Listen to “Did Hanshaw Violate Ethics in Representing Developer?” on Spreaker.
In a word, no.
News surfaced late last week that West Virginia House Speaker Roger Hanshaw is representing the developer of a controversial data center project in Tucker County. It’s a fair story, and it was well reported both in print and during the Talkline segment reporter Dan Parks joined us for on Monday.
Hanshaw, an attorney with the Charleston law firm Bowles Rice, along with two colleagues, notified the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals on March 16 that they represent Fundamental Data, a Delaware company seeking to build a large power plant to supply electricity to a data center complex.
The filing came just two days after the 2026 legislative session ended. Hanshaw previously played a role in shepherding through a 2025 law that deregulated data centers in West Virginia, and lawmakers this year approved rules outlining how that law will be implemented.
The proposed project has generated significant local opposition, with community groups promising to challenge it through legal and regulatory avenues.
But consider the broader context.
West Virginia is a small state. The business and legal communities here are even smaller. That creates an environment where people frequently cross paths, compete with one another and yes, sometimes lawyers serve in the state legislature — a citizen legislature – and have ties to employers or clients affected by legislation.
Lawmakers in West Virginia are part-time officials. They are compensated for their service, but not at a level that allows them to leave their professions behind. Hanshaw is no different. The state paid him just shy of $49,000 in 2024 — more than a typical delegate because of the additional responsibilities and time required of the Speaker.
Forty-nine thousand dollars isn’t chump change, but it’s nowhere near what someone with Hanshaw’s résumé could command in the private sector. He’s an accomplished parliamentarian, a practicing attorney, and holds a doctorate in chemistry from Notre Dame — credentials that make him highly valuable in his profession.
Some critics argue he shouldn’t represent a developer in the data center space. But why not? What other industries should he be banned from representing?
Each legislative session includes numerous Rule 49 requests — when a House member asks for a ruling on whether they should vote on an issue where a potential conflict might exist. The rule creates transparency in an impossible situation given the variables discussed above. That’s the reality of a citizen legislature made up of teachers who vote on education issues, doctors who vote on healthcare policy, and energy industry professionals who vote on energy matters. The examples are endless.
Hanshaw is no different. Should we ban all teachers – current or former – from voting on education legislation? Sorry doctor, no vote on healthcare issues for you. Where does it end?
The speaker made the appropriate disclosure through filings with the Intermediate Court of Appeals — a publicly available record. Why should he be expected to turn down a client simply because he once voted on legislation related to the industry? Especially when data center development involves multiple companies and projects across the state. Remember, the law applies uniformly to all data center developers, not only to the developer Hanshaw represents.
Does the Speaker have a higher duty than a member of the body? Would anyone raise this issue if a member not as visible as Hanshaw was representing the developer? What incentive is there for our best and brightest to seek such a position if they are financially handicapped? Questions that should provoke thought among the masses.
Granted, the optics make for good political theater. Opponents of the Tucker County project are understandably raising the issue as part of their broader effort to stop the development. Many residents view the proposal as a threat to keeping Tucker County pristine and undisturbed.
That’s politics and almost anything is fair in politics.
But the rush to portray this as an ethics violation feels more like casting the first stone than a genuine infraction. Most people recognize the difference.
If those pointing fingers are truly concerned about lawmakers representing private clients, then the logical solution would be to move to a full-time legislature that prohibits outside employment — or significantly increase legislative salaries so members aren’t practicing their professions while serving.
Neither idea has much political or practical appetite.
And in the grand scheme of issues facing West Virginia, this one ranks fairly low on the list.
Click here to view Hanshaw’s notice of appearance to the ICA