disciplinary actions his actions in writing the letter as he did
involved in a motor vehicle accident on July
should not be considered as violating Rule 4.4.
18, 1994. A gentleman, Tim Mason,
Carole Diane Sexton A letter of caution was issued to Carole
Diane Sexton for violation of Model Rule 4.2 upon the complaint of Tom Floyd. This Rule states, in part, that in representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about
approached her at the scene, inquired about her injuries and if she intended to seek med-
ical treatment. He then stated that he had overheard the driver of the other vehicle say that he resided outside the state and was
leaving Arkansas that night. Mason told Conley that if she would authorize him to do so, he would gather information from the
since Morris and Mason were unavailable for service of subpoena to testify at the hearing.
In any event, Mays conceded that Conley's employment contract undoubtedly showed up in his oHioes no later than July 19, 1994. since Conley received a letter of that date from Mays firm regarding the initiation of work on her case. However, no one was able to recount specifically how or when the agreement was received by his firm. Mays also stated in his response and testified at the evidentiary hearing that his case
the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by anoth-
other driver. He presented an "Agreement"
er lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is autho-
investigative services. He also gave her a
business card, told Conley to call the num-
was handled according to office procedure. Specifically, Mays testified that an attorney
rized by law to do so. Tom Floyd was the opposing party in a
ber, speak with Catherine Stevens and she would recommend a doctor. When she made
a case but not having brought this file to the
divorce action in which Sexton represented
the call, Conley learned that the "agreement"
hearing he was unable to say which attorney
the defendant. During the pendency of this action, Sexton approached Floyd as he was on his way from the parking lot to his attor-
was, in fact, a contract for legal services with
accepted this case. Mays testified that his
the Mays and Crutcher Law Offices. Stevens did make a doctor's appointment for Conley and told her that although Mays was her
trained support staff is monitored and supervised by an attorney who coordinates this
ney's office. At that time Sexton attempted
to discuss with Mr. Floyd various property matters which directly related to the divorce settlement. Sexton also advised Floyd that he could contact her anytime to discuss this
pending matter. Floyd's attorney had never given her his consent to discuss any of the pending matters with his client. Further,
Sexton has never consulted with Mr. Floyd's attorney about such contact.
Sexton's response began by questioning the delay in the affidavit being initiated. However, closer inspection may have demonstrated to her that it was initiated months prior to service. The delay in service resulted from Sexton's not having receipted her
which Conley signed, thinking it was for
attorney, she should expect to communicate with Stevens. Stevens testified that she is the
Claims Manager for Mays office and her duties include the interviewing of witnesses, negotiation of claims and various other duties as instructed by the attorneys in the firm. In that connection she began corresponding with the insurance company wherein she referred to Conley as "my client." Eventually, a settlement was negotiated, but
she did not recall such contact with Floyd. Further, she questioned why Floyd and his attorney failed to bring this matter up before the Court at the time of the divorce hearing.
her efforts to do so. In fact, she saw Mays
Conley alleged in her affidavit of complaint and her testimony at the evidentiary
hearing of January 19, 1996, that she was ~O
Tbr "'klllil IJ"yrr SUIi.rr 1991
tified to his recent attempts to contact Conley in an effort "to become a person with her."
Court. appellant Dinzel E. Norman. These rules state, in part, that a lawyer shall abide
Mays firm. At that point in time Conley had
of Vanessa Conley. These Rules state, in part, a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; and, shall not assist a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
out with her. Mays dropped his lien and tes-
tional medical attention. Immediately thereafter. communication broke down causing Conley to terminate her relationship with never met nor conversed with Mays. despite
A letter of reprimand was issued to
rized his staff to accept an offer later rejected by the client. Subsequent timing and circumstances precluded him from personally meeting with Conley in an effort to work this
Conley had not authorized a senlement and rejected the offer on belief she needed addi-
mail. In responding to the substantive alle-
Richard L. Mays for violation of Model Rules 1.4 (b) and 5.5 (b) upon the complaint
entire process. Accordingly, Mays autho-
George J. Stone George J. Stone was issued a lener of reprimand for violation of Model Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4 (a), and 8.4 (d) as a result of a
gations of the complaint, Sexton averred that
Richard L. Mays
at the firm always decides whether to accept
for the first time at the hearing on January
19. Following dissolution of the anomeyclient relationship, Mays put an attorney's lien on the settlement.
Mays denied knowing or being acquainted with Tim Mason. According to affidavits
and testimony offered in support of Mays response, Jimmy Morris, formerly employed by Mays firm at the time of Conley's accident, purportedly had an employment contract in his possession for delivery to a per-
son in Pine Bluff who had requested legal representation. Morris supposedly was a friend of Mason, and it was averred that Morris had given the contract to Mason for
Per Curiam from the Arkansas Supreme
by a client's decision concerning the objectives or representation; that an attorney shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; that a lawyer shall
keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a malter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and. shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
On September 6, 1994, Dinzel Earl Norman was found guilty of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance. methamphetamine, and manufacturing a controlled
substance. Stone filed a Notice of Appeal on September 27, 1994. On December 13, 1994, the Circuit Court of Newton County extended the time for filing the record until
delivery to the Pine Bluff client as a courtesy
March 27, 1995. The record was tendered to the Clerk's office after the extended time for
since Mason was going there anyway. There was no evidence adduced as to how Mason happened to come into contact with Conley
filing had lapsed. A Motion For Rule On The Clerk was filed 011 April 6, 1995, asserting failure of the Newton County Clerk's