DISCIPLINARY deadline due to Mr. Mercer's campaign for Circuit Judge. Additionally, when Mr. Watson came to his office to make weekly payments he generally wanted to discuss his case with Mr. Mercer taking anywhere from thirty minutes to one hour in this regard. Having failed to file the brief, the appeal was dismissed. Mr. Mercer averred, contrary to the statement of Mr. Watson, that he did advise rum of the dismissal. Mr. Mercer testified at the hearing of the steps taken by him to avoid future mishaps including the hiring of an experienced secretary who is also a trained paralegal; the addition of a full time associate; and his commitment to not accepting more cases than the office can adequately handle. Finally, Mr. Mercer presented a number of letters from local attorneys on his behalf.
GARY E. JOHNSON Upon recommendation of the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, on March 7, 1994, the Arkansas Supreme Court accepted the surrender of the license of Cary E. Johnson of Pulaski County, Arkansas, to practice law in the State of Arkansas.
MEREDITH WI ELA D Meredith Wineland, Benton, was issued a letter of reprimand for violation of Model Rule 1.4(a) as a result of a complaint filed by Bobby W. Outlaw. Mr. Outlaw stated in his affidavit of complaint that he began negotiating with his workers' compensation insurance carrier, Crum and Forster, concerning an on-the-job injury which he sustained in September of 1991. Mr. Outlaw received an offer of settlement of $26,713.28 in June of 1993. Mr. Outlaw stated that he hired Ms. Wineland to possibly obtain a larger settlement. Mr. Outlaw indicated that despite numerous attempts to contact Ms. Wineland between July and September, he
ACTIONS
/
ADVISORY
was unable to speak with her. Contact with the insurance company revealed that Ms. Wineland had not contacted them. In early October of 1993 Ms. Wineland informed Mr. Outlaw of an offer of $23,589.74 plus attorney's fees, an amount $3,286.76 less than the original amount offered. Mr. Outlaw requested that Ms. Wineland continue to negotiate. Mr. Outlaw alleged that his letters to Ms. Wineland requesting an update went unanswered. The insurance company indicated that their messages to her were unanswered also. Mr. Outlaw then terminated Ms. Wineland's representation. Ms. Wineland responded that Mr. Outlaw initially contacted her in December of 1991, and she sent him a medical authorization form which was never returned. Ms. Wineland stated that Mr. Outlaw requested advice from her over a two year period, all of the advice taking place over the phone with no request for compensation. Ms. Wineland ind.icated this was done in anticipation that she would receive the case when and if Mr. Outlaw hired an attorney. On June 19, 1993, Ms. Wineland was officially hired by Mr. Outlaw for the workers' compensation case. She stated that she was unaware that Mr. Outlaw had been offered $26,713.28. Ms. Wineland ind.icated that the insurance contact person was difficult to deal with and was difficult to contact. She stated that when she was finally able to contact the insurance company, she was informed that it was Mr. Outlaw who was difficult to deal with. Ms. Wineland indicated that she did not consider four months to be unreasonable.
JOH I. PURTLE In the Autumn 1993 issue of Tile Arkansas Lawyer, there was a listing the John I. Purtle was issued a letter of reprimand. Mr. Purtle appealed that case and the Supreme Court recently reversed the Committee on Professional Conduct's action and dismissed the case against Mr. Purtle.
OPINIONS
Arkansas Bar Association Ethics Advisory Opinion The following is a summary of an advisory opinion given by the Professional Ethics & Grievances Committee of the Arkansas Bar Association. If you would like a complete copy of the opinion, please contact the Association office at 375-4605 or (BOO) 482-
9406. Advisory Opinion 94-01 (Arkansas Bar Association, April 14, 1994): Attorney Contact with Represented Adverse Party. The Professional Ethics & Grievances Committee of the Arkansas Bar Association issued an advisory opinion discussing direct attorney contact with an adverse party who is an attorney and who is represented by an attorney. Under Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct such communication about the subject of the representation is improper unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer. Under federal bankruptcy law, the United States Trustee appoints practicing attorneys as trustees. Those trustees frequently hire attorneys to represent the trustee and those attorneys may commence proceedings against an adverse party. Although the trustees are lawyers, they have elected to employ counsel. Accordingly, the trustee becomes the client and is entitled to the protection of retained counsel. The attorney for the adverse party should not communicate directly with the trustee and the trustee should not initiate direct communications with the attorney for the adverse party. Rule 4.2 does not prohibit direct communications between adverse parties. U the trustee wishes direct contact with the adverse party's attorney, the trustee, when retaining the trustee's attorney, may notify hat attorney the trustee retains the power to communicate directly with the adverse party's attorney. In such situations the adverse party's attorney should obtain written consent from the trustee's attorney before communicating directly with the trustee.
21
ARKANSAS LAWYER
SUMMER 1994