DOCSLIB.ORG

Petitioner's Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petitioner's Brief DO NOT REMOVE Fl co 1 IN THE SUPREME c8 ,~ 6 · f PPEALS OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA r,:~::::;-;;aM-AY~ ~- - """:(g~~-- 5 2020 0 LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, EDYTHE NASH GAISER CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALs OF WEST VIRGINIA Petitioner, v. No. 18-0101 McGINNIS E. HATFIELD, JR., Respondent. BRIEF OF THE LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD Rachael L. Fletcher Cipoletti [Bar No. 8806] Chief Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel [email protected] Renee N. Frymyer [Bar No. 9253] Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel [email protected] Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel City Center East, Suite 1200C 4700 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E. Charleston, West Virginia 25304 (304) 558-7999 (304) 558-4015 - facsimile TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .... .. ..... ... ..... ..... .... ... .... ... .... .. ...... .. 111 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..... ........ .. ...... ... .... .. ..... ....... 1 A. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING PANEL SUBCOMMITTEE ... .. ..... .... ... .... ....... 1 B. FINDINGS OF FACT ... .. .............. .. ..... ..... ... .... .. ...... 2 C. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW . .. ..... .... ...... ... .... ... ..... ..... .. .. ... 8 IL SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . .. ...... ... ...... ... ..... .. .... ... ..... .... 9 III. STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT AND DECISION ......... .... 10 IV. ARGUMENT ............ .... ... .. ... ...... .. ..... .. ..... .. ....... 10 A. STANDARD OF PROOF . ...... ........ ...... .. ..................... 10 B. ANALYSIS UNDER RULE 3.16 OF THE RULES OF LAWYER DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE .................... ..... 11 1. Respondent violated duties to the public, to the legal system and to the legal profession . ................................ .. ... 12 2. Respondent acted intentionally and knowingly ................ ... 13 3. Respondent's misconduct caused great actual and potential injury .... 13 4. There are no mitigating factors present . .. ..... .. ........... .... 14 5. There are aggravating factors present . 15 C. SANCTION ....... .. ..... .. ....... .. ..... ... .... .. .... .. ......... 15 V. CONCLUSION . ............ ... ...... ... ..... ... .... ... .... ... .... .. 21 A0084279.WPD -11- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Attorney Grievance Comm 'n ofMd. V. Culver 849 A.2d 423 (Md. 2004) ....... .. .. ..... .... ...... .. .... ... ..... .. ...... 19 Attorney Grievance Comm 'n v. Childress 692 A.2d 465 (Md. 1997) .. ..... .. .. ......... ..... .. .... .... .... 19, 20 Committee on Legal Ethics v. Blair 174 W.Va. 494,327 S.E.2d 671 (1984) ........... .... ..... .. .... ... .... .... 11 Committee on Legal Ethics v. Karl 192 W.Va. 23,449 S.E.2d 277 (1994) ............... ... ..... ..... .. .... ... 11 Committee on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle 192 W.Va. 286,452 S.E.2d 377 (1994) ....... .... .. .. ... .... ... .... .. ... 10, 11 Committee on Legal Ethics v. Morton 186 W.Va. 43,410 S.E.2d 279 (1991) .. .. ...... .... .... .. ...... .. ........... 16 Committee on Legal Ethics v. Tatterson 173 W.Va. 613, 319 S.E.2d 381 (1984) ... ... ..... .. .. .... ... .. ... .. ......... 16 Committee on Legal Ethics v. Walker 178 W.Va. 150, 358 S.E.2d 234 (1987) ..... ... ..... ....... ... .... ... ..... .. 16 Daily Gazette v. Committee on Legal Ethics 174 W.Va. 359, 326 S.E.2d 705 (1984) .. ..... ..... ....... ... ............ 16 Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldblatt 888 N.E.2d 1091 (Ohio 2008) .. .... ... ..... .. ...... ... ..... .. ..... ... ... 19 Fla. Bar v. Weinstein 624 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla 1993) . ... .... ... ....... .. ..... ... ..... .. .... .... 20 In re Ashy 721 So.2d 859 (La. 1998) . .. .... ... ..... ....... ... .... ..... ... ..... .. 19 In re Brown 166 W.Va. 226, 232-33.273 S.E. 2d 567, 570 (1980) .... ... ............ ... ..... 16 A0084279. WPD -111- In re Naquin 775 So. 2d 1060 (La. 2000) . ... .... ..... ... ..... .. ..... ....... ... ... ... 20 In re Tenenbaum 880 A.2d 1925 (Del. 2005) ... .... ..... ..... ... ..... .. .. .. ....... .. .... 19 In re Tenenbaum 918 A.2d 1109 (Del. 2007) .. ... ..... ... ...... ... .... ... .... .... .... ... ... 