til\\}(ll' complaint, respon.se herein, the terms of the proposed consent to discipline hereinafter stated, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Johnson was paid approximately $12,216.90 from truSt funds over a period of foutteen (14) months for his representation of Ms. Wooten and Ms. Simmons in their capacities as truStees, which was found to be in conflict with his representation of his former clients, Jewell Miller and Opal Miller. without obtaining the consent of Jewell and Opal Miller for doing the same. 2. That Mr. Johnson's conduct, as described above, violates Model Rule 1.9(a) which requires that a lawyer, who has formerly represented a client in a maner, not thereafter represent another person in the same or substantially related maner in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the intefCSts of the former client unless the former dient consents after consultation. WHEREFORE, in accordance with the consent to discipline presented by Mr. Johnson and the Executive Director. James A. Neal, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Comminee on Professional Conduct that WI LLiAM EDWARD JOHNSON, Arkansas Bar ID #66034, be. and hereby is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this maner.
IN RE. ROBERT F. MOREHEAD PINE BLUFF, AR NOVEM BER 18, 1999 The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Arkansas Supreme CoUrt case of udn'c lAmar Hams, CR 96-782. Roben F. Morehead, an attorney practicing in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, represented Mr. Harris in an appeal to the Arkansas Supreme CoUrt in the above-mentioned maner. Mr. Harris was convicted of capital murder and attempted murder and sentenced to, respectively, life imprisonment without parole and thirty years' imprisonment. Following his conviction, a posttrial motion for a new trial was filed on October 16, 1995. and was deemed to have been denied on November 15, 1995. No notice of appeal was filed until January 2, 1996. On January 13, 1997. the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Harris' appeal as the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed. In its decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court suggested that the failure to file a timely appeal could be rectified by seeking timely permission to file a belated appeal. No Motion for Belated Appeal was filed until May 18, 1999. Mr. Morehead offered that. upon the Arkansas Supreme CoUrt'S decision in January 1997, he was contacted by Mr. Harris' uncle who advised that the client was going to retain someone to review the matter and, following that discussion, he did nothing further. Upon consideration of the formal complainl, me response herein, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr.Morehead's conduct violated Model Rule 1.2(a) when he F.tiled to perfect an appeal on behalf of his client, Cedric Lamar Harris, from the conviction of capital murder and attempl'ed murder. Model Rule 1.2(a) requires, in pertinent pari, that a lawyer abide by a client's decisions concerning the
48
The Jlrkanm Law!er
rnl.l~
,10. 2/8pring 2000
IIisriplinal')' ,\ft ions
objectives of representation. 2. That Mr. Morehead's conduct violat'ed Model Rule 1.3 when he rojled to file a timely Notice of Appeal from the Ashley County Circuit Court in 1995. in Mr. Harris's criminal case and when he failed to file a timely Motion for Bclued Appeal as suggested to him in a Per Curiam Order dated January 13, 1997. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promplness in representing a client. WHEREFORE. it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct that ROBERT F. MOREHEAD, Arkansas Bar 10 No. 70050. be, and hereby is, REPRIMANDED, for his conduct in this maner.
