The West Virginia Lawyer
November 1996 Issue
| President's Page | TechTalk |
| Dean's Column | Letters to the Editor |
| YLS Section | Feature Articles |
| Tinder Box | CLE Calendar |
President's Page
What is Success?
For a number of years, I have had the enjoyable experience of speaking at various Career Days in
area high schools and junior highs. Depending upon the format, the groups to whom I speak range
in size from six or eight students to forty-five or fifty students. I try to include within every
presentation, an opportunity for questions and answers and, as you might expect, there are always
questions about the moral dilemmas of representing clients that you know to be guilty and whether
practicing law is really like L.A. Law and Matlock. Recently, however, a young female student
asked me what it took to be a successful lawyer. I responded by asking her what she meant by
success. Her reply was not particularly surprising to me. She said, "money, a nice car, and a nice
home."
It is fair to say that in our society, success is often measured by wealth. Most people believe that,
as a profession, lawyers earn a considerable amount of money and, consequently, are more
successful than other professionals. Many people also believe that the most successful lawyers are
the wealthiest ones.
All of us seek some measure of financial success. Certainly, part of the reason for the poor public
image of lawyers is that the public perceives us to be greedy, self-centered, and lacking
compassion. What the public does not know is that many very successful lawyers, quietly and
without fanfare, devote nearly as much time and effort to pro bono and charitable activities as they
do to client matters for which they charge. Many successful lawyers are silent, but generous,
contributors to a wide variety of charitable causes and know that the rewards of public service,
whether it be as Scout Leaders, pro bono lawyers, serving on the board of local charities or
otherwise, provide great rewards which may be more lasting and meaningful than wealth.
Webster's defines success as: "the gaining of wealth, fame; the favorable outcome of something
attempted." Although there is certainly nothing wrong with striving to be financially successful, it is
my belief that wealth is not the sole, or perhaps even the most important, benchmark of success.
Thomas Stanley said of success:
"A person has achieved success who has lived well, laughed often, and loved much; who has the
respect of intelligent people, and the love of little children; who has filled a niche and accomplished
a task; who has left the world better than he found it; who has never lacked appreciation for the
earth's beauty, or failed to express it; who has always looked for the best in others, and given the
best he or she had; whose life was an inspiration; whose memory a benediction."
Money cannot take the place of family and loved ones, and the time away from them cannot be
replaced. With the problems we face daily and the demands on our time, we all, for the most part,
must work very hard to earn a living and support our families. However, from time to time, we
should remind ourselves that leaving the office early to see our child's soccer game or to take the
family on a picnic will be far more important to them, and be much longer remembered than the
extra money generated by staying at the office instead.
At one time or another, all of us have talked about "quality of life" issues. It is not surprising that
with the increasing demands of our profession and the stress generated on a daily basis, lawyers are
seeking alternative careers in greater numbers than ever. However, each of us has the ability to
improve the quality of our lives before dissatisfaction and unhappiness reach a critical stage. These
concerns have been analyzed by many greater minds than mine, and a number of simple suggestions
have been offered. These suggestions seem to make a lot of sense and are doable by us all.
Each week, do something with family. Choose something that everyone enjoys. It could be an
activity planned well in advance or a special surprise. It could be something as simple as raking a
pile of leaves for the children to jump in, or a family trip to Dairy Queen, the theater or some other
fun outing. Make sure that you take a vacation each year. Most experts recommend a vacation of
one week or longer to give you sufficient time to unwind and relax, but more frequent vacations of
shorter durations or long weekends may be more suitable for you. Whichever works better, make
sure that you take the time to get away.
Take care of your health. Get regular exercise. Make sure that you find the time to relax on a
regular basis. Spend time on your hobbies or participate in recreational activities that you enjoy. If
you don't have a hobby, perhaps you should find one. Each of us needs an opportunity to engage in
something that will allow the "spring" that winds tighter and tighter inside of us to gradually release
its tension, and a hobby or exercise provides such a release mechanism. Personally, I like to shoot
skeet, and find that shooting provides a tremendous release for tensions and pressures created by
the demands of my practice.
Treat yourself with a reward such as doing something special that you enjoy when you've
completed a large task or project that was very time consuming and draining. You have earned it,
and will certainly benefit from the reward.
By following some of these suggestions, as well as others that you have heard, hopefully you will
find the practice of law to be more enjoyable and less stressful. People are always more successful
doing what they enjoy. Our profession provides tremendous opportunity, not only to be financially
successful, but to achieve the type of success of which Thomas Stanley wrote, and making time for
your family and yourself can contribute greatly to increased success, however you define it.
susan - please put this Letter to the Editor under the "Thanks for your Support" heading - after the
first letter under that heading.
Thank you for publishing the series of articles authored by Deborah Miller, Assistant Director of
Planned Giving at the WVU Foundation, on charitable gifts of varying form that can benefit both
clients and any charitable or educational organization they choose.
Because of the positive response to these articles, I would like to offer reprints of them. The first
article dealt with charitable gifts in general, the second discussed charitable remainder trusts, the
third was about bequests and charitable gift annuities, and the fourth dealt with life insurance, real
estate, pooled income funds and charitable lead trusts.
A copy of any or all of these is available by calling the Foundation at (800) 847-3856 or (304)
598-2700.
Sincerely,
D. Lyn Dotson
Vice President for Development
Dean's Column
The class of 1999, 145 students, entered the College of Law on Wednesday, August 14, to begin
the process of orientation to the study of law. Most of these students - 119, or 82.07% -- are
West Virginia residents, and an additional 15, or 10.3%, maintain strong ties to this State. The
qualifications they bring to the study of law are outstanding, and I take this occassion to offer a
profile of their credentials and backgrounds.
For the class of 1998, 554 applications were received. Of these, 298 applications were from West
Virginia residents. Of these residents, 182 applicants were offered admission, and 120 actually
enrolled. Of the 256 non-resident applications received, 116 applicants were offered admission,
and 28 actually enrolled.
The class of 1999 is 53.1% (77) female, 2.7% (4) African American and 2.7% (4) Asian
American. The average undergraduate grade point average is 3.34; the average LSAT score is
153, or about the 55th percentile of all persons across the country who took the LSAT during
1995-96. The non-resident students hail from the following states: California (2); Washington, D.C.
(10); Florida (3); Kentucky (1); Massachusetts (1); Maryland (5); North Carolina (1); New Jersey
(1); New York (1); Ohio (2); Pennsylvania (5); and Virginia (5). The ages of these entering
students range from 21 to 49; the average age is 26.