20 In re Touchet 753 So.2d 820 (La. 2000) ............. .... ..... .. .... .. ..... ... .... ... 18 In re Weaver 281 P.3d 502 (Kan. 2012) ...... ... ..... ... ............. .. ...... .. ... ... 20 Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Chittum 225 W.Va. 836, 89 S.E.2d 811 (2010) .......... ....... .. ............. ... 18 Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Cunningham 195 W.Va. 27,464 S.E.2d 181 (1995) .. ... ....... .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. .... 11 Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Hardison 205 W.Va. 344, 518 S.E.2d 101 (1999) .......... .... .... .... ...... .. ... ... .. 16 Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. McGraw 194 W.Va. 788,461 S.E.2d 850 (1995) ..... .. .... .... .... ... ...... .. .... ... 10 Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Scott 213 W.Va. 209, 579 S.E. 2d 550 (2003) ..... ... .. .. ... ..... ... ..... .. ..... 14 Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Stanton 223 W.Va. 639, 760 S.E.2d 453 (2014) ........ ... ..... ... ..... ... .. ... .... 18 Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. White 240 W.Va. 363, 811 S.E.2d 893 (2018) .... ..... .. ..... ... ..... ... ..... .. ... 18 Matter of Wood 489 N.E.2d 1189 (Ind. 1986) .......... .... ..... ... .... .. .. .. .... .... .. 19 Musick v. Musick 192 W.Va. 527,453 S.E.2d 361 (1994) .... .... ..... .. ....... .. .... .... .... .. 17 A0084279. Wl'D Office ofDisciplinary Counsel v. Jordan 204 W.Va. 495, 513 S.E.2d. 722 (1998) .. .. .. .... ... ..... .. ..... ... .. 11, 12, 13 People v. Easley 956 P. 2d 1257, 1259 (Colo. 1998) .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ..... .. ..... ... ...... 13 People v. Chappell 927 P.2d 829 (Colo. 1996) .. ...... ...... ... ..... ... ..... .. .... ... ..... 19 Roark v. Lawyer Disciplinary Board 207 W.Va. 181,495 S.E.2d 552 (1997) . ....... .... .... ... ... ..... .. .... 11 See State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 645 n. 1,398 S.E.2d 123, 127 n.1 (1990) ... ... ........... ... .. 1 State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Associate v. Gassaway 196 P.3d 495 (Okla. 2008) .... ..... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... ..... .. .... .. 19 West Virginia Statutes and Rules: R. of Appellate Proc. Rule 19 .... .. ............ ... .... .. ..... .. .... .. 10 R. of Appellate Proc. Rule 40(e)(l) . ... ..... ... .... ... ...... ... ..... .... 1 R. Law Disc. Proc. Rule 3.7 ..... .... ..... ... ..... .. ...... ... ..... ..... 10 R. Law Disc. Proc. Rule 3.15 ..... .... .... ... .... .... .... .. ......... 2, 21 R. Law Disc. Proc. Rule 3 .16 . .... ... ..... .. .... , . 11, 12 R. Professional Conduct Rule 1.10 .. ..... ........ .. ..... ... ..... .... .... .. 15 R. Professional Conduct Rule l.2(a) .. ..... .... ..... .. ............. .... .... .. 15 R. Professional Conduct Rule 1.8 . .. ...... ... ........... .. ....... .. ...... 17 R. Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(i) ......... ... .... ... .... .... ..... .... .... 8 R. Professional Conduct Rule 1.9 ... .... ..... ... ..... .... .... ..... ... .... 15 R. Professional Conduct Rule 7.1 .... .... ........ .... .. ..... .... ..... ...... 20 R. Professional Conduct Rule 7.3(b)(2) .. ... ..... ... ..... .. .... ... .. .. .. 2, 8, 15 A0084279.WPD -v- R. Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(a) .. ... ... .. ...... ..... .. ..... ... 2, 9, 15, 18 R. Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) ... .... ... .... .... .... .... ... ...... 2, 9,15 R. Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d) . .... ... .. .... ... .... .... .... ... .... 9, 15 R. Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(g) ... ........ .... .... .... .... ..... .. .... .. 8 W.Va. Code§ 61-8-5(b) .... .... .. ...... .... ..... .. ........ .. ... .... ... .... 9 W.Va. Const. Art. VIII, §3 . ... ... ...... .... ..... .. .. .. ... ... ... ....... .. 14 Other: ABA Model Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions .... ..... .. ..... ... .... .. .. 10 Annotated ABA Model Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Definition (2015) ..... 13 ABA Model Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, § 9.21(1992) ... ..... .. ... .. 15 ABA Model Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,§ 9.22(a) ....... ... ..... ... ..... 15 ABA Model Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,§ 9.31 (1992) ... .... ............ 14 ABA Model Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standard 7 .1 ..... .... .... .. 