STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

At aregulartermof theSupremeCourtof Appeals,continuedandheldatCharleston,KanawhaCounty,onDecember9,2013,thefollowingorderwasmadeandentered:

Jay LawrenceSmith,anindividual,PlaintiffBelow,Petitioner

vs.)No. 13-1230

TeresaTarr,in hercapacityasCounselfortheWestVirginiaJudicial InvestigationCommission,andtheWestVirginiaJudicialInvestigationCommission,agovernmentagency,DefendantsBelow,Respondents

SCHEDULING ORDER

On a formerday,to-wit,November21,2013,camethepetitioner,Jay Lawrence

Smith,by Michael T. Clifford and Richelle K. Garlow, Law Office of Michael T.

Clifford andRichelleK. Garlow,andpresenteda timelyandcompletenoticeof appeal

from an orderof the Circuit Court of"KanawhaCounty(Civil Action No. 13-C-483)

enteredonOctober23,2013,alongwiththetwo-hundreddollar($200.00)filing fee. The

appealhasbeenplacedon thedocketasNo. 13-1230,in accordwith Rule 5(b)of the

Rulesof AppellateProcedure("R.A.P. 5(b)"), All filingsrelatedtothisappealmustrefer

tothisCourt'sdocketnumberandusethecasecaptionsetforthin thisorder.

The petitionerhasnot requestedthata transcriptbe producedfor purposesof

appeal.

Thepartiestothisappealareencouragedtoagreeonthecontentsof theappendix.\!?

Pursuantto R.A.P. 7(e), if no agreementis reached,thepetitionermustpreparea list of

thepartsof therecordthatthepetitionerintendsto includein theappendix,alongwitha

list of anyissuesintendedtobepresentedthatwerenotincludedin thenoticeof appeal,

andservethelistontherespondentsonorbeforeFebruary3,2014.

The deadlinefor perfectingtheappealis February24,2014.The petitionermay

perfecttheappealatanytimeonorbeforethedeadlineforperfectingtheappeal.

If the appeal is perfected,the respondentsare hereby directedto file a

respondent'sbrief,or a summaryresponse,on or beforeApril 10,2014,or withinforty-

fivedaysof thedatetheappealis perfected,if theappealis perfectedbeforeFebruary24,

2014.Any replybrief deemednecessaryshallbe filed by thepetitionerwithin twenty

daysof receiptof therespondents'brief.

SUMMARY of DEADLINES: AppealNo. 13-1230

Rule 7(e)List: February 3,2014

AppealPerfected: February 24,2014

Respondent'sBrief: April 10,2014

ReplyBrief: April 30,2014

Oncethedeadlinefor filing areplybriefhaspassed,theappealwill bematurefor

considerationbytheCourtpursuanttoR.A.P. 5(h).Thepartieswill benotifiedin writing

of anydecisionin thecase.

A TrueCopy

Attest: Isl RoryL. PerryII,Clerkof Court

IN THE SUPREME COURlf OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIACiliARLESTON

No. 13-1230

JAY LAWRENCE SMITH, an individual,Plaintiff Below,

Petitioner

v.)

TERESA TARR, in hercapacityascounselfor theWestVirginiaJudicial InvestigationCommission,andtheWEST VIRGINIAJUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION,

Respondents.

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY

13-C-483

BON. JUDGE FRED 1.FOX II,SENIOR STATUS JUDGE

Petitioner'sBrief

CounselforPetitioner,Jay TIawrenceSmith

MichaelT. Clifford(WV Bar#750)CounselofRecordRichelleK. Garlow(WV Bar#9662)LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL T. CLIFFORD723KanawhaBoulevard,E. Ste.1200304-720-7660Mclifherd@aol.com

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

I. TheCircuitCourterredin dismissingPetitioner'sComplaintunderWestVirginiaRule

of Civil Procedure12(b)(6)becausePetitioner'sComplaintsetforthsufficientfactsto supporthis

claimsof violationof theFreedomof InformationAct, and;

2. TheCircuitCourterredin denyinganawardof counselfees.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

PetitionerJay LawrenceSmithis aifreelancenewsreporter.On oraboutSeptember7,

2012,herequestedfromtherespondentscertaininformationrelatingtoethicscomplaintsfiled

againstJudges,specificallythetotalnumbersof ethicscomplaintsagainsttencircuitjudgesand

seventeenfamilycourtjudges. This actionwascommencedbythePetitionerpro setocompel

therespondentstoprovidetheinformation,requestedandfor anawardof counselfees.

ThedefendantsfiledaMotiontoDismisstheComplaintunderRule 12(b)(6)of theWest

VirginiaRulesof Civil Procedure.AfterahearingbeforeSeniorStatusJudgeFredL. Fox II,

sittingbyspecialassignment,theCourtenteredanOrdergrantingtheMotiontoDismissunder

Rule 12(b)(6).It is fromthisfinalOrderdismissingtheComplaintthatthePetitionerappeals.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Petitioner'sComplaint,whichthelowercourtwasobligatedtotakeastrueunderRule

12(b)(6),contendedthathisrequestfor infDrmationwasalawfulrequestfor informationwhich

theJudicial InvestigationCommissionselectivelygranted.As notedtherein,therespondent'shad

previouslyprovidedthesameorsimilarinformationtoanotherperson,KeithDeBlasio. Petitioner

2

believeshehasshownentitlementtotheinformation,areversalof thelowercourt,andanaward

of counselfees.

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT AND DECISION

Petitionerbelievesthattherecordandbriefsin this casewill providetheCourtwith all

necessaryinformationneededto decidetheissues,andthereforeoralargumentunderRev.R.A.P.

18(a)isnotnecessaryunlesstheCourtdeterminesthatotherissuesarisingupontherecordshouldbe

addressed.Ifthe Courtdeterminesthatoralargumentisnecessary,thiscaseis appropriateforaRule

19argumentanddispositionbymemorandumdecision.

ARGUMENT

I. The Circuit Court erred in dismissingPetitioner'sComplaint under West Virginia

RuleofCivil Procedure12(b)(6)becausePetitioner'sComplaintsetforthsufficientfacts

to supporthis claimsof violationof theFreedomof Information Act

Thegist0f thiscaseisarathersimpIeone,notwithstandingtheelaborateargumentsofdefense

counsel.Thesolequestionis whetherrecordsofjudicialcomplaintsaresubjecttothestandardsof

Chapter29Bof theWestVirginiacode,commonlyknownastheFreedomofInformationAct. The

primaryerrorsof JudgeFox were,first,in viewingtherequestas9nefor informatio.nconcerning

ethicscomplaintsin whichnoprobablecausewasfound,and,second,thatthetheoryof theDaily

Gazettecasehas neverbeenextendedto judicial investigatoryproceedings.The requestfor

informationonlyconcernednumbers,notcopiesofthecomplaintsorthesubstanceofthecomplaints,

whetherprobablecausewasfoundornot.

Since1985,LawyerDisciplinaryproceedingshavebeenfoundtobeopentopublicscrutiny.

In theDaily GazetteCompanyv. ThecommitteeonLegalEthicsa/the WestVirginiaStateBar, the3

SupremeCourtofWestVirginia,overtheoppositionoftheCommitteeonLegalEthics,breachedthe

Cloak of confidentialityandruledthat" UnderWestVirginia Constitutionart. III, 17,which

providesthat"The courtsof thisStateshallbeopen,"thereis a rightof publicaccessto attorney

disciplinaryproceedings.TheCourtinterPreteda StateBarby-lawwhichprovided:

All proceedingsinvolvingallegationsof misconductbyorthedisabilityof anattorneyshall

bekeptconfidentialuntilandunlessarecommendationfortheimpositionofpublicdiscipline

is filedwiththecourtbythecommitteeonlegalethics,ortherespondentattorneyrequests

thatthe matterbe public, or the investigationis predicatedupon a convictionof the

respondentattorneyforacrime.All participantsin theproceedingshallconductthemselves

so as to maintainthe confidentialityof the proceeding.Any personwho violatesthe

provisionsof this sectionshall beguilty of contemptof thesupremecourt of appeals

(emphasisadded).DailyGazetteCo.,Inc.v. CommitteeonLegalEthics.oftheWestVirginia

StateBar, 174W. Va. 359,326S.E.2d705(1984)

Daily GazettenotedthattheWestVirginia StateBar was an administrativearm of the

Supremecourtof Appeals;andfurthernotedrespondents'argument

The respondentdefendsthisconfidentialityruleon severalgrounds.First, therespondent

notesthatconfidentialitydiscouragesattemptstousetheprocessasathreatinordertoobtain

anadvantagein somecollateraldispute.Second,therespondentstatesthatconfidentiality

protectslawyersfromunwarrantedinjuryto theirprofessi(;malreputationsre~ultingfromfrivolousorfabricatedcomplaints.Third,therespondentcontendsthatconfidentialityrestores

a degreeof the protectionlost in the grantof libel immunityto attorneydisciplinarycomplainantsunderarticleVI, 43 of theBy-Laws.Finally,therespondentassertsthat

confidentialityensuresthatinvestigationsintoallegedunethicalactivitywill notbeimpairedbyprematurepublicity.Althoughthesejustificationsarenotwhollywithoutmerit,theyare

far outweighedbythepublicinterestinaccesstoattorneydisciplinaryproceedings(emphasisadded)

Accordingly,theSupremeCourtheldthat

4

., theBy-LawsandRulesandRegulationsof theWestVirginia StateBarwhichgovern

publicdisclosureof lawyerdisciplinarymattersare unconstitutionalunderWestVirginia

Constitutionart. III, 17,whentheyfail toprotectandvindicatethepublic'sinterestin the

integrityof thejudicialsystembyunreasonablyrestrictingaccesstoinformationconcerning

formaldisciplinaryactionsagainstlawyers,integralpartsof thejudicialsystem...

Subsequently,thisCourthasextendedtheapplicationof disclosuretopoliceinternalinvestigation

reviewprocedures.TheCharlestonGazetted/b/aDaily GazetteCo. v.Smithers,_

W.Va._' No. 12-0811(2013).

noappreciabledifferencebetweentheCourt'sanalysisof theargumentsof defense

counselin Daily Gazetteandtheinstantcase.Here,theplaintiffsoughtrecordsastothenumberof

complaintsfiledagainstsittingmembersof theStateJudiciary.Respondentsarguethattheskywill

fall if suchrecordsaredisclosable.RespondentsarguethataSupremeCourtrulebarsthereleaseof

theinformation.In thatthesubstantialpublicinterestinvolvedis thesame,i.e.publicaccessto

informationpertainingtothesubstantialintegrityof theCourtsystem,therulinghereinshouldbethe

same.

ThefinalissuetobeaddressedistheconstitutionalityofRule2.4oftheJudicialDisciplinary

Procedure,uponwhichall ofrespondents'argumentsaremade.!To theextentthatt~eStateBar

confidentialityrulewasunconstitutional,andtotheextentthattheStatePoliceinternalinvestigation

rulesareunconstitutional,so thenis Rule 2.4of theJudicial DisciplinaryRules. However,such

lThe details of complaints filed or investigations conducted by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel shall be

confidential, except that when a complaint has been filed or an investigation has been initiated, the Office of

Disciplinary Counsel may release information confirming or denying the existence of a complaint or investigation,

explaining the procedural aspects of the complaint or investigation, or defending the right of the judge to a fair

hearing. Prior to the release of information confirming or denying the existence of a complaint or investigation,

reasonable notice shall be provided to the ju~ge.

