tiln )1 1" IIiSripIiDiIl") \l't ions 1
ancillary probate CS£3tC' to Mrs. Foy. Modd Rule 1.4(3) requires thai a lawyer ko:p a diem reasonably informed about the statUS of a marter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme oun Committee on Professional Conduct thai JOANNA BOYLES TAYLOR. Arkansas Bar #94044. be and hereby is CAUTIONED for her conduct in this matter. RAYMOND WEBER Shenwood.AIkan~
Januuy 26, 2001 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is premisai arose from complaint of Gail Manhews. an anomey practicing law in Little Rock. Raymond Weber, an attorney practicing law primarily in hcrwood, PuJaski Counry. Arkansas, sem an advertisement fO Doris Thomas, an indjvidual who had been sued by Mr. M:mhews. The complaint reflectS that Mr. Manhews represenrs Charles Green in the mailer of Charla GrulJ v. Doris Thomas, Pulaski County Case No. CIV2000·S544. Shortly after Mr. Manhews served Ms. Thomas wim process, his office received an advertisement from the office of Raymond Weber. The advertisement was obviously intended for Ms. Thomas bm was inadvertently sent to Mr. Marlhews' law office instead. The advertisement offered Ms. Thomas an opporrunity to StOP the garnishment of her paycheck. Funhe.r. it :advised Ms. Thomas mat she might qualify for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. The advertisement failed to advise Ms. Thomas that if she had any complaints about the letter, she could contact the Committee on Professional Conduct. Further, the letter fails to disclose how Mr. Weber or his agents obtained the information concerning the entry of a judgment and ensuing garnishment. Both of these disclosures are n:quired by the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Following Mr. Weber's receipt of the formal complaint, the respondent attorney and the Acting Executive Director undertook discussions which have resulted in an agreement ro discipline by consent pursuant to Section SC. Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Arrorneys at Law (Procedures). Upon consideration of me formal complaim, admissions herein, me terms of the proposed consem to discipline hereinafter stated. the Alternate Committcc on Professional Conduct's approval thereor, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. the Comminee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mt. Weber's conduct violated Model Rule 7.3(b) when he failed to include the
me
following statement in his advertisement concerning garnishment: "ANY COM· PLAI TS ABOUT THIS LETTER OR THE REPRESE TATIO OF ANY LAWYER MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE PRO· FESSIONAL CO DUCT. C/O CLERK. ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT. 625 MARSHALL STREET. LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201. Model Rule 7.3(b) allows. in pertinenr part. that a lawyer may solicit professional employmenr from a prospective client known to be in need of legal ~rvices in a particular maner by written communicuion, with the requirement that the written communication include the following S£atement in capiraJ lerrers, "ANY COMPLAI T ABOUT THI LETTER OR THE REPRESE • TATIO OF ANY LAWYER MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE 0 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. C/O CLERK. ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT. 625 MARSHALL TREET. LITTLE ROCK. ARKA SAS 72201." 2. That Mr. Weber's conduct violated Model Rule 7.3(d) when he failed to disclose on the adverri~mefl{ mailed from his office how he or his agentS obrained rhe information concerning the entry of a judgmenr and ensuing garnishment. Model Rule 7.3(d) requires thar any wrinen communication prompted by a specific occurrence involving or :affecting the intended recipiem of the communicarion or a F.unily member disclo~ how the lawyer obrained the information prompting rhe communication. WHEREFORE. in accordance with the consent to discipline presenred by Mr. Weber and the Executive Director of the Office of Profcssional Conducr, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee 011 Professional Conduct that RAYMOND WEBER. Arkansas Bar ID #77142. be. and hereby is. CAUTIO ED for his conduct in this matter.
a
TERRY D. HARPER Fayetteville., Arkansas January 4. 200 I The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is premised arose from information thar came to the attenrion of the Comminee through a newspaper article. Terry D. Harper, an attorney primarily practicing in Fayetteville. Washington County. Arkansas, was issued a speedingcitarion by the Arkansas State Police: all February 6, 2000. The citation required him to either pay the fine prior to March 2, 2000 or appear in rhe Huntsville Municipal COllrt at 1:00 p.lll. on March 2,
2000. Mr. Harper did not pay the fine nor appear in COUf( ar the specified rime and date. According to Mr. Harper, he lost the citation and forgot the exact trial date. Judge W.Q. Hall. the Huntsville Municipal Coun Judge. caused a new charge. failure to appear, to be issued against Mr. Harper. On March 6. 2000, Mr. Harper called rhe Huntsville Municipal COLIn Clerk and cmered a plea of not guilty to rhe charges of speeding and failure to appear. Mr. Harper's case was set for trial at 10:00 a.m., on April 13. 2000. Mr. Harper was informed of the new date of April 13th. when he called to enter his ple:a of nor guilty. However. Mr. Harper failed to appear on mat date and time. Mr. Harper advised the Committcc that on or about April 13. 2000. he asked his law parmer. Scon E. Smith, to represent him in the matter before Judge Hall. It was Mr. Harper's recollection that Mr. Smith and Mr. Billy AJlred. the prosecuting anorney for Hunrsville. engaged in plea negotiations on that date. Judge Hall then issued a bench warrant for Mr. Harper's arrest and issued an additional failure to appear charge against Mr. Harper. Subsequently. Mr. Harper surrendered himself to arrcst and posted a $500.00 bend. On July 6. 2000. M,. Harper
Medical Malpractice Experts
'Enjoy tne J{C)l./ process - Case proven straugies. Fr.. step 6y step case anaEysis 6y our J{C)l./ ?<tedicaC Support 'Team 6y educating COUllSeCto empCoy the IIIOSt pr01Jocative case arguments to insure a poflSfied peiformance. We im6ue counselS intimate case fQzowCetfge regarding causation, pathophysioCogy, reC01Jery augmentation & empty cfUJir arguments. }I<1l}l correct contracts/aCtef7Ultive funding avaz'£a6(e whicfi do not encroacfi on your rec01Jery. 15,000 Cases in 20 'Years
JIffiaavits in 4 J{oursf! Our<1lasic 'Fee $395 HEALTH CARE AUDITORS, INC. Toll Free (877)-390-HCAI Phone (727) 579-8054 Fax (727) 573-1333
III. nIl. tlSpril! tOOl
Ur .\rllllil Lllljrr
U