VOL.34_NO.1_WINTER 1999

L Revolutionize how you do research with WestIawPRO for solos and small finnsl For the first time, small Arkansas law [inns of 1-15 attomej can have the research power of Westla, at one low monthly rate. With WesllawPRO you getunlimiled access to the complete lineup of Arkansas databases." IX'estlawPRO covers over 50 Arkansas databases, including Ark,Ulsas Cases 'md West's' Arkansas Code, Arkansas Court Rules and Orders, Arkansas Allomey General Opinions, Arkansas Secretary of State Corporations and Limited Partnerships, Arkansas Taxation Cases and Administrative Materials and more.

For additional coverage, otller databases like .5. Supreme Court Cases, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Cases, Arkans,~ Federal DislriCl Court Cases and usa'" are av,lilable for an additional charge.

N

Even better, you also benefit from West Group exclusives like KeySearching and the Key Number SelVice, tenns added to SjTIopses and headnotes by our editors, WIN'" plain-English searching and all the other features that make Westfall' tile choice of legal research professionals. If you need research or technical assistance, West Group Reference Allomeys and Customer Support are a toll-free call away, seven days a week.

New from West Group! Kej{;ite is tile new citation research service that tells you more about a case and allows you to zero in on pertinent issues immediately!

For II complele WU'KO Arkall$:I'j d:lt:il~ listing, visit us 011 lhe IlIIeruct ai,

N

N

Call 1·800·762·5272

hl1 p:l/v4""'·W. wcs tgrou p.co ",I w Ia wi ofolwl p rol.... , pro. h t m

PIeo~ provide

WestlavvPRON INFORMATION 0Orh... ..... >ChOn. oppIy "'~I ~11o The "'~ oI>own ...."'... or. "....

c~

...,IIIOW!

""'* lo«n..

OI998w.stGtoo.p 7-97300/11l~8

19..78591

ON

YOUR

TERMS"

"Clt>«o

Soncrof!.Whitney· Clark Boardmon Callaghan lowyen Coopet'oriYII Publiming • Welr\ow- • West Publidling

OffER NUMBER 947859.

.....

•

WEST

GROUP

VOLUME 34, NUMBER 1 PUBLISHER ArkollS11s Bor A5s0ciution Phone: (501) 3754606

on en s

Fax; (501) 375-4901 Homepage: www.arkbar.com E-Mail: cunderwood@arkbar.com

ARKANSAS BAR ASSOCIATION 400 W. Markham Li«I. Rock, Arkansas 72201 EDITOR Cathy Underwood

ASSOCIATE EDITOR Sarti umdis EDITORIAL BOARD David H. Williams, Chair Wiley A. Branton Thomas M. Carpenter Morton Gitelman James C. Graves Jacqueline J. Johnston Thomas H. McGowan Al Schay Jacqueline S. Wright

A New Judicial Article for a New and Better Court System

by Sidn')' H. McCollum 6

OFFICERS President Robert M. Cearley, Jr. President-Elect Louis 8. Jones, Jr. Immediate Past President Jack A. McNulty Secretary -Treasurer H. Murray Claycomb Executive Council Chair Philip E. Kaplan Young Lawyers' Section Chair Gwendolyn D. Hodge Executive Director Don Hollingsworth Associate Executive Director Judith Gray

Non-Partisan Elections by fustier Robert L. Brown

12

Hisrory of the Judicial Article by judge john F. Stroud, jr.

14

About the Membership Survey

by Don Hollingsworth

15

---

Results from "Professionalism" Section of the Membership Survey

by Doug Buffalo and Don Hollingsworth

16

Membership Survey Results

20

------

EXEGITIVE COUNQL

J.

Ray Baxter William M. Clark, Jr. F. Thomas Curry Thomas A. Daily Thomas F. Donaldson, Jr. Lynn Manning Flynn Ron D. Harrison Dave Wisdom Harrod Knox B. Kinney Thomas D. Ledbetter Michael W. MitcheU Charles C. Owen Brian H. Ratcliff Steven T. Shults James D. Sprott EXECUTIVE COUNCIL LIAISON MEMBERS Judge Bentley F. Story Harry Truman Moore Carolyn B. Witherspoon Alice Holcomb

Arkansas Bar Association Disaster Legal Assistance

On the Cover: The Arkansas State Constitution on display at the Arkansas State Capitol.

Photographs by Dixie Knight Photography.

Project for Tornado Disaster Victims

29

Arkansas Bar Association Salutes Arkansas State Legislarors

31

1998 CLE S eakers & Program Plan_n_er_s

PRESIDENT'S REPORT,

by Robert M. Cearley, JI:

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REpORT,

by Don Hollingsworth

by Carolyn Witherspoon

....

LAW OFFICE TECHNOLOGY,

2

3

5 24

MEMBER BENEFITS

~

33

In ~~l~I'\'• Issur LEITER TO THE EDITOR,

Thl! Arilms4s I...aw!I" (liSPS 546-040) is published quarterly by tht Arkansas Bar Association. Periodicals postage paid al Uttle Rock, Arkansas. POSTMASTER; send address changes to Thl ArkllnSQs Latuyn,4OO Wesl Markham,. Little Rock. Arkansas 7l201. Subscription price to non-members 0( the Arkansas Bar Association 525.00 per year. Anyopinion expressed herein is that of the author, and not necessari· ly that or the Arkansas Bar Association or 171£ Arkllnsas Law,¥". Cootributions to Thl! Arkansus L1wyer an" welcome and should be sent in two copies to EDITOR, TItl! ArkQI!SlIS Law,¥", 400 Wesl Markham, Little Rock" Arkansas 7l201. All inquiries regarding advertising should be senl to Editor, Thl Arkllnsas Lawytr at the above address.

Copyrighi 1999, Arkansas Bar Association. All rights

_

by Gerry Schllize

26

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARV ACTIONS

28 34

JUDICIAL ADVISORV OPINIONS

36

YOUNG LAWYERS SECTION REPORT,

by Gwendolyn Hodge

LAWYER DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

38

IN MEMORIAM

45

CLE CALENDAR

48 48

CLASSIFlED ADVERTISINGnNDEX TO ADVERTISERS

1'l'I sidl'nt \ III'plll't l

Multidisciplinary Practice

by Robert M. Cearley, Ir.

