Lawyer Disciplinary Actions scheduled deposition of February 25. 1999. The next day a notice of deposition was sent to Mr. Williams by Ms. Mason rescheduling his deposition for March 10, 1999. He fajJed to respond or appear. Another notice was sent to Mr. Williams scheduling the deposition for April 8. 1999. Again. he failnt to respond or appear. On April 27. 1999. Ms. Mason filed a Motion and Brief to Dismiss based upon Mr. Williams's failure: to
comply with discovery which was granted by Judge Wilson on May 17. 1999. On May 24, 1999. a
Motion for Costs was filed by Ms. Mason due to Mr. Williams's fajlure to appear. Judge Wilson granrat the City $587.10 in COsts incurm:l. on June 21, 1999. At the time of the flIing of the complaint, Mr. Williams had made a partial payment of the COSts.
For his response Mr. Williams denied that there werc= allegations made mat ~re not bas«i on fuct. Mr. Williams affirmatively stated m.u Ms. Mason should have filed a motion under Rule II of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure during the litigation or filed her complaim with the Comminet: al the conclusion of the litigation instead of waiting for fwO years. Additionally Mr. Williams ~ned that the federal judge did not make a complaint of Mr. Williams's conduct to the Committee. Mr. Williams stated that the discovery was tendered late. Mr. Williams stated the reason he did not attend the February 25 and March 10 deposition was due to Ihe bct he was in an automobile accident. Mr. Williams stated that he communicaled that bct to Ms. Mason. Mr. Williams staled he was unaWOlfC of any other deposition notice. Mr. Williams affirmatively asserted that his lawsuit was dismissed and the City awarded its COSts. Mr. Williams asserted that the complaint against him is motivated by a ~vendetfa" against him by the City due (Q a successful prosecution against certain City officials in Linle Rock Environmental Coun. In rebuttal, Ms. Mason stated that there was no vendetta. Ms. Mason denied that Mr. WiUiams ever communicated to her the vehicle accidem he aJleged, nor any other communication from him informing her of his inability to attend any deposition. Upon consideration the formal complaint, response herein, the lestimony of Judy Kay Mason and Mr. Williams and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Williams's conduct violated Rule 3.4(d) of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct when he fuiled to answer a S4:'t of interrogatories propounded on him on Augu$( 26, 1998, until ordered to by Judge William R. Wilson by February 19, 1999; when he biled to answer a set of imerrog':l.lories propounded on him on November 25, 1998, umil ordered to by Judge William R. Wilson by February 19, 1999; when he failed to bring Ihe documents requested in the Norice of Deposition to his February 10, 1999 deposition; when he unreasonably refused to answer
cenain questions propounded to him in his February 10, 1999 deposition; when he failed (0 appear at the resumption of his February 10, 1999 deposition on the mutually agreed date and properly noticed date of February 25, 1999; when he failed l'O appeat at the resumption of his February 10, 1999, deposition despite the fuct he was properly noticed to appear on March 10, 1999; and when he £ailed to appear for the resumption of the February 10. 1999 deposition despite the hici he was properly noticed to appear on April 8, 1999. Model Rule 3.4(d)requires th.at .a lawyer shall not in pretriaJ procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail IO make reasonably diligent efTon to comply with a legally proper discovery requesr by an opposing party. 2. That Mr. Williams's conduct violated Rule 8.4(d) of Ihe Ark.ansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct when, due to Mr. Williams's hiilure to respond to discovery and answer question posed to him in his February 10, 1999 deposition, Judge Wilson was required to conduct a hearing on Mr. Williams's fuilure to respond; when due to Mr. Williams hiilure to respond to the notices of deposition, opposing counsel was required to file a Motion and Brief to Dismiss Mr. Williams' lawsuit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, which Judge Wilson considered and gramed; and due 10 Mr. Williams' failure to attend the scheduled depositions, opposing Counsel was required ro file a Motion for Costs seeking reimbursement of the costs of the coun reponer. Model Rule requires mal .a l.awyer not engage in conduct that is prejudiciaJ to the .adminiut;J(ion of justice. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee on Professional Conduct rhar DANNY RAY WILLIAMS, Arkansas Bar #93148, be and hereby is REPRIMANDED for his conduct in [his maner.
