til\\ ~l·'· IIisl'iplinill'~ order of the Commincc that Mr. Meurer be. and hereby is, fined in the amount of 5250. The fine is imposed as a sc:par.He sanction for Mr. Meurer's failure to tClipond to the complaint. Tunothy D. Williams Cooway,AR October II, 1999 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is ba.sed uose OUt of information provided by Lawrence Delp, a fonner clienl ofTImothy D. Williams, a lawyer practicing in Conway, and information derived from a compilation of the trust accoUnt records of Mr. WLlIia.rns from April 1997 through the end of February 1998. On April 17, 1997, Mr. Delp forwarded to Mr. Williams a cashier's check in the amount of $3,000. The funds were sem to Mr. WiUiams so that he could remit them to Capital One to sc:nIe a deln owed by Mr. Ddp. Mr. Ddp undemood from Mr. Williams that a .sctdement had hccn f'Cl.ched during his negotiations with an agent for Capital One to rrouce the debt owed to a total amount of 53,000. Mr. Williams does not dispute that he represented Mr. Ddp but he advises that me time period of representation was not just a few months, as asserted by Mr. Delp, but ramer lasted from MIfdl, 1995, through May, 1997. In addition to the S3,000 sent to Mr. Williams during April of 1997, Mr. Delp also remilled to Mr. Williams a check in the amount of SSOO for paymenl of his attorney's fees in the matter. Shortly after the money W2I rcmilled to Mr. Williams, Mr. Ddp learned from agents of Capital One that no one from their organization had hccn able to get in louch with Mr. Williams. Mr. Delp contacted Mr. Williams on numerous occa.sioru after paying the funds to him and was repeatedly advised that Capital One would not cooperate with his anempts to compromise. The rrw:t accounl records demonstr.lte that the S3,000 wall removcd from the account by Mr. Williams on May I, 1997. Mr. Delp was not aware of this &Ct. Mr. Williams did assert that Mr. Delp agreed to the $3,000 being used for payment of his feu if Capital One did not agree to me sc:nIement offer. There is no documentation to establish that there was such an agrttmenl between Mr. Williams and Mr. Delp, and Mr. Delp denies the same. Aher severa.! months, Mr. Williams quit responding to Mr. Ddp's telephone calls and messages. Mr. Delp even wrote Mr. Williams on numerous ocx:ouions but Mr. Williams did not respond to the correspondence either. Finally during September of 1997, Mr. Ddp was able to reach Mr. Williams by telephone. Mr. Delp was upset at the lack of action :lJld communication with Mr. Williams :lJld advi.scd h.im of the same. Mr. Williams assurro Mr. Delp that he would handle the sitw.tion within the n(:l:t Wttit. That was the last communication that Mr. Delp had with Mr. Williams despile repeated attempts to contaCt him. During Augwt of 1998, Mr. Delp learned that Capital One had a judgment enterro agairut them. Mr. Delp knew nothing of Capital One even pursuing legal action against him. Mr. Williams had nC\'Cr advised him ofthis fact. Mr. Williams docs not address this marcer in response to the Committct. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the response thereto:lJld the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Commincc on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Williams violated Modd Rule 1.3 because during the emire time of his representation of Mr. Delp in connection with the debl owed to Capital One, he F.ailed to lake any timely action on Mr. Delp's behalf. Model Rule 1.3 requireJ thaI a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a c1iem. 2. That Mr. Williams violated Model Rule 1.4(a) since, despite Mr. Delp's repeated requests for information concerning Ihe natus of payment to Capital One, he failed to provide any information to Mr. Delp in that regan:!. Modd Rule lo4(a) requires thaI a lawyer keep a client reasonably infonned aboUI the Jl2!W of a maner and promptly comply with reasonabk requests for information. 3. That Mr. Williams violated Model Rule 1.I5(a), to wit: (I) Although the funds Mr. Ddp scnt to him were for payment to Capital One, he deposited the funds and then wrote check 10232 to himsdfin the same amount of those funds 1C\'e:n days bIer with the memo line on the check denoting "LD."; and (2)
\l't inns
Since the funds provided by Mr. Delp to him for payment to Capital One ....ere ncvtt paid to Capital One, the minimum balance in his trun account should have hccn, al all times following deposit, 53,000 or above; however, from Dcc:cmber 9, 1997, through February 28, 1998, the balance in his trUSI account was below $3,000. Model Rule 1.15(a) requires. in pertinent pan, that all lawyers hold property of clients or thin:! pcrsoru that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from the la.wyer'. own property, with fund. ofa client being deposited :lJld maintained in one or more identifiable rrw:t accounts in the state where the lawyer's office is sit~,<d.
