MINGO COUNTY, WV (LOOTPRESS) – The West Virginia Supreme Court has denied a petition by disbarred attorney and former Mingo County Prosecuting Attorney C. Michael Sparks to resume practicing law, citing serious concerns over his credibility and the integrity of the legal profession.
Sparks, who was disbarred in 2013 after pleading guilty to a federal misdemeanor in a political corruption scandal, had asked the court to reinstate his law license following more than a decade of disbarment. While a disciplinary panel recommended reinstatement with supervision, the state’s high court rejected that recommendation, pointing to troubling inconsistencies between Sparks’ sworn admissions during his plea and his testimony seeking reinstatement.
A Checkered Past in Public Office
Sparks served as Mingo County’s prosecutor for nearly a decade before resigning in 2013 as part of a plea deal. He admitted to being involved in a scheme to coerce a criminal defendant, George White, into firing his attorney. The goal was to protect then-Sheriff Eugene Crum, who was allegedly under federal scrutiny. In exchange, Sparks offered White a more lenient plea deal — an action that violated White’s constitutional right to counsel and ultimately led to Sparks’ disbarment and a year-long prison sentence.
The Supreme Court’s opinion emphasized that Sparks, under oath during his federal court proceedings, had clearly admitted to knowingly participating in the scheme. However, in his bid for reinstatement, Sparks attempted to downplay his role, suggesting he merely failed to intervene rather than actively participating.
“A Betrayal of Public Trust”
In the court’s ruling, Chief Justice Elizabeth Wooton wrote that Sparks’ actions represented a “serious affront to the United States Constitution” and a “betrayal of the public trust attached to the office” of prosecutor. The court also criticized Sparks’ shifting narratives, noting that he had offered “two contradictory accounts of his misconduct — both under oath.”
Though the disciplinary panel credited Sparks for cooperating with federal investigators and praised his conduct since disbarment, the court found that his attempts to minimize his involvement undermined any claim of rehabilitation.
“Rehabilitation is not merely about living a clean life after disbarment,” the court said. “It requires a full and honest acknowledgment of past misconduct. Mr. Sparks has not met that burden.”
Concerns Extend Beyond One Case
The court also noted that Sparks’ misconduct was not isolated. At the time of his disbarment, Sparks had multiple other disciplinary complaints pending, some of which involved allegations of politically motivated prosecutions and abuse of authority — complaints that were closed when he surrendered his law license.
While Sparks’ attorneys argued he had changed and deserved a second chance, the justices concluded that allowing him back into the legal profession could undermine public confidence in the legal system, particularly in areas still grappling with the legacy of past corruption.
Divided Opinions
The decision was not unanimous. Justices Trump and Walker dissented, reserving the right to file separate opinions. Justice Bunn recused herself from the case.
A Final Word
While Sparks will have the opportunity to petition again in the future, the ruling sends a strong message about the high standards attorneys must meet — especially those entrusted with public office.
“This case reminds us that holding public office comes with immense responsibility,” the court wrote. “Restoring public faith in our institutions requires more than just time — it demands truth, accountability, and integrity.”
