HB5366 amends West Virginia law governing the Supreme Court of Appeals’ authority over the practice of law and the West Virginia State Bar. The bill keeps in place the Court’s rulemaking power over attorney ethics, discipline, bar governance, and related administrative matters, and it adds a new confidentiality provision for records connected to the West Virginia Judicial and Lawyer Assistance Program.
Specifically, the bill provides that records, files, or other documents gathered or provided under Supreme Court rules relating to the program’s procedures, referrals, and services are not public records and are exempt from disclosure under the state Freedom of Information Act, to the extent the Court’s rules designate them as confidential. The measure is framed as an amendment to §51-1-4a and takes effect 90 days after passage.
Impact
The bill narrows public access to certain Judicial and Lawyer Assistance Program materials by expressly exempting them from FOIA when designated confidential under Supreme Court rules. It does not broadly alter public-records law, but it creates a specific statutory carveout within the section governing the Supreme Court’s regulation of the legal profession and the State Bar. Attorneys, judges, and participants in assistance programs are the primary affected parties, along with the Supreme Court of Appeals and the West Virginia State Bar, which may continue to administer confidentiality rules for sensitive referral and treatment-related information.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly noncontroversial and received unanimous support in both chambers. It passed the House 91-0, the Senate 32-0, and the House again 94-0 after the Senate amended the title, suggesting strong bipartisan agreement that the confidentiality protections were appropriate. The lack of committee transcript material also suggests there was little recorded public dispute around the measure.
Contention
No major contention is evident in the available record. The only potentially sensitive issue is the balance between transparency under the Freedom of Information Act and confidentiality for lawyer-assistance records, but the unanimous votes indicate that lawmakers did not view this as a significant conflict. Any concern would likely come from open-government advocates or those wary of expanding FOIA exemptions, while supporters would include the judiciary, the State Bar, and those favoring privacy for participants in assistance programs.