Lawyer Disciplinary Actions to open probate of the Olen G illea n esrarc and have a perso nal rep resentarive appointed to purse rhe wrongful dea th action. When di scovery revealed that he had not brought rhe suit in the names of all dececlenr's heirs at law, as defined by Arkansas law, (a half-s ister was om itted ), a motion ro dismi ss on this basis was filed and gramed, and the suir filed was deemed a nullity. MARK A. SEXTON, Bar No. 98 152, of Little Rock, Arkansas, was caUli o ned and fin ed $ 1,500.00 by Co mmittee Co nsent Findings & Order fil ed March 22, 2006, on a Judi cial Complainr by Circuit Judge M ichael Fitzhugh of Fort Smith in Case No. 2005-092, for vio lations of Model Rul es 3.4(c) and 8.4(d). On Ocrober 2 \, 2004, Mark A Sexton, or so meone on his behalf, forwarded [Q rhe Sebastian County Circuit Clerk's Office a co mplaint and summons in rh e case of Ca pital O ne Bank v. Ti mothy M. Harrzig. D eputy Sheri ff Ron Morris received the documems for se rvice but was unabl e to perfect service and noted that faCt o n the re[Urn in the borrom left co rner of the Summons, as "unable to serve bad address." The return with the nore written on ir was given to the C lerk 's Office for filing. O n January 25, 2005, Mr. Sexton sem a letter to the Court with a proposed Default Judgm enr and advised the Co urt that he had contacted the C lerk's office and that service had bee n m ade o n th e Defendant. Before e!Hering the Default Judgment, Judge Fi tzhugh reviewed the Clerk 's file and noriced that the return of service submitted by Mr. Sexton did not match the original return of se rvice in the C lerk's file, because although the Sheriffs original return of servi ce indicated that service o n the defendant had been obta ined, it
also had hand-wrirren on the bo[[o m "unable [Q serve" and the document provided to Judge Fitzh ugh did not co ntai n that nO[3tion. Judge Fitzhugh set the matter for a hearing and instructed that Mr. Sexton appea r and bring anyone in his office who dealt with the docum ents to explain the diffe rence. Mr. Sex ron appeared and brought an affidavit of a firm employee, but nO[ th e employee. Judge Fitzhugh took rh e testi mony of several individuals, with no o ne being ab le co determ ine how or where th e return ca me to be alte red. Mr. Sexton supplied the copy of the Return of Service that was in his fil e - that being the altered documem - which did not show any evidence of alteration. Judge Fitzhugh did find that Mr. Sexcon violated the directive of the Court by not bringi ng the employee who handled rhe matter with him to the hearing. The Co mmittee held that Mr. Sexton's fai lure to be diligent enough to be certain that service had been perfected on Timothy Harrzig and his conduct in providing, or aJlowing to be provided, to th e Court an altered return of service crea ted the need for an additional hea ring and proceedings before Judge Fir:zhugh in the matter. STEVEN R. SM ITH, Bar No. 911 77, of Little Rock, Arkansas, was ca utioned by Co mmittee Findings & Order filed June 20,2006, on a Trust Account Complaint in Case No. 2006-03 1, for violations of Arkansas Rule 1.15 (a)(I). On January 18, 2006, Respondent Smirh issued his trust account check to pay the rent deposit on his new office, causin g a negative truSt accou m balance and an overdraft notification to OPC . T he same day he issued a truSt account check to buy an office fil e cabinet. On January 23, 2006, he issued a
rrusr account check to pay a diem's medical bill, and payment of the check by his bank caused a nega tive $154.77 trust account balance. Respondent received a $ 140.00 fil ing fee check from a dienr o n November 11 ,2005. failed to timely deposit same into his reusr accounr, and paid her filing fee with a trust accou nr check that had to have been pa id wi th trust funds of oc her dients. JAM ES W. STANLEY, JR. , Bar No. 75125, of North Little Rock, Arkansas, was cautioned and fined $ 1,500.00 by Committee Findings & Order filed April 3, 2006, on a Supreme Court Per Curiam Order in Case No. 2006-006, for violations of Model Rul es 1.3 and 8.4(d). Respondent Stanley failed [Q obtai n a timely extension to lodge his diem's Uose Lugo) record in a civil appeal, and had co file a mocion for rule on th e clerk, which was denied April 22, 2004. His d ient lost all righr to an appeal. _
SOCIAL SECURITY CASES AND FEDERAL APPEALS Are you too busy to cake your Social Secu ri ry appeals to Federal Co urt? We accept refe rrals for Social Securi ry appeals, and will return any remanded case to the referring attorney for final disposition. Do yo u practice in areas orher than Social Securi ty and desi re ro refer clients co all attorney who limirs his practi ce to Social Security? We can
The Law Firm of
handle the daim from start to finish.
Ill'idges, l'ouug, ~liltthelVs &Dlilke I'Le is pleased to announce
Illiludon C, Il.obiuson has beco me an associare of the firm EG. Bridges (!866-1959)
Fran k G. Bridges, Jr. (! 906- 1973) Paul B. Young (! 920-2004) Stephen A. Matthews
Ted N. Drake Joseph A. Strode Jack A. McNulty Terry E Wynne
3 15 East Eighth Ave.
roo Box 7808 Pine Bluff, AR 7 16 11 (870) 534-5532
Michael J. Dennis David L. Si ms R. Scorr Morgan Cary E. Young James c. Moser, Jr. John I~ Talbor
CALL: DAVID P. RAWLS T he Brad Hendri cks Law Firm 500 C Pleasant Valley Drive Little Rock, AR 72227 501-22 1-0444 Toll Free: 800-603-5 100
Brandon C. Robinson
Vol. 41 No. 31Surlllncr 2006
n,C Arkansas la"Yer
43