Perhaps the most important issue to face me legal profession this century is "multidisciplinary practice." Changes wrought by technology and the globalization of markets and opportunicy have brought Wall Sereer co Main Sneer. The same changes that allow our clients to do business across street, as well as around the world, have created demands for "one stop shopping" that afe being met elsewhere by "multidisciplinary practice"--coordinated services provided by accountants, lawyers, financial planners, tax consultants, investment advisors, econo-

in the world. All of the major international accounting/consulting firms are aggressively soliciting business, including traditional legal work, in addition to standard accounting, tax, and business consulting services.

This multidisciplinary practice has halted at our borders only because of the prohibitions contained within the Model Rules of

mists, and others operating as one. Though

ships with non-lawyers. Bur just last year

background paper which the Commission

prohibited by the rules of professional con-

the Washington D.C. bar becanle the first in the United States to amend its rules to allow fee sharing wicl1 a nonlawyer, opening the door for the formation of the first US "strategic alliance" of a law firm with an accounting firm, Ethics rules, evidentiary rules, and statures in all fifty states provide that communications bet\veen lawyer and c1iem are absolutely privileged and confidential.

Whereas, accountants have a duty to objectively analyze and publicly disclose information, lawyers have a different, and some might say, irreconcilable, duty, to act as advocates, and to protect client communications under several recognized privileges. (Last year Congress extended a confidential communication privilege to clients of accountants and other nonla\'{yers in civil praccice before the Internal Revenue Service.) While accountants can and do work for clients with competing interests, self-imposed conRict rules more often than not prohibit entire law firms from undertaking such representations, even if the conflict involves only a single lawyer in the firm, It is these fundamental differences-the accountanr's objectivity and the lawyer's advocacy-that have mandated the separation of the tWO professions, What happens if we begin to merge these roles? What impact will this have on our

has published together with the statements of witnesses at several days of public hearings which the Commission has conducted.

(These documents are available through the

me

ducr in all fifty stares, MOP is a reality elsewhere in the world and it may be coming [0 our town.

In the beginning the major proponents of MOP were the Big 5 accounting firms, but the movement has picked up steam, adding a number of other disciplines co its ranks, including lawyers and legal ethicists.

The die was cast about ten years ago when accounting firms starting expanding from accounting and tax consulting, in which they already employed lawyers, into consulting work, including litigation support. By

January 1998, Arrhur Andersen & Co. had a subsidiary practicing law France, Spain, and Australia.

Lybrand has announced that it among the largest law firms in

in England, Coopers & expects co be the world by

the year 2000. KPMG acquired me largest law firm in France and conducts a full service consulting business, including law practice, in nine other European countries, plus Australia. Price Waterhouse has over 300 business lawyers-not tax lawyers-in 33 European countries. Deloitte & Touche is practicing law in France, Austria, Belgium,

the Nemerlands, and Spain. With [he merger of rhe law firm of J & A Garrigues into Garrigues & Andersen, the largest law firm in Spain joined 1,500 lawyers worldwide to make Andersen the largest law firm

1 He ,Irkansas Law!er

1'01. ~Ilo. I/llinler 1999

Professional Conduct. Rule 5.4 of [he Model Rules of Professional Conducr adopted in every state in one form or another prohibits lawyers from sharing fees with non-lawyers and from entering into partner-

profession? And more importantly, "What impact will it have on the public which we serve? How can these competing interests be reconciled? If accounring firms and law firms merge, what problems do we face?"

To answer these questions, American Bar Association President Phil Anderson last August appointed a Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice which will report its findings and recommendations to the ABA House of Delegates this August at the

1999 Annual Meeting in Arlanta.

In the

meanwhile I urge you to read the excellent

ABA Center For Professional Responsibility and on-line at

hrcp:llwww.abaner.orglcpr/mul[icom.html.)

Futurists tell us that we must learn to think outside the box; that we can no longer afford to do things the same way just because that is the way we have always done them, Surely, forces that are shaping the

global markecplace will reshape the legal profession. Economic pressures and new technology which are driving the merger of and realignment of former competitors into

global players will bring change

to

me way

we practice law and accounting, John Naisbitt, the best selling author of "Megatrends" which foretold so much a generation ago which we have witnessed since. believes that we should embrace

changes

to

be wrough[ by [he global econo-

my and "reinvent" ourselves in a form which will better suit the needs of the public we serve.

Whatever we do-however we meet the challenge, we must remember that it is the public that gives us license to practice our chosen profession, and it is the public inrerest we must serve.';'

[Wflll ill' 1li"I'fll1l''s IIl'plll'l

Find-a-Lawyer Directory, E-mail Addresses and Website

by Don Hollingsworth e-mail: dhollingsworth@arkbar.com

FIND A LAWYER DlREcroRY

Coming this Spring is an important addition to OUf Association's Website. The Find-a-Lawyer Directory for the Website has been approved by our House of Delegates. Association members will receive morc informacion and a sign-up form this Spring.

President Robert Cearley started the process for establishing the Find-a-Lawyer Directory last summer. He appointed a committee chaired by Brian Ratcliff, and the commicrce developed a comprehensive proposal which was approved by the Execucive Council in December and the House of Delegates in January. The Find-aLawyer Committee will continue to monitor the development and actual operations of the Directory in order to fine tune it.

Your Association established the Find-aLawyer Directory as a service both to the general public and our members. With increasing public use of the Lnternet, the Directory will be valuable for individuals seeking the assistant:(: of an attorney in a particular area of practice. OUf Association receives numerous calls each day from individuals throughout the United States, including 3(COrneys. who are looking for attorneys in specific areas of practice and/or specific geographical locations.

The benefitS for our members are several. The obvious benefit is that members get new clients through direaory for a very low fee (see below). The Directory will be helpful to members who wish to use the Internet for locating an anomer by specialry or by location. It is nor an uncommon occurrence for Associarion members to want this informacion. and the Find-a-Lawyer Direaory will be the only accorney listing which combines Association members, areas of practice, geographical location, and professionalliabiliry insurance.

There are two basic requirements for an attorney to be listed in the new Directory.

me

The anorney must be a current member of the Arkansas Bar Association and must furnish proof of professional liability insurance in an amount of at least $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 annual aggregate coverage.