IN RE. HENRY CAROL MORRIS DEQUEEN,AR NOVEMBER 18, 1999 The formal complaint of misconduct arose from the romplainr of Virginia Fulton. Henry Carol Morris, attorney at law, DeQueen, Arkansas, was employed to represent Ms. Fulton on appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court. On November 4, 1996, a civil judgment was entered against Ms. Fuhon in Hempst'ead County Circuit Court. Ms. Fuhon wished to have the judgment appealed ro the Arkansas Supreme Court but her anorney declined to represent her in her appt"al. Her attorney referred her to Henry C. Morris. On November 8. 1996, Ms. Fulton called Mr. Morris to make an appointment to discuss the malter. Ms. Fulton talked to Mr. Morris for approximately one-half hour and then met with him on November 13, 1996. At the November 13, 1996, meeting, Mr. Morris instructed Ms. Fulton to pick up her file from her former attorney. Ms. Fulton then drove to Hempslead County, procured her file and delivered to Mr. Morris at which time she paid him $200.00. According to Ms. Fulton, Mr. Morris stated that he only needed $200.00 at the time to retain him but that he would need $500.00 laler for the cost of lhe uanscript for appeal. Mr. Morris understood the conversation to have been that for the ftt of $200.00 he would review the matter 10 ascertain the probability of a successful appeal. Ifhe concluded there was a good likelihood of success. he would then file me notice of appeal. However, Ms. Fulton left Mr. Morris's office on that day believing that Mr. Morris was going to pursue an appeal on her behalf. During the weeks that followed, Ms. Fulton called Mr. Morris's office several times. Apparently the attorney was unavailable on those occasions and Ms. Fulton was advised that Mr. Morris would return the calls. No calls were returned. Mr. Morris stared in his response that he reviewed the trial court'S decision, found it to be proper, and in good conscience. did not feel he could appeal the matter for Ms. Fulton. Unaware of the lawyer's conclusion, Ms. Fulton called Mr. Morris' office on December 12, 1996, to check on the StatuS of her appeal and was informed tim nothing had been filed on her behalf. The time to file a Notice of Appeal had expired some weeks earlier. Mr. Morris admitted thaI not filing a Notice of Appeal prevented Ms. Fulron from having the matter reviewed by the appellare coun but averred that he performed the services for which he was employed.
Mr. Morris stated that he charges a great deal more than $200.00 to pursue an appeal and rries to collect, or at least make arrangementS to coll~t, the fee before he pursues an appeal. Mr. Morris, to the ben of his knowledge. never contacted Ms. Fulwn asking her [Q make any addjtional fee arrangemcnts. Although he cannOt rceaJI with cenainty, he believes he contacted Ms. Fulton to let her know his decision not to appeal. Mr. Morris related that he has had a serious heart problem in which blackouts are a symptom and that he cannOt remember specifics due to the amoum of time that has transpired. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the response herein, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Comminee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Morris' conduct violated Model Rule 1.3 when he failed to file a Notice of Appeal on behalf of his diem. Virginia Fulwn, in a timely manner. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in represeming a diem. 2. That Mr. Morris' conduct violated Modd Rule 1.4(a) when he F.tiled to respond to Ms. Fulton's requests for information concerning pursuit of her appt"al and when he F.tiled to keep Ms. Fuhon informed about the status of her legal maner. Model Rule 1.4(a) requires that a lawyer keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. 3. That Mr. Morris' conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d) when he F.tiled ro file a timely Notice of Appeal on behalf of his client, Virginia Fulton, which precluded her from having her matter reviewed by an appellate court. Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct that HENRY CAROL MORRIS, Arkansas Bar ID No. 67042. be. and hereby is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this maner.
IN It[, HENRY CAROL MORRIS (2) DEQUEEN,AR NOVEMBER 18, 1999 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is based arose from the complaint of Thomas Monroe Waller. Henry Carol Morris. anorney at law, DeQueen, Arkansas, was appointed to represent Mr. Waller on criminal charges filed against him in Sevicr County Circuit Court. On September 14, 1997. Mr. Waller was arrested for aggravated robbery in Sevier County and criminal use of a prohibited weapon in Polk County. The criminal charges arose out of a continued course of acrion. Mr. Waller, with other counsel, appeared in Polk County Circuit Court on Septcmber 17. 1997. and plead not gujlty by reason of mental disease or defecr. A mental evaluation was then scheduled to be conducted at a later date on Mr. Waller. On October 9, 1997, Mr. Waller was arraigned in the Sevier County Circuit CoUrt on the charges pt"nding in that coun. The Circuit Court appointed Henry Carol Morris. the public defender for Sevier CoUllty, to represent him. Mr. Waller visited Mr. Morris on October 29, 1997, to