5

----------------------------

findingisnotnecessarysolongastheCourtsynchronizetheapplicationofRule2.4withtheholdings

in Daily Gazetteand TheCharlestonGazetted/b/aDaily GazetteCo. v.Smithers.Again,in the

instantcase,thepetitionerdidnotaskfor copiesof thecomplaints;hemerelyaskedfornumbersof

thecomplaints.

Of specialconcernisthefactthattherespondentshadreleasedthesameorsimilarinformation

toone KeithDiBlasio. Thelowercourtherestatedthat

"AccordingtoDefendants,theychangedtheirpolicytocomplywiththerequirementsof Rule2.4.

ThischangeinpolicywasnotpersonaltothePlaintiff. Further,thePlaintiff'sFOIA requestandMr.DeBlasio'sFOIA requestdonotappeartoberelated."

A copyof respondent'sresponsetoMr. DiBlasiois affixedtoplaintiff'sRESPONSE TO

MOTION TO DISMISS, in theAppendix.ThatresponsewasdatedAugust31,2012. Petitioner's

requestwas7 dayslaterandbothseemedto requestthesameinformation.The informationwas

providedtoMr. DiBlasio,butnotMr. Smith.If, indeed,thepolicieswerechangedtocomportwith

Rule2.4,it wasthefastestadministrativepolicychange,andquietest,in thehistoryof theStateof

WestVirginia.

It is cle.arthen,thatinasmuchasthereis no statutoryexceptionto theproductionof these

requesteddocuments,thattheCourtshouldfollow thetenorof theSupremeCourtof Appeals

documentedinDaily Gazetteanddirectthereleaseof therecords.It is doublyimportantwherethe

defendantschooseto releasetheinformationto somemembersof thepressbutnotothers,asthe

attacheddocumentsreflectthattherequestedinformationhasbeenreleasedtoothermembersofthe

press.

II. The Circuit Court erredin denyingan awardof counselfees

6

As totheissueof counselfees,thestatuteis clearthat

29B-1-7.Attorneyfeesandcosts.

Any personwho is deniedaccessto public recordsrequestedpursuantto this articleandwho

successfullybringsasuitfiledpursuantto,sectionfiveof thisarticleshallbeentitledtorecoverhis

orherattorneyfeesandcourtcostsfromthepublicbodythatdeniedhimorheraccesstotherecords.'

The word"shall" leavesno roomfor furtherdebateand,shouldpetitionerprevailin this

proceeding,heis entitledtocounselfeesandcosts..

CONCLUSION

The Ruling of theCircuit Court shouldbereversedand remandedfor entryof an

ordercompellingdisclosureof requesteditems,andawardingattorneysfeesand costs,and

suchotherandfurther relief asthenatureof his casemayrequire.

JAY LAWRENCE SMITH

/11',/1,'1 ','1/II I j ,/

/ j j;tv{t/lII 1 IjUtjIBy counsel

Michael . Clifford (WVS #750)

RichelleK. Garlow(WVSB #9662)

723KanawhaBlvd.East

UnionBldg.,Suite1200

Charleston,WV 25301

304-720-7660

304-720-7753fax

7

TABLE OF AUTHORITY

WV CONSTITUTION

Art. 3, 17 4

WVRULES

W.V.R.C.P 12(b)(6) 2,3

WV Rules JD P 2.4 5,6

WVSTATUTES

WestVirginiaCode29B-1-1etseq 3,4

WestVirginiaCode29B-1-7 7

WEST VIRGINIA CASES

Daily GazetteCo.,Inc. v. CommitteeonLegalEthics_ofthe

WestVirginiaStateBar, 174W. Va. 359,326S.E.2d705(1984) 4,5,6

TheCharlestonGazetted/b/aDaily GazetteCo.v. Smithers,_

W.Va. , No. 12-0811(2013) 5,6

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I herebycertifythatonthis24thdayofFebruary,2014,atrueandaccuratecopyoftheforegoingPetitioner'sBriefwasdepositedin theU.S.Mail containedin postage-paid envelopeaddressedtocounselfor allotherpartiestothisappealasfollows:

StephanieJ. Shepherd,Esquire141WalnutStreet

Morgantown,WV 26505

1

\'\[~i/

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VI~I~IADOCKET NO.: 13-1230 I L~;,,:;;,;c~:;~

~ RO,,) J.... l' ::',',"

li~. SUPR~'i;~,~g! =_'''''-'.';''''OL''''''''''-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Statementof Case 1

II. Summary ofArgument , 4

III. StatementRegardingOral Argument 5

IV. Argumentof Law 5

A. Standardof Review 5

B. The Circuit Court Properly Dismissed the Petitioner'sComplaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)of the Rules of CivilProcedure, Because the InformationSoughtby the PetitionerWas Exempt from Disclosure in Accordance with WestVirginiaCode 29B-1-4(a)(5) 6

C. The Circuit Court Correctly Concluded that the PetitionerWas Not Entitledto AttorneysFees or Costs 16

V. Conclusion 17

II

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES

CharlestonGazettev. Smithers,232 W. Va. 449,752 S.E.2d 603 (2013) 12

ChrystalR.M. v. CharlieA.L., 194W. Va. 138,459 S.E.2d 415 (1995) 5

Daily GazetteCo., Inc. v. Committeeon Legal Ethics of West VirginiaStateBar,174W. Va. 359, 326 S.E.2d 705 (1984) 11

Forshey v. Jackson, 222 W. Va. 743,671 S.E.2d 748(2008) 5

Hechlerv. Casey, 175W. Va. 434,333 S.E.2d 799 (1985) 6

Ogden Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Williamstown,192W. Va. 648,453 S.E.2d631 (1994) 7

Pritchardv. Crouser, 175W. Va. 310, 332 S.E.2d 611 (1985) 14

Stateex reI.McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick,Inc., 194W. Va. 770,461 S.E.2d 516 (1995) 5

SternBrothers,Inc. v. McClure, 160W. Va. 567,236 S.E.2d 222 (1977) 8

B. CONSTITUTIONS, STATUTES AND RULES

W. Va. Canst., art. III, Section 17 11

W. Va.-Const.,art.VIII, Section 3 8

W. Va. Const., art.VIII, Section 8 8

West VirginiaCode 298-1-1 6

West VirginiaCode 298-1-4(a) 6

West VirginiaCode 298-1-7 16

West VirginiaCode 55-17-3 .4

Rule 18(a)(4)of the Rules of AppellateProcedure 5

Rule 19of the Rules of Appellate Procedure 5

Rule 2.4 of the Rules of Judicial Conduct.. 1

Rule 2.7(c)of the Rules of Judicial Conduct , 2.\\.

III

,\3 '"

Rule 12(b)(6)of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure .4

Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.. 13

Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.. 13

Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct 13

iv

J. STATEMENT OF CASE

On September 7, 2012, the Petitioner, Jay Lawrence Smith requested

informationfromthe West Virginia Judicial InvestigationCommission (hereinafter"JIC")

pursuant to the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (hereinafter "FOIA").

(Petitioner'sApp., p. 6). In particular, he identified ten circuit court judges and

seventeen family court judges by name and requested the total number of ethics

complaintsfiled against each of them. Id. The Petitionerindicatedthat he wantedthe

"complaintsfiled by year," but he did not specify what years he was referringto in his

letter. Id. To be clear, he was notseeking informationregardingcases in whichthe JIC

foundthatprobableexisted to formallycharge thejudge witha violationof the Code of

Judicial Conduct. His request concerned complaints in which it was determinedthat

probablecause did notexist- complaintsthatare notmadepublicby the JIC.

Ms. Tarr reviewed the Petitioner's FOIA request, and she consulted with the

membersof the JIC to determinewhether it was properto disclose the informationhe

requested.By letterdated September 24, 2012, Ms. Tarr informedthe Petitionerthat

the JIC would not be able to disclose the number of ethics complaints filed against

specificjudicial officers. (Respondents'SupplementalApp., pp. 14-17). She explained

that under Rule 2.4 of the Rules of Judicial DisciplinaryProcedure, complaintsagainst

judicialofficersare confidentialunless the JIC finds thatprobablecause existsto charge

a judge with a violationof the Code of Judicial Conduct. Therefore, the JIC was not

requiredto disclose how many ethics complaintshave been filed against a particular

judicial officer. Id. Ms. Tarr did inform the Petitioner that the JIC could disclose-

statisticaldata regardinghow manyethicscomplaintshad been filed in a givenyear. Id.

Further,when the JIG determines that there is probable cause to formally charge a

judicialofficerwithan ethicsviolation,the complaintis openfor public review. Similarly,

if the JIG admonishesa judicial officeras providedin Rule 2.7(c) of the Rules of Judicial

DisciplinaryProcedurethen informationregardingthe case is made public.1

A volley of written correspondence followed Ms. Tarr's September 24th letter

denyingthe Petitioner'sFOIA request. On October5, 2012,the Petitionersent Ms. Tarr

a letterrich in sarcasm and condescension that expressed his disagreementwith the

JIG's position. (Respondents'SupplementalApp., pp. 18-20). The Petitionerrenewed

his FOIA request in this letter. He also clarifiedthat he was seeking the numberof

complaintsfiledagainstthe previouslyidentifiedjudges fromthe date of theirelectionor

appointmentto the dateof his FOIA request. !d.

In his complaintand in his opening brief to this Gourt,the Petitionerallegesthat

the JIG previously disclosed the number of ethics complaints filed against seven

individualjudicialofficersover a ten-yearperiodto Keith DeBlasio. (Petitioner'sApp., p.

6). Apparently, Mr. DeBlasio requested and was given information regarding the

numberof ethics complaintsfiled against seven specific circuitjudges. The Petitioner

requestedinformationon some of the same judges as Mr. DeBlasio. Id. (Petitioner's

App., p. 7). Thus, he concluded that there was not a reasonable basis for the JIG to

grant Mr. DeBlasio's request, but refuse to provide him with like information. As

explained in the circuit court, after the FOIA response to Mr. DeBlasio, upon further

1 Rule 2.7(c) of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure states, in part: When it has beendetermined that probable cause does exist, but that formal discipline is not appropriate under thecircumstances,the Commission shall issue a writtenadmonishmentto the respondent,who has fourteendays after its receiptto object.The writtenadmonishmentshall be availableto the public.

considerationof the issue and the significanceof Rule 2.4, the JIG felt itwas requiredto

modifyits position. (Petitioner'sApp., p. 42).

In a letterdated October 9, 2012, Ms. Tarr informedthe Petitionerthatthe JIG's

positionhad not changed and it would not disclose the informationhe requested. She,

again citedthe confidentialityrequirementof Rule 2.4, and she explainedthatthis rule

preventeddisclosure of the details concerningethics complaintsand the investigation

intothe meritsof these complaints. (Respondents'SupplementalApp., pp. 21-22). Ms.