West Virginia University boasts the largest number of graduates represented in this class (67), with
Marshall University claiming 5 graduates. Other West Virginia colleges represented include:
Alderson-Broaddus (1); Bethany College (1); Concord College (1); Shepherd College (1); The
College of West Virginia (1); West Liberty State College (4); West Virginia Tech (6); West
Virginia State College (4); West Virginia Wesleyan College (4); and Wheeling Jesuit College (1).
This class also includes graduates of Ball State University, Miami University of Ohio, Queens
College, SUNY Buffalo, Universities of Louisville, Maryland, Michigan, South Florida, Southern
Cal, Virginia and West Florida, Wake Forest, and many other colleges and universities.
Political Science (35), Accounting (16), History (14), English (11), Psychology (11), Journalism
(5), Business Administration (4), Criminal Justice (4), Education (4) and Liberal Arts (4) were the
most popular undergraduate majors for students in the Class of 1999. Other majors range from
American Civilization and Animal Science to Performing Arts, Philosophy and Spanish.
Interest in foreign language and culture is apparent among many members of this year's class.
Knowledge of Spanish (21) and French (20) predominate, but some members of the Class of
1999 also possess familiarity with German (6), Italian (4), Japanese (2), Portuguese (1), Russian
(1), Swedish (1) and Latin (1). One student has acquired knowledge of Mandarin Chinese, as well
as Old and Middle English. Three Class of 1999 members served as teachers in foreign lands:
Sweden, Mexico and Korea, and one student taught English conversion to international students.
Government work in some form or another has attracted many members of the Class of 1999. One
student wrote the 1996 Commencement speech given by Governor Gaston Caperton at WVU.
Another student was an Intern for John D. Rockfeller IV, and another interned with Senator
Edward Kennedy. Another student worked as an assistant to Senator Lucas, and another served
as an intern for the city of Fairmont. One student worked asa campaign manager for a presidential
election in Ohio. Another students interned for the State Election Commission. More than a dozen
students declare their intention to seek public office in the future.
In terms of other career interests and work experience, class members manifest backgrounds both
diverse and interesting. At least two students are CPAs. One student oversaw media relations for
the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office. Another worked in the child care center of a homeless
shelter in Washington, D.C. One student earned a living as a free lance historian, while another
served for two years as a teacher in the AmeriCorps program. One student worked as a park
ranger, while another breeds and trains quarter horses. Another student coached a college football
team. One student worked during college summers as a dresser at Opryland, USA, and another
won awards as a sportswriter for a West Virginia newspaper.
In terms of cultural attainments, one student danced lead roles with ballet dancers from the
American Ballet Theater, the Boston Ballet and the Croatian National Ballet. Another student
worked as a choreographer. Yet another student produced the Concert Hour on West Virginia
Public Radio.
The College of Law remains committed to excellence and is proud to welcome the Class of 1999. I
look forward to getting to know these outstanding students, and to their continued sucesses during
law school and beyond.
Career Services Update. Members of the Class of 1996 recently received bar results and several
of these new lawyers are still seeking employment. If you are interested in hiring a new graduate,
please contact Ellie Flowers, Assistant Dean for Career Services at (304) 293-6792 or Stella
Schultz at (304) 293-7750.
A monthly newsletter listing all job openings is sent to graduates and alumni and others who request
it. If you are interested in publishing an available position in this newsletter, please contact us at the
numbers listed above or fax the position description to (304) 293-6891.
I suppose any birthday can be considered a milestone when you are very young. A year in your life
as a child brings many changes to both body and mind. Each passing year is one step closer to
adulthood - the brass ring.
As I celebrated my fifth 29th birthday a few months ago (that's 33 for you anal retentive types), I
couldn't help but notice that my brass ring wasn't quite as shiny as it used to be. Brass is a very
tough composite metal, but even a finely sculpted statue begins to show wear and tear in time (you
can stop chuckling now). Milestones are not as prominent as they used to be; they are merely
relentless.
I do not intend to suggest that 33 is an advanced age, or even remotely close to the joys of middle
age, but the yearly birthday ritual does tend to remind me of my own mortality. [Mortality. I knew I
would find a topic if I kept writing.]
No one likes to think about his or her own mortality, but life has a funny way of not letting us forget
about it. We see mortality every day in the newspaper, on television, in the mirror and in the faces
of our loved ones. We can not escape mortality, yet too many of us ignore it, hoping it will go
away. It will not.
Unfortunately, ignoring mortality carries some very serious consequences. It is too late to let our
medical doctors and loved ones know the point at which it is time to give up the battle and retire
our forces once the fog of mental and physical infirmity overtakes us. The really difficult questions
of how we wish to be treated and cared for when the end is near can often only be effectively
answered long before the end is in sight.
The need to answer these difficult questions, for ourselves, has given rise to the medical power of
attorney and living will which have been recognized in West Virginia for several years now.
Through these instruments, it is possible to dictate the measures which we desire to be taken to
maintain our lives and designate who we want to make the hard, life and death decisions when we
are no longer capable.
Several years ago, a number of distinguished organizations collaborated in the production of
"Advance Directives for Health Care Decision Making in West Virginia," an informational booklet
on the Medical Power of Attorney and Living WIll, including forms. Since the inception of the
booklet, the Young Lawyers Section has underwritten the cost of printing and distribution, free of
charge, to anyone requesting a copy. If you do not have your own copy of this helpful,
informational booklet, I encourage you to write to the State Bar and request one.
If you wish to obtain maximum utility from your envelope, stamp and letter of request, you should
also enclose your checks, reservation form and order form for the West Virginia Practice
Handbook and "Bowman's Ethics and Malpractice Alert."
In addition, the YLS continues to solicit volunteers to help produce a "Solo Practitioner's
Handbook" tailored to the practice of law in West Virginia. If you would like to help, please
contact YLS Treasurer Reggie Osenton at (304) 752-6296.
Tinder Box
Tidbits and Trivia
Just some random thoughts, comments and information that maybe of interest to you.
* You have got to make a commitment to get on a computer at your home, at work or anywhere
you can and view the unbelievable types and amounts of information that are available on the
Internet. You do not have to have any amount of computer knowledge once you get access to the
Internet on your computer. All you have to do is type the 10-20 letters or numbers for multitudes of
sites on the Internet and you will find everything you could ever possibly want to know about
anything.
For lawyers, the legal data available on the Internet is mind-boggling and it will continue to grow.
The Internet is the way that all of us will gather information and communicate in the years to come.
An easy place to start is the Home Page of the State Bar located at www.wvbar.org. By the time
you read this article, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals will have its own Home Page.
You are really missing out if you are not on the Net.
