Hamilton told Ms. Goins it would only take a few weeks to obtain court approval for the sale of the real property, close the estate, establish guardianships for the minor children and disburse the sale proceeds. The property was sold on October 26,1989, and the proceeds placed in Mr. Hamilton's trust account. The client was able to obtain sufficient funds from the trust account to satisfy the existing mortgage indebtedness. Mr. Hamilton informed Ms. Goins that all the legal matters would be finalized at a court hearing on November 9,1989. On that date, she appeared at her lawyer's office and was informed that Mr. Hamilton would be unable to attend the hearing. Ms. Goins was told that the attorney would take care of the matters the following week and her attendance would not be required. To Ms. Goins' knowledge no hearing was held nor were any papers filed with the court at the time promised by her attorney. Ms. Goins did obtain her share of the sale proceeds on December 5, 1989. Since that date, she has been unable to contact or to communicate with Mr. Hamilton. As of September 20, 1990, the funds belonging to the children had not been disbursed. Pursuant to the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law, the complainant's affidavit was sent by certified mail to Mr. Hamilton's address appearing on the Supreme Court Clerk's registry of attorneys. The mailing was returned "Undelivered" and no response was submitted by Mr. Hamilton.
GARNER L. TAYLOR, JR. Gamer L. Taylor, Jr. of Little Rock was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year for violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 8.4{c) and 8.4{d) as a result of a complaint filed by John Kiefer. Mr. Taylor was retained to represent Mr. Kiefer in his effort to obtain post-conviction relief. Mr. Taylor was paid a retainer of $750.00 on March 7, 1989, and received an additional fee of $4,250.00 on March 18, 1989. Between March 10 and May 19, 1989, Mr. Taylor visited Mr. Kiefer four times at the Department of Correction. Since the date of the last visit, Mr. Kiefer and other persons on his behalf have been unable to contact Mr. Taylor by letter or telephone. Mr. Kiefer was able to determine that no application for relief was ever filed on his behalf by Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor was served with the complaint but failed to file a response. Mr. Taylor was issued a letter of reprimand for violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 8.4(d} as a result of a Per Curiam. The appellants, Gary and Dixie Cranford, retained Mr. Taylor to appeal the denial of their petition for post-conviction relief. He filed notice of appeal and timely lodged the record but failed to file the appellants' brief. The Cranfords, unable to establish contact with Mr. Taylor, successfully petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court for permission to file a belated brief. Mr. Taylor received the Committee's complaint but failed to respond.
2 2
ARKANSAS
LANNY K. SOLLOWAY Lanny K. Solloway of Fayetteville was issued a letter of reprimand for violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 8.4{d) as a result of a complaint filed by Darlene Proctor. Ms. Proctor stated that Mr. Solloway was retained to pursue a civil rights action against the Veterans Administration. Over the next two years Ms. Proctor reported extreme difficulty in contacting Mr. Solloway or receiving satisfactory responses to inquiries regarding the case status. Several administrative reviews and appeals of Ms.. Proctor's claim were conducted within the governmental agency. Following initial denials for relief, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Office of Review and Appeals granted the relief sought. Ms. Proctor was advised by the agency to submit certain information regarding employment and income data to be used in the determination of the award settlement. She immediately informed Mr. Solloway of this information and provided him with necessary documentation to comply with the agency's request. Mr. Solloway assured her the matter would be handled promptly. The VA sent Ms. Proctor two subsequent requests for the information. The last request imposed a deadline for receipt of the information for consideration. Mr. Solloway assured his client that the information would be timely submitted even if he had to "hand deliver" the material. At noon on the final day for submission of the information, Ms. Proctor contacted Mr. Solloway and discovered that Mr. Solloway had not completed preparation of the material. In an attempt to comply with the VA request, she prepared a letter and personally delivered it to the agency's offices. Mr. Solloway did not respond to the complaint. Mr. Solloway was reprimanded for violation of Rules 1.3 and 8.4{d) as a result of a Per Curiam. The Arkansas Court of Appeals granted a Motion for Rule on the Clerk after Mr. Solloway admitted that the appeal brief was not filed on time due to his negligence. Mr. Solloway was served with the complaint from the Committee but failed to file a response.
LARRY W. HORTON Larry W. Horton of Malvern was reprimanded for violation of Model Rules 1.3,3.2 and 8.4(d) as a result of a Per Curiam. The Arkansas Court of Appeals denied the State's motion to dismiss the appeal in a criminal case for appellant's failure to timely file a brief. The Court found that Mr. Horton had previously received an extension of time in which to file appellant's brief. After that extension expired without filing of the appellant's brief, the Clerk of the Court twice wrote Mr. Horton to inquire of the status of the appeal and requesting a response. No response was received by the Clerk. In his response to the Committee, Mr. Horton stated that, after filing notice of appeal, he was contacted by the client and advised that other counsel was being employed to pursue the appeal. He
LAWYER
APRIL
admitted receiving the Clerk's first inquiry but did not respond because he was told by the client "not to worry about it". Mr. Horton said that, due to difficulty in maintaining contact with his client, prolonged hospitalization and relocation of his office, he did not receive the Clerk's second letter until after the issuance of the Per Curiam.
HARRELL A. SIMPSON, JR. Harrell A. Simpson, Jr. of Pocahontas was issued a letter of reprimand for violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 and 8.4{d) as a result of a complaint filed by Trina Hackworth. Ms. Hackworth said she retained Mr. Simpson in April 1990, to file a petition for increased child support from her former husband. Ther:eafter, Ms. Hackworth was served with a petition seeking visitation rights on behalf of the paternal grandparents. She telephoned Mr. Simpson to inform him of the petition. He said he would take care of it and for her to send him the papers, which she did on May 3. On Friday afternoon, July 20, 1990, the paternal grandparents appeared at the Hackworth's home to pick up their grandchild for visitation. Ms. Hackworth refused to permit her daughter to leave with the grand parents. The grandfather attempted to present a copy of a court order to Ms. Hackworth, but she told the parties to come back later when her husband returned from work. The grandfather told Ms. Hackworth that she and her husband would be in contempt of court if they refused visitation. The grandparents subsequently returned and further discussion ensued concerning the visitation rights. The Hackworths refused to allow the child to depart. Mr. Hackworth became involved in a heated exchange and confrontation with the grandfather. Ms. Hackworth was unable to contact her attorney that evening, but talked with him the following morning and related the events. Ms. Hackworth said Mr. Simpson told her that she and her husband might be in a little trouble and that she should call the grandparents to make arrange-ments for visitation. She requested that Mr. Simpson contact the grandparents' attorney. Ms. Hackworth checked with the chancery clerk on Monday, July 23, 1990, and discovered that a hearing had been held July 12 at which the paternal grand-parents were granted visitation to have commenced the preceding weekend. She stated she had not received notice of a hearing. Although the records of the court reflected Mr. Simpson had received notice, he failed to appear at the hearing. Later that Monday, Ms. Hal:kworth was served with a show cause order for contempt and her hu band was served an arrest warrant for assault. Ms. Hackworth terminated Mr. Simpson's representation and requested return of her files. As of the date of Ms. Hackworth's affidavit of complaint, Mr. Simpson had not complied with her request. Mr. Simpson was served with the Committee's complaint but failed to submit a response.
1 9 9 1