LilWrrl' Ilisriplimll} .\ft inns to serde rhe judgments for $17.542.31. rhe original face value. Ms. Cristol agreed to wa.ive: the several years of accumulated interest, conditioned on funds being held in escrow by Hot Springs Tide Company on the corporation's behalf. In addirion, me funds were to be provided to Ms. Cristol by overnight delivery on February 5. 1999. Mr. Rephan confirmed this agreement in writing on February 4, 1999. The written agree-mem sene by Mr. Rephan is not dar on who was responsible for sending the funds ro Ms. Cristol by overnight delivery. Based upon the conditions and Mr. Rephan's confirmation of the same, Ms. Criscol signed the agreement co release liens which had been prepared by Mr. Rephan. Following his receipt of the signed agreemenr, Mr. Rephan advised the tide company but cannot confirm that me ride company was advised that me funds were to be sent to Ms. Cristol by overnight delivery. According to Mr. Rephan, both in his written response and his testimony before the Committee on Friday, January 19, 200 I, his secretary accepted me check from the title company made payable to Ms. Cristol on February 4th or 5th. Mr. Rephan advised mat he did not request delivery of the check to his office and was surprised when he realized it was there. Once he received the check, Mr. Rephan sent Ms. Cristo I a letter and advised her that he was holding the funds in his file. He also demanded a fee for his "legal services" in collecting and transmitting the funds to her. According to Mr. Rephan, he never requested, authorized or anticipated receipt of those funds. Mr. Reph:ln asserred mat he did not know why the funds were sent directly to him. His letter to Ms. Cristol acknowledged that he had never discussed his representation with Ms. Cristol nor had she ever mentioned retaining him. It was Mr. Rephan's asKrtion mat he wrote the letter to Ms. Cristol because he did nor wanr to underrake any personal without the transfer responsibiliries corporation's approval and direction. Mr. Rephan also stared that Ms. Cristol was free to decline his employment. Since she declined to use his services, he did not charge her a fee. It was his explanation th~t he required employment prior to underraking duties regarding the transfer of funds. Mr. Rephan acknowledged that he ultimately returned the funds to the title company and that they were
me
then forwarded to Ms. Cristo!. Mr. Rephan had no explanation to the Committee why he did not rerum the check to the tirle company when he first received it other than he did not want to be personaJly responsible for the funds if they did not reach Ms. Cristo!. Mr. Rephan still maintained that his actions were appropriate. He believed thar if he had sent her the check, he would have been acting without authoriey. Mr. Rephan also asserted mat it was his duey to inform Ms. Cristol of his receipt of the funds. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the response thereto, the testimony of Mr. Rephan at the hearing before the Committee and the Arkansas Model Rules of ProfessionaJ Conduct, the Committee on ProfessionaJ Conduct unanimowly finds: 1. That Mr. Rephan's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d). to wit: (i) He attempted ro obtain an attorney's fee from Ms. Cristol who was not his client but a parey adverse to his clients; (ii) His conduct caused Ms. Cristol to have to contact another attorney because she felt her rights were being breached; and, (iii) His attempt to obtain a fee from Ms. Cristol caused a delay for the corporation in obtaining irs agreed reduced judgment amount. Model Rule 8A(d) requires mar a lawyer not engage in conducr that is prejudicial TO the administration of justice. WHEREFORE, ir is the unanimow dÂŤision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Couer Committee on ProfessionaJ Conduct rhatJEROME M. REPHAN. Arkansas Bar ID #79240 be. and hereby is. REPRlMANDED for his conduct in this matter. In addition, pursuant TO Section 8A(2) of the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court ReguJating ProfessionaJ Conduct of At(orneys at Law, the Committee imposed a fine in the amount of $250.00. The fine is due and payable in rhe Office of ProfessionaJ Conduct no later (han rhirty (30) days from the filing of this Order.
RlCHARD JARBOE Walnur Ridge April 16.2001 The formaJ charges of misconduct upon which mis Order came (0 me attention of the Committee due to tesrimony given in U.S. v. George Nicholas "Nick"Wilson, er aJ, Case o. LR-CR-99-61. Richard Jarboe is an
attorney practicing in WaJnut Ridge. Lawrence County. Arkansas. On March 9. 2000. Mr. Jarboe tesrified in Federal Coun in rhe above styled case fully cooperating with the authorities without any plea agreement, immuniry or pretrial diversion. He restified that in the summer of 1995, Murrey Grider approached him (0 do child support work for him in Randolph and Lawrence Counties. Mr. Grider compensated Mr. Jarboe for Mr. Jarboe's work with a flar monthly fee of $1.250.00. Later. the liar monthly fee was increased (0 $1,500.00. Subsequently, then Srate Senator Nick Wilson met with Mr. Jarboe. Mr. Wilson informed Mr. Jarboe that he would be receiving a check for his work and a bill from Senator Wilson for "compliance." Mr. Jarboe then received monthly checks from the Arkansas Office of Child uppon Enforcement (OSCE) for between $5.000.00 to $6,000.00. Mr. Jarboe would deposit the checks inco his client trust account, pay himself his monthly flat fee and forward the remainder to Mr. Wilson. In March, 1997, Mr. Jarboe received an additional monrhly cheek for March ftom OSCE for $2,740.00. Mr. Wilson instrucred Mr. Jarboe to pass the money on to him without a deduction by Mr. Jarboe. Mr. Jarboe complied wirh Mr. Wilson's instructions. Mr. Jarboe affirmatively stated in his response (hat he had been approached by Mr. Grider to assist Mr. Grider in his child support work. Mr. Jarboe had declined (0 do so for several reasons. However, in the late Fall of 1994, Murrey Grider suffered a serious stroke. At the time, he and Mr. Grider had been the best of friends for 15 years. Mr. Jarboe admitted that in the summer of 1995, Mr. Grider again approached him regarding the child support work. It was anticipated that Mr. Grider's son, Joe would graduate law school in May, 1996 and that Mr. Jarboe with help Mr. Grider until men. Mr. Jarboe admitted he was paid initially, a flat monthly fee of $1,250.00 which was later increased (0 $1.500.00. He was responsible for child suppOrt services in Randolph and Sharp Counties when other attorneys had conAicrs. Mr. Jarboe stated that after this agreement, Mr. Grider informed him that Mr. Wilson would be coming by to taJk to him. At that meeting. then Senator Wilson informed Mr.
111. iUd/SIller tnl
Ue Ar~ulll LIM)er
41