Tarr also statedthatthe informationthe Petitionerrequestedwas also arguablyexempt

from disclosure pursuant to West Virginia Gode 29B-1-4(a)(2) and (8). Id. On

October25, 2012, Ms. Tarr once again respondedon behalfof the JIG. She indicated,

as she had in her two previous letters,thatthe informationsoughtby the Petitionerwas

notsubjectto disclosure. (Respondents'SupplementalApp., p. 34).

Approximately three months later, by letter dated January 31, 2013, the

Petitioner expressed his extreme displeasure with the JIG's determinationthat the

information,hesoughtwas exemptfrom disclosure under FOIA. Further,he concluded

thatthe recordscould notproperlybe consideredinternalmemorandaof the JIG. In this

correspondence,the Petitioner also requested the numb~rof ethics complaintsfiled

against seven additionaljudicial officers, presumablyfrom the date of their electionor

appointmentto the date of his request. (Respondents'SupplementalApp., pp. 35-37).

By letterdatedFebruary5, 2013, Ms. Tarr informedthe Petitionerthatthe JIG would not

be disclosingthe informationhe requested. (Respondents'SupplementalApp., p. 45).

Thereafter, on February 8, 2013, the Petitionersent a brief letterto the West

Virginia Attorney General's Office. (Respondents' Supplemental App., pp. 46-47).

3.

Presumably,the letterwas meant to serve as the 30-day notice under West Virginia

Code 55-17-3 that he intendedto file a civil suit against the JIC. He filed a FOIA

actionon March 12,2013, in the CircuitCourt of Kanawha County. He soughtan order

requiringthe JIC to disclose the informationhe requested. In addition, he sought a

declarationthat the JIC's conductwas unlawful. The Petitionerrequestedan award of

attorneyfees and the costs of prosecutinghis complaint. Finally, he asked the circuit

court to order mandatoryFOIA trainingfor the Respondents. By order dated October

23, 2013, the Circuit Court,of Kanawha County granted the Respondents' motion to

dismissthe Petitioner'scomplaint. A timelynoticeof appealwas filed in this Court, and

the matteris nearlyripefor decision.

II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Circuit Court of Kanawha County properly dismissed the Petitioner's

complaintpursuantto Rule 12(b)(6)of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. The

disclosure requirements of the West Virginia Freedom of InformationAct are not

absolute. If informationsought in a FOIA requestis protectedor deemedconfidentialby

a valid statutoryprovision then it is exempt from disclosure by West Virginia Code

298-1-4(a)(5). Via a FOIA request, the Petitioner asked the West Virginia Judicial

InvestigationCommissionto providehimwith the totalnumberof ethicscomplaintsfiled

against specific members of the State's judiciary. The Petitioner wanted ethics

complaintsthatwere dismissed for lack of probablecause by the JIC. Rule 2.4 of the

Rules of Judicial DisciplinaryProcedure requiresthe JIC to maintainconfidentialityon

groundless complaints that are dismissed. This rule has the force and effect of a

statutoryprovision. Thus, it is clear that the informationsought by the Petitioner is

4 .1;.

exempt from disclosure under FOIA, and the circuit court properly dismissed the

Petitioner'scomplaint.

III. STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Oral argument is not necessary in this case in accordance with the standard

establishedby Rule 18(a)(4)of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. If this Court deems

this case appropriatefor oral argument,the narrow issue of law pertainingto a single

and unambiguousFOIA exceptionmakes the mattersuitablefor Rule 19argumentand,

for thesame reason,the case is appropriatefor a memorandumdecision.

IV. ARGUMENT OF LAW

A. Standard of Review

Appellate review of a circuit court's order grantinga motion to dismiss a civil

complaintis de novo. State ex reI. McGraw v. Scott RunyanPontiac-Buick, Inc., 194W.

Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995). Under the theory of notice pleading, a plaintiff's

complaintshould be construedliberally. Id. In this regard,"'[f]orpurposesof the motion

to dismiss, the complaintis construed in the lightmost favorableto the plaintiff,and its

allegationsare to be taken as true.'" Forshey v. Jackson, 222 W. Va. 743, 750, 671

S.E.2d 748, 755 (2008) (quotingJohn W. Lodge Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 161

W. Va. 603, 605, 245 S.E.2d 157, 158 (1978)). Further,this Court has held: "Where

the issue on an appeal from the circuitcourt is clearlya questionof law or involvingan

interpretationof statute,we applya de novo standardof review." Syl. Pt. 1, ChrystalR.

M. v. CharlieA.L., 194W. Va. 138,459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).

5

B. The Circuit Court Properly Dismissed the Petitioner's Complaint Pursuantto Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Because the InformationSought by the Petitioner Was Exempt from Disclosure in Accordance withWest Virginia Code 29B-1-4(a)(5).

The purpose of the West Virginia Freedom of InformationAct is to promotethe

transparencyof governmentand to give the citizenryaccess to informationregarding

the conduct of public officials. W Va. Code 298-1-1.2 FOIA should be liberally

construedto effectuatethe purpose of the Act. Hechler v. Casey, 175 W. Va. 434, 333

S.E.2d 799 (1985). Further, the exemptionsto disclosure identified in West Virginia

Code 298-1-4 are to be strictlyconstrued. Id.

Notwithstandingthe liberal disclosure policy that underpins FOIA, there are

several categories of informationthat a governmentagency may properly refuse to

provide to a citizen or group, because these categoriesare specificallyexemptfrom

disclosure under section 4 of the Act. W. Va. Code 298-1-4(a).3 Applicable in the

2 West Virginia Code 296-1-1 states: Pursuant to the fundamentalphilosophy of the Americanconstitutionalform of representative government which holds to the principle that government is theservantof the people, and not the master of them, it is herebydeclaredto be the public policy of the stateof West Virginia that all persons are, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, entitled to full andcomplete informationregarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who representthem as public officials and employees. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their publicservants the rightto decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retaincontrol over the instruments ofgovernmentthey have created. To that end, the provisions of this articleshall be liberallyconstruedwiththe view of carryingout the above declarationof public policy.

3 West Virginia Code 296-1-4(a) states: The followingcategoriesof informationare specificallyexempt from disclosure under the provisions of this article: (1) Trade secrets, as used in this section,which may include, but are not limited to, any formula, plan pattern, process, tool, mechanism,compound,procedure,productiondata or compilationof informationwhich is not patentedwhich is knownonly to certain individuals within a commercial concern who are using it to fabricate, produce orcompound an articleor trade or a service or to locate minerals or other substances, having commercialvalue, and which gives its users an opportunity to obtain business advantage over competitors; (2)Informationof a personal nature such as that kept in a personal, medical or similar file, if the publicdisclosure thereof would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy, unless the public interest byclear and convincingevidence requiresdisclosure in the particularinstance:Provided, That nothingin thisarticleshall be construed as precludingan individualfrom inspectingor copying his or her own personal,medical or similar file; (3) Test questions, scoring keys and other examinationdata used to administera

6

present matter, FOIA does not require the custodian of a public record to disclose

informationif the "informationis specificallyexemptedfrom disclosure by statute[.]"W.

Va. Code 298-1-4(a)(5). If the informationsought falls within the purview of the

statutethen it is exemptfrom disclosure under FOIA. See Ogden Newspapers, Inc. v.

Cityof Williamstown,192W. Va. 648, 453 S.E.2d 631 (1994).

In this matter,the Petitioner asked the JIC to provide him the total numberof

ethics complaintsthat were filed against specific judicial officers from the date of their

licensing examination, examination for employment or academic examination; (4) Records of law-enforcementagencies thatdeal with the detectionand investigationof crime and the internalrecordsandnotationsof such law-enforcementagencies which are maintainedfor internaluse in mattersrelatingtolaw enforcement;(5) Informationspecificallyexemptedfrom disclosure by statute;(6) Records, archives,documents or manuscripts describing the location of undeveloped historic, prehistoric, archaeological,paleontologicaland battlefieldsites or constitutinggifts to any public body upon"which the donor hasattached restrictionson usage or the handling of which could irreparablydamage such record, archive,document or manuscript; (7) Informationcontained in or related to examination,operating or conditionreports prepared by, or on behalf of, or for the use of any agency responsible for the regulationorsupervision of financial institutions,except those reports which are by law required to be published innewspapers; (8) Internal memoranda or letters received or prepared by any public body; (9) Recordsassembled, prepared or maintained to prevent, mitigate or respond to terrorist acts or the threat ofterroristacts, the public disclosure of which threatenthe public safety or the public health; (10) Thoseportionsof records containingspecific or unique vulnerabilityassessments or specific or unique responseplans, data, databases and inventories of goods or materials collected or assembled to respond toterroristacts; and communicationcodes or deploymentplans of law enforcementor emergencyresponsepersonnel; (11) Specific intelligence informationand specific investigativerecords dealing with terroristacts or the threat of a terrorist act shared by and between federal and internationallaw-enforcementagencies, state and local law enforcementand other agencies within the Departmentof MilitaryAffairsand Public Safety; (12) National security records classified under federal executiveorder and not subjectto public disclosure under federal law that are shared by federal agencies and other records relatedtonational security briefings to assist state and local governmentwith domestic preparedness for acts ofterrorism;(13) Computing,telecommunicationsand networksecurity records, passwords, securitycodesor programs used to respond to or plan against acts of terrorismwhich may be the subject of a terroristact; (14) Security or disaster recovery plans, risk assessments, tests or the results of those tests; (15)Architectural or infrastructuredesigns, maps or other records that show the location or layout of thefacilitieswhere computing,telecommunicationsor network infrastructureused to plan against or respondto terrorismare located or planned to be located; (16) Codes for facilitysecurity systems; or codes forsecure applications for such facilities referred to in subdivision (15) of this subsection; (17) Specificengineering plans and descriptions of existing public utility plants and equipment; (18) Customerproprietary network information of other telecommunications carriers, equipment manufacturers andindividualcustomers, consistent with 47 U.s.C. 222; and (19) Records of the Division of Corrections,Regional Jail Authority and the Division of Juvenile Services relatingto design of corrections,jail anddetentionfacilitiesowned or operatedby the agency, and the policy directivesand operationalproceduresof personnel relatingto the safe and secure managementof inmatesor residents, that if released, couldbe utilizedby an inmateor residentto escape a facility,or to cause injuryto another inmate,residentor tofacilitypersonnel.

7

electionor appointmentto the date of his FOIA request. He sought ethics complaints

filed against these judges that were dismissed for want of probable cause by the JIC.

This informationwas notdisclosed bythe JIC, because Rule 2.4 of the Rules of Judicial

DisciplinaryProcedure prohibits release of ethics complaintsthat do not result in the.

filingof formalcharges,or an admonishment. Rule 2.4 states:

The detailsof complaintsfiled or investigationsconductedbythe Officeof DisciplinaryCounsel shall be confidential,exceptthatwhen a complainthas been filed or an investigationhasbeen initiated,the Office of DisciplinaryCounsel may releaseinformation confirming or denying the existence of acomplaintor investigation,explainingthe proceduralaspectsof the complaintor investigation,or defendingthe rightof thejudge to a fair hearing. Prior to the release of informationconfirming or denying the existence of a complaint orinvestigation, reasonable notice shall be provided to thejudge.