20 A0084279. WPD -Vl- I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING PANEL SUBCOMMITTEE This is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding against Respondent McGinnis E. Hatfield, Jr. (hereinafter "Respondent"), arising as the result of a Statement of Charges issued against him and filed with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia on or about February 9, 2018. The Clerk ofthe Supreme Court ofAppeals served the Statement of Charges upon Respondent by certified mail on or about February 13, 2018. Thereafter, on or about March 7, 2018, Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel timely filed her mandatory discovery upon Respondent. Respondent filed his Answer to the Statement of Charges on or about March 23, 2018, and "Respondent's Discovery Disclosures," on or about April 9, 2018. No pre-trial motions were filed by either party. Thereafter, this matter proceeded to hearing in Charleston, West Virginia, at the Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel (hereinafter "ODC") on June 14, 2018. The presiding Hearing Panel Subcommittee (hereinafter "HPS") comprised of Steven K. Nord, Esquire, Chairperson; Anne Werum Lambright, Esquire; and Dr. K. Edward Grose, Layperson. Renee N. Frymyer, Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel, appeared on behalf of the ODC. John W. Feuchtenberger, Esquire, appeared on behalf of Respondent, who also appeared. The HPS heard testimony from B.W. 1 and Respondent. In addition, ODC Exhibits 1-24 were admitted into evidence. On or about
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members
    Order Code 93-875 Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members Updated November 12, 2008 Jack Maskell Legislative Attorney American Law Division Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members Summary The authority of the United States Senate (as well as of the House) to establish the rules for its own proceedings, to “punish” its Members for misconduct, and to expel a Member by a vote of two-thirds of Members present and voting, is provided in the Constitution at Article I, Section 5, clause 2. This express grant of authority for the Senate to expel a Senator is, on its face, unlimited — save for the requirement of a two-thirds majority. In the context of what the Supreme Court has characterized as, in effect, an “unbridled discretion” of the body, expulsions in the Senate, as well as the House, have historically been reserved for cases of the most serious misconduct: disloyalty to the government or abuses of one’s official position. The Senate has actually expelled only 15 Members — 14 of those during the Civil War period for disloyalty to the Union (one of these expulsions was subsequently revoked by the Senate), and the other Senator during the late 1700s for disloyal conduct. The House of Representatives has expelled only five Members in its history, three during the Civil War period, one in 1980, and another in 2002, after convictions for bribery and corruption offenses related to official congressional duties. In the Senate, as well as in the House, however, other Members for whom expulsion was recommended have resigned from office prior to official, formal action by the institution.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Parliamentarian Publication of the Michigan State Association of Parliamentarians March 2018
    The Michigan Parliamentarian Publication of the Michigan State Association of Parliamentarians March 2018 Greetings MSAP Members: I welcome you to join members, guests and friends as we gather to celebrate 50 years of the Michigan State Association of Parliamentarians at the Annual Meeting at Zehnders Restaurant in Frankenmuth on Saturday, April 14, 2018. This year’s meeting, hosted by the Genesee Area Unit, is guaranteed to be worth the trip to historic Frankenmuth. Not only for the great venue, and outstanding educational sessions but also to see old friends and make new ones as we celebrate 50 years as a state association. All the details you need to register are included in this edition of the newsletter. I think it would be fun to gather comments and stories about your best experience and fondest memories as a member of MSAP. Send them to me at [email protected]; or mail me a note to 628 N. Kalamazoo St, Paw Paw MI 49079. I will compile and share them at the annual meeting. If you can, plan to make it a weekend in Frankenmuth because on Friday, April 13, The Michigan United of Registered Parliamentarians will