* On September 30, 1996, 130 new lawyers were sworn in before the Supreme Court to practice
law in West Virginia. As always, it was a momentous occasion for these new attorneys and their
friends and relatives. As of October 1, 1996, the membership of the State Bar is as follows:
Active In State Members -
Active In State Members -
Inactive In State Members -
Inactive Out of State Members -
Active but Not Practicing Members -
* Change is inevitable and change can be beneficial. However, it is one person's opinion that the
five Justices who have served on the West Virginia Supreme Court for the majority of 1996 and
prior to that, have continued the Court's high standards and even raised them a bit. Chief Justice
Thomas McHugh, Justice Margaret Workman, Justice Frank Cleckley, Justice Arthur Recht and
Justice Joseph Albright, brought a blend of intellect, integrity and conscientiousness at a very high
level. They seemed to enjoy their work and working with one another.
As this column is being written at the end of September, the general election results are not known.
However, it is clear that the three new Justices, who will serve with Chief Justice Workman and
Justice McHugh in 1997 and beyond, will have excellent examples to emulate and to, hopefully,
exceed.
* By the way, speaking of judicial elections, will the new Governor, whoever he or she may be,
continue the wonderful progress made by using the Governor's Judicial Advisory Committee
process. The lay persons and lawyers who have served on this Committee, have all gotten high
marks for enabling any lawyer to apply for circuit court judge vacancies, doing an in depth
interview with each one and then making appropriate recommendations to Governor Caperton for
his review and final selection. The procedure has worked perfectly and the selections have been
top caliber. Here's hoping that either Governor Pritt or Governor Underwood will continue this
equitable judicial selection process.
* How about these figures from the Indiana Law School Journal in the Fall, 1996 issue:
Percentage increase in number of US law schools between 1979 and 1990 - 26%
Ratio, in 1972 of lawyers or judges to the total population - 646:1
Ratio in 1991 - 310:1
The ratio for West Virginia is 1996 is 450:1
* Back to technology for a moment - here is a statement from the 1996 survey of automation in
smaller law firms published by the American Bar Association's Legal Technology Resource Center
- "Technology is the invaluable partner of solo practitioners and smaller law firms, both of whom
now use it to compete on par with lawyers in the largest of firms. This year, 58% of firms report
using the Internet for activities as diverse as legal research, communicating with colleagues and
clients, and marketing - up from 14% in 1995." Need I say more?
* Alternate dispute resolution continues to grow by leaps and bounds in West Virginia. In July,
approximately 60 State Bar members participated in the Advance Mediation Training Session at
the WVU College of Law and in August, another 35 lawyers went through the basic mediation
training course in Wheeling. At the present time, there are approximately 250 State Bar members
who have received mediation training and ____________________ are currently participating in
the State Bar's Mediation Referral Service. There is no question that alternate dispute resolution
techniques are valuable resources to utilize in the vast majority and a wide variety of legal cases.
More and more of our circuit court judges are utilizing some form of alternate dispute resolution,
usually mediation, to meet the needs of the parties in court actions.
* For the past two years, the State Bar's Voluntary Fee Dispute Resolution program has provided
invaluable assistance to clients and State Bar members in amicably resolving the disputes they may
have regarding legal fees. By using the members of the State Bar's local District Grievance
Committees, approximately 75% of the more than 100 fee disputes that have gone through this
program have been successfully resolved. If the local District Grievance Committee is not
successful, then there is the ability for both parties to agree to use a trained mediator in a sit down
session to see of the matter can be taken care of. There have been very few cases that have not
been settled in a fair and informal manner through the use of the Voluntary Fee Dispute Resolution
program.
* One final shot on technology - why not ease into law office technology by joining more than 600
of your State Bar colleagues by subscribing to the TechNet system. All you need is a computer, a
modem and a direct telephone line. All it costs is a one time initiation fee of $25 and a monthly
maintenance charge of $25. There is no minute to minute charge so you can get on the system
every minute of every day of every year. Try it before the Computer Age passes you by.
I RESPECTFULLY DISSENT
by Judge Ronald E. Wilson
First Judicial Circuit, Hancock County
Justice William O. Douglas said that, "The starting point of a decision usually indicates the result."
My starting (and ending) point is that the recent legislation limiting post-adjudicatory improvement
periods in child abuse and neglect cases to a maximum of nine months is wrong and must be
changed.1
Advocates for this "reform" maintain that mandatory limits on improvement periods are necessary
to achieve "permanency." "Permanency" is defined as the return of the child to parents or other
relatives, or the adoption, permanent foster care or emancipation of the child upon reaching the age
of majority.2 To me this "Reform" legislation means that instead of concentrating on the special
parenting problems present in each case, I will be focusing on the calendar. When the hour of
decision arrives and the parents have not yet rectified their deficiencies, I will have no choice but to
end the parental relationship.
Time limits-already the political darling of those ending welfare for those poor folks (two-thirds of
them children) who have made a habit of living fecklessly off the backs of hard-working tax
payers-is now the current vogue of those who think courts are too soft with bad parents. The
argument is that we are spending too much time and money trying for reunification and family
preservation in cases where parents cannot be rehabilitated. The lesson: If wayward parents can
not solve their problems within a finite period, then we should move on and not waste our money.
Permanency is necessary, according to the politicians and pundits now empowered in this work,
because court delay is harming children's emotional well-being and their chance for a permanent
placement outside the home.3 The new mandatory nine months restriction on post-adjudicatory
improvement periods for bungling parents is applauded by a majority of the members of the
Advisory Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect and by the Supreme Court.4
Our Supreme Court of Appeals is concerned, and rightly so, with children who have been lost in
the Court system. "There would be no adequate remedy at law for these children were they
permitted to continue in this abyss of uncertainty. We have repeatedly emphasized that children
have a right to resolution of their life situations, to a basic level of nurturance, protection, and
security, and to a permanent placement."5 No judge worth his salt disagrees with that objective.
Nor do we find fault with the principle that "courts are not required to exhaust every speculative
possibility of parental improvement before terminating parental rights where it appears that the
welfare of the child will be seriously threatened...."6
I agree that some acts of abuse and neglect are so disgusting that reunification should never be
considered. I also understand that it may never be safe to return some children to their biological
parents. Nobody wants to return a child to a home where the threat of abuse or neglect remains.
Our goal is to help children-not put them at risk of further harm.7
But trial judges also have the responsibility to utilize available resources to make every effort to
keep families together. Judges do not hear and consider these disputes with monocular vision. We
read with envy the sagacious wisdom of Appellate Judges and social scientists who freely tell us
when we are wrong and what we should have done in child welfare cases. But these Monday
morning quarterbacks need to acknowledge the potential tragedy of the premature termination of
parental rights. Just as irredeemable prejudice may result from a child who waits an inordinate
amount of time to find a permanent placement, irredeemable prejudice may also result when a child
is taken from his or her parent before every reasonable effort is made to reunite that family.
