Attorney General Darrell McGraw’s abusive spending practices have taken center stage once again. Appearing before the Senate Finance Committee last week, McGraw had to defend his office’s structuring of a recent $11.6 million lawsuit settlement. McGraw tries to claim that the suit is good for West Virginia citizens, but state Legislators claim that McGraw is usurping their power by misappropriating state funds.
Lost in the media coverage is the fact that McGraw once again appointed campaign contributors, this time Teresa Toriseva and Guy Bucci, to do his dirty work. If their retention agreements are anything like those of past “special assistant attorneys general,” expect the trial lawyers to receive a couple million in legal fees.
Check out what some local media outlets have been saying of McGraw’s latest lawsuit boondoggle.
There’s been a lot of talk in the news lately about judicial recusal. We thought a couple of additional examples are worth mentioning. First, check out the following video footage of Justice Larry Starcher making disparaging remarks about the CEO of a company whose case is currently pending before the court.
In light of his remarks, do you think Justice Starcher should recuse himself from any case involving Massey Energy?
Also check out the following Daily Mail editorial, which details former Justice Warren McGraw’s refusal to recuse himself from a case involving his brother.
Charleston Daily Mail
November 21, 2001, Wednesday
McGraws: A justice should not be judge of his brother’s bid for power
West Virginia suffers from too many McGraws. Darrell McGraw is the state’s attorney general. Warren McGraw is the chief justice of the state Supreme Court.
Warren should step aside in a case that Darrell has brought before the Supreme Court.
Having an attorney general and a justice as brothers is a bad idea. In 1999, when his brother took office, Darrell told The Associated Press that Warren could sit in most cases that the attorney general’s office brings to the high court.
“The bottom line is: anything involving me personally, he should not sit on,” Darrell said. “Anything that’s considered in the state’s interest, he should surely sit on or the people would be deprived of the benefit of their vote.”
Well, this time it is personal. This time, Warren should sit it out.
Darrell would like to expand the powers of the attorney general so that every lawyer in state government falls under his purview.
This ironically is at odds with a decision that Darrell wrote when he was on the Supreme Court in which he defended then-Secretary of State A. James Manchin’s right to be defended by a lawyer independent of the attorney general’s office.
“To accord the attorney general the power he claims would leave all branches and agencies of government deprived of access to the court except by his grace and with his consent,” Darrell wrote for the court in 1982.
Given that Darrell now seeks to deprive other elected officials “access to the court except by his grace and with his consent,” the state’s highest court must operate on its best behavior. Having his brother help decide whether he should gain such extraordinary powers is more than the public should bear.
When Darrell was on the high court, he abused his power in many ways, including trying to get time as a student janitor in college counted toward a judicial pension. Voters had enough and tossed him out. Voters expect more from a Supreme Court justice.
Brother Warren should keep that in mind and remove himself posthaste from this case.
Despite much public criticism, Justice Warren McGraw did not step down in the case involving his brother, Darrell.
Powered by FireStats