Lawyer Disciplinary Actions 3 bailor tid e case involving a salary "cap" for certain scate officials. including justices of
the Supreme Court. He requested recusal of all seven justices from hearing his case, arguing they had a perso nal financial interest in the Quccome of rhe case and they had demo nst rated a hosriliry roward him based on the Co urt's rulings against him in five cases over a ten- yea r period. He basically dema nded w hat m ight be characte ri zed as a "fa ct-findi ng" hea ring at w hich he would be
able
[0
qu estion the Court members on
issues th at were of interest [0 him. The Court held that Stilley's seventy page brief should he stricken in its emiteer because of
his cominucd use of disrespecdUl. strident language and his repeated refusal
[0
recog-
nize and adhere co precedem. The Court's Per C uriam of May 17, 2002, should be lanread [Q see rhe extent and narure of guage the Court found offens ive and deserving of referral . Justice Brown dissclHed in part and recused from rhe pan of th e case dealing with rhe judicial salary "cap." In response, Mr. Stilley addressed each issue raised by the C ourt. H e strongly denied he has vio lated Ark. Ru le of Appellate Procedure 11 (" Rule I t ") in any manner tha t deserved sancti on. H e argued that the " Rule of Necessity" sho uld not be applied on th e feeusa l issue, based on rhe Brickho use case fro m 1925, where all sitting justices did recuse in a case dealing wim judicial salaries and the Governor appointed
me
a full Court of special justices. He argued that the only authoriry fo r strikin g a brief is in a situ ati on where the comments are disrespectful to a trial court. As to nO[ recognizing and adhering CO precedem , he asserted thar a lawyer is free to challenge precedent at any rim e, because rh e Court does change its mind , citing the reversal of long-standing precedent in a space of less than twO years on th e "dramshop rule" issue, where Mann v. Orrell, dec id ed unanimou sly in December 1995. was overruled in June 1997 in Shanno n v. Wilson. At a hearing, the Panel unanim ously found four Rule violatio ns and found his co nduct did not violate three othe r charged Rul es. Fin al Comminee action was delayed for so me ri me by a related su it filed in federal cou rr by Mr. Stilley, and by o ther procedural matre rs.
REPRJ MAN D: NORMAN 36
D.
ANGELERI , Bar No.
n,e Arkansas l m'Ycr
lNWW.arkbar.com
2002040, of Co nway, Arkansas, was reprimanded by Comminee Co nse nt Findings & Order filed June 16, 2006, on a complai nt by Donna Rush of Little Rock in Case No. 2006-038, for violations or Arkansas Rules 1.3 a nd 1.4 (a)(3). M s. Rush hired Respo ndent Angeleri o n November II , 2005, ro file a C hapter 7 bankruptcy and eve ntually paid him $684 for his fee, th e credit co unsel in g fee, and the fi li ng fee. H e failed to file for her. She co uld nO[ contacr him , statin g his Little Rock office was closed and she did nor know where he was. She eve ntually gOt a seco nd artorney, who promptly filed a C hapter 13 petition for her on April 7, 2006, for a fee of $2,550, plus a $274 filin g fee. Respondent refunded $350 to her in May 2006, and scated he was not aware she had rerminated his legal services until he received the Office of Professional Conduct compla int. DELISA K. BLANTON , Bar No. 2000014, of Benton , Arkansas, was rep rimanded and ordered to pay $ 185.00 restitution by Comminee Co nsent Findings & Order fi led March 21 , 2006, on a Judicial Co mp laim by Unired Sca res Bankruptcy Judge Audrey Evans in Case o. 2006-005, for violatio ns of Model Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 3.2, and 8.4(d). Judge Evans repo rted Respondent Blan ton for problems with three bankruptcy cases. In the H ood case, Respondent failed to give me creditors notice of Respo ndent's filing of a moti on to reinsta te. eve n after the Co urt wrote Respondent about it. In th e Bowdie case, in an adversary proceeding, Respondent and her client failed to appear at a scheduled hea ring and summary judgment was granted against he r client. Respondent apparently failed to info rm her client of th e meeting and offered no vaJid reaso n why she missed ir. Respond ent pet ition ed for reh ea rin g alleging she had no t been provided notice of the earlier hearing. There was substantial co rrespo ndence to the co ntrary. In the H arris case, Respo ndent fa il ed co file clients' ba nkruptcy petition in face of their notice co her that a foreclosure saJe o n their home was imminent. Due to the failu re to file. the home was so ld and Respo ndent failed to do anything ro fix the problem she created . Respon dent replied that during this time frame she was under great S[ ress, primarily from dealing wi th her spouse's major healch probl ems.
MARC IA M . BRINTON, Bar No. 83030, of Fayetteville. Arkansas. was reprimanded and orde red to pay $28,500.00 in restitution by Committee Co nsent Findings & Order filed May I I, 2006, on a Complaint filed by Pau la & Jake H edden in Case No. 2004- 173, for vio lations of Model Rules 1.1 , 1.4(a), 1.5 (c), 1.1 5(a)(3), 1.1 5(b)(3), and 8.4(c). Respo ndent Brinton re presented the H edd ens on a 40% contingent fee basis in a perso na l inju ry case aris ing from an accident in 1994 , from which Ms. Hedden eventually lost a leg. In February 1997 the case was setrl ed for $ 100,000. Respondent rook her $40 ,000 fee plus costs, and distributed funds to a number of provid ers and $ 10,000 to Jake H edden for his co nsortium claim. Ms. H edd en claimed she has never received any funds fro m Responde nt for her claim. Respondent stated she destroyed her client file a nd trust account records for the H edden maner so me time ago, and was unabl e to obtain her truSt account reco rds after being notifi ed of the filing of the H edde n grieva nce. because her then-bank no longer existed. M s. H edden claimed Respondent did nOt pay, o r properly deal with, all her known medi cal bills. Respo ndent agreed to a consent judgment in November 1999 on a chiropracric cl ini c bill of Ms. H edden's of $ 1,560, without the knowled ge of M s. Hedden , and with an alleged questionable signature of Ms. Hedden on the jud gment d ocument. Respondent agreed ro pay the judg me nt 111 installments from Respondent's personal funds over the next fWO years. to keep the judgment from bei ng publicly recorded. When Res po ndent did nOt pe rfo rm on thi s obligation, the judgment was record ed in November 2002, and executio n atrempted aga inst the H eddens' properry in Februa ry 2003. In November 2000, another provider rook a d efa ult judgment against M s. H edden for $2,695.32 for an unpaid medical bill from the 1994 accident. Ms. H edden had a medi cal maJpractice claim thar arose from her injuries in the 1994 accid ent and Respondent handed thar ca use of actio n ofT to another ano m ey. Matthews. who pursued it to a sercleme nt. In rhe process o f his representation of Ms. H edde n in that maner, M anhews co rresponded with Respo ndent asking for a n accounting from her for the $ 100,000 sertl eme nt . H e wrote also about the chiropractic bill. Respondent finaJly se nt Matthews