In repudiating post-adjudicatory improvement periods in excess of nine months, the movers and
shakers now calling the shots in this gut-wrenching work have struck a fatal blow to child
termination decisions based upon the divergent facts unique to each case. This means two things.
For one, judges are saddled with a legislatively inspired determinate time period by which all
deficient parents must improve. For another, Judges who believe that it is wrong to eschew
individualist judgment and prematurely remove children from their mothers (fathers have a way of
not being around) in accordance with an arbitrary improvement standard and refuse to follow the
new law will be reversed and spanked by the Supreme Court.
By taking this moderately heretical position and inveighing against a finite improvement period, I
risk being lumped with those soft-hearted (even liberal) judges who are so biased toward parental
rights that they are blind to the detriment that delay causes in the lives of children in need of
permanency in child placement. But I see this new time limit rule as simply another legislative
limitation on the right of elected judges to judge. Judges aren't trusted to be tough enough to
sentence criminals, so Congress and state legislatures mandate sentences. Judges aren't diligent or
caring, so child custody decisions are made by politically appointed Family Law Masers. And now
the rhetoric is that since soft-headed judges can't be trusted to know when to terminate parental
rights, we need to force a termination decision by mandating an absolute end to all improvement
periods.
Those who advocate a time limit on improvement periods claim that it will improve the opportunity
for children to become permanently placed. But permanency, for many of these unfortunate kids is
no panacea. Patricia Ryan, Ph.D.. of the National Foster Care Resource Center at Eastern
Michigan University, was engaged by the Advisory Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect to
review and conduct statistical analysis of children in the foster care system of this state. Her findings
disclose that real permanency is an elusive goal. Almost a fourth of the children in foster care had
experienced four or more moves. Sadly, the older the child when entering the system, the more
likely it is that the child will be moved and the less likely it is that the youth will be adopted. For too
many children genuine permanency is never realized and life consists of being bounced from one
foster home to another.
In 1980 Congress passed the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (Public Law 96-272).
The Act requires that reasonable efforts be made to reunite children with their biological parents.
Under that Act reasonable efforts must be made to preserve families. Congress recognized that
children were being unnecessarily removed from their families and that not enough effort was being
made toward enabling children to remain safely at home before they were placed in foster care.
An arbitrary nine month post-adjudicatory improvement period for all children is not only an
unreasonable effort to keep families together, it is palpably wrong. It is wrong because nine months
is not enough time to solve the multiple problems afflicting most of these troubled households.
Kids are rarely removed from stable middle class homes. Children are removed from homes where
there is usually only one parent-the mother. In countless and consequential ways these mothers are
alike. They are alike in that they suffer from a myriad of problems: poverty, unemployment,
inadequate housing, transportation, drug and alcohol abuse, are standard baggage for these
"underclass" mothers in child welfare cases. In today's society this troubled mother is far more likely
to have been a victim of child abuse or domestic abuse, or both, than mothers without
impoverished circumstances. Neglect begets neglect and many of these mothers have never
experienced anything but neglect.
Parents and children are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be kept together. To prematurely
remove a child from a home is to inflict severe punishment on the child as well as the parent. In In
re Christina L.8 Justice Cleckley attempted to temper the harshness of the irrevocable termination
decision by holding that termination of parental rights does not mean that a continued relationship
between the parent and the child cannot be maintained by post-termination visitation. But
post-termination visitation does not solve the problem. Put simply, post-termination visitation means
that the punishment inflicted on the prematurely terminated child is changed from horrendous to
merely horrible.
I acknowledge that the people responsible for this post-adjudicatory improvement period limitation
are concerned about helpless children. I don't question their good intentions-but this legislation is
wrong, and unless it is changed children will suffer.
Judges are responsible under our Constitution to be the guardians of our rights. No right is more
precious than the right to conceive and to raise one's children.9 Judges are in the best position to
protect the rights of children and their parents. Judges have a knowledge of the particulars of each
case and the wisdom to know that no two cases are like.
Judges are not agents of the Department of Health and Human Resources. Judges are elected
public officials and it is their constitutional duty to make critical child termination decisions based
upon the evidence in each case. Judges have a corresponding responsibility to delay that
horrendous termination decision until it is time to do so. No legislative act should take away that
fundamental feature of our justice system.
About the Author: Ronald E. Wilson is a Judge in the First Judicial Circuit and is also a member of
the West Virginia State Bar Commission on Children and the Law.
Reference:
1 W.Va. Code 49-6-12(1996).
2 Ryan, Challenges to Permanency in West Virginia, page 1 (submitted to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals Advisory Committee on Child Abuse on Sept. 8, 1995.) See also Rule
3(j) Draft of Rules of Procedure for child abuse and Neglect Proceeding for Public Comment
(l996).
3 Dr. Ryan Report p. l8
4 Final Report and Recommendations of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Advisory
Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. November 13, 1995; State of West Virginia ex rel. Amy
M., Shane B.II, Jesse B., Matthew B., and Travis B., v Hon. Tod J. Kaufman, Judge of the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, Betty Jo B. and Shane B., No. 23212 (W. Va. April 8,
1996)(Workman, J.).
5 State of West Virginia ex rel. Amy M., No. 232l2 at 11.
6 Syl. Pt. 1, in part, In re. R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114(l980).
7 Gruener, Why do We Return Kids To Bad Parents, Pittsburgh Legal Journal, August, 1996,
33-35.
8 In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692(1995).
9 Myer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399, 67 L Ed 1042, 1045, 43 S Ct 625, 29 ALR
1446(1923).
EYES ON THE JURY
Brought to you by West - Law Leads
How long may a juror nap before her behavior affects the outcome of a trial?
Case law as old as 1881 recognizes the need for a nap. In the case McClary v. State (1881),
75Ind. 260, the court held "the mere falling asleep for a short time, by a juror, during the argument
of counsel for the defendant in a criminal cause, does not of itself constitute a sufficient cause for a
new trial." However, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
guaranteeing an impartial jury and due process, require that a criminal not be tried by a juror who
cannot comprehend the testimony. For a list of cases that discuss the difference between juror
inattentiveness, juror misconduct, and a juror's inability to comprehend the evidence, call Jennifer
Moire at (612) 687-4064.
Does OJ's guilt or innocence hinge on a smile from Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki?
Hiroshi Fujisaki appears to be a no nonsense kind of judge. What does this mean for OJ?
