In re Petition for Reinstatement of Edward Raymond Kohout
Court
West Virginia Supreme Court
Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Importance
55%
Case Summary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED January 2025 Term _____________ June 10, 2025 released at 3:00 p.m. C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK No. 21-1033 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA _____________ IN RE: EDWARD R. KOHOUT PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT ________________________________________________ Lawyer Disciplinary Proceeding REINSTATEMENT DENIED ________________________________________________ Submitted: March 4, 2025 Filed: June 10, 2025 Edward R. Kohout Rachel L. Fletcher Cipoletti, Esq. Self-Represented Litigant Chief Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel Point Marion, Pennsylvania Kristin P. Halkias, Esq. Petitioner Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Respondent JUSTICE BUNN delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. “This Court is the final arbiter of legal ethics problems and must make the ultimate decisions about public reprimands, suspensions or annulments of attorneys’ licenses to practice law.” Syllabus point 1, In re Reinstatement of Wheaton, 245 W. Va. 199, 858 S.E.2d 662 (2021) (quoting Syllabus point 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Blair, 174 W. Va. 494, 327 S.E.2d 671 (1984)). 2. “A de novo standard applies to a review of the adjudicatory record made before the [Hearing Panel Subcommittee of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board] as to questions of law, questions of application of the law to the facts, and questions of appropriate sanctions; this Court gives respectful consideration to the [Hearing Panel Subcommittee’s] recommendations while ultimately exercising its own independent judgment. On the other hand, substantial deference is given to the [Hearing Panel Subcommittee’s] findings of fact, unless such findings are not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” Syllabus point 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W. Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (1994). 3. “The general rule for reinstatement is that a disbarred attorney in order to regain admission to the practice of law bears the burden of showing that he presently i possesses the integrity, moral character and legal competence to resume the practice of law. To overcome the adverse effect of the previous disbarment, [the disbarred attorney] must demonstrate a record of rehabilitation. In addition, the [C]ourt must conclude that such reinstatement will not have a justifiable and substantial adverse effect on the public confidence in the administration of justice and in this regard the seriousness of the conduct leading to disbarment is an important consideration.” Syllabus point 1, In re Brown, 166 W. Va. 226, 273 S.E.2d 567 (1980). 4. A disbarred lawyer petitioning for reinstatement of an annulled license to practice law must prove the criteria identified in Syllabus point 1 of In re Brown, 166 W. Va. 226, 273 S.E.2d 567 (1980), by clear and convincing evidence. 5. “Rehabilitation is demonstrated by a course of conduct that enables the [C]ourt to conclude there is little likelihood that[,] after such rehabilitation is completed and the applicant is readmitted to the practice of law[,] he will engage in unprofessional conduct.” Syllabus point 4, In re Reinstatement of Wheaton, 245 W. Va. 199, 858 S.E.2d 662 (2021) (quoting Syllabus point 2, In re Brown, 166 W. Va. 226, 273 S.E.2d 567 (1980)). ii BUNN, Justice: Petitioner, Edward R. Kohout, seeks reinstatement of his license to practice law in West Virginia, which this Court annulled in 2016 based on Mr. Kohout’s serious misconduct that included converting client funds, submitting a fraudulent invoice, and establishing a pattern of intentional deceit and dishonesty as evident from his disciplinary record.1 Because of the nature of his misconduct, Mr. Kohout bears a heavy burden to prove that he now possesses the integrity, high moral
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED January 2025 Term _____________ June 10, 2025 released at 3:00 p.m. C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK No. 21-1033 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA _____________
IN RE: EDWARD R. KOHOUT PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
________________________________________________
Lawyer Disciplinary Proceeding
REINSTATEMENT DENIED
________________________________________________
Submitted: March 4, 2025
Filed: June 10, 2025
Edward R. Kohout Rachel L. Fletcher Cipoletti, Esq. Self-Represented Litigant Chief Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel Point Marion, Pennsylvania Kristin P. Halkias, Esq. Petitioner Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for the Respondent
JUSTICE BUNN delivered the Opinion of the Court. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. “This Court is the final arbiter of legal ethics problems and must make
the ultimate decisions about public reprimands, suspensions or annulments of attorneys’
licenses to practice law.” Syllabus point 1, In re Reinstatement of Wheaton, 245 W. Va.
199, 858 S.E.2d 662 (2021) (quoting Syllabus point 3, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Blair,
174 W. Va. 494, 327 S.E.2d 671 (1984)).
2. “A de novo standard applies to a review of the adjudicatory record
made before the [Hearing Panel Subcommittee of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board] as to
questions of law, questions of application of the law to the facts, and questions of
appropriate sanctions; this Court gives respectful consideration to the [Hearing Panel
Subcommittee’s] recommendations while ultimately exercising its own independent
judgment. On the other hand, substantial deference is given to the [Hearing Panel
Subcommittee’s] findings of fact, unless such findings are not supported by reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” Syllabus point 3, Committee on
Legal Ethics v. McCorkle, 192 W. Va. 286, 452 S.E.2d 377 (1994).
3. “The general rule for reinstatement is that a disbarred attorney in order
to regain admission to the practice of law bears the burden of showing that he presently
i
possesses the integrity, moral character and legal competence to resume the practice of law.
To overcome the adverse effect of the previous disbarment, [the disbarred attorney] must
demonstrate a record of rehabilitation. In addition, the [C]ourt must conclude that such
reinstatement will not have a justifiable and substantial adverse effect on the public
confidence in the administration of justice and in this regard the seriousness of the conduct
leading to disbarment is an important consideration.” Syllabus point 1, In re Brown, 166
W. Va. 226, 273 S.E.2d 567 (1980).
4. A disbarred lawyer petitioning for reinstatement of an annulled
license to practice law must prove the criteria identified in Syllabus point 1 of In re Brown,
166 W. Va. 226, 273 S.E.2d 567 (1980), by clear and convincing evidence.
5. “Rehabilitation is demonstrated by a course of conduct that enables
the [C]ourt to conclude there is little likelihood that[,] after such rehabilitation is completed
and the applicant is readmitted to the practice of law[,] he will engage in unprofessional
conduct.” Syllabus point 4, In re Reinstatement of Wheaton, 245 W. Va. 199, 858 S.E.2d
662 (2021) (quoting Syllabus point 2, In re Brown, 166 W. Va. 226, 273 S.E.2d 567
(1980)).
ii
BUNN, Justice:
Petitioner, Edward R. Kohout, seeks reinstatement of his license to practice
law in West Virginia, which this Court annulled in 2016 based on Mr. Kohout’s serious
misconduct that included converting client funds, submitting a fraudulent invoice, and
establishing a pattern of intentional deceit and dishonesty as evident from his disciplinary
record.1 Because of the nature of his misconduct, Mr. Kohout bears a heavy burden to prove
that he now possesses the integrity, high moral
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools