By Liz Beavers
lbeavers@newstribune.info
Tribune Managing Editor
KEYSER – Conflict of interest allegations that had been filed against Keyser attorney Daniel R. James have been dropped in a unanimous decision filed June 23 by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
An ethics complaint against James was originally filed with the Lawyer Disciplinary Board by Jay and Margaret Reed of Florida, the parents of a 14-year-old girl who was killed when a pickup truck in which she was riding wrecked on July 16, 2005.
The 19-year-old driver of the truck, Jonathan Martin McRobie of Elk Garden, was indicted by a Mineral County Grand Jury for driving under the influence of alcohol causing death, negligent homicide, DUI, involuntary manslaughter, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Although James represented McRobie in the case, which ultimately resulted in a plea bargain in which McRobie entered a plea of nolo contendere to the lesser charge of unlawful driving while DUI causing a death, the Reeds claimed that James improperly conferred with both the McRobies and the Reeds prior to agreeing to represent the defendant.
According to State Supreme Court documents, Jay Reed went to James’ office in Keyser  shortly after the accident “because he thought he would need the assistance of an attorney to help his family navigate the legal issues he thought would follow.”
While Reed was speaking with James’ secretary, James was apparently meeting with McRobie and his parents.
Reed left contact information with James’ secretary and received a phone call from his office while he was on his way home.
Both Jay and Margaret Reed met with James later that afternoon, and after they had discussed a number of issues with him, they said he informed them “that he was not sure whether he would represent them or the McRobies.”
“The next day,” according to court records, James “informed the complainants that he had decided to represent Jonathan McRobie in the criminal matter.”
During the course of the case against McRobie, the Reeds filed a motion to disqualify James from representing the young driver, but the motion was withdrawn “prior to a full evidentiary hearing being held in the matter.”
After the Reeds filed their complaint with the Lawyer Disciplinary Board following the conclusion of the criminal case, a hearing was held before a panel of three judges on Feb. 19, 2008,  in which testimony was heard from both Margaret and Jay Reed  and James.
In August 2008, the judges’ panel found that James had not violated any ethical rules and therefore recommended that the charges be dismissed.
The judges ruled that there was no lack of conflict since the McRobies were “actual” clients while the Reeds were “potential” clients.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, however, filed an objection to the subcommittee’s recommendation with the Supreme Court of Appeals on Sept. 18, 2008.
According to court records, the counsel “asserts that the consultations which (James) had with both complainants and the McRobies ... was sufficient to form attorney-client relationships with both and thus, (James) violated Rules 1.7 and/or 1.9
of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct.”
Rule 1.7 deals with general  conflicts of interest, and Rule 1.9 deals with representation of a former client.
Arguments in the case were heard on Jan. 27.
Referring to “distinctions between a potential client and an actual client,” the ruling issued June 23 stated that “Rule 1.7 does not apply unless there are two actual clients,” and therefore had “no application in this case.”
The ruling went on to state that Rule 1.9 does not apply to the James case since he “did not perform any work on behalf of the Reeds and otherwise never represented the Reeds.”
James told the News Tribune Thursday he had chosen to represent McRobie over the Reeds because he felt McRobie “ needed a lawer more than the Reeds.”
“I wasn’t motiviated by money, but rather to help a good 19-year-old young man who was confronted with complex legal issues.
“I zealously represented Mr. McRobie, treated the Reeds compassionately and directed them in the right path where they were able to settle their wrongful death action without paying fees that would have exceeded $300,000.
“I am pleased that our state’s Highest Court has upheld my integrity, my good name, and my rating in the top percent of trial lawyers in America,” he said.