## Facts

- Paula M. Cunningham was a West Virginia attorney employed full time as general (in-house) counsel for Go-Mart, Inc. and related corporations.
- Her employment prohibited outside employment commitments, and she maintained no separate private law practice.
- Go-Mart’s personnel rules required her to work at least 39 hours per week to maintain insurance benefits; she typically worked about 50 hours and sometimes up to 75 hours weekly.
- Her office space, equipment, and supplies were provided by Go-Mart; she had no private secretary, and any secretarial assistance was limited to work related to Go-Mart’s interests.
- She lacked criminal-law research infrastructure, including criminal reference books and relevant reporters or other criminal-law research materials.
- Circuit judges in the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit appointed her to represent numerous indigent criminal defendants and denied her motion to be relieved, reasoning that licensed attorneys were obligated to accept such appointments.
- Cunningham sought a writ of prohibition to prevent further appointments while she remained full-time in-house counsel, asserting the appointments threatened her employment and imposed an unreasonable financial burden.

## Issues

1. Whether a full-time corporate in-house counsel who is contractually barred from outside practice shows “good cause” to decline indigent criminal-defense appointments under Rule 6.2(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Whether the likely loss of salaried employment and benefits from accepting appointments constitutes an “unreasonable financial burden” justifying refusal.
3. Whether lack of adequate resources for criminal representation supports “good cause” to decline court appointments.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted the writ of prohibition.
- The court held Cunningham established “good cause” under Rule 6.2(b) and could not be compelled, under these circumstances, to accept appointments to represent indigent criminal defendants.
- The court rejected the circuit court’s view that licensure alone creates an absolute duty to accept indigent-defense appointments.
- The respondent judges were prohibited from appointing Cunningham to indigent criminal cases unless and until she engaged in a separate law practice apart from her full-time corporate employment.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may decline a court appointment for “good cause” under Rule 6.2(b), including when the appointment would impose an unreasonable financial burden.
- A substantial risk of losing full-time employment and related benefits can qualify as an unreasonable financial burden.
- “Good cause” may also exist when the lawyer cannot handle the matter competently due to insufficient resources or practical ability to provide effective representation.
- Prior decisions concerning appointed-counsel obligations do not impose a universal, categorical duty on every licensed attorney to accept criminal appointments regardless of employment constraints.

## Conclusion

The court held that mandatory indigent-defense appointments are limited by professional-conduct rules: where a full-time in-house lawyer faces serious economic harm and lacks the practical capacity and resources for criminal defense work, the lawyer has good cause to decline, and a writ may prohibit further appointments.


Cunningham v. Sommerville, 182 W. Va. 427, 388 S.E.2d 301 (W. Va. 1989)