be holding their annual meeting with dinner followed by the quarterly meeting of MSAP and an educational lesson. Read on for more details for these meetings plus lodging information. I look forward to seeing you all in Frankenmuth in April! Julie Pioch, PRP MSAP President 1 | Page Updates MEETINGS – PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE MSAP celebrates its golden anniversary Submitted by: Gretchen Denton, MSAP Education Committee Chair The Michigan State Association of Parliamentarians is fifty years old in 2018 and its annual meeting will reflect that past, present, and future in its workshops with three topics that are important whether you’re a 50-year member or embarking on your parliamentary journey.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin
    Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin 2019/02 TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT/COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT __________________________________________________________________ Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin 2019/2 Lausanne 2019 Table des matières/Table of Contents Editorial ………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Articles et commentaires / Articles and Commentaries ....................................................................... 6 CAS procedures and their efficiency Laurence Boisson de Chazournes & Ségolène Couturier ................................................................. 7 Aperçu du nouveau Code disciplinaire FIFA 2019 Estelle de La Rochefoucauld ............................................................................................................... 18 Sports arbitration ex aequo et bono: basketball as a groundbreaker Hubert Radke ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Jurisprudence majeure / Leading Cases ................................................................................................ 52 CAS 2018/A/5580 Blagovest Krasimirov Bozhinovski v. Anti-Doping Centre of the Republic of Bulgaria (ADC) & Bulgarian Olympic Committee (BOC) 8 March 2019 ......................................................................................................................................... 53 CAS 2018/A/5607 SA Royal Sporting Club Anderlecht (RSCA) v. Matías Ezequiel Suárez & Club Atlético Belgrano de Córdoba (CA Belgrano) & CAS 2018/A/5608
    [Show full text]
  • Qwinter 1994 Volume 43 Number 1
    AWI uarterlWinter 1994 Volume 43 Q Number 1 magnificent humpback whale was captured on film by R. Cover : AWI • Shelton "Doc" White, who comes from a long line of seafarers and rtrl merchant seamen. He continues the tradition of Captain John White, an early New Q WInr l 4Y br I World explorer commissioned by Sir Walter Raleigh in 1587. In 1968, Doc was commissioned in the US Navy and was awarded two Bronze Stars, a Purple Heart, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He has devoted himself to diving, professional underwater photography and photographic support, scientific research support, and seamanship. Directors Madeleine Bemelmans Jean Wallace Douglas David 0. Hill Freeborn G. Jewett, Jr. Christine Stevens Doc White/Images Unlimited Roger L. Stevens Aileen Train Investigation Reveals Continued Trade in Tiger Parts Cynthia Wilson Startling evidence from a recent undercover investigation on the tiger bone trade in Officers China was released this month by the Tiger Trust. Perhaps the most threatened of all Christine Stevens, President tiger sub-species is the great Amur or "Siberian" tiger, a national treasure to most Cynthia Wilson, Vice President Russians and revered by Russian indigenous groups who call it "Amba" or "Great Freeborn G. Jewett, Jr., Secretary Sovereign." Michael Day, President of Tiger Trust, along with Dr. Bill Clark and Roger L. Stevens, Treasurer Investigator, Steven Galster went to Russia in November and December to work with the Russian government to start up a new, anti-poaching program designed to halt the Scientific Committee rapid decline of the Siberian tiger. Neighboring China has claimed to the United Marjorie Anchel, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Disciplinary Procedure
