Lawye Disciplin;..IIY Actions approved if (h e day he made his final installment paymenr to Mr. Crm cher. In addi tio n, Mr. C rutcher was suspended from the practice of law for fai lure to pay his annual license fee on March 2, 2005. Mr. Crutcher adm itted that he did nor pay hili 2005 allllual licclIse fec umil August 10. 2005.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIDSON , B., No. 8 1044, of Jonesboro, Arkansas, was reprimanded and fined $ 1,000.00 by Co mm itrec Findings & Order fi led March 6, 2006, on a Com plaint filed by Mi lt Clegg in Case No. 2005-1 17, for violations of Model Rules L2(a), L3 , 1.4(a), 1.4{b), 1.1 5(a), 1.1 6(d), 3.4{e), 5.5{a), and 8.4{e). Mr. Clegg, a Mississippi business owner (EPSCO ), hired Mr. Davidson in November 2000 to pursue his claims against the Chavers (father and (wo sons) and their firm in Jonesboro. Respo ndent obtai ned a defauJr judgment for $ 18,269 against the father, and judgment, affirm ed on appeaJ in February 2003. against the sons fo r $80.360. Clegg asked Davidson ro pursue collection. C legg sem Respondent $500 in March 2003 ro pay fo r depositions. C legg and EPSCO then began ex peri encing diffi culty obtaining status reports from Davidso n. In February 2004. Davidson commun icated. a $25.000 settlement offer from the C havers' atto rney ro Clegg. C legg informed Davidson thar to properly evaluate th e offer he needed the information on the C havers' assets Davidson was to obtai n by depos ition. After many requests by EPSCO. Davidson finally rook the Chavers depositions in june 2004. C legg was not provided with the depositions and the reporrer was not paid her fee of $355.50. Clegg requested an accounti ng for the $500 bur received none. Clegg fi led his complaint with ope on Dece mber 2. 2004. orc: wro re Davidso n on December 31,2004. O n AprilS. 2005, EPSCO terminated Davidson's services, deman ded an accouming of the $500, and a refund of any unused balance. On Apri l 8. 2005, Davidso n provided ÂŁ PSCO 's new Arka nsas co unsel with copi es of the C havers depositio ns from june 2004. The reponer was paid by Davidson at the time he filed his response to the co mplaint , and he forwarded rhe balance of $108.66 to O PC for EPSCO on his office account check. Davidso n fa il ed to pay his 2003, 2004 and 2005 annual law license fee and was engaged in the unauthori7..ed practice of law during [hose years as a result. MARVA JOYCE DAVIS, Bar No. 83046, of Linl " ROl..k. A.kansas. was reprimanded by Committee Consent Findings & Order filed February 2 1. 2006, o n a Complainr fi led by Renee' C rater of MC H Physical Therapy Cli nic (MC H) in Case No. 2005-170. for violations of Model Rules LI, L2{a), 1.8(e), Ll5(a), Ll 5{b), and 8.4(c). Ms. Davis represented Phillips. Bryam, and twO Taylors in personal injury matters. All four were treated by and assigned pan of 42 TI1C Arkansas Lm\ycr
www.arkbar.com
their settlements to pay MCH directly. Davis also advanced or loa ned Ms. Taylor, her office employee at the time. $1,300 against her future settlement possibility. in violation of Rule I.B (e), and then collected her loan from Taylor's settlement. Davis settled the four claims, paid one Taylor account at MCH , and did not pay the other three, although she withheld funds for that purpose from rhe other three settlements. Ms. C rate r fo und out about rhe settlements in September 2004 and made demand fo r payment. then filed her complaint in mid-2005. OPC contacted Davis. who eventually paid all accounts. totaling $4.765.55, in fujI. Davis's trust accou nt balance fell as low as $99.66 in june 2005.
Hicks for his conduct in the appeal of Robert Mcintosh. whom Hicks had rep resented at trial. A timely Notice of Appeal was filed, but Mr. Hicks took no further actio n to pursue the appeal. Anorher atto rney filed an entry of appeara nce but also fail ed to file the record on appeal. Mr. Hi cks fail ed to seek permission to wi thdraw from represe ntation and th erefo re rema in ed responsible fo r th e appeal. The Supreme Co un appointed a Master ro co nduct a hearing abo U( the appeal. Despite having notice, Mr. Hicks failed (Q appear before th e Master. He fai led to pay his annual law license fee by the date due. as requi red by Arkansas Supreme Court Rule.