The insurance requiremem was a part of our former Lawyer Referral ~rvice. and it is continued with the Find-a-Lawyer Directory as a protection for the public.

Additionally. attorneys themselves would not want to refer clients to othcr anorneys who do nor have professionalliabiliry insurance.

There will be a special introductory fee of $25 which will secure an attorney's listing in the Directory through December 3), 2000. This fee will entitle the participating attorney to be listed in up to five areas of practice. If a participating artorney wishes to be listed in more than five areas of practice, there will be a $10 fee for each additional area of practice lined.

In addition to searching the Directory by area of practice. it is planned that one will be able to search also by city, county, and name. The basic information whkh will be listed for each participating anorney is name, address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address. Some attorneys with email addresses may not want their e-mail address listed, in which case, that option can be omitted.

Another feature of the Directory will be a participating attorney's abiliry to hyperlink co the Website of her/his law 6rm. The introductory fee for such a link will be $25 per attorney. or $100 per firm to cover the link to the firm's website from all of the flfm atrorneys participating in the Find-a-Lawyer Directory. This introductory fee is also good through December 31, 2000. (For anorneys having a link to their law firm website, the website URL [address] and firm name will be listed.)

While it is impossible ro predict what the

annual fees for direcrory listings and website links will be after the year 2000, it is hoped that the fees will remain low.

The Association will need ro charge fees which cover the direct and indirect COSts of the Directory. lNDMDUAL E-MAIL ADDRESSES

Associuion staff now have individual email addresses. The addresses are their first name initial and last name @arkbar.com.

Thus, your e-mails to the Arkansas Bar Association can be senr to a specific staff member if desired. Our general e-mail address remains arkbar@ipa.nct.

AssOCIATION WEBSITE

Our Website will continue to expand under the direction of the Website Oversite Committee chaired by Todd Greer. The committee has developed a set of priorities and goals for the website, and the updating of the website has now been moved inhouse. Patry Zimmerman is our webmaster and can be contacted at: pzimmerman@arkbar.com.':'

VISIT OUR WEBSITE: www.arkbar.com

1'11.14.11. I/lI"illtr 1m

l'ltlrklllil LIWW

I

www. .....t

•

.u

If not, maybe you should be.

The State of Arkansas website is the gateway to information every attorney can use.

FREE Online Services:

Subscription Services from INA:

•

Corporation Searches Secretory of State's Website http://www.sasweb.state.ar.us

•

Supreme Court Opinions Search Arkansas Judiciary Website http://courts.state.or.us

•

•

Court of Appeals Opinions Search Arkonsas Judiciory Website http://courts.stote.or.us

•

Arkansas licensed Attorney Search Arkonsos Judiciory Website http://courts.stote.or.us/ottylist

•

Arkansas Code Search Arkansas Bureau of Legislotive Research http://www.orkleg.stote.or.us/doto/or_code.hlm

New services coming soon through a partnership of the Arkansas Bar Association (http://www.arkbar.com) and the Information Network of Arkansas: • Purchase Systems and Handbooks • Online Registration for ClE • Dues Payment & Membership Renewal • Find-A-lawyer Search

•

Workers' Compensation Claims Search Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission

http://www.owcc.state.ar.us/ Workers' Compensation Opinions Search Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission

http://www.owcc.stote.or.us/

It's not who you know, it's where you go.

http://www.state.ar.us Information Network of Arkansas 425 W. Capitol Ave., TCBY Tower, 5uite 3565 • Utile Rock, AR 72201 1-800-392-6069 • 501-324-8900 • E-Mail: kyle@ark.org

Ue ,Irklllll LaWler

fol.ll II. Ifl\iller 1999

1.1'11 I'" III Ihi' Edill1l'

See the "Tigar"

Dear Arkansas Attorneys: Some of you may be concerned about the "a'us of IOlTA following the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in PhiUips v.

Washington ugal Foundation. I wan,ed CO ,ake this oppocruniey co lee you know our Arkansas program is scill operating.

The Arbnsas IOlTA Foundation '<quos,ed a legal opinion on the impacc of PhiUips on the IOlTA p,ogcam in Arkansas. Tha, opinion advised the Foundation to continue co opecace ,he Arkansas IOlTA p'ogcam puesuan, co Rule 1.15 of the Arkansas Supreme Court. That opinion is consistent with opinions rendered in other states concerning thei, IOlTA pcogcams.

I also wan,ed co cake this oppo'tuniey to thank each of you for your participation in IOLTA. We are pcoud of wha, youe combined efforts as practicing anorneys have accomplished fo, the S,ace of A,kansas.

ma,

Sincerely, Carolyn Witherspoon

IPAUL D. MIXO

at the Arkansas Bar Association Annual Meeting June 10, 1999, Arlington Hotel, Hot Springs Michael E. Tigar is a rare and gifted teacher and trial lawyer whose uncompromising passion for justice has led him to the counsel tables of such notable clients as Angela Davis; The Chicago Seven; former Texas Governor John Connally; accused Nazi War Criminal, John Demjanjuk; and Oklahoma City bombing conspirator, Terry Nichols.

The cases he has tried, and their verdicts, have had a profound impact upon the modern body of American law.

Mark your Calendar! Plan to Attend.

,Ph.D, P.E.

II

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT ELECTRICAL ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION • Reconstruction and Analysis • Properly 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 Contact: Dr. Paul Mixon P.O. Box 3338 State University, AR 72467 (870)-972-2088 E-mail: pmixon@navajo.astate.edu

Making their Debut at the 101st AnnualMeeting 1999 revisions to me

Probate Law System

and Arkansas Bankruptcy Handbook 1'11.lIlt. IlWill/r 1111

T~t .lrkllSil Li~)/r

i

I

ANEW JUDICIAL ARTICLE FORA NEW AND BETTER COURT SYSTEM

f you were {Q receive a survey form asking you {Q list the major problems with the

court system in Arkansas. what would you say? Parries to lawsuits, lawyers. and judges who have responded [0 such surveys and answered similar questions at bar association meetings have: been almosc unanimous in

listing the following problems. The process is tOO complicated. as it's hard [Q [ell in which court you should start and how to get your case [0 trial. The procedure takes too long and is burdened with motions, depositions and technicaJ questions that parties don't understand. And because it takes so long, the cost ofgetting a case through court is gening Out of hand.