    Disciplinary Procedure Date March 2017 Written by Astrea HR Adopted by MAT Board 22 January 2016 Adopted by LGB Review Date September 2016 Consulted with NJCC March – September 2015 Agreed with NJCC October 2015 Contents 1. Introduction Principles and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 1 2. Scope of the Procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 1 3.Responsibilities .................................................................................................................................................. 2 4.Representation................................................................................................................................................... 2 5. Discipline of an employee representative ........................................................................................................ 3 6. Definitions of misconduct and gross misconduct ............................................................................................. 3 7. Informal Stage ................................................................................................................................................... 4 8.Formal Procedure .............................................................................................................................................. 4 9.Disciplinary Hearing (Please see Appendix 1 for the procedure
    [Show full text]
  • Reports, As Well As the Subsequent Compliance Reports, Are Available on the GRECO Website (
    F O U R T Adoption: 23 June 2017 Public H Publication: 2 November 2017 GrecoEval 4Rep(2016)8 E FOURTH EVALUATION ROUND V A Corruption prevention in respect of members of L parliament, judges and prosecutors U A T I O EVALUATION REPORT N ANDORRA R O Adopted by GRECO at its 76th Plenary Meeting U (Strasbourg, 19-23 June 2017) N GRECO Secretariat Directorate General I D Council of Europe www.coe.int/greco Human Rights and Rule of Law F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Information Society and Action against +33 3 88 41 20 00 Crime Directorate TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................4 I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................5 II. CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................................7 III. CORRUPTION PREVENTION IN RESPECT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT .................................................9 OVERVIEW OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM..................................................................................................................9 TRANSPARENCY OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS ..............................................................................................................10 REMUNERATION AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS .................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Of 5 Conducting a Board Meeting
    Conducting a Board Meeting: Planning and Doing Standard Order of Business* or Agenda Reading and Approval of Minutes Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees Reports of Special Committees Special Orders Unfinished Business and General Orders New Business Process of Decision-making of the Assembly How business is introduced: making a motion, seconding, and chair stating the question How business is decided: debating, chair putting the question, assembly voting Q & A League of Women Voters of Virginia, Fall Workshops, Fredericksburg, September 14, 2019 Presenter: Martha Rollins, B.A., M.A., J.D.; Registered Parliamentarian, NAP; LWV-VA Secretary, LWVSHR President, Chesapeake Unit of Parliamentarians, President; LWVUS Parliamentarian 2011-2016 * Mnemonic: MRS. SUN Page 1 of 5 Standard Order of Business or Agenda Preparation: Logistics and notice, work to be accomplished in the time determined Size of assembly, large or small, formal or informal Governing law, national and state provisions, bylaws, special rules of order, and parliamentary authority Basic focus on the ordinary society (greater than a dozen); special section for boards and committees Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th Edition (RONR) Standard Order of Business: template for types of business at any meeting subject to RONR Enhanced by custom, practice, and protocol Reading and Approval of Minutes Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees Reports of Special Committees Special Orders Unfinished Business and General Orders New Business Agenda: An agenda can be adopted by the assembly, including timed segments. Standard practice for Conventions to set business items and program within a timetable. Adoption requires a majority vote. An agenda or convention program is often adopted by unanimous consent To change the agenda, however, requires a 2/3 vote (to change something previously adopted).
