Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Veneri

Randall Veneri (defendant) was licensed to practice law in West Virginia. Veneri represented a husband in a divorce. The husband had two employee benefit plans: a defined-benefit retirement plan and a tax-deferred savings plan known as a thrift and investment plan (TIP). The wife mistakenly thought these were one plan, and the husband mistakenly believed the TIP was not a benefit plan. Thus, in the asset-disclosure process, Veneri mistakenly represented that the husband had only one benefit plan. The family court ruled the couple would split the husband’s “pension rights” and asked the parties to prepare the overall order. The wife’s attorney drafted a proposed order that included splitting the TIP and sent it to Veneri’s office. Veneri asked his office’s tax specialist—Veneri’s son—to review the proposed order. The husband told Veneri’s son that the TIP language was an error. The son saw that the ruling said to split pension rights and did not consider the TIP to be pension rights. Believing the TIP language was truly an error, Veneri’s son asked a secretary to replace the TIP language with retirement-plan language. The son did not inform Veneri about the change. The secretary failed to follow her usual procedure of notifying opposing counsel of changes. The wife’s attorney unknowingly filed the modified order, and the court signed it. When the husband’s employer received the order, it requested clarification of the retirement-plan language, alerting the wife that the two plans were separate. The wife’s attorney prepared a revised order splitting both plans. The husband refused to agree to the new language, claiming the TIP was solely his. Veneri argued the parties had not agreed to split the TIP and did not disclose that his office had altered the original order. The family court ruled that both plans should be split and finalized the divorce with those terms. The wife brought an ethics complaint against Veneri for failing to disclose (1) the TIP during negotiations and (2) that his office had altered the proposed order. The state bar’s disciplinary board (plaintiff) found that Veneri’s failure to disclose the TIP was an excusable mistake but his failure to disclose the order modification was an ethical violation. The board recommended a one-year suspension of Veneri’s law license. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals considered the matter.