In an effon to solve some of these problems. the Arkansas Bar Association and the Arkansas Judicial Council cogether formed a task force last year to look into the cause of these problems and to specifically look at the judicial anicle of the Arkansas Constitution to see if that needed some changes. After reviewing the article from the 1874 Constitution and work done changing that article by other task forces and constitutional conventions. the present task force has come up with a new judicial anicle for the Constitution. This has been set forth in a proposed amendment to the Constitution which will now be put before the legislature to include as one of the constitutional amendments to be voted upon by the public.

Let's take a quick look at the new judicial anicle suggested by the task force and see what changes are brought about by the amendmem. It should be remembered that the Judicial Article was approved by the House of Delegates of the Arkansas Bar Association and the Arkansas Judicial Council. and it was also approved overwhelmingly in a vote by the membership of the Association.

CONSOLIDATIO

OF LAw AND

EQUITY

CoURTS, OR THE MmGI G OF CIRCUIT AND CHANCERY CoURTS

by Sidney H. McCollum

Editors Nou: This article was camp/cud the first wuk of Febnlllry, prior to any hearings or actions by legislative committus. As was true in J991 whm tbe A,kallSns Bar Association pur-

stud n vcry similar judicial arrick, a kgislative committu may make changes in the propoud judicial Article,

ne ,Irkllll! L1M}tr

1',1. ~4 II,. I/lIi'ltr 1199

The new judicial article provides for the combination or consolidation of the circuit court and the chancery court into one coun known as the circuit coun. This gives the new circuit court judges the power and authority to handle whatever issues are broughr before them regardless of whether they are classified as equiey or law. This will Stop the problem of multi-issue cases having to be bounced back and forth between chancery and circuit coun for sometimes

months before proper resolution can be reached. This is also very helpful in the rural areas where the circuit and chancery courts ride the circuit and go into various courtrooms around the district and may only appear in a particular county once every few weeks. Under the: new article. no matter what circuit judge is present, issues can be taken care of on the spot without having to wait for the right kind of judge to show up to rule on the matter, AUTHORIZES THE USE OF REFEREES AND MAsTERS BY THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT CoURTS

The provision allowing masters and referees in the circuit courts, and in some cases even in the district courts, is a real necessity for equitable and efficient movement of cases through me courts. This is a practice that almost all courts in the nation have used ro help speed up the system and make it run more efficiently. but because of the present wording of our Constitution, the upreme Court has said that our judges cannot appoint masters and referees. This new provision wilJ allow the court ro occasionally appoint a master or referee to deal with complicated matters that are best handled outside the confines of the courtroom.

PROVIDES FOR NONPARTISAN ELECTIDN OF JUDGES

The new judicial article provides thar judges will still be elected, but they will be dected on a non-partisan basis. This is to remove the substantial problem of people's perceptions mat the courts are nor completely neutral or fair because the judge is labeled as a member of one party or the other. This subject is far more adequately and expertly addressed in another article in this issue of The ArkansllS Lawyer, authored

by Supreme Court Jusrice Robert Brown.

GIVES

THE SUPREME COURT ORIGINAL

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUFFICIENCY OF STATE

INITIATIVE

PETITIONS

AND

AND

REFERENDUM

PROPOSED

CoNSTI-

TUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

This is an issue thar has caused a great dal of concern over the state in more recent years. The new judicial article gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over such issues, as well as determining the adequacy of proposed constitutional amendments. This wilJ save a lor of time, effort and concern in processing those issues. In the past these cases were brought in a lower

Court and then almost inevitably appealed to the Supreme COUrt at the last minute. somerimes after the ballot was already printed.

PROVIDES FOR A DISTRICT CoURT WHICH AssUMES THE JURISDICTION OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CoURTS, CoURTS OF CoMMON PLEAS, POUCE CoURTS, CITY CoURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CoURTS

This new provision was adopted (much the same as it was by earlier conS[irutional conventions and task forces) primarily for efficiency and economical reasons. Many of the courts mentioned above are not in existence in towns and cities around the state, and the justices of the peace have become legislative persons as opposed to quasijudges. The new District Court would have jurisdiction over all the same issues and disputes that were covered by these other courts and would also be the small-claims court for the district. excepr that they would not assume the jurisdiction of a city court until the city councilor the legislature abolishes such court. None of the existing municipal court judges would be replaced on the effective date Uuly 200 I) of the Judicial Article, as this particular part of the judicial article would not go into effect until the year 2005.

As you can see, there are many positive and progressive changes suggested by the new judicial article. These are not changes just for the sake of change, but are efforts to make our judicial system more economical, efficient and effective. These changes do correct some of the problems listed by the public as well as by the lawyers and judges who deal with these restrictions and provisions of the old Constitution every day.

Perhaps we should look in a little more detail at these problems to show just how important it is to our judicial system to pass me amendment that puts into place this new judicial article.

How many times have cases been filed thar contained issues that were a mixture of law and equity, or perhaps had separate issues where one was purely a question normally under the jurisdiction of me chancery court and one was normally a question under the jurisdiction of the circuit court?

Because of me separation of the powers of these two courtS, it has been not only possible, but happens regularly, that a case could be bounced back and forth between the twO courts for many months before a resolution could be obtained. Many times this could not be done under rhe present law and the

case had to be restructured, redrafted and filed again so as to separate those issues.

This all causes delay and confusion, which means that it causes extra expense for the parties involved. This problem does not arise because me courtS are dodging the case or not doing their job; it is because there is a ral question of whether or not a specific court has the power or jurisdiction to decide that particular type of issue. By combining the power and jurisdiction of these courts into one circuit court, then any judge can handle whatever issues are brought before him or her regardless of whether they are classified as equity or law. This will mean that we can get cases decided more quickly and efficiently. It could cur down on the number of judges and courtrooms that are needed in the future because of the ability to spread the case load among all the judges.

