## Facts

- Linda and Quewanncoii Stephens’ autistic child, Quinton, attended a child development center.
- In December 1994, Linda Stephens arrived at the center after a call and found Quinton strapped to a posture chair in a dark room with dried fecal matter on his hands and face.
- Stephens reported being told by center employees that Quinton had been left unattended on other occasions and restrained contrary to her instructions.
- The parents retained attorneys Roger D. Hunter and Richard F. Neely to pursue civil claims against the center.
- The attorneys attempted pre-suit investigation but received little to no cooperation from the center.
- The attorneys filed suit alleging, among other things, repeated restraint and abandonment in a dark room for extended periods; discovery did not substantiate the most extreme allegations.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the center and dismissed the civil action.
- Disciplinary counsel charged both attorneys with violating Rule 3.1 (frivolous claims) and charged Neely with violating Rule 4.4 (means with no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden).
- A hearing panel found Rule 3.1 violations as to both attorneys, rejected the Rule 4.4 charge, and recommended admonishment.

## Issues

1. Whether Hunter and Neely violated Rule 3.1 by filing and pursuing claims lacking an adequate factual basis, given the civil case’s failure and inability to prove certain allegations.
2. Whether Neely violated Rule 4.4 by using litigation means with no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden the center.
3. Whether any professional discipline should be imposed and, if so, what sanction was appropriate.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia rejected the Board’s recommendation and dismissed all charges.
- The court held the record did not establish a Rule 3.1 violation by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court found no basis to impose discipline under Rule 4.4.
- The disciplinary complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

## Legal Principles

- Whether a claim is “frivolous” under Rule 3.1 is evaluated based on the lawyer’s reasonable factual and legal basis at the time of filing, not by hindsight after the claim fails.
- A claim is not frivolous merely because it is weak, novel, or ultimately unsuccessful; discipline requires more than failure on the merits.
- Reasonableness of a lawyer’s pre-filing inquiry depends on circumstances, including access to information and an opponent’s lack of cooperation.
- Overstatement in pleadings, without proof of bad faith or knowing falsity, is insufficient for discipline under Rule 3.1.
- Rule 4.4 is not violated when litigation conduct serves a substantial legitimate purpose; ordinary embarrassment or burden incidental to pursuing a claim is not enough.
- In lawyer discipline, the court independently determines legal conclusions and sanctions while giving deference to fact findings supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed disciplinary charges against both attorneys, concluding that filing and litigating a civil action that later fails does not, without clear proof of bad faith or a wholly baseless factual foundation at filing, constitute a Rule 3.1 violation, and that pursuing the lawsuit to seek redress did not violate Rule 4.4.


Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Neely & Hunter, 207 W. Va. 21, 528 S.E.2d 468 (W. Va. 1998)