According to judges and researchers, the behavior of trial judges can influence a jury's verdict. In
fact, Judge Jochems stated in State vs. Wheat, 292 p. 793, (1930) that "[juries] can be easily
influenced by the slightest suggestion from the court, whether it be a nod of the head, a smile, a
frown, or a spoken word." And researchers have found that when judges expect a guilty verdict,
they attempt to appear neutral but show less eye contact and fewer smiles and postural changes.
Headnotes - Jury Conduct
Headnotes are summaries of points of law found in judicial opinions, are written by attorney/editors
at West, and are classified according to West's Key Number system.
Headnote #1 falls under the Topic Criminal Law and Key Number 110k855(1) k. Misconduct of
jurors in general.
Ariz.App.Div. 1, 1994 court was not required on its own to inquire of jurors to determine whether
an incident in which a cake was found in the jury room decorated with the words "Court is
adjourned. Guilty or not guilty? Who Cares? Let's get out of here" reflected any real problem with
the jury, as the words revealed no specific animus against defendant or his position in the case,
although they suggested that some member or members of the jury might not take their duties
seriously.
Headnote #2 falls under the Topic Criminal Law and Key Number 110k855(2) k. Use of
intoxicating liquors.
Mo.App., 1979 Where defendant claimed court erred in permitting sequestered jurors to suspend
deliberations and eat dinner in public restaurant, at which time several jurors had a drink, it was
incumbent upon defendant to show that mind of a joror was affected by alcohol or suffered some
degree of intoxication.
MENTAL HYGIENE HEARINGS: The Flower-Child Statutes
by Vito Mussomeli, Esq.
(Note: This is not meant to be comprehensive. The focus is on initial commitment, the Hygiene
probable cause hearing. All stories are true. They and the law may surprise you. Keep in mind the
central fact of MH hearings: we are within a medically certified emergency medical situation.)
THE PATIENTS
a.
We cautioned the family to remain clear of their brother. A huge hulk of a man, near 240 pounds,
hands grasping to clutch, legs twitching to break from the restraints. Locked within the distorted
chemistry of his brain, he was as unconscious to any human purpose as the unconscious victim of a
car accident brought to the hospital for care. Only scrambling, murderous impulses moved his
body. Mere sound broke his lips.
I was defense counsel to protect his "liberty". Had this fellow arrived unconscious from a car
wreck, I would never be called. He'd be treated to save his life and restore his health. But here, a
patient equally insensible to this world yet capable of monstrous acts due to mental illness, could
not be treated without legal commitment to the hospital. Untreated, he was a machine of mindless
destruction. Sometimes liberty mocks us.
No one asked me if the patient wished to speak on his own behalf.
b.
"She" came over to sit beside me and went so far to lay her hand on my open, summer arm. "She"
had been here before and was cozily sincere in her belief that maybe I could get her out on the
streets again. "She" felt she belonged there. I asked when "she" stopped taking her medicine and
she told me she didn't need any medicine anymore. What "she" needed was understanding and a
good night's sleep and some guy to want "her". Earlier the police had picked "her" up when she had
been beaten for soliciting sexual favors along the byways of our town. The cops knew "her" and
"she" knew the cops. But the guys who beat her didn't know when they picked "her" up that "she"
was really always "him" - then took out their rage on him. S/he was an addict laced with sidebars of
mental illness. While the doctors could treat her physical injuries, they could do nothing about her
mental illness and addiction without commitment. So West Virginia paid me and the Mental
Hygiene Commissioner to go out in the middle of the night for a 15 minute hearing to commit this
poor creature of the Creator. Yet s/he needed nothing from the legal system while needing a great
deal from the medical community against whom the laws of West Virginia "protected" "her".
c.
When I entered the emergency room, the medical staff came forward and warned me this one was
particularly gruesome. She was an ageing woman somewhere over 50. A life-long history of mental
illness and something had again gone awry. I found the Commissioner, then asked what was so
difficult about this patient. He answered that the medical staff had also cautioned him and were not
sure anyone should be in the room with her because of her `condition'. As I left to go see my client,
the Commissioner whispered, "You can waive her presence if you want to". But the statute, I
remembered, clearly says the person "shall" be present. Why this sudden maneuver around the
law? This Commissioner, I knew, was not a lax attorney.
Unsettled, I opened the door to the patient's treating room and saw a sight that caught my throat.
`Pitiable' cannot adequately describe some human conditions. Her eyes held the circular lustre of
madness. Hair and flesh equally smeared and flaccid. She had become a creature of seamless
disorder. She could not speak but uttered. And she would not stop expectorating.
I closed the door and we had the hearing without her presence.
d.
He and she are the most common and usual of the patients before the Commissioner. Whether for
the first time or, more likely, for the tenth or twentieth, here is the alcoholic (or other addict or other
slightly mentally ill person) again posturing that everything is Ok and he has a new job now and
things will turn out or she was only drinking a little bit (or forgot her medicine a little bit) and then
forgot where she was and maybe had too much (or not enough) for this once. Maybe he has been
in detox for three days and has decided he wants to leave but the doctors, understanding the
medical danger he is in during alcohol withdrawal and the appearance of "rationality" in this sort of
mind, know he needs to stay a little longer. Maybe another 4 - 5 days.
Of course, there is rarely that new job and she forgets to say how she left her child alone for 14
hours while she stupored away at a neighbor's, and he forgets to remember how he took out his
hunting rifle and put holes in his ceiling at those huge cantaloupes running after him, scaring the
bejeezus out of his wife and children.
And, incredibly, West Virginia imposes a wall of distrust between these patients and their doctors
who are the only ones capable of bringing them to health. All under the illusion of liberty. As if you
can be in the throes of addiction or the ravages of mental illness and still recognize liberty.
THE LAW
A. The Code
The law on Mental Hygiene hearings is contained within WV Code 27-5-1 et seq. Mental Hygiene
Commissioners must be an attorney and are appointed by the Circuit Judge. Prior to a p/c hearing
a defense counsel is appointed to insure the patient is not railroaded. Never mind that defense
counsel and the Commissioner have no training in mental illness, retardation or addiction unless they
happened upon it elsewhere in life. Defense counsel and Hygiene Commissioners are paid by the
hour. The Prosecuting Attorney's office is called to represent the applicant but in reality represents
the medical community. For this simple reason: an applicant is "any adult who has reason to believe
..." that an individual is addicted, mentally ill or mentally retarded and because of these alone or in
combination is dangerous to himself or society. But the applicant alone is not enough for a hearing.
A "physician or psychologist" must certify the person is mentally ill, retarded or addicted and
dangerous to herself or society. Without this certification, a Hygiene hearing is superfluous and
should not be held since there can be no commitment without it. So the applicant, the medical
community and the prosecutor are aligned before a hearing goes forward. (More on prosecutor
representation later.)