The new provision will also correct the problem of having to wait in a rural area for the appropriate judge ro come to your particular courthouse or jurisdiction in order to get a motion taken care of or some other matter routinely dealt with. Under the present situation, if you have a matter in a circuit court case and the chancellor comes ro your town, even if there is plenty of time to deal with the issue he simply can't because he does nOt have the jurisdiction. The constitutional amendment still allows the new circuit court to sit in divisions and those divisions can be designated for specific things such as a criminal division or civil division or probate division. etc. Judges sitting in those divisions would have the power to decide any type of matter that might be brought before them without having to cause delay and frustration. We are the last state in the union to still have the strict division of separate chancery and circuit courts, or equity and law courts. The fact that we are the only one left of all the states that used to have strictly divided courts should wake us up to the fact thar ir's time to make a change.

The provision of the new judicial article that allows circuit and in some cases district judges to appoint masters or referees has been needed since that practice was Stopped by the Supreme Court several years ago.

Practically all courts in the nation use this method of dealing with problems that involve accounting matters or perhaps an audit that is necessary before the court can even get the case ready for a decision on the law or the merits. These kinds of cases take long periods of time ro complete. If they

must be dealt wim during coure tUne mey

are no< only taking up the time of the judge, but are also clogging the doc.kees with mat-

ters that can be handled more expertly and

is left entirely to the Legislature, much the same as it is today.

Another improvement brought about by this new judicial article is that it specifically

for equal and fair treatment for everyone.

The Judicial Article should also result in the saving of tax dollars through judicial econl>my. For those: reasons, everyone who is conneered with our judicial system or affected by it ought to be supporting this new

correctly by a separate referee or master with expertise in that area. These masters or referees then report to the court and the matter can continue on the merits. This provision may be one of the most efficient changes brought about by the new article.

The new provision for district courts in

sets out thac the Supreme Court will be the

ro proceed through the system. As a check

year.

place of the panoply of small coutts that we

and balance, the Legislature is given the right to override certain jurisdictional rules

judges, the court staffs and officers be supporting this amendment, bur all of the cirirens who are interested in making our system more efficient and more effective and more fair should be supporting this new

now have throughout the state will provide for a more economical, efficient and fair way to resolve disputes that normally would not be filed in the circuit or chancery court.

The justices of the peace and the other officials who conduer trials in the limited jurisdiction courts are not the same as they were

back in 1874.

ow, a justice of the peace is

more of a legislator for the counry and is

generally nOt trained in the law at all. Very often, whatever decisions are made in these limited jurisdiction courts as they now exist are appealed to another municipal court or they are taken on to the circuit coun. The new district coures will command more con路 fidence in the coun and thereby reduce the number of appeals to circuit coun. District courts will have geographical jurisdictions set by the legislature. All the citirens in that distrier will have a voice in who wiU be conducting the courtS whereas now people outside the city limits have no vote over who

might be the judge deciding their case. The constirutional amendment proposed by this task force makes no mention of any changes in the funds collected by district courts, how they will be funded, or what the jurisdiction or the number of those coures will be. This

body that determines the rules of practice and procedures followed in our courts. This means that the people most directly involved in the coun system wiJl be able to determine the best way to provide for cases

(established by the Supreme Court) provided they obtain a cwo-thirds majority on that vote. The Legislature is also given the right to determine jurisdiction and venue in the judicial circuits and districts, the number of

judges and the salaries ro be paid them, and many other things that are more or less dayto-day court issues. These can be changed by starute much easier than amending the Constitution and would still leave these matters in the control of the Legislature to change them as necessary.

Looking over the changes set out above, it

fll. ~I SI. Itllilllr 1m

to convince their legislators to include this amendment with the amendmenes that they recommend to the people for a vote next

Not only should the attorneys, the

change. With your help, the new judicial article wiU provide us with an appropriate

and efficient vehicle to deal with the problems mentioned and the challenges of the 21st century.-o-

Sidney H. McCollum is a former Circuit Judge for

the 19th Judicial DiStrict and has served on two

seems obvious that they are needed and they are important. They are nor a special interest group's idea of what ought to be done, or

simply a lawyers' or judges' bill; these are the same ideas that were brought forward by past constitutional conventions whose dele-

gates were elected by the people. These delegates were teachers, housewives, businessmen, farmers, and also lawyers and judges who were e1eered by their peers to serve at the convention, and they recognired the

need for the changes.

In the long run, it will be a bener system of justice for everyone and a better chance

STAT AFFIDAVITS AVAILABLE! 8 11! ArkllllS Ll1IW

change and taking whatever Steps they can

task forces dealing with updating the judicial article of the Constitution. He now serves as a mediator and arbitrator and is the founder

ofADR,lnc.

Drafted by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions The required srnndard by per Oolfiam order of me upreme Court, Arkansas Model Jury Instructions-Criminal, Second Edmon brings to the criminal defense la~r, prosecutor, or judge an official set ofinsouctions that Wooers issues arising most frequendy in criminal cases. otes on Use and Comments accompany each instruction. Stay up to date on: • Introductory instructions covering such matters as the duties of the judge and jury, the credibility of witnesses, burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and reasonable doubt • Evidentiary instructions

$140

• Accompl ices

2 volumes, looseleaf. with current supplement

• Criminal attempts, solicitations. and conspiracies

item# 60190-11 ©1994

• Defenses and justification

Cost of moS[ recent supplement is $50.

Published in a convenient looseleaf binder format, Arkansas Model Jury Instructions - Criminal, Second Edition allows you to simply remow the instructions you need, make a copy, and take it to court. For even greater ease, instruction numbers are consistent with the chapter numbering system in the Criminal Code.

LEXISI> Law Publiahing's

Arkansas Always up-te><tate

ID _ _ ..... _

"",-.8

....

___

=:.:c......

w•• II='

7

W.'

q ,

I ... :1:....

...;;;,.=.==:::,....

II" W.'

W

......

Comprehensive and fully annotated

Superior index, convenient softbound fonnat Get the most comprehensive rules \'Olume available in Arkansas-the 1998 edition of Arkansas Court Rules Annotated. Thi annOOted rules \'Olume contains federal and stare rules changes and annotations to cases through February I. 1998.

Its durable, softbound format allows the \'Olume to be revised and replaced economically each \'ear.

Semiannual supplements in the Advance Code Service ensure me most timely reference to rules changes and court holdings.

$37.50·

1557 pages, softbound, replaced annlUllI) item #40777-15, ©1998, The State of Arkansas Approximate 1996 and 1997 annlUll upkeep was $37.50.

