ta\\ ~'rr Ilisriplinill')' .\I't ions 1.5(a) when he charged Ms. Huber over $38,000 for her divorce pfOC".C'C'd.ing. Modd Rule 15(a) requires, in pc:nint:nt pan, that a lawyer's f« be: rc=asonablt:. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme COUrt Comminet: on Professional Conduct that JAMES E. EVANS, JR., Arkansas Bar 10 #74050, be, and hereby is, CAUTIONED for his conduct in this maner.
IN Jill
ROBERT DAVID LEWIS
UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS OCTOBER 27, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is prc=mised arose: from the complaint of Evt:rline Tolbert. Roben David Lewis, an attorney practicing law primarily in Little Rock, Pulaski CoUnty, Arkansas, was contacted by Ms. Tolbert during January or February 1999. Ms. Tolbert had been injured whilt: pumping gas at a StaX norc=. According to Ms. Tolben, and the information repon made at the time of rnt: incidt:m, the pump stuck as she was rt:moving the nowe from tht: tank and gas squirted in ht:r eyr:s and faa. Ms. Tolbert had difficulty locating an attorney to reprt'::Sl:11t her in this maner against the Stax store. According to Ms. Tolben, Mr. Lewis believed that she had a valid claim and one that was worth pursuing. Several Wttks pass«! Ixfo", M,. L<wis' paral<gal, R<bccca Lewis, St:11t Ms. Tolbert a fee contract and medical authoriution to sign. Ms. Tolbert signed both of tht: docummts and TttUmed them to Mr. Lewis. At this time, Ms. Tolbert believed that Mr. Lewis was representing her in this matter. Mr. Lewis acknowledged the contact with Ms. Tolbert. He explained that he advise:d Ms. Tolbert that his involvemt:nt would be investigatory initially and thai he would look into the matter to dett:rmine if she had a valid claim. Mr. Lewis reported to the Committee that he was concerned about the C2S(: for twO reasons. First, he was unsurc= how the fact that gas had squined in Ms. Tolbert's eyes could not be her fault to some degree. &cond, he did not think the rc=coverable damages would exceed tht: necessary COSt for an expen witness. Ms. Tolbert reponed that there was very little communication with Mr. Lewis aftt:r their initial consultation. She did larn that Mr. Lewis had been in contact with tht: Clt:rk of tht: norc= wht:~ sht: had been injurc=d. She learned this information from tht: Clerk not from Mr. Lewis. When Ms. Tolbe:n was able to speak with Mr. Lewis about his contact with employees of the Scax Store, Mr. Lewis advised Ms. Tolben that ht: had sent corrt:Spondt:nce to tht: stort: but had rc=ttived no respon~. Mr. Lewis explained that he did write a demand letter but received no response from anyone on behalf of the StaX Storc=. He also acknowledged that ht: spokt: with employ«s at tht: StaX store. The informacion he received was not beneficial to Ms. Tolben. Mr. Lewis was provided the distinct impression by tht: cmploy«s that the incident was the fauh of Ms. Tolbert. Mr. Lewis admined that he did not advise: Ms. Tolben in a timdy manner that ht: would not be pursuing her
I~ m2ner for her based upon his belief that any lawsuit would be frivolow. He also acknowledged that he should have made Ms. Tolbert aware of this decision regardJess of how linlt: time was left for her to loate another anorney. Following Mr. Lewis' rcct:ipt of tht: formal complaint, the respondem attorney and the Acting Executive Director undertook discussions which have rt:Sulted in Mr. Lewis' agreement to discipline by con~nt pursuant to Section SC. Procedures of the Arkansas Suprt:me Coun Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (procedures). Upon consideration of the formal complaint, admissions herein, the terms of tht: propod con~nt to disciplint: herc=inafter statt:d, the Alternale Committee on Professional Conduct's approval thereof, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. the Committee 011 Professional Conduct finds: 1. That Mr. Lewis' conduct violated Modd Rule 1.4(a) wht:n ht: f.L.iled to advise Ms. Tolben that he would not be pursuing her legal mant:r on her behalf in enough timt: to allow ht:r to l0C2tt: otht:r counsel to protect her intt:rests. Model Rult: 1.4(a) requires that a lawyer k«p a client rc=asonably informed about the StatuS of a marter and promptly comply with rC2S0nable requests for information. WHEREFORE, in 2ccordance with the consent to disciplint: prese.nted by Mr. Lewis and the Acting u«tttive Director, ancie M. Givens, il is tht: decision and ordt:r of the Arkansas Suprc=me Court Commin« on Professional Conduct that ROBERT
DAVlD LEWIS. Nkansas B", ID #68030, lx, and hereby is, CAUTIONED for his conduct in this mart'er. In addition, pursuam to &ction 8A(l) of the Procedures, it is the decision of the Comminee that Mr. lewis be assessed the COsts of the proceed.ings in the amount of $32.68. Said costs fO be ~mitted to tht: Office of tht: Executive Director, pay.a.ble to rnt: Committee on Professional Conduct, within thirty (30) d2ys of the filing of this Order.