A probable cause hearing is then heard "forthwith", a term never defined and producing a flora of
practices across our State. If probable cause is found, the hospital may detain the patient up to 10
days for evaluation and treatment. If within those ten days the doctors believe they need more time,
they must request a Final Hearing which is held within 30 days of the initial p/c or the patient is
released. No Court Order is necessary. The patient is set free, the case closed by the statute itself.
Some anomalies streak our Code. For example, the patient, amidst this medically certified
dangerous medical situation, is allowed to request a forty-eight (48) hour continuance! Then the
cat-o'-tails: hearings are held under the rules of evidence. No special hearsay exception. No sense
of the present medical danger the patient is in. A patient under full-blown schizophrenia has a
greater right to liberty on his own terms than a felon brought before a Magistrate at a preliminary
hearing or in Circuit Court for a Suppression hearing. In other words, it is easier to bind over a
person to the Grand Jury, easier to indict for a felony than to get medical care for the mentally ill.
Hygiene p/c hearings in legalistic hands suffer the natural result of imposing the rules of evidence.
They become mini-trials with "PreTrial Motions" and feckless objections. There are Commissioners
who will hear strung-along constitutional questions and inflict the rules of evidence in a tireless
example of infrequent brain waves.
A prosecutor once related her experience where a suicide was cut from a hanging rope. It left a
clear rope burn around his neck. A police officer took the fellow in and a hearing was called. It
soon became apparent that the citizen who cut the suicide down was not present. The
Commissioner would not accept the officer's testimony about the suicide attempt because of
hearsay. (Remember you still have here the testimony of a physician [an expert witness] who has
certified the fellow is mentally ill and dangerous and under 702 and 703 could testify as to why and
from what he made his conclusions.) So they all waited over an hour while the police left to round
up the good citizen who had cut the suicide down to testify that, yes, the patient really had been on
a hanging rope, attempting suicide.
... And then there's the Commissioner who will not allow a hospital to medicate a patient before a
hearing because it affects his mental acuity! When the hospital does, because the patient is too
insane to be in the same room with anybody, the psychologist, familiar with the Commissioner's
dictate, knows not to certify and the patient is released into the bright sunlight of mental
derangement where, once the medication runs off, the patient will move again to the rhythms of his
own dyscatenated biorhythms, muttering to Jesus and aliens, remembering loud and louder to hear
what God wants him next to do. Oh, where is the True Son of God?
The telling fact is that we have so little to work with besides the testimony of the applicant and the
certification of the physician. Occasionally, you have somebody along who testifies on behalf of the
patient. Usually a family member who just doesn't believe his brother should be committed for help
because "they" can really take just as good care of him at home.
Let's make things clear: first, Hygiene p/c hearings pop up as the patients may with no time for
discovery or even de minimis investigation. Second, the patient is already certified as suffering from
a mental impairment denoting the workings of an irrational, even deranged, mind. A Hygiene p/c
hearing is unlike criminal law's initial appearance before a Magistrate where the law presumes
innocence. The law cannot presume "health" because it is incompetent to. You do not have a
rational patient present despite any apparent rationality to non-medical eyes.
Third, neither the Commissioner nor counsel have enough training to understand the medical
situation before them. Whether any of the attorneys and any Commissioner would be able to
understand the intricacies of medical testimony is always open to question. We have no medical
training and no preparation time to "study" anything. There are defense counsel, and once upon a
time I too argued, who insist that all their client really needs is a cigarette though the patient is under
severe alcohol withdrawal and counsel is entirely unfamiliar with the workings of such a mind.
Which of us truly understands the meaning of enzyme levels in an alcoholic? What vagaries of
cogency run among the multiple manifests of schizophrenia or paranoia? Where reside the
differences between cocaine addiction and other narcotic or non-narcotic addictions? How many
of us have a clear picture of a borderline personality or even the intellectual footing a psychiatrist
rests her diagnosis on? What is the difference between senility and mental impairment from drug
use? Dysthymic disorder? Bipolar I and II? Cyclothymic disorder? Asperger's disorder? These
questions are only a small contradiction to the presumption of the legislature that attorneys have an
informed idea about the ravages of mental degeneration.
We've lapsed by law into the uncivilized notion that the appearance of a mind is equal to a mind
itself. We've lost our sense of a person's dignity. Like telling a cancer patient that the wild cells of
the cancer require as much "tender care" as the healthy tissue in their body.
B. The Reality
I've learned two facts: 1) easily 98% of p/c hearings commit, and 2) the law is both irresponsible
and not followed. Indeed, anyone caring for people would not follow our law. Our statutes are no
more than a flower-child philosophy dosed with a heavy rain of distrust for the medical community.
Somewhere the idea that the medical community is less oriented to patient care than the legal
community (or the social worker community) took hold. We should dispel ourselves of fancy
idiocies. Ideologues speak of liberty the way minor mystics delineate the Godhead. Both argue their
views from the superficial arc of their own mental constructs. Neither from the plain, living reality of
the street.
Obviously, Hygiene p/c hearings are not the usual sort of legal conflict. Indeed, they are not a legal
conflict but a postural conflict imposed by law in the supposed cause of "liberty". These are actually
medical hearings to give medical personnel permission to treat a patient whose medical condition
has been medically certified as having already reached emergency criteria. By medical definition, an
element of danger exists and must be dealt with. Yet we insist that the initial decision on whether a
patient is dangerous or not lies with a Commissioner who is untrained to understand if there is or is
not such danger.
The distinguishing legal characteristic between a physical medical emergency and a mental medical
emergency is that the mental emergency requires legal interference to stabilize and treat the patient.
In a physical emergency a hospital is obliged to treat and stabilize the patient even when the patient
is unconscious. For instance, an unconscious patient from a shooting or an automobile accident. No
one would argue that a Physical Hygiene Commissioner must be called to have a hearing before
treatment is imposed. Mental emergencies we relegate to an intrusive legalism. West Virginia
moved the court room into the emergency room where it never belongs.
Unfortunately there is more. The greatest variance among our counties centers around the statutory
command that the Commissioner's Order "... shall specify that such hearing be held forthwith ..."
WV Code 27-5-2(b)(4). For some it is the next judicial day, business hours, which is reasonable
and makes sense and in accordance with WV Code 2-2-2. For others, immediately, whenever,
night or day, judicial day or not - right now! - a medical, administrative and legal lunacy. For four
reasons: 1) the patients are at their worst when they first come in, usually incapable of appreciating
their medical situation, 2) p/c hearings easily become an intolerable burden on the time and
resources of the medical community, 3) law enforcement, charged with transporting the patients to
State hospitals when local hospitals are incapable of receiving them, are wrenched from their
customary duties, and 4) since the prosecutor's office is called to represent the applicant/medical
community, insisting a prosecutor run out at any hour of the day and night places a statutory duty
above their constitutional duty to prosecute.
