till' ).1 11' independent counsel about the rransaction. Henry's trust account records for the period of time from July 199 through April 1995 were made a part of the record during his d~ 110VO hear· ing. These records included the monthly summary statements, all cancelled checks, and all deposit slips for that period of time. From infor· mation arising OUt of Ms. Jackson's affidavit of complaint and from information comained in the file associated with the Estate proceeding, it was determined that certain funds owing to cred· itors of the Estate and to the Estare were nor present in Henry's trust account. Henry testified that his rrust account was OUt of balance for close to an entire year. The deposi. tion of his former secretary, Jean Austin, was made part of the record of the proceedings. She tesrified that she was responsible for balancing the trust accoum but had become overwhelmed and had allowed the accoum to get our of bal~ ance. Henry acknowledged that he was ulrimate· ly responsible for the truSt account and for compliance wirh the Model Rules addressing rrust accounts. Initially, he testified that a portion of the Estate funds were present in his rrust accoum ar all times from deposit umil final distribution to Ms. Jackson. However, in larer testimony Henry acknowledged that his statement to that
IIiSriplillill')\rt inns
effect could not be true during those times when thete were negarive balances in his trUSt account. He also admitted rhat rhere were instances of commingling his own funds with funds belonging to dients during the reflected time period. When presented with a payroll check which had been written OUt of his trust account, he admitted that a payroll check should not have been wrinen from his trust account. Henry also acknowledged that he maintained no ledger sheet nor other record in his office for the funds held on behalf of the Estate of Ms. Jackson's father. The Committee unanimously found that Henry violated Model RuJe 1.15(a), based upon the testimony, evidence and his admissions. By his own admissions and the evidence presented to the Committee, it was determined that he did nOt hold the property of the Estate and creditors of the Estate which was in his possession in connection with his representation separate from his own properry. The funds belonging to the Estare and credirors of the Estate were not maintained in his trust account until disbursed. Further, he deposited funds belonging to him or his law firm into the account designated as his {(ust account. The propeny of the Estate was not identified as such and appropriately safeguarded. In addition, he did not keep complete records of such
I' I
PAUL D. MIXON, Ph.D, P.E.
II
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT ELECTRICAL ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION • Reconstruction and Analysis • Property and Equipment Damage • Personal Injury or Death
PAUL D. MIXON, Ph.D., P.E. o Doctorate in Engineering o Over 13 Years Engineering Experience o Experienced Expert Witness
Conlact: Dr. Paul Mixon P.O. Box 3338 State University, AR 72467 (870)-972-2088 E-mail: pmixon@navajo.aslate.edu I~
Thr \rkmill LaWler
I'ol.ll II. IIf'a1l199S
account funds. In mitigation, at the commencement of the d~ 110110 hearing, Henry's counsel explained that he had agteed to address twO issues which Ms. Jackson wished to ha"e addressed in the Esrnte proceeding. First, he agreed to provide Ms. Jackson S156.95 still owed to the Estate. This amount had not previously been remined to the Estate by him because of a bookkeeping error. Second, he agreed to provide Ms. Jackson a signed statement acknowledging that he teceived Estate properry valued at approximately 52,000 as partial payment of his fees for services provid· ed in connection with the Estate. It was Ms. Jackson's desire to presem such proof to the Probate Judge and finally close the Estate of her father.
MR. DONNY GE E GILLASPIE EL DORADO, AR The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Arkansas Supreme Coun case of CI~otis \'(/illis v. Slate ofArkansas, CR 95·1218. Donny Gene Gillaspie, Anorney at Law, EI Dorado, Arkansas, represented Cleotis Willis through trial in Union County Circuit Coun. Mr. Willis was found guilry of first-degree batrery and sentenced to thirry.rwo years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Mr. Gillaspie filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Mr. Willis. The record was not filed timely with the upreme Coun Clerk and Mr. Gillaspie's Motion for Rule on the Clerk was granted. Additionally, the anorney moved for remand to the trial court for completion of the record. That motion was granted also and the record was subsequently lodged with the Clerk. The Supreme Coun Clerk issued a scheduling order which set February I, 1997, as the date for Mr. Willis' abstract and brief to be filed. Mr. Gillaspie failed [0 file the documents on or before that date. The Supreme Coun Clerk sem a lener to Mr. Gillaspie advising him that he had ten days to file the documents or the marrer would be brought to the anemion of the Coun. Again, no response was received from Mr. Gillaspie. On March 10, 1997. the Anorney General of Arkansas filed with the Clerk a Morion to Dismiss Appeal. Mr. Gillaspie responded to the motion on March 19, 1997. with a Motion for Permission to File a Belated Brie( In his motion, Mr. Gillaspie stated that he was physically unable to prepare the abstract and brief because he was suffering from an acute, severe episode of clinical depression. On April 14, 1997, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied the Attorney General's mmion and granted Mr. Gillaspie's motion to file a belated brief. The Coun extended the time for Mr. Gillaspie fa file the brief to May 12, 1997. Mr. Gillaspie failed to file the abstract and brief on or before May 12. On May 12, Mr. Gillaspie filed a Mmion for Additional Brief Time due to