4. That Mr. WillWns violated Modd Rule 1.15(b) when he did not notify the agent for Capital One of his receipt of the funds; when he F.ailed to promptly deliver the funds to Capital One for scttlement of Mr. Delp's outstanding account after rccciving them. from Mr. Delp; when he failed (0 return the funds which Mr. Ddp enuusted to him for payment to Capital One despite Mr. Delp's numerow requests that he return the funds since they had not been delivered to Capital One; and, when he f7.iled to provide :lJl accounting of the funds to Mr. Delp after his several requests for such an accounting. Modd Rule I.lS(b) requires, in pertinent pan, that upon receiving funds in which a client or third penon has an interest. a lawyer promptly notify the client or third person; promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third penon is entitled to receive; and, upon request by the client promptly render a full accounting regarding such property. 5. That Mr. Willianu violated Model Rule 1.16(d) by fail· ing to return the $3,000 entrusted 10 him mer he was notified by Mr. Ddp that his representation of Mr. Delp in the matter with Capital One was lerminated. Modd Rule 1.I6(d) requires, in pertinent part, that upon tctmination of represen· tation, a bwyer taU Steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the dient's interests, such as surrendering property to which the client is entitled. 6. That Mr. Willianu' conduct involved dishonest and deceit in violation of Model Rule 8.4(c) by his continued actions in leading Mr. Ddp to believe that he had the funds entrusted to him and that he was continuing to try to settle mitten with Capital One. Model Rule BA(c) requires, in pertinent pan, that a lawyer nOt engage in conduct involving dishonesty or dccciL 7. That Mr. Willianu' failure to act on Mr. Ddp's beha1fin scalemen! of his account with Capital One, resulting in Capital One obtaining a judgment against him which appears on his credit reportS and has complicated his attempts to purchase property for his family, violated Model Rule 8.4(d), which requires that a lawyer not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of jWlice. WHEREFOR£, it is the decision :lJld on:!er of the AzkansaJI Supreme Courl Committee on Professional Conduct that TIMOTHY D. WlWAMS, Arkansas Bu 10 1175140, be, :lJld hereby is, SUSPENDED for a period of one (I) year for his conduct in this maner. The swpension shall become dfectivc as of the date of the filing of this Order.
)anuuy, 1998, from an agent of the insurance company that it was unable to contaCt Mr. Hall abo. ~u. Parks: finally hirro another lawyer to assist her in her legal marcer but she was unable to provide her new lawyer with certain rdated documentation because Mr. Hall did not return those documenu to Ms. Parks after his services were terminated. Mr. Hall was served with a copy of the Formal Complaint by certified mail on March 3, 1999, pursuant to Section SE. Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (Procedures), as revised january IS, 1998. Mr. Hall failed to respond to the Complaint. His failure 10 respond timely to the Complaint constirutes 2dmission ofthe F.acrual allegations contained in the Complaint pursuant to Section 51(4) of the Procedures. Upon colUideration of the formal complaint and the Azlwws Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: 1. That Mr. Hall's conduct violated Modd Rule 1.3 by failing to act on behalf of Ms. Pula in a diligent and prompt maner after being retained to represent her in her personal injury matter. Modd Rule 1.3 requires tim a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing adient. 2. That Mr. Hall's conduct violated Model Rule 1.4(a) when, despite numerow wls made by Ms. Parks and her F.ather on her behalf, he failed to comply with their requesu for information concerning what actions he had taken on her behalf in her personal injury matter. Model Rules 1.4(a) requires that a lawyer keep a client reasonably informed about the StilUS of a man:cr and promptly comply with reasonable requesu for information. 3. That MI. Hall's conduct violated Model Rule 1.5(c) since he agreed to represent Ms. Parks based upon a contingent fee agrcc.ment but failed to place the agreement in writing. Model Rule 1.5(c) requireJ, in peronent pan, that a contingent Fee agreement be in writing. 4. That Mr. Hall violated Model Rule 1.16(d) by failing to surrender to Ms. Parks or her F.ather, on her behalf, after his representation of her was terminated, the property to which she was entitled that he wall provided by her. Model Rule 1.16(d) requires, in pertinent put, that upon termination of representation, a lawyer uh Stcps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client's interests, such as surrendering papen and property to which the client is entitled. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkanw Supreme Coun Commirccc on Profcs.lional Conduct that TIMOTHY M. HALL, Arkansas Bu 10196043, be, and here-
VALUATIONS CLOSE CORPORATIONS UNIQUELY QUALIFIED CONSULTANTS Analysis & Appraisal
Expert Witness NOTICE OF REPRIMANDS TImothy M. Hall Hunuville, AR August 10, 1999 The formal charges of misconduct, upon which this Order is based, arose from the Complaint of San.h Mac Pub. Ms. Parks hirro TImothy M. Hall, an attorney practicing in Hurutville, to punue a claim for pttlOnal injuries as a result of an accident in which she was involved. The agreed upon fcc was for Mr. Hall to receive 25% of:lJlY recovery over 52,000. Mr. Hall did not place the agreement in wrinc.n form although il was contingent in nature. Initially, Mr. Hall made $Orne dforu on behalf of Ms. Puks. In july of 1997, four months after he was hired, Mr. Hall informed Ms. Parks thai no one from the insurance company would return his telephone call•. The con\'Crution wherein Mr. Hall provided dUll information to Ms. Hall was the wt time that she W2$ able to spealr with Mr. Hall despite numerow anempu. Ms. Parks learned in
Valuation Arbitration Ownership Transition Planning & Implementation
Estate Planning Assistance
SCHULlZE, MAECHLING & ASSOCIATES 3 19 N. Fourth. Suite 909 St. Louis, MO 63 102 (314) 621-8211 REQUEST OUR BROCHURE
1'01.11 10. 1/I1'ioier 1000 TIe Arkma! Lau1er