til\\ "PI' McKinnon, an attorney with an office located in Russellville, to represent her in a social securiry At the rime of Ms. Willis's initial matter. appointment with Ms. McKinnon, she met with Kathleen Webb, a secretary for Ms. McKinnon. She did not meet with Ms. McKinnon. Ms. Webb posed aJl of the questions and answered all of Ms. Willis's questions. AJthough Ms. Webb advised Ms. Willis that Ms. McKinnon would be in touch with Ms. Willis, she never did get in COnlaCf with her. In fuct, Ms. Willis was never afforded the opportuniry to speak with any :utorney associated with Ms. McKinnon about her legal matter. Ms. Willis did receive minimaJ correspondence from Ms. McKinnon but was never allowed the opportuniry to consult with her. Ms. Willis attended a hearing before the Office of Hearings and Appeals on July 28, 1997. Ms. McKinnon did nOt appear with her. Mr. Archie Lann did so. Mr. Lann was at that time listed as a Social Security Specialist on Ms. McKinnon's letterhead. She has since cortected this and he is no longer listed as such. On January 29, 1999, Ms. Willis received notice from the Social Securiry Appeals Council that they were not going to review the Administrative Law Judge's decision. She was also informed in this correspondence that she had sixty (60) days from her receipt of the len:er to file a lawsuit in the United States District Court. A5 soon as she received the letter, Ms. Willis called the McKinnon Law Firm. She was unable ro speak with Ms. McKinnon bur was assured by Archie Lantz that the firm had received a copy of the lener and that she wouJd be hearing something from Ms. McKinnon within the following rwo (2) weeks. Ms. WiJlis did not hear from Ms. McKinnon, although she tried on numerous occasions to contact her. Finally, on March 24, 1999, Ms. Willis received a letter from Ms. McKinnon advising that the law firm would not pursue her legal matter any further. Ms. Willis did not receive the letter until Saturday, March 27. 1999. According to the letter, Ms. Willis had until March 29, 1999, to file a lawsuit. She had no opportuniry to retain another lawyer nor pick up her file from Ms. McKinnon's office before the deadline. Ms. McKinnon admits that it was wrong for her to personally send the "we recommend you not file a federal appeal" leeter so close to Ms. Willis' deadline. She poinlS out that Ms. Willis had been requested to pay a filing fee which she had not done, but she recognizes mat is nOt an excuse for sending the letter when she did. Following Ms_ McKinnon's receipt of the formal complaint, the respondent anorney and the Executive Director undertook discussions which have resulted in Ms. McKinnon's agreement to discipline by consent pursuant to
ltisl'iplimll} \l't ions
Section 8C, Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of An:orneys at Law. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, response herein, the proposed Consent to Discipline, the Alternate Committee's approval of the consent proposal and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conducr finds: I. That Ms. McKinnon's conduct violated Model Rule 1.4(a) when she failed ro contact Ms. Willis during the entire time of her representation in the social security matter, despite the numerous telephone calls and requeslS made by Ms. Willis, and when she failed lO respond to Ms. Willis' requests, made between January 29. 1999 and Match 24. 1999. for information concerning when her federal appeal would be filed. Model Rule l.4(a) requires that a lawyer keep a client reasonably informed about the starns of a matter and promptly comply \Vim reasonable requests for information. 2. That Ms. McKinnon's conduct violated Model Rule 1.16(d) when she fajled to provide reasonable notice to Ms. Willis of the determination that the McKinnon Law Firm would no longer represent her in the Social Security man:ers; when Ms. Willis was nor allowed sufficient time for employment of other couosd for her legal matter; and when the papers and properry to which Ms. WiJlis was entitled were nOt returned to her after Ms. McKinnon elected to no longer represent her in the Social Security maners. Model Rule 1.16(d) requires, in pertinent part, that, upon termination of representation, a lawyer take sreps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing rime for employment of other counsel and surrendering paper and property to which the client is entitled. 3. That Ms. McKinnon's conduct violated Model RuJ< 5.5(b) wh<n sh< a1low<d Kathy Webb ro conduct the initial consultation with Ms. Willis and advise her on all legal rights and remedjes and to respond to Ms. Willis's inqujries about her legal matter, all without attorney supervision. Model Rule 5.5(b) requires that a lawyer not assist a person who is nOt a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. 4. That Ms. McKinnon's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(a) when she used len:erhead wh ich referred to Archie Lantz as a specialist in th< area of Social &curity. Model Rul< 8.4(a) requires, in pertinent part, that a lawyer not knowingly assist another in violation of the rules of professional conduct, with one of those rules of professional conduct being Model Rule 7A(c) which prohibits a lawyer from staring or
implying that the lawyer is a speciaJist except when the lawyer has been recognized as a specialist under a plan of specialization approved by the Arkansas Supreme CoUrt. WHEREFORE, in accordance with the consent to discipline presented by Ms. McKinnon and the Executive DirectOr, James A. Neal, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct thar LAURA MCKINNON. AJ-kansas Bar ID #84014, be, and hereby IS, REPRlMANDED for her conduct in this maner. In addition, pursuant to Sections 8A(I) & (2) of the Procedures, Ms. McKinnon is hereby ordered to pay cons in the amount of $6.61 and a fine in the amount of $350. Said costs and fine to be remincd to the Executive Direcror within rwenry (20) days of the filing of this Order.
IN RE, GENE E. MCKISSIC
PINE BLUFF. ARKANSAS APRIL 5. 2000 The formal complaint of misconduct arose from the complaint of Deborah Purifoy. Gene McKissic, Anorney at Law, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, was employed to represent Ms. Purifoy to pursue a child suppOrt arrearage owed by her exhusband. In August 1997, Ms. Purifoy sought legal assistance regarding delinquent child support owed by her ex-husband, Fred Green. Mr. McKissic filed a Motion for Contempt against Fred Green and a hearing was set for November 24, 1997. Mr. Green failed to appear at the hearing. According to Ms. Purifoy, Mr. McKissic stated that a default judgment would be entered against Mr. Green and that he wouJd send a copy of the judgment to her. In January 1998, Ms. Purifoy called Mr. McKissic's office ro inquire about the status of the judgment as she had not received a copy of it. Mr. McKissic stated that he would call Judge Hamilton Singleton, the presiding judge, to check on the marrero According to Ms. Purifoy, she heard nothing from Mr. McKissic. On February 5, 1998, Ms. Purifoy called Mr. McKissic's office again, spoke to Mr. McKissic and informed him that she had nOt received a copy of the default judgment. According to Mr. McKissic, he experienced difficulty in obtaining child support records from the Ouachita County Chancery Clerk's office, and when he did obtain the records, the records only went as far back as October 1995. As a result, Mr. McKissic could only send a judgment to the court in the amount of $5,000.00 which was supported by the available records. Mr. McKissic asserted that Ms. Purifoy instructed
fll. Ii SI. I/Sllltr 1111
Ue .lrllISi! LIWJlr
U