by PAMELA SCOTT JOHNSON Staff Writer
10 months ago | 575 views | 0

|
3 
|
|
Letitia Neese Chafin was disqualified as the special attorney by Judge Jay M. Hoke special judge by assignment on remand from the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
Chafin was representing Mingo County Sheriff Lonnie Hannah involving 263 Towing and Marcum Trucking Company, Inc. for previous work preformed for flood recovery.
The civil actions were remanded back to Mingo County Circuit Court (MCCC) by the higher court because Hannah, one of the defendants, refused to sign and pay checks on the grounds that information he had obtained led him to believe the payment orders from MCCC were based upon “inaccurate and therefore, illegitimate invoices.”
While under the Supreme Court’s ruling, sheriff’s do have a duty to pay invoice that are legitimate and uncontested, the higher court also states the sheriff can refuse to pay invoices authorized by the county commission if he has good cause to doubt it legitimacy. It also states the sheriff should have legal representation during the review process.
The problem arose when Hannah requested Chafin as his attorney. Based upon the Affidavit from Mingo County Commissioner David Baisden, while acting as the county’s assessor, in a civil suit against County Commissioner Greg “Hootie” Smith,” Baisden alleges the information acquired by Chafin was during the time she represented him during the prior matter and did not consent to Chafin representing Hannah during the current civil matter.
The court pointed to The American Legal Ethics Library rule 1.9(a) which states a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: (a) represent another person in the same or substantially related matter in which that person’s interest are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation.
Therefore, the court decided to remove Chafin as special prosecutor because doing so would violate rule 1.9(a) and could subject Chafin to possible disciplinary action since Baisden was a former client of hers and has made it know that he does not consent to the representation.
A request by Hannah for immediate representation is being considered at this time.