111.11 Sq. I/llillrr 1m

Ue Arkl7llJ LaMW

UPS and your Association now have an

agreement.

All your urgent packages will be

delivered on time,

guaranteed, ....... as long as you're wi II i ng to pay less.

The success of your business depends on seizing the right opportunity at the right time. Often, that involves meeting some pretty ridiculous deadlines. Which is why the ARKANSAS BAR ASSOCIATION recently signed a deal with UPS. Now you can choose from a range of ai r express options that meet your needs at crunch time, every time: Simply call to enroll in this new program, and you'll receive a substantial Association discount on every letter and package you ship using UPS Next Day Air路 and UPS Worldwide Express:" You'll also get immediate tracking and delivery confirmation around the clock. So the next time you have to deliver ASAP without blowing your budget, why not try UPS? It's one opportunity you shouldn't miss.

CJII1-800-325-7000 to enroll to(iJY

BE3

~ MOVING at the SPEED of BUSINESS~

'CaIl1-80Q,P1CK-U PS' forguaranleeaod lim!路in路lransit details. "Oiscounlsonly apply to published transportation rates on UPS Next Day Airand UPS Worldwide EKpress shipments sent 'rom the U. S. Discounts do nol apply to additIonal chanjts. Offer cannot be combmtd with any other UPS discount. ~ 1qqa United Parcel ServIce of America, Inc.

10 TIe ,Irkalll! LIMIer

fol.ll SR. 1/1I路inler 1m

Is YOUR COMPUTER A DESK ORNAMENT? You told us you wanted computer training... and we heard you!

THE ARKANSAS BAR ASSOCIAlION'S COMMUTER COMPUTER SCHOOL is the attorneys only class designed to empower you to use your computer to:

Professional Instructors & Computer Lab at New Horizons Computer Learning Center

UNLOCK YOUR COMPUTER POTENTIAL Plus: Identify the ethical & professional considerations of computer & internet use

PLAN TO ATTEND (LIMITED ENROLLMENT) IN: April - Little Rock June - Annual Meeting, Hot Springs For more information ca11501路375路3957 or 800-609-5668 I'ol.ll,l'o. 1/lI'iller 1999

fho ,lrklDSll La"Jer

II

NON-PARTISAN ELECTIONS by Justice Robert L. Brown

'VJirhour question, impartiality and W independence are the twO essential ethical pillars for all judges. Any chink or encanglemenr that runs CQunter to that impartiality and independence is not wleraced under our Code of Judicial Conduct.

Bearing those judicial principles firmly in mind, a joim session of the Arkansas Judicial Council of srace judges and the Arkansas Bar Association's House of Delegates overwhelmingly passed a Judicial Anide in March of 1998 which contained a provision [0 eliminate partisan elections for Supreme Court Justices and Couct of Appeals Judges.

That provision of the Judicial Article is found ar Section 18(A).

Arkansas is one of 18 states that still retain popular elections as the means of initially selecting and then retaining its appellate judges. That is a good thing in my judgment. 1 But we are one of only 7 states that still provide that appellate judges must run as members of a political parry.2 It is that mandate which the proposed Judicial Article seeks to eliminate. I believe the time has come to discard this anachronism.

As matters stand today, each member of the Arkansas Supreme Court stood for election as a member of the Democratic Parry.

For the past three regular sessions of the General Assembly (in 1993, 1995, and 1997), bills providing for the non-partisan election of judges were introduced and either were defeated or died in committee.

In 1997, the nonpartisan bill did not see rhe light of day because the perception, at least, was that Republican legislators supported it and Democrats did not. In Texas, conversely, the recent experience on comparable leg-

I:

Tbe ,Irkonso! Lo"yer

fnl. 3路1 In. l/llinier 1999

islation has been that Democrats applauded non-partisan judicial elections while Republicans did not. Thus, the conventional wisdom has become that the parry with current statewide dominance prefers to keep their judges partisan.

Partisanship strikes at the very heart of judicial independence. That, no doubt, is why our ethical code specifically requires that a judge nor be swayed "by partisan interests." See Canon 3B(2), Arkansas Code ofjudicial Conduct. And whether absolure parry loyalty is real or not, the appearance of partisanship will linger so long as party labels are attached to judicial candidates. It is no wonder that litigants representing a different political parry than the Democratic Parry would feel more than a twinge of concern when appearing before the Arkansas Supreme Court. Let me hasten to add that the concern is unfounded, but the concern, understandably, remains.

Since 1991, the year I became a member of the Supreme Court, numerous cases have been heard by our Court where the political parry of the justices became an express or implied issue. See, e.g., Citizens 70 Establish A Reform Party v. Priest, 325 Ark. 257, 926 S.W2d 432 (1996) (Reform Parry failed to qualify as new political parry because it missed a filing deadline); Lewis v. west, 318 Ark. 334, 885 S.W2d 663 (1994) (whether candidate for the Independent Parry qualified for the ballot); Ivy v. Republican Party, 318 Ark. 50, 883 S.W2d 805 (1994) (whether the Republican Party could remove its own candidate for attorney general from the ballot); Bryant v. English, 311 Ark. 187, 843 S.W2d 308 (1992) (the

Democratic and Republican parties litigated over whether the lieutenant governor (a Democrat) should automatically succeed to the office of governor); Spradlin v. Arkansas Ethics Comm'n, 310 Ark. 458, 837 S.W.2d 463 (1991) (entire supreme court recused where chief Justice had appointed Republican member of the State Ethics Commission). With a party label emblazoned across the chest ofeach justice, a basic question of fairness in such cases can become not only an issue but the issue.

Those favoring partisan elections argue that running as a Democrat or Republican or Reform candidate or Independenr may give the voting public some idea of the candidate's ideology and preconceived notions about certain issues and, thus, it aids the public in making a decision on how to vote.

That argument, of course, has some appeal, bur the truth of the matter is a judicial candidate's background and general attitudes can be better discerned over the course of a judicial campaign. A partisan label, while providing a superficial clue to ideology, may well be misleading. It is further imperative that judges not be perceived as partisans who apply a party litmus test to their cases to determine a particular outcome.

Otherwise, in the public's eyes, the coveted goal of judicial independence goes by the boards, and cynicism takes hold.

