Lawyer Disciplinary Actions therefore M f. Blacker wou ld be subject
[0
conrempt of cou rt if he failed to make resti-
tution in the
of $30,000.
amOlllH
Mr.
Joplin was not thorough enough in his representatio n of Mr. Blacker to he aware mat a
plea of "nolo contendere" which he entered on behalf of Mr. Blacker is "required to be received only from the defendant himself in open court." Mr. Jopl in misrepresenred the tru e facts to Jud ge Wilkinso n when he signed off on a Judgment and an Amended Judgment which set out tha t his client, Mr. Blacker, was required to pay a tmal of $30,000 in restitution. The actual agreement, acco rding (0 Mr. j opli n, was for Mr. Blacker [Q pay only $3,600 as res titution. joplin also misrepresenred th e truc facts to his client, Mr. Blacker, when he allowed Mr. Blac ker to believe that he was emering into a judgment in hjs cri minal marrer which would require Blacker ro pay $3.600 in restirutio n and then be eligible [Q have his reco rd expunged. MORRI S W. THOMPSON. Bar No. 80 145. of Li[tie Rock. Arkansas. was reprimanded by me Opinion of [he Arkansas Sup reme Co u" in No. 06- 1069. Morris W. Thompson vs. Supreme Co urt Co mmittee on Professio nal Conduct, delivered March 8,2007) affirm ing the Co mmittee Findjngs & O rd er filed March 7, 2007, on a complaint fi led by Leon Gooden of jonesboro in Case No. crc 2005-067. which assessed a reprimand, a $4,000 fine, and $378 costs
agai nst Mr. Thompson for violation of Model Rules 3. 1 and 4.4. The fum of [he case were reported in The Arkansas Lawyer in Vol. 4 1. No. 3 (ar page 38). Summer 2006. On March 7. 2003. Thompson filed a breach-of-co ntract lawsuit on behalf of a commc[Qr aga inst Mr. Gooden, seeking a money judgmem for work perform ed on Gooden's properry locared ar 2 13 N. Allis in Jonesboro. On May 30. 2003. Thompson filed a lis pendens nmice on eleven of Gooden's se parate properties. Gooden wanted to sell a property he owned at 216 N. Fisher but was unab le [Q do so beca use of the lis pendens notice. Gooden comacted twO local attorneys about the situation. The first ano rn ey spoke to Thompson in December 2003. T he second arrorney wrore T hompson in Janu ary 2004. Bo[h requested that Thompson promptly remove the lis pendens as ro any properties except the O IlC on wh ich the work was actual ly performed. On February II . 2004. Thompso n filed a release on nine of the eleven properties listed in the lis pendens notice. Arkansas law is wel l settled that a lis pendens nmice callnm be filed in a civil action seeking a money judgment. After being notified, T hompson rook ['\vo months before makin g any attempt to correct his error.
CAUTION: STEPHEN FISH ER. Bar No. 9 1073. of Little Rock, Arkansas, was cautioned by Co mmittee Findings and Order filed March 9. 2007. on a complain< by C hris and janetta Porrer of Litcle Rock, Arkansas, in Case No. cr 2006-143. for violarion of Arkansas Ru les 1.1 . 1.3. 3.2. 3.4(c). and 5.5(a). M r. Fisher agreed to represenc Chris and janctta Porter in a federal lawsuit, wh ere they all eged discrimination by their former employer. Mr. Fisher met with the Porte rs and accepted money for fees fro m them during a time wh en his license to practice law was suspended for fa ilure to pay his annual li cense fee. M r. Fisher fai led ro act dilige ntly and promptly in his representation of the Poners. He did nm serve rhe defendant in a prompt mann er and so ught ['\\10 extensions of time in which to do so. During the course of his represe ncation of the Porters, Mr. Fisher did not timely respond co the discovery served on him. He did nor respond to th e Motion for Summary Ju dgment fi led by the opposing co ullsel. H e was not thorough enough in his representatio n of C hris and j anetta Porter ro be ce rtai n that he sued all appropriate defendants in the matter. In addition , Mr. Fisher did not send the d.i scovery requests co his c1iems until twO weeks after the discovery requests were served on him by opposing co unsel. Instead of ex peditin g the litigation for the Poners, he requested extensions of time ro serve the
DOES YOUR CLIENT HAVE IRS OR STATE TAX TROUBLES? REFER THEM TO IJROFESSIONALS WHO CAN HELP THEM WITH: oOffers in CompromiseoInstallment AgreementsOPenalty Abatement RequestsoInnocent Spouse oAuditsoAppealsoTax LitigationoBankruptcy* Let us assist your diems in dealing with their tax problems. utilizing an array of options including bankruptcy.
EXPERIENCED TAX RESOLUTION PROFESSIONALS M o re than 7 0 years combin ed experience
Neil Deininger and Reba Wingfield DEININGER & WINGFIELD. P.A. Attorneys at Law 920 W. 2nd Srreer. Linle Rock. AR 7220 I (501 ) 372-3843 ' We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy rel ief under the Bankruptcy Code
40
nlC
Arkansas lm\ycr
www.arkbar.com