    [Show full text]
  • Spectrum Bylaws Article I: Membership Section 1
    Spectrum Bylaws Article I: Membership Section 1 – Registration Any individual is a considered a member of the organization pending the completion of a registration form which provides the organization the individual’s full name, email, and student NSHE number as prescribed in the requirements to be acknowledged as a student organization by CSUN. In order to first be eligible for membership, individuals must attend five or more meetings for the respective fall or spring semester. None of the information provided by members shall be released for any reason without the consent of the members involved. Any changes to the registration form can made as approved by a simple majority vote. Executive officers automatically receive membership status at the commencement of their term and remain so for the duration of their term ignoring all membership requirements set forth by this organization’s constitution and bylaws. Section 2 – Ending Membership Membership ends upon 1) the day before the subsequent Fall or Spring semester, 2) the member’s request, or 3) the day an individual’s membership status is revoked. Section 3 – Methods Revoking Membership Status ​ Spectrum reserves the right to exclude association from anyone who violates UNLV student conduct code. A copy of the code can be found at the Office of Student Conduct or by requesting a copy from the Executive Board. Any member who is found by a two-thirds majority vote by the executive officers to disrupt and fail to uphold the purpose ​ or interferes with the mission of the organization can have their membership status revoked or suspended.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 2(A) – Terms of Reference for Decision Making Structures
    Section 2(a) – Terms of Reference for Decision making Structures Subject: Terms of Reference for the Disciplinary Committee Date Approved by Board of Directors: July 2019 Policy Version 1/2019 Date due for July 2020 Revision PURPOSE (including Scope of Functioning/ Key Responsibilities and Accountabilities) The Disciplinary Committee is a subcommittee of the Quality & Standards Committee which may be convened by the Registrar on an ad hoc basis to consider issues of alleged or suspected academic impropriety or breaches of the Code of Conduct on the part of students. For minor offences or first offences of a less serious nature, the College may rely on informal methods. Formal disciplinary actions will be enacted where serious offences occur or where offences are repeated following informal interventions. Any Learner who is the subject of a disciplinary procedure has the right to appeal as per the Policy on Appeals. Where considered necessary, appointments are made by the Vice President (Academic Affairs) based on the recommendations of the Registrar who then convenes the Disciplinary Committee to consider the nature of alleged misconduct or impropriety and make appropriate recommendations. It will normally restrict its deliberations to more serious allegations or suspicions. MEMBERSHIP Membership may be drawn from the following; • Registrar (Chair) • Quality Assurance & Enhancement Officer • Director of Graduate or Undergraduate Studies (as appropriate) • Other members of College staff or external expertise as may be necessary. ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES The committee to be convened by the Registrar (who acts as Chair) as necessary; membership will be based on nature of alleged disciplinary offence. A minimum 3 persons will be included who may be drawn from across the College (or occasionally drawing on external expertise) according to, or as relevant to the alleged disciplinary issue under consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Entire Text of IPU Statutes and Rules in PDF Format
    STATUTES AND RULES Texts valid as from April 2017 STATUTES AND RULES Texts valid as from April 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Statutes of the Inter-Parliamentary Union 1 Rules of the Assembly 12 Rules of the Governing Council 21 Rules of the Executive Committee 30 Rules of the Standing Committees 36 Rules of the Forum of Women Parliamentarians 46 Rules of the Bureau of Women Parliamentarians 56 Rules and working modalities of the Forum of Young Parliamentarians of the IPU 60 Rules and practices of the Committee on the Human Rights of parliamentarians 63 Rules of the Secretariat of the Inter-Parliamentary Union 80 Financial Regulations of the Inter-Parliamentary Union 84 Practical modalities of the rights and responsibilities of observers at IPU meetings 90 INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION APRIL 2017 STATUTES 1 STATUTES OF THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION Adopted in 1976, extensively revised in October 1983 and amended in April 2003, October 2013, March 2016 and April 2017 I. NATURE, PURPOSE AND COMPOSITION ARTICLE 1 1. