## Facts

- Randall L. Veneri, a West Virginia lawyer, represented a husband in a divorce involving division of employment-related benefits.
- The husband participated in two distinct plans: (1) an employer-funded defined benefit retirement plan and (2) a separate 401(k)-type thrift and investment plan (TIP).
- During divorce asset disclosures, the TIP was not separately listed; disciplinary charges alleged Veneri failed to disclose both plans.
- The family law master directed counsel to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to divide the husband’s “pension rights.”
- Opposing counsel drafted a proposed QDRO dividing both the retirement plan and the TIP and sent it to Veneri’s office.
- While in Veneri’s office, the draft QDRO was altered to remove or replace TIP-related language so the order referenced only the retirement plan.
- Neither opposing counsel nor the family law master was told the draft had been altered; the modified order was filed and signed as though it were the proposed order.
- The alteration was later discovered when the plan administrator questioned the QDRO language, leading to additional litigation over whether the TIP should be divided.
- The wife filed an ethics complaint alleging (1) nondisclosure of the TIP in asset disclosures and (2) nondisclosure that the QDRO had been altered.
- A hearing panel subcommittee recommended dismissing charges under Rules 3.4(c) and 8.4(c), finding a Rule 8.4(d) violation, and imposing a 12-month suspension plus costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the failure to list both benefit plans on the divorce asset disclosure form violated Rules 3.4(c) (knowing disobedience of tribunal rules) and 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
2. Whether failing to inform the tribunal and opposing counsel that a proposed QDRO was altered in the lawyer’s office constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Rule 8.4(d).
3. What sanction was appropriate if a Rule 8.4(d) violation was proven.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the Rule 3.4(c) and Rule 8.4(c) charges, accepting the hearing panel’s findings and recommendations.
- The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Veneri violated Rule 8.4(d) by not disclosing that the proposed QDRO had been altered before it was filed and entered.
- The court rejected the recommended 12-month suspension and imposed a lesser sanction: an admonishment and payment of disciplinary proceeding costs.

## Legal Principles

- Professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(d) includes conduct that undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings, including allowing an altered proposed order to be filed and entered without disclosure to the tribunal and opposing counsel.
- Charges under Rules 3.4(c) and 8.4(c) require proof of the requisite mental state (knowing disobedience or dishonest intent); where the record supports inadvertence or misunderstanding rather than intentional concealment, discipline under those rules may be unwarranted.
- Disciplinary sanctions are determined by the court, which may depart from a board recommendation after considering proportionality and mitigating circumstances; proven misconduct does not mandate suspension if a lesser sanction sufficiently addresses the violation.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed allegations that Veneri knowingly violated tribunal disclosure obligations or acted dishonestly regarding benefit-plan disclosure, but held that his nondisclosure of an alteration to a proposed QDRO was prejudicial to the administration of justice, warranting an admonishment and assessment of costs rather than suspension.


Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Veneri, 206 W. Va. 384, 524 S.E.2d 900 (W. Va. 1999)