IN RE, ROBERT L DEPPER EL DORADO, ARKANSAS OcroBER 31,2000 The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Arkansas Suprt:me Coun cast: of Sheri Lynn Langston v. State of Arkansas, CR 2000-04 1. Roben L Dq>pc:r, an anomey practicing in EJ Dorado, Arkansas, was rc=tained to rc=pre:st:nt Ms. Langston 21 the trial coun level and subsequently required by the Supreme Court to represent her in an appeal to the Arkansas Supremt: CoUrt in the above· mentioned nlattt:r. Mr. Dt:pper rt:presented Ms. Langston in a criminal trial in Union County Circuit Coun. Following conviction on November 10, 1998, Ms. Langston informed Mr. De:pper that she wanted to appeal tht: mam:r. Mr. Dq>pc:r advised that he would not appeal [he judgmt:11I because Ms. Langston was unable to meet the f« quoted. No appeal was ta.ken and Mr. Depper was not relieved by the trial coun as anorney of record for Ms. Langston.
On March 30. 2000. Ms. Langston filed a pro se Motion for Belated Appeal. Su(: Newlx:ry, Arkansas Supn=me Coun Criminal Junia: Coordjnaror. wrote Mr. DepJXf and explained to him that it was the pracria: of the Arkansas Sup~me Coun to request the anorney who represented a pro se movant at trial to submit an affidavit responding [0 the allegations
contained in the movant's Motion for Belated Appeal. Mr. DepJXf failed to respond to the requCSt,
On June 22, 2000, the Arkansas Supreme: CoUtt issued a Per Curiam Order granting Ms. Langston's pro se Motion for Iklared Appeal. As Mr. Depper remained as anomey of record, he was appoinred to rep~n1 Ms. Langston on appeal and was
me
directed
(0
file, within thirty days, a petition for writ
of ctrtiorari
[Q
bring up the record necessary for
appeal. Mr. Depper asserted ill his response to the Committcc mat on more than one occasion he di~ with Ms. Langston her right to appeal and
that the' Notict of Appeal needed 10 be flled within thi")' d2ys of tht: criminal judgmt:nt. Ms. Ungston was advi.st:d that rnt: COSt of appeal would be $5,000 for tht: rc=taint:r and that tht: COSt for tht: transcript which would be approximately $1,000. Mr. Dt:ppc:r advised Ms. Langston that he would not sign the Notice of Appeal without a rc=cainer and the mont:)' for the associated costs of preparation of the transcript. Ms. Langston anempted to employ another anomey prior to the expiration of tht: time for filing a otice of Appeal. Mr. ~ppc:r believed that Ms. Langston would employ another anomey. Mr. Deppc:r admined that ht: rc=ttived a It:ner from Ms. Sue Newbery bur did not review tht: letter closely and did nOt realize: that a rt:Sponse: needed to be filed on or before April 17.2000. Mr. Deppc:r Stated in his rt:Spon~ that he was unawarc= that trial counsel is required to continue to repr~nt a criminal dd't:ndant throughOut the appeal unlt:SS rc=lieved by a COUC1 of appropriate jurisdiction. Upon consideration of rnt: formal complaint, rnt: respon~ herc=in, and the Arkansas Modd Rules of Professional Conduct, tht: Committt:t: on Professional Conduct finds: 1. That Mr. Depper's conduct violated Model Rule I. J, when he fiiled to initially pursue an appeal for Sht:rri Lynn Langston to tht: Arkansas Suprc=me Court as ht: was attorney of rt'COrd for Ms. Langston, he was not relieved as anomey of record by the Union County Circuit Coun, and he was required
by Rul, 16 of th, Nkansas Rul" of Appella« Procedurc= • Criminal, to rc=pre:st:nt Ms. Langston throughour her appeaL Model Rule 1.1 requires that a lawyer provide competent rc=pre:st:ntation to a c1iem, including tht: I~ knowledge, skill, thoroughness and prc=lW'3-tion reasonably necessary for the teprc=sentation. 2. That Mr. ~pper's conduct violated Model Rule 1.2(a) when ht: was advised by his dient, Sherri Lynn langston, that she wanted to appeal and Mr. De:pper failed to pursue her 2ppel1ate rights. Model Rule 1.2(a) requires, in peninem part, that a lawyt:r abide by a client's decision concerning the objectives of rt:pre:st:ntation.