Therefore, the informationwas not subject to FOIA's disclosure requirements,

because Rule 2.4 exemptedor preventedits release. Notably,the fact thatdisclosureis

prohibitedby a proceduralrule and not a statutoryprovisionadoptedby the Legislature

is of not of any consequence. This Court has plenary rule-makingauthorityregarding

the judiciary, and the rules promulgatedby the Court have the force and effect of a

statute. W. Va. Const., art. VIII, 3; Stern Brothers, Inc. v. McClure, 160W. Va. 567,

236 S.E.2d 222 (1977). Further, in specific referenceto Court-promulgatedethics and

procedural rules governingjudges, Article VIII, 8 of the West Virginia Constitution

states in relevant part: "When rules herein authorized are prescribed, adopted and

promulgated,they shall supersede all laws or parts of laws in conflict therewith,and

such laws shall be and become of no further force or effect to the extent of such

8

conflict." Thus, Rule 2.4 operates in the same manneras a statute,and itexemptsfrom

disclosurethe informationsoughtby the Petitioner.

The policyand purpose of Rule 2.4 is sound and necessary. This Court is the

final arbiterregardingmattersof the judiciary,and it has a vested interestin protecting,'"

the integrityof the judiciaryand the appearanceof proprietyamongjudicial officersfor

the benefitof the public. By promulgatingRule 2.4, this Court recognizedthatnotevery

ethics complaint filed against a judicial officer is meritorious. In fact, some ethics

complaintshave no basis in the Code of Judicial Conduct and are groundlessattempts

to impugnthe integrityof the judge or magistrate. Judges must make decisions, often

difficultones, in every civil and criminalcase before them. Generallyspeaking, half of

the parties that appear in court do not get the ruling they want. Some react to an

unfavorable ruling by filing baseless complaints that are maliciously motivatedto

underminethe judge's reputation,or perhaps, attemptto force the judge off of their

case. Further,there is nothing in the rules that preventsone angry litigantfrom filing

numerousunfoundedcomplaintsagainstone judge.

The public's interestin this type of informationis minimal,and it certainlydoes

not outweigh the need to maintain the independence alld integrityof the judiciary.

Thus, Rule 2.4 strikes an importantbalance between the public's right to information

regarding judicial officers, and this Court's obligation to protect the integrityof the

State's court system. A judicial officer should not be requiredto spend time explaining

or defending against unwarranted ethics complaints, because it would impede the

judicial process and preventthe judge from remainingdetached and neutral. If and

when it is determinedthat there is probable cause to believe an ethics violation has

9

been committedby a judicial officer, Rule 2.4 does not prevent disclosure and the

complaintand the identityof thejudge is opento public~review.

Moreover,Rule 2.4 of the West Virginia Rules of Judicial DisciplinaryProcedure

is consistentwith the protectionsother states provide to their judicial officers. The

majorityof jurisdictionsdo notdisclose or release identifyinginformationabouta judicial

officerin mattersinwhich the ethicscomplainthas been dismissedas unfoundedbythe

state'sjudicial disciplinarybody.4 In fact, only Arkansas and New Hampshire publicly

disclose the name of a judicial officer against whom a meritlesscomplainthas been

filed. Further,it is importantto notethatWest Virginia's rule regardingthe disclosureof

judicial ethics complaintsis one of the most liberal. The public's interest is protected;

4 48 of the 50 states have a procedural rule, statutoryprovisionor constitutionalprovisionthat issimilar to the confidentiality requirement of Rule 2.4. With the exceptions of Arkansas and NewHampshire and West Virginia, citations to the rule, statuteor constituionalprovision for each state are:Alabama Const. Art. 6, Amend. 581, 6,17; Rules 5, 6, 15 and 20 of the Alaska Judicial ConductCommission; Rule 9 of the Commission Rules of the Arizona Commission of Judicial Conduct; Rule 102of the California Rules of the Commission of Judicial Performance; Rule 6.5 of the Colorado Rules ofJudicial Discipline;Conn, Gen. Stat. 51-45c, 51-51j and 51-511;Del. Const. Art. 4, 37; Rule 23 of theFlorida Rules of the Judicial Qualifications Commission; Rule 20 of the Georgia Rules of the JudicialQualificationsCommission; Rule 8.4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i; Rules 30and 32 of the Rules of the Idaho Judicial Council; Rule 5 of the Illinois Rules of Procedure of the JudicialInquiry Board; Rule 25 (VIII)(B) of the Indiana Rules of Court; Rules 52,5 of the Iowa Court Rules; Rule607 of the Kansas Supreme Court; Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XXIII, 23, 26, 27 and 29(h); Rule 6of the Maine Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability;Maryland Rule 16-810; Rule 5 of theMassachusetts Rules of the Commission on Judicial Conduct; Michigan Court Rule 9.221; MinnesotaCourt Rules, Professional Rule 5; Rule 4 of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance;Missouri Supreme Court Rule 12.21; Montana Code Annotated 3-1-1121; Nebraska Revised Statute24-726; Nevada Revised Statute 1.4683; New Jersey Supreme Court Rule 2:15-4 and 2:15-20; New MexicoConst. Art, VI, 32; New York Judiciary Law 44-45; Rule 6 of the NorthCarolina Rules of the JudicialStandards Commission; Rule 6 of the North Dakota Rules of the Judicial Conduct Commission; See RuleV, 11(E) of the Supreme Court Rules for the Governmentof the Bar of Ohio; Rule 5 of the OklahomaRules Governing Complaints on Judicial Misconduct; Rule 6 of the Oregon Rules of Procedure of theCommission on Judicial Fitness and Disability;Constitutionof the Commonwealthof Pennsylvania,Art. 5, 18(a)(8); Rhode Island General Law 8-16-4; Rule 12 of the South Carolina Rules for the JudicialDisciplinary Enforcement; South Dakota Codified Laws 16-1-A; Rule 8 of the Tennessee Rules ofPractice & Procedure of the Board of Judicial Conduct; Tex, Gov, Code 33,032; Utah Code 78A-11-112(3);Rule 6 of the Rules of Supreme Court for DisciplinaryControl of Judges; Code of Virginia 17,1-913; Rule 11 of the Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct Rules of Procedure; Wis, Admin, CodeJC 3.01;and Rule 10 of the Rules Governing the Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics.

10

and therefore,there is no reason to expand release of judicial ethics complaintsin the

mannerrequestedbythe Petitioner.

In his opening brief to this Court, the Peti1:1onerargues that the circuit court

committedreversibleerror when it dismissed his complaintpursuantto Rule 12(b)(6).,

He makes three argumentsto support his request for a reversal of the lower court's

ruling. First, he claimsthatthis Court's opinion in Daily GazetteCo.) Inc. v. Committee

on Legal Ethics of West Virginia State Bar, 174 W. Va. 359, 326 S.E.2d 705 (1984),

controls the present matter; and consequently, it should be resolved in the same

fashion. Related to this argument,the Petitionerquestionsthe constitutionalityof Rule

2.4 of the Rules of Judicial DisciplinaryProcedure, but he does not expound on this

point. Therefore,the Respondents will not address this issue at lengtheither. Rather,

the Respondents simply assert that the modest confidentialityprovidedby Rule 2.4 is

constitutionallysound and itdoes notviolatethe open courtsprovisionof Article III, 17

of theWest VirginiaConstitution.

Next, the Petitionermakes a "whatis good for the goose is good for the gander"

argument. He contendsthatthe informationhe seeks shouldbe disclosed,becausethe

JIC disclosed it one previousoccasion. This argumentcan also be addressed in short

order. Disclosureof some of the informationrequestedby the Petitioneron a previous

and unrelatedoccasion does not obviateRule 2.4. The JIC has an obligationto adhere

to Rule 2.4 and it did so when, upon closer review of this rule, denied the Petitioner's

FOIA request. The Petitioner's argument appears as nothingmore than: "He got it

before, so now I want it!" Mr. DeBlasio and the Petitioner are not children on the

11

playgroundand Mr. DeBlasio's receipt of informationIS irrelevantto the legal issue

presentedin this appeal.

Finally, the Petitionercites this Court's recent decision in Charleston Gazette v.

Smithers, 232 W. Va. 449, 752 S.E.2d 603 (2013), and briefly argues this opinion.

requiresreversalof the circuitcourt'sruling. However,as set forthbelow,thisargument

fails to establishthatthe circuitcourterredwhen it dismissedthe Petitioner'scomplaint.

The cases citedby the Petitionerdo notcontroldispositionof this matter,as theydo not

address the applicabilityof West Virginia Code 29B-1-4(a)(5),or the requirementsof

Rule 2.4.

In Daily Gazette v. Committeeon Legal Ethics, supra, this Court examinedthe

constitutionalityof Article VI, 30 of the West Virginia State Bar By-Laws.5 Under this

provision, the State Bar was required to keep attorney disciplinary proceedings

confidential, unless there was a recommendation for public discipline. When

consideringthe Dailey Gazette opinion, it is helpful to put this decision in the proper

context. In this regard, at the time of the case was decided, the State Bar had the

authorityto privatelyreprimanda lawyer it found violatedan ethical rule. Thus, there

were an appreciablenumberof attorneydisciplinarymatter~thatwere resolvedoutside

of the publicsphere. Obviously,the currentruleon confidentialityin judicialdisciplinary

proceedingshas far more limitationsthanthe by-lawexaminedin Daily Gazette. In this

5 Now defunct, article VI, 30 of the West Virginia State Bar By-Laws stated: All proceedingsinvolvingallegations of misconduct by or the disabilityof an attorneyshall be kept confidentialuntil andunless a recommendationfor the impositionof public discipline is filedwith the court by the committeeonlegal ethics, or the respondent attorney requests that the matter be public, or the investigation ispredicated upon a conviction of the respondent attorneyfor a crime. All participantsin the proceedingshall conduct themselves so as to maintainthe confidentialityof the proceeding.Any person who violatesthe provisions of this section shall be guiltyof contemptof the supreme court of appeals. Any committeememberor any employeeof the committeewho violates this provision may be removedby the board.

12

regard,once a findingof probablecause is made againsta judicialofficer,the matteris

open to public scrutiny. Further, the JIC has no authorityto privately reprimanda

judicial officer for a violationof an ethical rule. See Rule 2.7 of the Rules of Judicial

DisciplinaryProcedure.

Moreover, Daily Gazette does not control resolution of this case. In Daily

Gazette,this Court focused on the role lawyersplay in the courtsystemwhen arrivingat

its decision. Obviously, the role judges play in the court system can and should be

distinguishedfromthe role lawyersplay. Examinationof these differencesexposes the

frailtiesof the Petitioner'sposition, and illuminatesthe necessityof keeping meritless

judicial ethics complaintsconfidentialto maintainthe integrityof the judicial process.

One fundamentaldifference between a judge and a lawyer is the judge's role as a

detacheddecision-maker. Unlike lawyers,judges are expectedto remain neutraland

upholdthe independenceof the bench in all proceedings. Canon 1, Code of Judicial

Conduct. The properfunctioningof the judicial system and the public'sperceptionof it

dependson the impartialityof our judicial officers. Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct.

Further, a judge is required to avoid the appearance of impropriety,and should not

engage in out-of court discussion about litigantsor matters.that have come before the

court. Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct. Therefore, a judge should not, and in most

instancescannot,publiclycommenton or defend himselfor herselfwhen informationis

releasedto the publicregardinggroundlessethicscomplaints.