KEW S. CASHION Pulaski County M,y 3. 2001 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Ordet is premised arose from Information which came 10 me attemion of me Committet: concerning cermin of Kdli S. Cashion's conduct. Ms. Cashion is an anorney primarily pr.a.cticing in Pulaski County. The information which came to the anemion of the Committet: related 10 fwO (2) Motions to be Relieved which Ms. Cashion filed in the Uniled Stales District Coun, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division. The first of the Motions was filed on January 20, 2000, in the maner of Kristi Lynn Lindsey and Sus.an Carol Ellis v. Rodney Caner, case no. LR-C-99-479. In the Motion to be Relieved, Ms. Cashion made the following statements: "thaI the Petitioner jointly filed this action with her former parmer Carol Diane Sorton. That since the filing of this .action the partnership is no longer in existence." The Complaim on behalf of Ms. Lindsey and Ms. Ellis was filed during November 1999. The signature
page of the Complaint contains the signature of both Ms. Cashion and Ms. Sexton with the caption "CASHION & SECTION, Attorneys for plaintif[" The second Motion to be Relieved filed by Ms. Cashion was filed on April 18, 2000. in the marter of Louis Irby v. Kem Hardy, et al, case no. 99-CY00·882. In this Marion, Ms. Cashion makes the following stalements: ~That the Petitioner was attempting to enter into a partnership with Diane Sexton, Attorney at Law, at the time this action was filed. That since thai time no partnership was formed .and the Plaintiff has continued to be represented by Diane Sexton, exclusively." The Compl.aint in Mr. Irby's matter was filed on December I, 1999, afler the filing of the Complaint for Ms. Lindsey and Ms. Ellis. The signature block on the Complaint filed for Mr. Irby contains the same language that appears on the Complaint filed on behaJf of Ms. Lindsey and Ms. Ellis. Ms. Cashion was S4:'rved with [he formal complaint by certified, restricted delivery m.ail, pursuant to Section 5E. Procedures of the Arkansu Supreme Coun Regul.ating Professional Conduct of Attorneys al Law (Procedures) on January 10.2001. Ms. Cashion failed ro respond to the formal complaint. Her bilure to respond timely to the formal complaim constitutes admission of the factual allegations contained therein pursuant to Section 51(4) of the Procedures. Upon considet2tion of the formal complaint .and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Comminet: on ProfessionaJ Conduct finds: I. Thai Ms. Cashion's conduct violated Model Rule 7,5(d) when, ar a time when she was nOl partners with Ms. Sexton, Ms. Cashion signed pleadings implying that she was. Model Rule 7.5(d) requires that lawyers state or imply that they practice in a partnership or other organization only when that is rhe fact. 2. Thai Ms. Cashion's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(c) when in a pleading filed January 19. 2000, she averred that she had been in .a partnership with Diane Sexlon COntrary to her own Statement of April 18,2000, thai no pannership ever came to be and when in a pleading filed April 18, 2000, Ms. Cashion stated thar she h.ad nor develoJXd a partnership with Diane Sexron directly conlt;Jd.icting her earlier statement in .a separ.a.le pleading that there had b«n a partnership. Model Rule 8.4(c) requires that a lawyer not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. WH EREFO RE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme CoUrt Commiuee on ProfessionaJ Conduct rhat KELLI S. CASHION, Arkansas Bar 1D '96006 be, and heteby is, REPRIMANDED for her conduct in this matter. In addition, Ms. Cashion is fined, as .a separ.a.re sanction for her failure to respond, pursuant to Sections 51(3) and 8A(2) of the Procedures, the sum of $1000. Said fine is due and pay.able within thirty (30) days of the date that this Order is filed.
r.1.11 XI. l/f'11I2II1
lIe lrlmll Llft]er
.jj