DAVID L DUNAGIN, Bar No. 84040, of Forr Smith . Arka nsas. was reprim anded by Committee Findings and Order fi led. February 28,2006, on a Per C uriam Order Compl aint in Case No. 2005- 102, for violations of Model Rul es 1.2{.), L3, 3.4{e) and 8.4{d). The Arkansas Supreme Court referred Mr. Dunagin to the Comm ittee based on his fa ilure to pursue an appeal on behalf of his diem. Sherry Childers, in a case where her parcnraJ rights had been terminated. Mr. Dunagin fai led to obtain a timely Orde r extending the time to file the appeal record. Because of this fa ilure, he did not seek to file the record. Mr. Dunagin made the decision [Q not file a Motion for Rule on the C lerk or Motion fo r Belated Appeal because he did not bel ieve the Court would gram either because the appeal did nOt involve a crimi nal matter. All of the information about Mr. Dunagin's conduct was reveaJed at th e hearing held by th e C ircuit Court on the issue of attorney error based on a referra1 by {he Arkansas Supreme Coun [Q conduct rhe hearin g. T he reco rd showed the Coun Reporter did nor deliver rhe reco rd (0 Mr. Dunagin umil one day after the deadline to file the record. Mr. Dunagin admined that he violated Model Rule 1.2(a) as he did not fi le rhe record on appeal within the ti me aJ lowed. Mr. Dunagin ad mitted thar he was in violarion of Model Rul es 1.3 and 3.4(c) in that he did not obtain an Order extending the time to file the reco rd on appeaJ because the Court Reporter told him that she would have the record to him and that she had never bee n late in her life tendering a record to an attOrney. Mr. Dunagin explained that he received the record that day after it was due. Mr. Dunagin also offered that he wou ld have filed a Motion for Rule on the C lerk if the Court was f.worab ly rul ing on such, which they were nor at the tim e involving Ms. C hilders' appeal.
STEPH EN GREGORY HOU GH, Sar No. 84077. of Fort Smith, Arkansas, was reprimanded by Com minee Find ings & Order filed March 7,2006, on a Per C uri am Order Co mplaint filed in Case No. 2005-1 10, fo r violations of Model Ru les I. I , 1.3, 3.4(e), 5.5{a), and 8.4(d). Mr. Hough rep resented the appellant in No. CACR 05-15 , Joel Mark Burroughs v. State. On March 3 1. 2005, Hough was granted a ti me extension for his bri ef but (hen failed to file one. The State fi led to dismiss, Mr. Hough did not file a response, and the motion was granted May It. 2005. Hough's 2005 law license fee was not paid until August 10, 2005 , so his law license was automatically adm inistratively suspe nded from March 2 - August 10,2005.
RICKEY H. HI C KS, Bar No. 89235, of Little Rock, Arkansas, was reprimanded and fined $500.00 by Committee Findings and Order filed January 25. 2006, on a Per Curiam Order Complaint in Case No. 2005- 10 I, fo r violations of violated Model Rules 1.2(a). 1.3, 3.4(c). and 8A(d). The Arka nsas Su preme Coun referred
STE PH EN GREGORY HOUG H , Bar No. 84077, of Fort Smith , Arkansas, was reprimanded and ordered to pay $425.00 restitution by Committee Findings & Order filed March 7. 2006, o n a Complaint fi led by Rosan na Hayward in Case No. 2005- 111 . for violations of Model Ru les 1.4 (a), 1.4{b), Ll6 (d), 3.4{e), 5.5{a), and 8.4(c). Ms. Hayward was sued for divorce and hired Hough on March 14, 2005. to represent her and pa id him $425 of his quoted $850 fee. Hough had not paid his 2005 law li cense fee and his li cense was auto matically ad ministratively suspended as of March 2, 2005. Hough failed to respond to her requests for informatio n about her case. On March 3 1, 2005. Mr. Hough suffered a major personal incid ent. Ms. Hayward read abou t ir in the paper and requested her fee back and a copy of her file so she could retai n another anorney. Hough failed to keep an appointment with her for that purpose. O n May 17,2005 , the court mai led a trial not ice fo r October IB, 2005, to Mr. Hough and opposi ng counsel. Hough never rerurned the confi rmation to the judge's office and did nor inform Ms. Hayward of her trial date. Hough respo nded that duri ng late March 2005 and thereaft er he was mentall y unabl e to deal with his practice. STEPHE N GREGORY H OUG H , Bar No. 84077, of Fon Smith , Arkansas. was reprimanded and ordered to pay $750.00 restirution by