Further, the purpose for the protectionprovided to judicial officers by Rule 2.4

may be comparedto the protectionsaffordedfrom civil suit by the doctrineof absolute

judicial immunity. In this regard,the primarypurposeof judicialimmunityis notto shield

13

thejudges, but rather,the protectionis providedfor the benefitof the public. Pritchard

V. Crouser, 175W. Va. 310, 332 S.E.2d 611 (1985). As the PritchardCourt explained:

"Quitefrequently,the cases requiringthe greatestdegree of judicial independenceare

the cases that are most hotlycontestedand most controversial." 175 W. Va. at 314, ,

332S.E.2d at 615. Therefore,judicialofficersshould be safeguardedfrom civil suit, so

theyare free to rule independently. Id.

It is no surprise that judicial ethics complaints also tend to be made in hotly

contestedcases by angryand oftenirrationallitigants. As statedabove,there is nothing

that preventsan angry litigantfrom filing multiplecomplaintsagainst the same judge.

The judge should be able to remain neutral and detached while the complaintsare

investigated. Similarly, if the complaints are dismissed, he or she should not be

requiredto explain why multipleethics complaintswere filed against him or her. Rule

2.4 providesthis modest, but necessary protection.6Therefore,there is sound reason

to keep judicial ethics complaintsconfidentialuntil a proper investigationis conducted

andto maintainthis confidentialityonly if the complaintis meritless. If afterinvestigation

probablecause is found,the informationis always made public. Rule 2.4 is exceedingly

narrow,butfor the good reasonsdiscussed herein, it strikes,aproperbalance.

The Petitioner also cited for support this Court's recent decision in Charleston

Gazettev. Smithers}232 W. Va. 449,752 S.E.2d 603 (2013). The Petitioneronlybriefly

commentedon this decision, noting that it "extendedthe applicationof disclosure to

police internalinvestigationreview procedures,"and then erroneously impliedthat this

6 Defendants sentenced to prison by a judge, with time on their hands and motiveto lash out atthe person who put them there, comes to mind as a good example of serial filers of judicial ethicscomplaints.

14

Court found the police internal investigationrules to be unconstitutional. (Petitioner's

Brief, at p. 5). No rule was held unconstitutionalin Smithers. Moreover, even the

Petitioner's limited reliance upon Smithers is misplaced. The Smithers decision

addressed three FOIA exceptions in the context of a refusal by the State Police to ,

disclose investigative records regarding complaints of police misconduct. The

disclosure exceptions at issue in Smithers were West Virginia Code 29B-1-4(a)

subparagraphs: (2) [invasion of privacy];(4) [law enforcementinvestigationrecords];

and (8) [publicagency internalmemoranda]. The basis for non-disclosureas decided

by the circuit court in the instant case is limited to another of the FOIA statutory

exceptions, subparagraph (5) regarding "[i]nformationspecifically exempted from

disclosure by statute." Rule 2.4 was properly found by the circuit court to have the

equivalentforce and effect of a statute. This determinationwas rooted in this Court's

constitutionalrule-makingauthorityfor all judicial proceedings. W. Va. Const., art. 8,

sec. 3. See also Stern Brothers, Inc. v. McClure, 160 W. Va. 567, 236 S.E.2d 222

(1977)(When a rule adoptedby the Court conflictswith anotherstatuteor law, the rule

supersedesthe conflictingstatuteor law.).

In Smithers, which was decided after the circuit cqurt dismissed the present

case, this Court did reviewthe State Police legislativerules regardingthe confidentiality

of internal investigations. But this review was appropriatelyconfined to reconciling

these non-superseding rules with the FOIA privacy exemption. The circuit court's

decision in the instant case, however, turned upon an entirely different exemption

applicable under this Court's superseding rule-makingauthority. Even with this clear

exemption that made additional justification unnecessary, the circuit court further

15

observedthat in adopting Rule 2.4 this Court struck a proper balance betweenpublic

access to informationand the protectionof the integrityof the judiciarywhich, in turn,

servesthe best interestsof the public.

As detailed in the circuit court's order, there are sound reasons to maintainthe,

confidentialnatureof judicial ethics complaintswhen they are determinedat the outset

to be lacking in probable cause. This Court was well aware of its decision 10 years

earlier in Daily Gazette Co., Inc. v. Committeeof Legal Ethics, supra, when it found it

necessaryto affordjudicial officers,due to their unique role in the judicial process, this

narrowand limitedprotectionsince they are constrainedto speak out in response to

publicdisclosuresof complaintsdismissedfor lack of probablecause.

In this matter, the Petitioner requested the number of ethics complaintsfiled

againstspecific circuitcourtand familycourtjudges from the date they were electedor

appointedto the date of his FOIA request. The JIC was not requiredto disclose this

informationpursuantto West Virginia's Freedom of InformationAct. Rule 2.4 requires

the JIC to maintain confidentialityon complaints that are dismissed due to lack of

probable cause. Therefore, the informationsought by the Petitioner is exemptfrom

disclosure in accordance with West Virginia Code 298-1-4(a)(5). The circuit court

properlydismissedthe Petitioner'scomplaint,and its rulingshould be affirmed.

C. The Circuit Court Correctly Concluded that the Petitioner Was Not Entitledto Attorneys Fees or Costs.

The Circuit Court of Kanawha County properlydeniedthe Petitioner'srequestfor

attorneyfees and costs, because he did not bring a successful FOIA action. West

VirginiaCode 298-1-7.

16

V. CONCLUSION

The Circuit Court of Kanawha County properly dismissed the Petitioner's

complaintpursuantto Rule 12(b)(6)of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 2.4 of

the Rules of Judicial DisciplinaryProcedure, the contentof ethics complaintsand the

identityof the judicial officer they are filed against are confidential, unless the JIC

determinesthat probable cause exists to formally charge the judge with a violation.

Therefore, the information sought by the Petitioner is exempt from disclosure in

accordancewith West Virginia Code 29B-1-4(a)(5). The Petitionerfailed to state a

validrequestfor reliefin the circuitcourt,and the lowercourt'srulingshouldbe affirmed.

TERESA TARR andWEST VIRGINIA JUDICIALINVESTIGATION COMMISSION

Respondents

By Counsel

()I / ,'1/ Ii . I

/\ /"1J1:~P;'1~~/)' ,\ / VJ '/ J~/;' -I' '", n. edges (\fINBar I 1662)StephanieJ. Shepherd (WV Bar 10 9716)HedgesLyons & Shepherd, PLLC141WalnutStreetMorgantown,WV 26505304-296-0123

Counsel for the Respondents

17

-8'

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, StephanieJ. Shepherd, do herebycertifythat I served a true and correctcopy

of the foregoing Response Brief of Respondents, upon Michael T. Clifford at 723

Kanawha Boulevard,East, Suite 1200, Union Building,Charleston,VW 25301via U.S. ,

FirstClass Mail, postageprepaid,this 10thday ofApril 2014.

18

No. 13-1230

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

JAY LA WRENCE SMITH, anindividual,

PetitionerlPlaintiffBelow,

.~

v.

TERESA TARR, in hercapacityascounselFor theWestVirginiaJudicial InvestigationCommission,andtheWEST VIRGINIAJUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION,

RespondentslDefendantsBelow.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAEDEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL OF WEST VIRGINIA

FOR DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSELOF WEST VIRGINIA

WilliamD. Wilmoth(#4075)STEPTOE& JOHNSONPLLC1233Main Street,PO Box 751Wheeling,WV 26003(304)233-0000

ChristopherA. Lauderman(#11136)STEPTOE& JOHNSONPLLC400WhiteOaksBlvd.

Bridgeport,WV 26330(304)933-8180

-----------------------------~---- ---------

Pursuantto WestVirginiaRuleof AppellateProcedure19,theDefenseTrial Counsel

of WestVirginia movesthIs Court for leaveto file its brief in supportof theRespondents

TeresaTarr andtheWest Virginia Judicial InvestigationCommission. The brief is being

submittedcontemporaneouslyfor filing, subjectto this Court's approval,within the time

allowedtoTeresaTarrandtheWestVirginiaJudicial InvestigationCommission,asprovided

in Rule 19. Becausethisbriefwill aidtheCourtin its decision,it is desirableasrequiredby

Rule 19. Accordingly,theCourtshouldgrantthemotionandenteran orderdirectingthe

Clerkto filetheDefenseTrial Counselof WestVirginia'sbrief.

The DefenseTrial Counselof WestVirginia (DTCWV) is thevoluntarycivil

defensebar. Its memberattorneysdefendindividualsandcorporationsin civil litigationare

committedto elevatingthe standardsof West Virginia trial practice,supportingand

advocatingfor theadversarysystemof jurisprudence,andimprovingthequalityof services

renderedby the legalprofessionto the citizensof WestVirginia. DTCWV servesas the

"voiceof thedefensebar",andsharesitsperspectiveon importantlegalissuesasandwhere

theyarise. Suchan issueis now beforethis Court,andtheDefenseTrial Counselof West

Virginia writesto voice its strongbelief that the unprecedentedexpansionof the West

Virginia Freedomof InformationAct arguedfor by Petitionerthreatensto underminethe

integrityof thestatejudiciary.

The DefenseTrial Counselof West Virginia respectfullysuggeststhatthe Court

shouldmaintainits faithfuladherenceto theprotectionof theintegrityof theWestVirginia

2

StateJudiciary. Therefore,theCourtshouldaffirmthejudgmentof thecircuitcourtgranting

TeresaTarrandtheWestVirginiaJudicial InvestigationCommission'smotiontodismiss.

WHEREFORE, theDefenseTrial Counselof WestVirginiarespectfullyrequeststhis

Court to grantits motionandenteran orderdirectingtheClerk to file theBrief of Amicus

. CuriaeDefenseTrial Counselof WestVirginia.

Datedthis tJfIt dayof April, 2014.

1J~JL lJ:LLWilliamD. Wilmoth(#4075)STEPTOE&JOHNSONPLLC1233Main Street,PO Box 751Wheeling,WV 26003(304)233-0000

~t~d ~ChnstopherA. LaudefITIan(#11136)STEPTOE& JOHNSONPLLC400WhiteOaksBlvd.Bridgeport,WV 26330(304)933-8180Counselfor AmicusCuriaeDefenseTrial Counselof WestVirginia

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I herebycertifythat,onApril 9th,2014,I causedthe"Motionfor Leaveto File Briefof AmicusCuriaeDefenseTrial Counselof WestVirginia"to beserveduponall counselofrecordby depositingcopiesof thesame,in theUnitedStatesmail,postageprepaid,addressedasfollows:

MichaelT. Clifford,Esq.RichelleK. Garlow,Esq.Law Officeof MichaelT. Clifford723KanawhaBlvd,E. Suite1200Charleston,WV 25301Counselfor Petitioner

StephanieJ. Shepherd,Esq.141WalnutStreetMorgantown,WV 26505Counselfor Respondents

No. 13-1230

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST

JAY LA WRENCE SMITH, anindividual,

Petitioner/PlaintiffBelow,".- .

v.