First, a word on patients. It is unfair to scrutinize a patient in its most helpless moments. Ideologues
rail against committing patients when they have no cognizance of what is going on. But what sanity
lies in leaving the insane alone? Most commonly, doctors need only a small time to stabilize a
patient and begin treatment. To place a patient at her worst before a tribunal is a scandalous use of
power. She should have time to do some recuperating and attain, as far as medically possible, a
stable mental state from which to cogently, best as possible, make an appearance before a
Commissioner.
Second, the medical community. Hinged on the Commissioner's inclination, a hearing can last from
10 minutes to over 3 hours. When a Commissioner insists that everything be done today, the staff,
usually in an emergency room, must place the Hygiene patient first when there is no medical
necessity to. In other words, demanding immediate hearings creates a situation where the legal
process becomes superior to the medical needs of patients. Not just the Hygiene patient but all
patients. A good Commissioner realizes that s/he is working within a medical setting, that patients
come first. S/he does not encumber the time of physicians with a lilting scope of legal minutiae. The
patients deserve better. Remember, this is a probable cause hearing 99 % of the time with
uncontroverted medical testimony. Not a trial. We are disrupting and using up a doctor's time when
most States have decided there is no reason to.
There is an added element: any imposition of the legal system before medical treatment causes two
deplorable situations: 1) it escalates the damage to the patient by temporizing against needed
medical help, and 2) it shackles the patient into the arms of law enforcement who often have no
choice but to restrain the patient since officers have neither knowledge nor license to practice the
medicine necessary to stabilize the patient. There is no sense yelling against restraints by law
enforcement when the law already is a restraint against the one community which can stabilize the
patient without restraints, namely, the medical community.
Third, immediate hearings entangle law enforcement into lost time and lost monies. Some counties
have taken pains to co-ordinate hearings with their Sheriff. Others call the Sheriff willy-nilly and
expect them to jump as needed. Each trip requires a cruiser and two officers, one to drive and one
for security. West Virginia is not blessed with a State hospital within easy reach from any part of
the State. In 1995 one particular County with a good 8 hour round trip to the nearest State hospital
had 38 Hygiene trips to State hospitals. Local hospitals handled the others. Of those 38, 6 were
made on the same day as another trip, that is, two cruisers on the road at the same time
transporting a single patient each. 14 of those 38 were transported on days when if the Sheriff's
Department had not been called out on-demand but given some foreknowledge or there had been
some co-ordination, the Hygiene patients could have been transported with other-type trips to
near-by or along-the-way facilities.
Now about prosecutors. These benumbed, criminally underpaid attorneys carry the unfortunate
incident of "criminalizing" wherever they go. It is part of the popular culture and a natural outgrowth
of their position. The last thing families are thinking of is punishment. To the patient, aberrational as
they usually are, when any thought of a prosecutor breaks into their head, things worsen. They
believe the doctors have been tricking them, lying about treatment and really mean to punish. To
place a prosecutor in the midst of a medical hearing is less than sensible and more than moronic.
There are Commissioners who realize the conflict and do not insist a prosecutor be present when
one is not available. There are others that believe the world turns on their interpretation of the law.
In reality, prosecutors do little in any event. They ask questions about the applicant's reasons,
already on the Application, and questions to the physician about her findings, already on the
Certification. For this senseless effort prosecutors, unlike Commissioners and defense counsel, are
paid nothing. It is only a disruptive addition to their already hectic schedule.
And one very serious matter: prosecutors come upon crimes while representing the applicant which
forces them into compromising their position. If a prosecutor acts privately and finds she is about to
enter a potential conflict because she is a prosecutor, she must divorce herself from her client. In
Hygiene hearings the prosecutor has no such choice. If he finds an applicant in a situation calling for
his official concern, eg, drugs, theft, abuse and neglect, he is forced by statute to continue
representing the applicant. If for no other reason, this one should take prosecutors away from
Hygiene hearings.
A KERNEL OF REFORM
1. Take the court room out of the emergency room by giving a hospital statutory permission to hold
a patient for 72 hours to stabilize and treat the patient. This would be on concurrence of two
physicians, a police officer and physician, a mental health professional and physician or similar
combination. At time of entry the hospital notifies the Commissioner that a patient is being
involuntarily held with name, address, initial diagnosis, nearest relatives.
2. A treating psychiatrist, acting alone, would be allowed to certify their own patient for immediate
commitment when they perceive the patient to be a danger to self or society. 72 hour rule would
begin.
3. If the hospital finds the patient will require more than 72 hours of treatment, a Continuing
Commitment hearing is held on the next judicial day with the panoply of attorneys and the
Commissioner. The standard would be probable cause: the patient more likely than not requires
further medical treatment. Rules of evidence would be loosened to allow hearsay as in the Federal
Rules for Preliminary hearings. All physicians and certifying psychologists would be deemed experts
by statute.
4. All hearings would be at the court house. Interestingly, some counties already do this. It provides
a reasonable time for hearings, is not intrusive for the patient and does not interrupt hospital staff
who have other emergencies on their hands.
5. Prosecutors would not be used. Rather establish a pool of Mental Health Advocate Attorneys.
These Advocates would come from the community of attorneys in the County. They would be paid
and would be called on to represent the patient or the medical community. One pool of Attorneys,
with yearly training, who can represent intelligently both sides of a mental health issue.
6. All counsel involved in these hearings would be required to have three (3) or more CLE hours
each year on mental health subjects.
CONCLUSION
Every mental patient has a greater right to immediate medical care than our present law allows. No
one doubts the "liberty" stake a patient has in their own commitment. But West Virginia has
elevated this liberty stake to an overriding concern, greater than the patient's need for medical care.
We are ignoring the true status of the patient. You cannot talk to a schizophrenic, off medication for
the last week, the way you talk to a felon or to the innocent. A mentally ill patient falls under neither
category. They only fall under a medical category: mental illness.
Nor do we enhance human dignity by standing between patients and their doctors. Nor can we
justify an intrusion by the legal system, never renown for medical knowledge, into the emergency
room. Those of us still enamored with the horror commitment stories of this State prior to 1975
should consider that such a world is gone. Today there is no financial incentive to commit people.
Finances are more a disincentive. P/c hearings are only part of Hygiene law. And all of us have a
better understanding of the causes and consequences of mental illness and addiction.