With a new century and millennium fast approaching, the time is ripe to forge a judicial-election process that has the total respect and con.fidence of the Arkansas public. Non-partisan elections for judges goes a long way towards accomplishing that end..)

I. See Robert L. Brown, From Whence Cometh Our State Appellate judges: Popular Election \.Iersus the Missouri Plan, 20 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 313 (1998).

2. See judicial Selection in the States: Appellate and General jurisdiction Courts (rev. Ju. 1996) Am. Judicature Sociery.

Those states are Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Texas, West Virginia.

Justice Robert L. Brown is an Associate Justice on the Arkansas Supreme Court. He is a 1968 graduate of the Universiry of Virginia Law School.

WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT

STEPHE

R. LANCASTER

Commercial and Product Liability Litigation HAS BECOME A PARTNER IN THE FIRM and

JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES

(Fayetteville Office)

HAS BECOME ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIRM 1998-99

200 West Capitol Aveoue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808

www.wlj.com

101 West Mountain Drive Suite 206 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-6034 (50 I) 575-0808

fll.ll NI. I/M'il!tr 1m

U" Arklllll LiMjtr

II

HISTORY OF THE

JUDICIAL ARTICLE

by Judge John F. Stroud, J t.

T

he proposed Judicial Article represents the culmination of the joinr effons of the Arkansas Bar Association and the Arkansas Judicial Council over a number of years.

Constitutional Convenrions were held in Arkansas in 1970 and 1980, and

their products contained much improved Judicial Articles, but both attempts [Q adopt entirely new constitutions Failed at the polls.

Consequently, the Arkansas Bar Association held a long-range planning conference at

DeGray Lodge in 1988. The attendees were divided into cwo groups, led by rrained facilitators. Both groups ranked a new Judicial Article as a (Op priority among the greatest needs for the twenry-first cenrury.

Consequently, committees were jointly named by the Association and Judicial Council for the study of the various provisions to be included in a new Judicial Article. The committees' efforts resulted in

Council and the House of Delegares of the

meor selected as one of the three to be referred [Q the voters at the November 2000 general election. It appears that the only realjstic hope for modernizing the judicial system in Arkansas depends on the adoption of a separate Judicial Article without waiting for another Constitutional Convention.+>

Arkansas Bar Association at the UALR Law

School on March 14, 1998. Each section of the proposed article was voted on separately.

After several changes were made, the final product was unanimously approved by both bodies. The drafting committee met again to refine the floor amendmenrs and, as required by our Association's By-Laws, the final product was referred to a vote of the entire membership of the Arkansas Bar Association, where it was overwhelmingly

Judge John F. Stroud, Jr. has been a judge on the Arkansas

as

[Q

Chairman of the Committee on

the Judicial Article seeking its referral by the 1999 General Assembly.

the

people. Governor Jim Guy Tucker proposed a Constitutional Convention in 1995, but

I

the proposal was nor implemented by the 1996 General Assembly.

The

Arkansas

Bar Association

and

t •

similar commirrees were appointed in 1997 to review the provisions of SJR-IO and to discuss any appropriate changes or modifications. A drafting committee assimilated the recommendations of four sub-committees and its draft was voted on at the firstever joinr meeting of the Arkansas Judicial

14

TIe IrkllllJ LI"W

VII. 14 SI. I/Willer 1111

..,lri h

t~

i .. ...t

',hu'l Ifl. I

Judicial Council decided ro try again, and

,A,........ /.

-' /. .- r" .4"'::

.oJ

/ ' ""

of

t~ring

A steering committee composed of judges and arrorneys from throughout the state has met and will continue to meet in an effort to have [his proposed constitu[ional amend-

SJR-IO being presented to the 1991 General Ass<mbly. Near the end of the s=ion, SJR10 failed by one vore in the House of Representatives from being referred

Court

Appeals since 1996.

Judge Stroud also serves

approved 1,389 to 254.

This proposed Judicial Article has been filed with the Arkansas General Assembly.

..

~'t

....,.,...t 1t••.I" ,,.;

.L- ' - -J_Al.R_ AI:.

~_~ _J ..

.....

..-.- "

f ...t\tmn

l>

ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP SURVEY

By Don Hollingsworth The 1998 Membership Survey was conducted during the months of Seprember through November, 1998. A sample of 1,496 Association members was drawn via systematic sampling with a random start from a toral member population of 3,400 in-state Association members as of Septemberl998** This is the first membership survey since 1987. (A separate survey of out-of-state members will be conducted in the future.)

There were 1,114 surveys returned. This rerum rate of 74% is extremely good. The rerum rate is attributable to the pre-publicity and a notification post card sent to each member selected for the survey announcing the forthcoming of the survey. The selected members then received the acrual survey with a rerum envelope. Those not responding within the first 10 days teceived a second mailing, and 10 days later, those still not responding received a third mailing.

The questions utilized in the survey came from suggestions by Association governing bodies and committees as well as sample surveys from other state bar associations. The survey was field tested by the Association's Executive Council and the Executive Council of the Young Lawyers Section.

The Arkansas Bar Association is indebted to the professional assistance provided by Dr. M. D. Buffalo at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and two of his Sociology srudents, Donna Nail and Monee Reed.

Dr. Buffalo and the students reviewed the questionnaire before it was finalized, and then did the tabulation of the survey tesults through a computer program. The Association has the capacity to break down any of the answers by responses to other questions in the survey, which will be extremely helpful in regard to demogtaphic breakdowns. These breakdowns will be shared with Association committees and sections.

The first article on the survey results appears in this issue of the Arkansas Lawyer. It examines the responses to the survey questions dealing with professionalism. In future issues there will be additional articles and analysis of the results.

"""The current membership of the Arkansas Bar Association is 4,139 as of January 4,1999, which includes 3,741 in-state members. The number of members peaks each year at the end

of the bar year-June 3O-and last June there was a record

4,202 members. The membership goal for June 1999 is 4,400.

NEW GOVERNMENT PRACTICE SECTION The Arkansas Bar Association has established a

J.

The Summer issue of The Arkansas Lawyer will have

Government Practice Section in order to better

several articles concerning government practice in

meet the needs of attorneys who work for the government or practice before government agencies.

Although the membership survey results show that approximately 400 members work for local, state or fed-

Arkansas.