TERESA TARR, in hercapacityascounselFor theWestVirginiaJudicial InvestigationCommission,andtheWEST VIRGINIAJUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION,

RespondentslDefendantsBelow

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSELOF WEST VIRGINIA IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

William D. Wilmoth(#4075)STEPTOE& JOHNSONPLLC1233Main Street,PO Box 751Wheeling,WV 26003(304)233-0000

ChristopherA. Lauderman(#11136)STEPTOE& JOHNSONPLLC400WhiteOaksBlvd.

Bridgeport,WV 26330(304)933-8180

(Counselfor AmicusCuriaeDefenseTrial Counselof WestVirginia)

------------------------

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2

STANDARD OF REVIEW 4

ARGUMENT 4

TheRightof Accessto InformationRegardingtheJudiciaryis Qualifiedin ordertoProtecttheJudiciaryfromFrivilousandUnfoundedComplaintsthatwill HarmtheIndependenceandReputationof theJudicialBranch 4

I. TheFreedomof InformationAct hasDefinedLimits .4

II. LimitsonAccessExtendtotheJudiciary 5

III. By PromulgatingRule2.4Subsequentto IssuingTheDaily GazetteCompany,Inc. v. TheCommitteeonLegalEthicsof theWestVirginiaStateBar, theSupremeCourtRecognizedtheConstitutionalityof theRule 6

IV. Alternatively,If theCourtConcludesthatJudgesandAttorneysShouldbeTreatedtheSame,theCourtShouldDeterminethatNo InformationRegardingFrivilousComplaintsMustbeReleased 6

CONCLUSION 7

11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

AppalachianRegionalHealthcare,Inc. v. WestVirginiaDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,232W. Va. 388,752S.E.2d419(2013) 3

Conleyv. Gibson,355U.S. 41(1957) 3

TheDaily GazetteCompany,Inc. v. TheCommitteeonLegalEthicso/the WestVirginiaStateBar, 174W. Va. 359,326S.E.2d705(1984) .4,5,6

Hawkinsv.Ford Motor Co.,211W. Va. 487,566S.E.2d624(2002) 1

.Meyv.PepBoys-Manny,Moe &Jack, 228W. Va. 48,717S.E.2d235(2011) 3

Smithv. Tarr, 13-C-483(Cir. Ct.KanawhaCnty,2013) 3

StateexreI.Chemtallv.Madden,216W. Va. 443,607S.E.2d772(2004) 1

StateexreI.HeraldMail Companyv.Hamilton,228W. Va. 48,717S.E.2d235(1980) 4

STATUTE

W. Va. Code 29B-1-1 2,4

W. Va. Code 29B-1-4(a)(5) 4

RULE

Ruleof JudicialDisciplinaryProcedure2.4 2,4,6

CONSTITUTION

W. Va. Canst.art.III, 17 4

W. Va. Canst.art.V, 1 4

W. Va. Const.art.VIII, 3 4

111

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

TheDefenseTrial Counselof WestVirginiais anorganizationof over500attorneyswho

engageprimarily in the defenseof individualsand corporationsin civil litigationin West

Virginia. The DefenseTrial Counselof WestVirginia is anaffiliateof theDefenseResearch

Institute("DRI"), a nationwideorganizationof over23,000attorneyscommittedto research,

innovation,andprofessionalismin the civil defensebar. Althoughit doesnot routinelyseek

leaveto file amicusbriefs,theDefenseTrial Counselof WestVirginia is interestedin theissue

beforetheCourtregardingtheconstitutionalityof Rule of Judicial DisciplinaryProcedure2.4

becauseof theDTCWV's positiongenerallyadvocatingthatWestVirginia interpretandapply

its laws,bothstatutoryandotherwise,in a consistentanduniformmannerandapplystatutesin a

clear,consistent,andcommon-sensefashiontoeffectuatetheirpurpose.For example,inStateex

rel. Chemtallv. Madden,216W. Va. 443,607S.E.2d772(2004),DTCWV submitteda brief

askingtheCourtto applyWestVirginia's classactionrulesin a fashionsimilarto equivalent

federalrules. Likewise,in Hawkinsv.Ford Motor Co.,211W. Va. 487,566S.E.2d624(2002),

DTCWV submitteda brief in supportof a manufacturer'sassertionthattheplain languageof

WestVirginia'sUnfairTradePracticesAct didnotapplyto self-insuredentities.Bothpositions

wereultimatelyadoptedbytheCourt.

I

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Freedomof informationis undeniablyoneof thecorevaluesof ourrepublicanformof

government.Butpublicaccesstoall informationrelatingtotheGovernmenthasneverbeenpart

of thatcorevalue. For thatreason,statelegislatures,includingWestVirginia's legislature,have

providedexceptionsto theirstatutoryactsregardingfreedomof information.The reasoningis

simpleenough. In orderto protectcertaininstitutionssuchas thejudiciary from harmto its

reputationandindependence-factorscrucialtosustainingahealthy,vibrant,republicanformof

government-groundless,baseless,unfounded,andfrivolouscomplaintsmaybe exceptedfrom

thereachof freedomof informationacts.

This brief arguesthat pursuantto West Virginia law, unlimitedaccessto judicial

informationdoes not exist. Rule 2.4 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedureis

Constitutional.Accordingly,for this reason,discussedin moredetailbelow,the Courtmust

affirmtheCircuitCourt'sdismissalof Petitioner'sComplaint.

FACTUALBACKGROUND

Pursuantto WestVirginia'sFreedomof InformationAct ("FOIA"), W. Va. Code 29B-

1-1,Petitioner,Jay LawrenceSmith,a freelancenewsreporter,filed a Freedomof Information

Act requestwith Respondents,Teresa Tarr and the West Virginia Judicial Investigation

Commission.Petitionerrequestedinformationregardingthetotalnumberof ethicscomplaints

filed againsttencircuitjudgesandseventeenfamily law judges. Tarr refusedto disclosethe

informationsoughtin Petitioner'sFOIA requestciting Rule 2.4 of the Judicial Disciplinary

Procedures.Rule2.4provides:

The detailsof complaintsfiled or investigationsconductedby theOffice of DisciplinaryCounselshallbe confidential,exceptthatwhen a complainthas beenfiled or an investigationhas beeninitiated, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel may releaseinformationconfirmingor denyingheexistenceof a complaintor

2

investigation,explaining the existence of a complaint orinvestigation,explainingtheproceduralaspectsof thecomplaintorinvestigation,or defendingtherightof thejudgeto a fair hearing.Prior to the releaseof informationconfirmingor denyingtheexistenceof acomplaintor investigationreasonablenoticeshallbeprovidedtothejudge.

Petitionertheninitiatedthis civil action,assertingthathe hadtheright to information

regardingthenumberof complaintsfiled againstjudges,evenif thosecomplaintshadno basis

andwerefrivolous. Respondentsfiled a motionto dismiss,which theCircuit Courtgranted.

Petitionerthenfiledthepresentappeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The SupremeCourtof Appealsof WestVirginiareviewsa CircuitCourt'sdismissalof a

complaintpursuantto WestVirginia Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(6)de novo. Appalachian

Reg'l Healthcare,Inc. v. W Va.Dep't of Health& HumanRes.,232W. Va. 388,752 S.E.2d

419,424(2013).The"purposeof amotionunderRule l2(b)(6)is to testtheformalsufficiency

of thecomplaint."Mey v. Pep Boys-Manny,Moe & Jack, 228W. Va. 48, 52,717S.E.2d235,

239(2011). AlthoughtheSupremeCourtof theUnitedStateshasabandonedthestandard,the

SupremeCourtof Appealsof WestVirginia continuesto applythetestsetforth in Conleyv.

Gibson,355U.S. 41,45-46 (1957).Accordingly,in WestVirginia,a court"shouldnotdismiss

a complaintunlessit appearsbeyonddoubtthattheplaintiffcanproveno setof factsin support

of his claimwhichwould entitlehim to relief." Mey,228W. Va. at 52. Where,ashere,the

court can grantno relief under any set of facts that could be provedconsistentwith the

allegations,dismissalfor failureto stateaclaimis proper.Id..

This appealfurtherrequirestheCourtto interpreta ruleandstatute.The Courtreviews

denovoa questioninvolvingtheinterpretationof a statute.AppalachianReg'l Healthcare,232

W. Va. at424.

3

S.E.2d544(1980). Moreover,theSectionextendsto othertypesof judicial andquasi-judicial

proceedings.

Oneof thequasi-judicialproceedingscoveredundertheopencourtsprovisionis attorney

disciplinaryproceedings.TheDaily Gazette,174W. Va. at365. In extendingtheopencourts

provisionto attorneydisciplinaryproceedings,theSupremeCourtof Appealsreasonedthatthe

public shouldknow whenattorneysare chargedwith disloyaltyto the court. For only with

possessionof thisknowledgecanpeopleintelligentlydealwith thelegalprofession'smembers

andentrustbusinessto them. Id. TheCourtemphasizedthatpeoplemustbeableto observefor

themselvesthattheself-governanceprocessis impartialandeffective.Accordingly,theCourt

concludedthatoncea complaintof unethicalconductin anattorneydisciplinaryproceedingis

dismissedfor lack of probablecause,thepublichasa rightof accessto thecomplaintandthe

findingsof factandconclusionsof lawwhicharepresentedin supportof thedismissal.

But theCourtalsoclearlystatedthat"thepublic'srightof accessis notabsolute."Id. at

364n.9. The Courtrecognizedthatcertaincasesandexceptionalcircumstancesmaywarrant

limitedclosure. For the reasonsdiscussedbelow, informationregardingunfoundedjudicial

complaintsis oneof thosecertaincases.

II. LIMITS ON ACCESS EXTEND TO THE JUDICIARY.

The DefenseTrial Counselof West Virginia recognizesthat this Court has already

decidedthis issuewith respectto attorneys.Althougha partyeasilycanarguethatthelogicof

TheDaily Gazetteapplieswith equalforceto membersof thejudiciary,suchan assumptionis

not correctupon a close examinationof the Court's decision. The Daily GazetteCourt

recognizedthereputationalandinvestigatoryjustificationsto restrictdisclosureof information

pertainingto complaintsduringtheinitial investigatorystage,butconcludedthatasto attorneys,

thejustificationsare limited. The accompanyingfootnotereadsthat "[t]hereportingof the

5

existenceof groundlessor frivolouscomplaintsaftertherehasbeenadecisionto dismissthemas

suchposesnorealthreatto thereputationsof attorneys."TheDaily Gazette,174W. Va. at367

n.17.

Judgesareunique.Attorneysandjudgesplayverydifferentrolesin ourjudicial system..

Unlike attorneys,judgesfacerealthreatsto theirreputationswith thereportingof theexistence

of groundlessor frivolouscomplaints.Judgesarenotadvocates.Rather,theyarethefaceof the

justicesystem.Wherejudgeshaveengagedin misconduct,thepublichasa righttoknowabout

thecircumstances.And theRule providesfor suchreporting. In promulgatingRule 2.4, the

Court achievedthe appropriatebalancebetweenreportingto the public and preservingthe

integrityandindependenceof thejudiciaryin lightof frivolouscomplaints.

III. BY PROMULGATING RULE 2.4 SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUING THE DAILYGAZETTE COMPANY INC. v: THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL ETHICS OF THEWEST VIRGINIA STATE BAR, THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THECONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RULE.

