Amie L. Johnson, Esquire                                Donald L. Pitts, Esquire
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel                         Wheeling, West Virginia
Charleston, West Virginia                                Attorney for Respondent, Pro Se
Attorney for Petitioner                     

The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.

JUSTICE STARCHER concurs and reserves the right to file a concurring Opinion.

*JUSTICE MCGRAW dissents and reserves the right to file a dissenting Opinion.

*On September 27, 2000, JUSTICE MCGRAW withdrew his right to file a dissenting Opinion and simply dissents.

        “'Under the authority of the Supreme Court of Appeal's inherent power to supervise, regulate and control the practice of law in this State, the Supreme Court of Appeals may suspend the license of a lawyer or may order such other actions as it deems appropriate, after providing the lawyer with notice and an opportunity to be heard, when there is evidence that a lawyer (1) has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or is under a disability and (2) poses a substantial threat of irreparable harm to the public until the underlying disciplinary proceeding has been resolved.' Syl. Pt. 2, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Ikner, 190 W. Va. 433, 438 S.E.2d 613 (1993).” Syllabus, Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel v. Butcher, 197 W. Va. 162, 475 S.E.2d 162 (1996).

Per Curiam:

        This case is before the Court upon the Report Concerning Disability filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) regarding the Respondent, Donald L. Pitts, an administratively suspended member of the West Virginia State Bar.See footnote 1 ¹ The ODC requests this Court to indefinitely suspend the Respondent's law license.See footnote 2 ² The ODC additionally requests that this Court authorize the Chief Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit to appoint an attorney to inventory the Respondent's files and take action to protect the clients' interest.See footnote 3 ³ Finally, the ODC requests that the Court hold in abeyance any ethics complaints filed and/or pending against the Respondent until he is able to defend himself. Based upon a review of the record in this case,See footnote 4 ⁴ we grant the suspension, as well as the other relief sought by the ODC.See footnote 5 ⁵

        In June 1999, the Respondent's former secretary sent letters to clients advising them of the Respondent's health problems and that he would be returning to work in October of 1999. Disciplinary Counsel spoke with the Respondent on September 21, 1999. During that conversation, the Respondent indicated that he was still experiencing health problems and was unable to work, although he had completed cardiac rehabilitation. The Respondent expressed a willingness to be administratively suspended.

        The Respondent's law office has been closed since June 22, 1999. The Respondent apparently has tried, to no avail, to make arrangements with other lawyers to monitor his cases during his absence. Neither the Respondent, nor anyone on his behalf, has been in contact with the Respondent's clients for many months. There are numerous disciplinary matters pending concerning the Respondent's conduct since his health problems began.

        This Court examined a case analogous to the instant one in Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel v. Butcher, 197 W. Va. 162, 475 S.E.2d 162 (1996).See footnote 6 ⁶ In Butcher, a lawyer was allegedly suffering from a mental illness which caused him to be disabled from the practice of law and which also caused him to commit numerous and substantial violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In deciding to suspend the lawyer's license indefinitely in Butcher, we relied upon the following:

            “Under the authority of the Supreme Court of Appeal's inherent power to supervise, regulate and control the practice of law in this State, the Supreme Court of Appeals may suspend the license of a lawyer or may order such other actions as it deems appropriate, after providing the lawyer with notice and an opportunity to be heard, when there is evidence that a lawyer (1) has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or is under a disability and (2) poses a substantial threat of irreparable harm to the public until the underlying disciplinary proceeding has been resolved.” Syl. Pt. 2, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Ikner, 190 W. Va. 433, 438 S.E.2d 613 (1993).
        
197 W. Va. at 163, 475 S.E.2d at 163, syllabus.

        In the instant case, the facts undeniably reflect that the Respondent is suffering from a physical disability brought about by his heart condition, as well as the other serious medical problems from which he suffers. It is also uncontroverted by the Respondent that his medical condition has forced him essentially to abandon his law practice, thereby jeopardizing both his and his client's legal interests.

        We, therefore, find it necessary to suspend the Respondent's law license until further order of the Court. We further order that any ethics complaints filed and/or pending against the Respondent be held in abeyance pending further order of this Court. The Respondent is required, pursuant to Rule 3.24(a) of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure, to petition this Court for reinstatement of his law license when he can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that his disability has been removed and that he is physically fit to resume the practice of law. Id. Finally, the Court authorizes the Honorable John Hutchison, Chief Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, to continue the appointment of a lawyer or lawyers to inventory the Respondent's files and to take such action as indicated to protect the interests of both the Respondent and his clients.