rule 3.27 and previous cases where it granted emergency petitions, finding in those instances the attorneys’ licenses had not yet been suspended. It concluded that granting the petition in Keenan’s case would not provide extra protection to the public beyond what has already been accomplished through his current suspension.
The Court emphasized its refusal of the petition should not be seen as critical of ODC’s filing or minimizing the severity of Keenan’s alleged behavior, but rather an acknowledgment that the specific emergency relief requested would not further the goal of protecting the public since he is already suspended from practicing law. The ODC is still able to raise any concerns with the Court if Keenan later seeks reinstatement after his six-month suspension ends.
The Disposition states:
“Accordingly, because we find that Mr. Keenan does not pose “a substantial threat of irreparable harm to the public” that can be remedied by granting the ODC’s petition under Rule 3.27(b), we refuse ODC’s emergency petition.”
Accoding to avvo.com, Mr. Keenan is an attorney in Fayetteville, West Virginia. He acquired his law license in West Virginia in 1980.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
