disciplinary actions Weaver's address as it ~lppear\ on the registr) of attorneys kept by the C1er~ of the Arkansal\ Supreme Coun. The complaint
was returned by the postal authorities with
the notation. ··Unclaimed··. Following
matter prior to the time allowed to file an answer. When the matter was joiml} dismissed and the default judgment set aside. anford continued to assert a right to the
attempts at two other addresses to serve
3.000 attorneis fee he was awarded in the default judgment. Despite there being a dis-
Weaver with the complaint in the manner
pute over which lien
holder~
were emitled to
described above. both of which were
the funds. Sanford did not voluntarily
returned "Unclaimed". Weaver was person-
implead any of the funds into a courl of competent jurisdiction but was forced to do \0 in a subsequent lawsuit. Sanford never
ally served on June 29. 1994. wi.h the complaint and transmiual letter. Weaver failed
to respond to the complaint and pursuant to
the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law. Section 50 (I). the fomlal complaint was submitted to the Committee for adjudication.
JON
R.
wa~ is~ucd
to Jon R.
Sanford for violation of Model Rules IA(b). 1.5(a), 1.5(c), 1.15(c) and 1.16(d) upon the complaint of Carroll and adine Jackson. The letter of caution was filed wi.h the Clerk on August I . 1995. The Committee had presented '0 it for consideration Lhe affidavit of Carroll and
adine Jackson. Mr. and M". Jackson asserted many
matter~
in their affidavit rela-
tive to Sanford·s representation of lhem in a personal injury matter and a lender liability lawsuit. Mr. and Mrs. Jackson were origi-
nally represented by Evelyn Moorehead but elected to have Sanford solely represent them during March 1991. In theiraffidavil.
Mr. and Mrs. Jackson stated that Sanford advised them of one settlement offer but failed to advise of structured settlement
offers. Sanford advised Mr. and Mrs. Jackson not to accept the one offer of which
he did tell them. Their reliance on his advice was to their detriment. It was also his decision to have a bench trial without
explaining this to Mr. and Mrs. Jackson. After the bench trial. Mr. and Mr>. Jackson requested that Sanford appeal the decision of the trial judge but he refused. After receiv~ ing the insurance draft, Sanford brought suit against Mr. and Mrs. Jackson b:'l<;;ed n their failure to endorse the insurance draft.
Sanford lOok a Default Judgment in this ~
cussed the options with them. Sanford acknowledged his rdu5.al to prosecute an
appeal for the Jacksons. As to the $3.000 fee. Sanford stated that he had relinquished any claim to it and had voluntarily deposited it into the registry of the Court. I-Ie asselled that he did have a right to the fee he charged in reducing a previous attorney's lien because of the amount he saved lht:1Il on the
demonstrated that he took a fee on an
lien first asserted by the previous allomey. As to the release of 1r. and Mrs. Jacksons files. Sanford stated that he offered to accommodate them but he could not simpl)
amount not detennined as protected and a $1.000 fee on an action which was dismi"ed. Sanford also paid himself 606.69
ardize hi, defense of any legal malpractice claim that had been threatened again"il him.
provided explanation. Sanford did make pay-outs and provided explana.ion '0 the Internal Revenue Service. The explanation
turn over the file since to do so would jeop-
for litigation costs to which no documenta~ tion was provided to establish. In addition,
SANFORD
A letter of caution
Jackson testified that she just ··assumed·· he had alread) waived a jur) trial when he dis-
The Arkansas La" er
Fall 1995
Sanford paid himself a large fee for reducing ano.her allorney"s lien. Because of all the problems wiLh the insurance draft and pro~ ceed,,>. Mr. and Mrs. Jackson chose to hire another lawyer to represent them in their lender liability lawsuit but were unable (0
obtain release of their files from Sanford. This was despite having others also request
their files from him. Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson al~o included information relating to Sanford's entry of a Consent Judgment on
their behalf without ad\i,ing them. When responding to the affidavit of Mr. and Mrs. Jackson. Sanford requested that the Committee consider the aflidavit in the
con~
teXl of clients who were billerly disappointed wi.h the results of their trial. Sanford ~tated that he put n great deal of effort into
Mr. and Mrs. Jackson's lawsuit. Sanford also set out thai both he and a certified financial planner explained the structured settlement offers to the Jacksons and encour~
aged lhem to consider the offers but they refused. Sanford stated lhat they were adamam in rejecting any structured settle-
ment. Sanford also asserted tha. he was not asked any advice on whether to accept any
offer. Sanford denied elec.ing a bench trial without consulting with Mr. and Mrs.
Jackson. Sanford set Ollt that he discussed the option with them in detail and that they lavored having a bend! trial. Sanford staled that in a subsequent depo~ition. Mr~.
A.
WAYNE DAVIS
A letter of caution was i~sued to A. Wayne Davis for \iolation of Model Rule
1.5 (cj upon the complaint of Ka.hryn Garrison. The letter of caution was filed
"ith the Clerk on Augu<t 18. 1995. In her affidavit. Ms. Garrison stated thai Da\'is agreed to represent her in a personal injury matter and that he would not charge a fee fur this representation. Ms. Garrison.
who was one of Davis employees. insisted that he take a five percent contingent fee and made many requests that a written fee agree-
ment be prepared. She <ta.ed that Davis became hostile and refused saying thai therc was no need for a wriuen agreement. When the matter was ~etlled. Ms. Garrison requested the entire amOUIH be given to her so that
she could make disbursements to the medical providers. She averred thaI this request made because. during the course of her employment. Ms. Garrison became uncomwa~
fortable with the leng.h of time it took Davis to payout funds of any kinu. Instead. Da\is
provided Ms. Garrison with a S7.500 cashier's check which represented her portion of the settlement. When she requested a sculement statement. Davis told her that her
bills were paid and that there were still funds owed her. When she received those funds and the statement of disbur~cments. ~everal discrepancies were noted including failure to