Uploaded April 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Cunningham v. Sommerville
West Virginia Supreme Court
388 S.E. 2d. 301 (1989)
Generally, courts have the power to appoint attorneys for indigent defendants to preserve the constitutional right to counsel.
Correspondingly, it's a lawyer's duty as an officer of the court to accept such appointments, except under limited circumstances.
Cunningham versus Somerville discusses what constitutes good cause for an attorney to avoid an appointment.
Paula Cunningham worked full time for Go Mart Incorporated as its general counsel. Cunningham had no separate private law practice.
As a condition of Cunningham's employment, Go Mart prohibited her from having outside employment commitments.
Go Mart's personnel rules required Cunningham to work at least thirty nine hours a week to maintain her medical and life insurance coverage.
Cunningham averaged fifty hours of work per week, and sometimes worked as many as seventy five hours in a week.
Over approximately six months, judges a l Somerville and Danny Klein of West Virginia's fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court appointed Cunningham to represent forty three indigent criminal defendants charged with seventy five crimes.
Cunningham moved to be relieved as counsel in these cases.
The trial court denied her motion, finding that Cunningham was required to accept the appointments because she held a law license.
Cunningham petitioned the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition against Somerville and Cline, asking that they be prohibited from appointing her as counsel until she had a law practice separate from her full time employment as Gomart's in house counsel.
The court considered Cunningham's petition.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/cunningham-v-sommerville
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/cunningham-v-sommerville
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Cunningham v. Sommerville
West Virginia Supreme Court
388 S.E. 2d. 301 (1989)
Generally, courts have the power to appoint attorneys for indigent defendants to preserve the constitutional right to counsel.
Correspondingly, it's a lawyer's duty as an officer of the court to accept such appointments, except under limited circumstances.
Cunningham versus Somerville discusses what constitutes good cause for an attorney to avoid an appointment.
Paula Cunningham worked full time for Go Mart Incorporated as its general counsel. Cunningham had no separate private law practice.
As a condition of Cunningham's employment, Go Mart prohibited her from having outside employment commitments.
Go Mart's personnel rules required Cunningham to work at least thirty nine hours a week to maintain her medical and life insurance coverage.
Cunningham averaged fifty hours of work per week, and sometimes worked as many as seventy five hours in a week.
Over approximately six months, judges a l Somerville and Danny Klein of West Virginia's fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court appointed Cunningham to represent forty three indigent criminal defendants charged with seventy five crimes.
Cunningham moved to be relieved as counsel in these cases.
The trial court denied her motion, finding that Cunningham was required to accept the appointments because she held a law license.
Cunningham petitioned the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition against Somerville and Cline, asking that they be prohibited from appointing her as counsel until she had a law practice separate from her full time employment as Gomart's in house counsel.
The court considered Cunningham's petition.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/cunningham-v-sommerville
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/cunningham-v-sommerville
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