The critical issue to remember is this: You can have robust health without liberty but liberty without
health is diminished and diminishing. A mental patient's right to be free of the irons of disease and
addiction must always be greater than his right to walk where he wants. Otherwise, the mental
patient has a lesser right to health than the physical patient. The appearance of a mind ... is not a
mind. It is the left-over atmosphere of a lost world. We demean the human spirit's natural reach for
health when we deem that atmosphere paramount to the new world we are reaching for, the world
where we are back again whole and truly ourselves.
UPSHUR COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION RENEWS
LOCAL EFFORTS
by Robert J. Wallace, Esq.
The Upshur County Bar Association is setting an example for other County Bar Associations to
follow.
After years of relative inactivity, the Upshur County group, under the leadership of President J.
Burton Hunter, has experienced an enthusiastic burst of activity which has clearly benefitted its
membership of 26 attorneys. Hunter initiated the revival by scheduling a regular monthly luncheon
for the Bar at which ideas and information have been exchanged and programs have been
presented.
This led the Bar to sponsorship of two highly successful events. The first was a joint dinner with the
Lewis County Bar Association which featured an address by Dean Teree E. Foster of the West
Virginia University College of Law. The Bar arranged for Dean Foster to meet also with students at
West Virginia Wesleyan College and discuss with them the study and practice of law.
The Bar next co-sponsored with the West Virginia Trial Lawyers Association a People's Law
School for Upshur County residents. Eight well-attended sessions (over 127 people registered in
advance) were held over a period of two months, featuring presentations by Circuit Court Judge
Thomas H. Keadle, Family Law Master Beth Longo, members of the Upshur County Bar, and
attorneys from neighboring counties. The sessions included presentations on The Courts and How
They Operate, Criminal Law and Procedure, Automobile Accidents/Personal Injury, Family and
Domestic Realtions Law, Worker's Compensation and Social Security, Real Estate Law, Wills,
Estates and Tax Planning, and Bankruptcy Law/Collections/Consumer Rights.
The Bar's most recent activity was a tour of the Maximum Security Penitentiary at Mt. Olive in
Fayette County.
Other projects undertaken include obtaining photographs of judges in the local circuit, developing
biographies of Bar members, demonstrations of use of computers in law offices, establishment of an
E-Mail network for local Bar members and Court Offices, scheduling of CLE programs, and
arranging for a golf tournament with other County Bars.
The consensus of the Upshur County bar members is that their renewed activity has been
professionally rewarding and most helpful in encouraging civility and friendly relationships.
MEDICAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
Editor:
The Hospice Council of WV is the state association for hospices in West Virginia. Our association
is an active one, with meetings six times a year, and educational opportunities available.
At a recent meeting, an issue arose concerning patients naming their physicians as medical power of
attorney's. Apparently, the attorney had written it this way at the patient's request.
According to the law written for MPOA's, a health care provider who is actively providing care for
the patient cannot be named MPOA. We would appreciate it if you could disseminate this
information to your members, accordingly.
Sincerly,
Malene S. Davis, RN
President
Hospice Care Corporation
4-H PROGRAM PRAISES WV ATTORNEY
Editor:
I am writing to give accolade to one of your members, Michael Fewell. It seems a rarity now days
to find a professional businessman who take time to perform community service. Most attorneys I
know spend their vacations and personal time at a resort, on the golf course, or traveling to
wonderful faraway places. Not "Mike" Fewell; he spent two weeks this summer at resident 4H
camps serving as a camp counselor watching over hundreds of children!
Mike Fewell is of a special breed; a businessman who continuously serves our county as Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, further serves the public with his private practice, and still makes time to
volunteer his professional expertise on matters of the law for our Putnam County Fair Board and
actively supports our 4-H program as a volunteer. He often serves as a chaperon for our 4-H
activties; he has also served as a judge of some 800 4-H project exhibits at our county fair.
Mr. Fewell served as "Big Chief" at our week-long Putnam County 4-H Camp, following a week
at Jackson's Mill where he served as "Dean of Residence" at state Older Members' 4-H Camp.
Mike is the perfect person for both of these special volunteer positions. He is a fantastic role model
for our youth; especially our young men. Whether it be a matter requiring disciplinary actions, or
planning and leading an action-packed camp fire program, Mike Fewell transforms every moment
into a "values development/character building" lesson for life. He actually takes time to correspond
by cards and letters with these children after camp. The children and adult staff love and respect
Mr. Fewell and we all hold him in the highest esteem.
I just thought you should know what a wonderful impact one of your associates is making on our
4-H program; and even more important, what a tremendous positive mentor he is for our youth!
Respectfully,
Cristina Haddix-Hodges
WVU Extension Agent, 4-H
THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT
Editor:
On behalf of West Virginia University and the WVU Foundation, please accept our thanks for The
West Virginia State Bar's recent gift of $2,144 for the West Virginia State Bar Merit Scholarship.
As a former associate dean at the WVU College of Law I know firsthand the importance of
scholarship support for deserving law students. Too many law students struggle to meet the day to
day costs of attending law school. They must balance that concern against classroom and study
demands on their time. The West Virginia State Bar's recognition of the need for private
scholarship funds for law students serves as an example for others to follow. As a member of The
West Virginia State Bar I am proud that we, as an organization, take an active role in helping to
educate the future members of our profession.
Please know that I am joined by President Hardesty, Dean Teree Foster and her colleagues and
students at the College in expressing appreciation for this most recent gift from The West Virginia
State Bar. The College of Law's ability to ensure that our students receive a quality legal education
which will enable them to meet the challenges of the 21st century is very much dependent on the
continued support of The West Virginia State Bar and its members.
Sincerely,
D. Lyn Dotson, JD
Vice President for Development
WVU Foundation
CLE CALENDAR
The Following Seminars Have Been Approved for MCLE Credit in WV. Please Contact the
Sponsor For More Information at the Telephone Number Listed With Each Activity.
11/1-2/96 WVCLE, "Insurance Law," 304/293-7255, 8.80 credits
WVU v/s Syracuse
11/7/96 National Business Institute, Inc., "Practical Legal Ethics
in WV," Charleston, 715/835-7909, 3.50 ethics credits
11/14/96 Halfmoon LLC, "WV Real Estate Titles and Title Insurance,"
Charleston, 715/835-5900, 7.20 credits
12/18/96 National Business Institute, Inc., "Basic Wage and Hour Law
in WV," Charleston, 715/835-7909, 7.20 credits
Revised: November 21, 1996
Send Comments to: pettyc@technet.wvbar.org
The West Virginia State Bar
All contents copyright (C) 1995, The WV State Bar. All rights reserved.