Lawyer Disciplin;'IIY Actions time Booker briefly encountered Hayes as he left "'for the airport," and ins tructed her to see his receptio nist, The receptionist gave Hayes his offi ce account check for $2,60 1.78 and a release, mat
included (he underlying liabili ry parry and Booker, (0 sign. TIl is am Ollnl equaled Hayes' mcdicals of $1 ,60 1.78 plus $ 1,000 for her orner claims, all of which Booker paid from his own fun ds.
ALV IN D . C LAY, Bar No. 96075, ofL;rde Rock, Arkansas. was reprim anded and fined $3,500.00, at a public hea ring. by Comminee Findings and
O rder fil ed February 27, 2006, on a Complai nt filed by August T homas in Case No. 2005-080. for violations o f Model Rul es 1.5(b), 1. J 5(3), I. I 6 (d), and 8.4(c). Mr. Thom a, h;red Mr. Clay in August 2002, for a $3.500 flat fee plus S200
FRONT ROW
Bob Hornberger • Sid McCollum
john jennings
BACK ROW
Mary Schneider • john Stroud , jr jack Bell jack Davis Frank Hamlin
INC 1501 North University Ave., Prospect Building. Suite 420. Little Rock . AR 72207 501-376- 2121 111 6 South Walton Blvd .. Suite III. P.O. Box 1826. Bentonville, AR 72712 479-27 1-2237 404 North Seventh Street, P.O. Box 8064, Fort Smith , AR 72902 479-783- 1776 State LIne Plaza. Box 8030, Suite Six. Texarkana. AR 71854 870-772-07 18
40 nle Arkansas 11.l\.'Ycr
'vVWW.arkbar.com
fo r filin g expenses, (0 prosecute a personaJ injury claim o f Tho mas's mino r son. No fee agreement exists. C lay hired Jackso n. an accidem recon· structio nist. and sent him Clay's $ 1.000 personal check. C lay received a $ 1,000 payment from Tho mas for Jackso n's services o n January 20. 2003. Jackso n claims C lay's check bounced and C lay fu il ed to make it good until April 200S. after th e Tho mas co mplaint was known to C lay to have bee n fil ed. Jackson rendered an un mvor· able oral repon (0 C lay and on January 29, 2003, scm C lay his billing for $823.75 and his refund check o f $ 176.25. lay claimed the refund as an additional fee and d id nOt tell Thomas of it o r credit it to Thomas. lay needed to take depos i. {ions and obwin ed $ 1,000 for this purpose from Thomas. O ne deposi tio n, costing $ 180.60 was actually taken. C lay retained the balance of 58 19.40 as an add itio nal fee and Failed to account to Thomas for it. C lay tried the case to a jury in October 2004 and los(. Thomas then ran a small "personaJs" section nOlice in [he state paper [hat was negati ve about Clay as a lawyer. On November 24, 2004, C lay sued Tho mas fo r defamati o n, and Th omas cO lllHercl aim ed . Th omas [hen fil ed his complaint at O Pe. C lay later dismissed his suit. C lay's lawyer se nt Jackson a check for $ 1.000 fo r his work in January 2003. when the C lay check had not been hon ored. Th e counterclaim was serried prior to trial. C lay did nOt deposit the two advance pay· ments from Thomas into a (ruS{ account. Z IMM ERY C RUT C H ER, JR., Bar No. 74029, of Linle Rock, Arkansas, was reprim anded . fin ed $ 1.500.00 and o rdered to pay $750.00 restitu· tion by Comminee Findings & Order fil ed ovember 28. 2005. o n a Complaint filed by T hermon Lee Bea rd in Case No. 200 5·096. fo r violatio ns of Model Rul es 1.3. I A(3). 1.16(d). 3A(c) and 8.4(c). Mr. Beard hired Mr. Crutcher to represent him in a matter involving his broth· er. H is brother and Beard had purchased proper· ry togcther and Beard later signcd a quitclaim deed to his broth er. Mr. Beard wished to have th e deed set aside and tide to [he property quieted ro him . Mr. C rutcher agreed to represent Mr. Beard . and quoted Mr. lka rd a fee of $750. which was paid in installments, with the final payment o n February 3, 2005. At th at tim e. Mr. C rutcher ad vised lilar he wo uld be filin g me Compl aint fo r Mr. Beard against his brother. He provid ed Mr. Bea rd with a copy o f the Compl aim that he said was being fil ed. but whi ch C rutcher did not fil e. No action had been fi led o n behalf o f Mr. Beud ~ of June 20. 200 5. Mr. Cru tcher did fil e a Co mplai nt fo r Mr. Beard approx imately o ne (I) week after he was served with th e formal disci plinary complaint in thi s man er. Mr. Crut cher advised th e Committee th at the reaso n he did not fil e the Complaint until Au gust 11 , 2005, was bec., use M r. Beard had not approved the co ntents of the pleadin g. Mr. Beard deni ed this and stated tha t he