Tenyearsafterissuingitsdecisionin TheDaily Gazette,Rule2.4wasadopted.Smithv.

Tarr, 13-C-483(Cir. Ct.KanawhaCnty,2013).By PromulgatingRule2.4Subsequentto issuing

TheDaily Gazette,theSupremeCourtrecognizedtheConstitutionalityofthe Rule.

IV. ALTERNATIVELY, IF THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT JUDGES ANDATTORNEYS SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME, THE COURT SHOULDDETERMINE THAT NO INFORMATION REGARDING FRIVIOLOUSCOMPLAINTS MUST BE RELEASED.

In the alternative,if the Court concludesthatjudgesarenot uniqueand insteadlike

attorneys,the DefenseTrial Counselof West Virginia respectfullyrequeststhat the Court

determinethatinformationregardingfrivolouscomplaintsbewithhelduniformlywithrespectto

bothjudgesandattorneys.Thepolicyargumentsmentionedaboveapplyto attorneysaswell as

judges.

6

CONCLUSION

For the reasonsstatedabove, the DefenseTrial Counsel of West Virginia joins

Respondentsin requestingthatthisCourtaffirmthejudgmentof theCircuitCourt.

Respectfullysubmitted,

LJ~.fj. w:L4t.William D. Wilmoth(#4075)STEPTOE &JOHNSON PLLC1233Main Street,PO Box 751Wheeling,WV 26003(304)233-0000

Dated:April 9th,20,14

7

~j~ChristopherA. Laude~STEPTOE &JOHNSON PLLC400WhiteOaksBlvd.

Bridgeport,WV 26330(304)933-8180

(Counselfor AmicusCuriaeDefenseTrial Counselof WestVirginia)

No. 13-1230

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

JAY LA WRENCE SMITH, anindividual,

Petitioner/PlaintiffBelow,

v.

TERESA TARR, in hercapacityascounselFor theWestVirginiaJudicial InvestigationCommission,andtheWEST VIRGINIAJUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION,

Respondents/DefendantsBelow

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I herebycertifythatonApril 9th,2014,I causedtrueandcorrectcopiesof the

foregoingBrief of AmicusCuriaeDefenseTrial Counselof WestVirginiatobeservedonthe

followingpartiesbydepositingcopiesof thesame,in theUnitedStatesmail,postageprepaid,

addressedasfollows:

.,.

MichaelT. Clifford,Esq.RichelleK. Garlow,Esq.Law Officeof MichaelT. Clifford723KanawhaBlvd,E. Suite1200Charleston,WV 25301Counselfor Petitioner

Stephanie1.Shepherd,Esq.141WalnutStreet

Morgantown,WV 26505Counselfor Respondents

No. 13-1230

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

JAY LAWRENCE SMITH,PlaintiffBelow,

Petitioner,

v.

TERESA TARR, in hercapacityascounselfortheWestVirginia Judicial InvestigationCommission,andtheWEST VIRGINIAJUDICIAL INVESTIGATIONCOMMISSION,DefendantsBelow,

Respondents.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE ONBEHALF OF THE WEST VIRGINIA JUDICIAL ASSOCIATION

CarteP. Goodwin(WVSB #8039)Goodwin& Goodwin,LLP300SummersStreetSuite1500Charleston,WV 25301Telephone:(304)346-7000Facsimile:(304)344-9692cpg@goodwingoodwin.com

Counselfor AmicusCuriaeTheWestVirginiaJudicial Association

1

COMES NOW theWestVirginiaJudicialAssociation(hereinafterthe"Association"),by

counsel,andpursuanttoRule30oftheWestVirginiaRulesofAppellateProcedure,herebymoves

thisCourtfor leaveto file abriefamicuscuriaein supportof theRespondents,TeresaTarrand

the West Virginia Judicial InvestigationCommission. A brief has been filed conditionally

herewithin accordancewiththeprovisionsof Rule 30.

TheAssociationis avoluntaryassociationof WestVirginiastatecourtjudges. This case

turnson whethertheFreedomof InformationAct, W. Va. Code 29B-l-l et seq.,compels

disclosureof certaindisciplinaryrecordsof statejudicial officers.Accordingly,theresolutionof

this caseis of interestto the Association,as it could havesignificantimplicationsfor the

Association'smembers.Additionally,theAssociationhasoftenbeengrantedleavebythisCourt

to file briefsamicuscuriaein casesin whichitsmembershaveaninterest.1

Furthermore,theAssociation,asanassociationof WestVirginia statecourtjudges,hasa

uniqueperspectiveon thepotentialimpacttheresolutionof this casecouldhaveon thestate's

judiciary. The Association providesthe Courtvvitha vievvpointthatneitherof thepartiesC8.J.~

provideandonethatis necessaryto considerwhentheCourtis balancingthepublic'sinterestin

accessto informationwith a competingand equallycompellingpublic interestin preserving

judicial independence.

TheAssociationbelievesthatitsparticipationin thismatterasamicuscuriaewill provide

theCourtwith usefulassistancein its deliberationsanddecisionin thismatter.Accordingly,the

Associationrespectfullysubmitsthatitsmotionshouldbegranted,andtheproposedbrieftendered

herewithshouldbedirectedtobefiled.

J See,e.g.,AssociatedPressv. Canterbury,224W.Va. 708,688S.E.2d317(2009);Stateexrei.Kaufmanv.Zakaib,207W.Va. 662,535S.E.2d727(2000);Stateexrei.Farleyv.Spaulding,203W.Va. 275,507S.E.2d376(1998);StateexreI.Frazierv.Meadows,193W.Va. 20,454S.E.2d65(1994).

2

WEST VIRGINIA JUDICIAL ASSOCIATION

~

C eP. OOdWl B #8039)Goo in & Goodwin,LLP300SummersStreetSuite1500Charleston,WV 25301Telephone:(304)346-7000Facsimile:(304)344-9692cpg@goodwingoodwin.com

3

No. 13-1230!f,.,~ RORY l. PEFf;Y ii,CJL-t;'~"-

SUPRWE COURT DE ;y,:," "

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VtReI-N:X'x:sc'

JAY LAWRENCE SMITH,PlaintiffBelow,

Petitioner,

v.

TERESA TARR, in hercapacityascounselfor theWestVirginiaJudicial InvestigationCommission,andtheWEST VIRGINIAJUDICIAL INVESTIGATIONCOMMISSION,DefendantsBelow,

Respondents.

,---:.::

BRIEF OF THE WEST VIRGINIA JUDICIAL ASSOCIATIONAS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE RESPONDENTS,

TERESA TARR AND WEST VIRGINIA JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COM:l\HSSION

CarteP. Goodwin(WVSB #8039)Goodwin& Goodwin,LLP300SummersStreetSuite1500Charleston,WV 25301Telephone:(304)346-7000Facsimile:(304)344-9692cpg((j),goodwingoodwin.com

Counselfor AmicusCuriaeTheWestVirginiaJudicial Association

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iiI. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF THE ASSOCIATION 1

II. DISCUSSION OF LAW 1

III. CONCLUSION 8

11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PageConstitution

WestVirginiaConstitution,art.VIII 3 2

WestVirginiaConstitution,art.VIII 8 2,3

Statutes

W. Va. Code 29B-1-1etseq 1

W. Va. Code 29B-1-2 4,6

W. Va. Code 29B-1-3 2

W. Va. Code 29B-1-4 1,3

W. Va. Ruleof JudicialDisciplinaryProcedure2.4 2

Cases

AffiliatedConst.TradesFoundationv. RegionalJail &CorrectionalFacilityAuthor.,200W.Va. 621,490S.E.2d708(1997) 2

AssociatedPressv.Canterbury,224W.Va. 708,688S.E.2d317(2009) 1

Daily GazetteCo.,Inc.v. W Va.Bd ofMed., 177W.Va. 316,352S.E.2d66(1986) 3,4

Daily GazetteCo.,Inc. v. Comm.OfLegalEthicsofW Va.StateBar,174W.Va. 359,326S.E.2d705(1984) 3

Philyawv. Gatson,195W.Va. 474,466S.E.2d133(1995) .4

StateexreI.Farleyv.Spaulding,203W.Va. 275,507S.E.2d376(1998) 1

StateexreI.Frazierv.Meadows,193W.Va. 20,454S.E.2d65(1994) 1

StateexreI. GardenStateNewspapers,Inc. v. Hoke,205W.Va. 611,520S.E.2d186(1999) 5

StateexreoHeraldMail CO.V. Hamilton,165W.Va. 103,267S.E.2d544(1980) 5,6

StateexreI.KaufmanV. Zakaib,207W.Va. 662,545S.E.2d727(2000) 1,5

StateexreI. WyantV. Brotherton,214W.Va. 434,589S.E.2d812(2003) 6,7

111

StateFarmFire &CasualtyCo. v.Prinz, 231W.Va.96,743S.E.2d907(2013) .2

Orders

OrderGrantingMotiontoDismiss,Civ. Act.No. 13-C483(KanawhaCir. Ct.Oct.23,2013) 3,4

SecondarySource

Bastress,RobertM., TheWestVirginiaStateConstitution:A ReferenceGuide(1995) 3

IV

I. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF THE ALLIANCE

The West Virginia Judicial Association(hereinafterthe "Association")1is a voluntary

associationof WestVirginia statecourtjudges.In casesin whichitsmembershaveaninterest,it

hasoftenbeengrantedleavebythisCourtto filebriefsamicuscuriae.2

ThiscaseturnsonwhethertheFreedomofInformationAct ("FOIA" or"theAct"),W. Va.

Code 29B-l-l etseq.,compelsdisclosureofcertaindisciplinaryrecordsof statejudicialofficers.

Accordingly,theresolutionof this caseis of interestto all of themembersof theAssociation,

whichurgesthisCourttoexercisecautionin formulatingaresolutiontotheinstantcase.Because

of thespecialrolethatthejudicial branchplaysin ourtripartitesystemof government,thisCourt

hasalwaystreadcarefullyin applyingtheFreedomof InformationAct tojudicialcommunications

andjudicial records. The Associationsubmitsthisamicusbrief to urgethisCourtto applythe

samelevelof careandcautionin theinstantcase.

II. DISCUSSION OF LAW

Althoughwell establishedthatFOIA is intendedto generallypromotetransparencyin

government,theLegislaturehasrecognizedthattransparencyhaspracticallimits. Hence,it has

exemptedseveralcategoriesof documentsfrom public disclosure,including"information

specificallyexemptedfrom disclosureby statute."W. Va. Code 29B-1-4(a)(5).In theinstant

case,Petitionersoughtthe"totalnumberof complaints"byyearfiledagainstcertaincircuitcourt

1No counselfor apartyauthoredthisbrief in wholeor in part.No counselorpartymadeamonetarycontributionintendedto fundthepreparationorsubmissionofthis brief. No oneotherthantheWestVirginiaJudicialAssociationmadeamonetarycontributionto thepreparationor submissionof thisbrief.

2 See,e.g.,AssociatedPressv. Canterbury,224W.va. 708,688S.E.2d317(2009);StateexreI.Kaufmanv. Zakaib,207W.va. 662,535S.E.2d727(2000);StateexreI.Farley v. Spaulding,203W.Va. 275,507S.E.2d376(1998);StateexreI.Frazier v. Meadows,193W.Va. 20,454S.E.2d65(1994).