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) is the international organization of the Parliaments of sovereign States. 2. As the focal point for worldwide parliamentary dialogue since 1889, the Inter-Parliamentary Union shall work for peace and cooperation among peoples and for the solid establishment of representative institutions. To that end, it shall: (a) Foster contacts, coordination and the exchange of experience among Parliaments and parliamentarians of all countries; (b) Consider questions of international interest and express its views on such issues with the aim of bringing about action by Parliaments and their members; (c) Contribute to the defence and promotion of human rights, which are universal in scope and respect for which is an essential factor of parliamentary democracy and development; (d) Contribute to better knowledge of the working of representative institutions and to the strengthening and development of their means of action.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance for Members of Disciplinary Committees
    Guidance for Members of Disciplinary Committees This guidance applies from 1 October 2009 and includes the Council’s Code of Conduct and Practice for registered teachers which comes in to effect for referrals on or after 1 October 2009 1 PART CONTENTS PAGE Part 1 Introduction: General principles affecting regulatory work 5 1.1 The status of the Council’s Disciplinary Procedure Rules 6 1.2 Appointing a Chair 6 1.3 Conflicts of interest 6 1.4 Member status 7 1.5 The role of the Legal Adviser 8 1.6 Security of hearings 9 Part 2 Guidance to members of Investigating Committees 10 2.1 The role of the Council in considering referrals 10 2.2 The role of an Investigating Committee 11 2.3 Further investigations 11 2.4 The decision-making process 12 2.5 Reasons and record-keeping 15 Appendix 1 Framework for assessing the relevance of convictions 16 Part 1 General principles 16 The impact of a conviction on fitness for registration 17 Part 2 Applying the general principles: nature and seriousness of the 17 offence Applying the general principles: relevance to professional 17 registration Diagram: evaluating the potential impact of a conviction on 18 registration Further guidance on referring types of offences for hearing 18 Wider application of the framework 19 Appendix 2 Further guidance on criminal offences 22 Introduction 22 Part 1 Community Orders 22 Part 2 Offences 22 2.1 Introduction 22 2.2 Public order and damage offences 23 2.3 Offences against the person 25 2 2.4 Offences of dishonesty 27 2.5 Drugs offences 29 2.6 Driving offences 30 Part
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion of the Court
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 08-0705 444444444444 IN THE MATTER OF BOMA O. ALLISON 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Argued March 11, 2009 CHIEF JUSTICE JEFFERSON delivered the opinion of the Court. Boma Allison, an attorney licensed by the State Bar of Texas, challenges a judgment issued by a State Bar grievance committee’s evidentiary panel, in which the panel suspended Allison for violating provisions of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Allison alleges that the evidentiary panel, composed of three attorney members and one public member, lacked a quorum. She asks that the judgment be vacated and the case either dismissed or remanded for a new hearing before a statewide evidentiary panel. Because we hold that the panel constituted a proper quorum under the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, we affirm the Board of Disciplinary Appeals’ judgment. I Background In 2005, the State Bar’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel notified Allison that a grievance filed against her by one of her clients had been classified as a complaint, necessitating a hearing to determine whether Allison violated the rules of disciplinary procedure. After six unsuccessful attempts1 at scheduling the hearing, the evidentiary panel convened for Allison’s disciplinary matter in 2007. The panel ultimately found that Allison violated the rules as alleged and issued a judgment of partially probated suspension. Allison then moved for a stay of suspension and for a new hearing, alleging the absence of a quorum.2 Allison argued that the panel’s composition—three attorney members and one public member—violated Rule 2.07 of the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
    [Show full text]