1

andfamilycourtjudges.3 Rule2.4of theWestVirginiaRulesof JudicialDisciplinaryProcedure,

however,requiresRespondentJudicial InvestigationCommissionto keepthe detailsof such

complaintsfiledagainstjudicialofficersconfidentialatthatstageof thedisciplinaryproceeding:

The detailsof complaintsfiled or investigationsconductedby the Office ofDisciplinaryCounselshallbeconfidential,exceptthatwhenacomplainthasbeenfiledor aninvestigationhasbeeninitiated,theOfficeof DisciplinaryCounselmayreleaseinformationconfirmingor denyingthe existenceof a complaintorinvestigation,explainingtheproceduralaspectsof thecomplaintor investigation,or defendingthe right of thejudge to a fair hearing.Prior to the releaseofinformationconfirmingor denyingtheexistenceof a complaintor investigation,reasonablenoticeshallbeprovidedtothejudge.

As a ruleadoptedby thisCourtpursuantto its plenaryconstitutionalauthority,Rule 2.4hasthe

forceandeffectof a statuteandsupersedesanyconflictingstatutesor regulations.SeeW. Va.

Const.,art.VIII 3,8.

TheauthoritytopromulgatesuchruleswasdirectlygrantedtotheCourt,bythepeople,in

theConstitution;hence,thatauthorityisnotsubjecttomodificationbytheLegislature.ThisCourt

hasthesole"powertopromulgaterulesforall casesandproceedings,civil andcriminal,forallof

thecourtsof theStaterelatingtowrits,warrants,processpracticeandprocedure,whichshallhave

theforceandeffectoflaw." W. Va. Const.art.VIII 3;seesyl.pt.2,StateFarmFire &Casualty

Co. v. Prinz, 231W.Va. 96,743 S.E.2d907(2013). Likewise,theConstitution"confersrule-

3 Forpurposesofconvenience,thisbriefgenerallycharacterizesPetitioner'sFOIA requestasa"requestfordocuments,"oralludestothe"documentssoughtbyPetitioner,"andsoon. By hisownadmission,however,Petitioneris seekinginformationratherthanpublicrecords.FOIA giveseverypersonthe"righttoinspectorcopyanypublicrecordofapublicbodyinthisstate,exceptasotherwiseexpresslyprovidebysectionfourofthisarticle."W.Va.Code 29B-1-3(1).As therightgrantedbytheAct isto"inspectandcopy,"thepublicrecordnecessarilyneedstobein existencebeforeapersoncanexercisethatright.SeeAffiliatedConst.TradesFoundationv.RegionalJail andCorrectionalFacilityAuthority,200W.Va.621,624,490S.E.2d708,711(1997)(citationomitted)("ThereisnoobligationundertheStateFOIA tocreateanyparticularrecord,butonlytoprovideaccesstoapublicrecordalreadycreatedandwhichis 'retained'bythepublicbodyinquestion.").Asaresult,thePetitioner'sunderlyingrequestfailedtocomplywiththerequirementsoftheActandwasthereforeimpropertobeginwith.

2

makingpowersontheWestVirginia SupremeCourtof Appealsto governtheconductofjudicial

officersandsetsforththeproceduresfor discipliningandremovingthosewhoviolatetheconduct

codes."SeeW. Va.Const.art.VIII 8;Bastress,RobertM., TheWestVirginiaStateConstitution:

A ReferenceGuide215(1995).

Simplyput,theconfidentialityrequirementsofRule2.4-like all rulesprescribed,adopted,

andpromulgatedbythisCourtpursuantto itsconstitutionalrule-makingauthority- havetheforce

andeffectoflaw. W. Va. 29B-I-4(a)(5)'suseof theword"statute"is thereforeof nomoment,

inasmuchastheLegislaturecouldnotstripthisCourtof itsconstitutionallygrantedauthorityover

thejudiciary,evenif it weresoinclined.As theCircuitCourtnoted:

The factthatRule2.4is nota statutoryprovisionenactedby theLegislatureis ofnoconsequencein thismatter.TheWestVirginiaSupremeCourthasplenaryrule-makingauthority,andtherulesit adoptshavetheforceandeffectof a statute.

(OrderGrantingMotiontoDismiss,Civ. Act.No. 13-C-483,4 (KanawhaCir. Ct. Oct.23,2013).)

Thus,Rule2.4satisfiestheexemptionsetforthinW. Va. Code 29B-I-4(a)(5)andprecludesthe

disclosure of therecordssoughtbyPetitioner~

In thisregard,thisCourt'sdecisionin Daily GazetteCo.,Inc. v. Comm.ofLegalEthicsof

W Va.StateBar, 174W.Va. 359,326S.E.2d705(1984),is readilydistinguishable.There,this

Court confrontedthedisclosureof documentsrelatedto disciplinaryinvestigationsof licensed

attorneysin thefaceof a StateBarby-lawthatpurportedtokeepall suchdocumentsconfidential

"until andunlessa recommendationfor ... disciplineis filedwiththecourt(.]" Id. at363,326

S.E.2dat709.ThisCourtinvalidatedtheby-law,findingitunconstitutionalinsofarasit failed"to

protectandvindicatethepublic'sinterestin theintegrityof thejudicial systemby unreasonably

restrictingaccessto informationconcerningformaldisciplinaryactionsagainstlawyers(.]"Id. at

368,326S.E.2dat714;seealso syl.pt. 2,Daily GazetteCo. v. W Va.Bd. of Med., 177W.Va.

3

316,352 S.E.2d 66 (1986)(extendingrationaleto disclosureof disciplinaryfiles of licensed

physicians,concludingthatoncetheBoarddeterminesthatprobablecausedoesnotexist,"the

publichasa rightof accessto thecomplaint... andthefindingsof factandconclusionsof law

supportingthedismissal.").

By contrast,Rule 2.4 servesa broader- and far more important- purposethanthe

aforementionedregulatoryprovisionsthatsoughtto shieldthedisciplinaryrecordsof licensed

professionalsfrompublicscrutiny.Lawyersarelicensedandsupervisedbythejudiciary,butthey

arenotthejudiciaryitself. Rule 2.4,on theotherhand,strikes"a balancebetweenthepublic's

righttoaccessandthisCourt'sconstitutionalobligationtoprotecttheintegrityof thejudiciaryand

theappearanceofproprietywithjudicialofficers."(OrderGrantingMotiontoDismiss5.) As the

CircuitCourtobserved:

[U]nlikeattorneyswhoarechosenbytheirclients,judgesareelectedofficialsthatdonotcontrolthepartiesthatcomebeforethem.By theverynatureof theprocess,judgesarelikelytomakeonepartyunhappy,whichresultsin frivolouscomplaintsbeingfiled. It is thesefundamentalconcernsandpoliciesthatmakethefindingsoft1-.", Sllnrprnp r'\.11rt ;"" Dn;7" G/Y"'effn "f4Pga...rl;...."n o+tOfn0"H rl;ClE"';~l;'Y'\a"'y "t"\ .. rH' ..ppr1;1"\TSL.J....I."" UPJ..ltodJ.J.V '-"VUJ. iJ.J. UHf U~ ,,~.1..... .U.U.1J.5 UL,\,. .11.'""') UJ.":>V.l.pJ..J..l.1..l 1l.1.VV'-'''''U..LJ.J.5

clearlydistinguishablefromjudicialdisciplinaryproceedings.

Id.

In otherwords,it is thesingularnatureofthejudicialbranchthatunderliesthecontrolling

distinctiondrawnbytheCircuitCourt. As thisCourthasobserved,

Sincethepowersand functions,andindeedthe entirestructure,of thejudicialbranchareuniqueand unlike any otherdepartmentof government,the rulesregulatingthosepowersandfunctionsmust,of necessity,beadaptedto recognizethosedifferences.

Philyawv. Gatson,195W.Va. 474,477,466S.E.2d133,136(1995).

Obviously,the expresslanguageof FOIA includesthe "judicial department"in the

definitionof thosepublicagenciessubjecttotheAct. W. Va. Code 29B-1-2(3)(defining"public

4

body"as"everystateofficer,agency,department,includingtheexecutive,legislativeandjudicial

departments").Nevertheless,becauseofthedistinctiveroleof thejudicialbranch,theapplication

of FOIA tothejudiciarypresentsconcernsthatarelargelyabsentin accessingpublicinformation

fromothergovernmentalbranchesandagencies.Simplyput,"[j]udgesandjudicialofficers,are

in a differentposition [from administrativedecisionmakers],and are deservingof special

protections."Kaufman,207W.Va. at669,535S.E.2dat734.TheCourtsuccinctlyobservedthat:

Whilerecognizingthatjudgesaresubjecttotheruleof lawasmuchasanyoneelse,thisCourtcannotignorethespecialstatusthatjudgeshavein ourjudicial system,andtheeffectthisdifferencehasontheprocess.

Kaufman,207W.Va. at668,535S.E.2dat733.

Becauseof the"specialstatus"thatthejudiciaryoccupies,boththeLegislatureandthis

Courthaverecognizedthatthepublic'srightto informationoftenmustbebalancedagainst- and

sometimesmustcedeto- theexceptionallycompellingpublicinterestinmaintainingtheintegrity

of thejudicial process. The judiciary'sneedfor confidentialityhas thereforeoftentrumped

attemptsto rigidly apply FOlp1 or othermeansto ex~~inecertainjudicialrecords.

Indeed, this Court has concludedthat certain considerations- including the fair

administrationof justice,theconstitutionalrightsof criminaldefendants,andtheneedto protect

theintegrityof thejudicialprocess- mayjustify limitingthepublic'saccesstocourtproceedings

ordocuments.Seee.g.,syi.pt.6,inpart,Stateexrei.GardenStateNewspapers,Inc.v.Hoke,205

W.Va.611,520S.E.2d186(1999)("Thequalifiedpublicrightof accesstocivil courtproceedings

guaranteedby Article III, Section17of theConstitutionof WestVirginia is notabsoluteandis

subjecttoreasonablelimitationsimposedintheinterestof thefairadministrationofjusticeorother

compellingpublicpolicies.");syi.pt.1,Stateexrei.HeraldMail Co.v.Hamilton,165W.Va. 103,

267S.E.2d544(1980)("Article III, Section14of theWestVirginia Constitution,whenreadin

5

lightof ouropencourtsprovisionin Article III, Section17,providesa clearbasisfor findingan

independentrightin thepublicandpresstoattendcriminalproceedings.However,therearelimits

on accessby the public and pressto a criminal trial, sincein this areaa long-established

constitutionalrighttoafairtrialis accordedthedefendant.").

Giventhis backdrop,it becomesclearthattheapplicationof FOIA to judgesis simply

different: it raisesdifferentquestions,it involvesdifferentprocesses,andit requiresdifferent

considerations.No casebetterexemplifiesthesedifferencesthanthisCourt'sholdingin Stateex

reZ.Wyantv. Brotherton,214W.Va. 434,589S.E.2d812(2003). In Brotherton,two inmates

soughtto usetheFreedomof InformationAct to obtaindocumentsfrom a circuitcourtfor the

purposeof prepari