The temporary co-chairs of the Government Practice section are Larry jegJey and jeff Broadwater. The formal organization meeting for the Section wiU occur at the Annual Meeting this june in Hot Springs. For more

eral government, it is recognized that the Association

needs to proVide more opportunities for participation by government practice attorneys.

A special CLE seminar for government prdctice attorneys is being planned for this coming fall in Litde Rock.

information about the Government Practice Section,

one should contact Larry and jeff, or contact Don Hollingsworth at the Arkansas Bar Association.

I'al. Hla. l/lI'ialer 1999

The .Irkansas I,alller

15

IMPROVING PROFESSIONALISM

REsULTS FROM "PROFESSIONALISM" SECTION OF THE MEMBERSHIP SURVEY

by Doug Buffalo and Don Hollingsworth

p_ CIIw .....

code sipd ond poolIclln oIIicos

11.4%

35.4%

49.2'1lo

4.0'10

SeIf_rnonuaIlot I8I8SSing own ~ stBIuS

13.8

48.3

35.4

4.5

_ .......... 1'111' ,. _.~Iaw. ond _ _ In: + law _ cmiculIIn +IlridgIng-the-G coone + ClE 0Il8rings

58.0 42.2 44.4

34.0 41.0 43.0

5.8 10.3 10.3

22 8.5 2.3

S1nNImIIno cIlocIpb prooodIns In ..... .... U1lP1ofs5Sionat condud is probIbte

35.3

44.1

11.5

9.1

47.8

38.8

9.3

4.5

_lrequonI& _ _ tor_oIjA" SElwairules 42.0

38.0

12.9

8.1

34.9

24.2

8.4

_

judiciaJ """"....... 01 rules 01 court proc:ocNre

. ..--,

InIomship ........... tor _ _ wiIII ........

32.5

Slip'" tDr ."'8" lui_I...

II

8.8'Ilo

13.4%

17.4%

21.8'Ilo

MontemphasiB on picl: Bfa MIIism. pmenINe law ond _ _ In:

+ IlridgIng-II1&- coone + ClE 0Il8rings

II

ne Arklllll La~ltr

32.4 32.4

fll.ll 1l.l/Ui.ltr 1m

40.7 44.1

52.3 54.2

54.3 58.3

Auorneys in Arkansas are no different than attorneys in other parts of the United States in the recognition of the need for improving professionalism. The first part of the membership survey dealt with several aspects of professionalism among Arkansas attorneys. The answers in each table are expressed as percemages.

How should Arkansas attorneys improve meir level of professionalism? [Table I J Of the nine suggestions included in the survey on professionalism. eight were deemed very important or somewhat important by a majority of attorneys. The suggestions chosen most frequently were more emphasis on professionalism, preventive law and dient relations in law school curriculum (92% rated this as very important or somewhat imporranr) and elE offerings (87% rated this as very important or somewhat important). A significant majority felt concerned enough about professionalism problems to support stronger actions regarding violations of ethical and court rules. Better judicial enforcement of rules of court procedures, more frequent and stiffer sanctions for violation of professional rules, and streamlining of discipline procedures in cases where unprofessional conduct is probable were deemed very important or somewhat important by approximately eight in ten attorneys. AJmost 50% of Association members believe that better judicial enforcement of rules of court procedure is very important, and 42% feel that more frequent and stiffer sanctions for violations of professional rules is very imporrant.

Support for these proposals was consistently strong across a number of categories.

There was equal suPPOrt by sex, race, marital status, number of years in practice, type of law practice, and number of lawyers in me practice. Age was me only member characteristic that was related to how members responded to the suggestions for improving professionalism. The older the attorney, the more likely he/she was to indicate that a self-evaluation manual, Bridging the Gap course, and elE offerings were very important in improving professionalism. [Table 2J CAREER ISSUES

Generally Association members were very satisfied or satisfied with the kind of work they were doing, their income, career progress, and their balance between work and privare life. [Table 3J Bur sarisf1lcrion

Table 3

SatisfactIOn with the followmg career Issues

The Iond of _

you .,. doing

I ........

IIIIIIIB

IIIIIIIB 41.8'Ilo

13.3

44.3

Your income Balance - . privatelil8 &_ _

23.7

25.5

Career progress

37.0

Table 4

~

me

Very

47.1'110

The staIuS of _

I ••••• Ie VIIY DIMI!IIIIf PIwIIIIIId lIIiIIIIJ..

7.3'1lo

2.1'110

1.1'110

31.7

10.3

0.5

49.4

19.5

6.7

0.6

44.4

21.9

7.3

1.1

44.4

13.5

2.9

2.1

Percent very satlslled' with selected career Issues by age

3S Dr IJItIr

H:5Z

53:Ili

over H

4O.2'Ilo

45.8%

55.4'110

70.5'110

16.0

10.0

14.9

22.0

Yoorn:ome Balance - . privatelil8 & _ _

12.9

232

30.3

43.3

19.3

21.3

33.0

57.3

Career progress

29.7

33.3

49.0

66.7

cere., ....

Kind of _

you .,. doing

The staluS of _

Table 5

proIession

Percent very satlslled with balance between private Ille and won by number of hours working per week

MOIl,. waiting Per W",

BaJanceof private lite and _

Table 6

1111 thin

20-29

30·39

40-49

50·60

2lI..bDIuI

baIIIl

baIIIl

baIIIl

baIIIl

MOil lban lil!..bmIII

44.3'1lo

40.5'110

39.7%

27.5'110

12.2'Ilo

12.5%

Percent indicating they would choose 10 be a lawyer agam without heSitatIOn by satlsfacllon with career progress lAcome and status of profession

&-pl" WInk 46% ./"" ~ ~ p - ' """""". t..."... ~ wi"-, vny lIIlUfib' with thn, c.rwr!'"'f"tJS ".,JJ 1NanM. ~ ~ withtnd hniwtUm.

ClrnrllR.

51_ wi1h CIJ8Il' prog....

""'wUm. 66796./,,-

1m IIIIIlIIlI

. . . .Ul

1a!UJ!llll

IIIIIIIIIf

P!IHIIII!"

PIaa!lIIIIII

66.7%

37.0'lIo

24.7%

15.8% 16.9 28.6

5 0 _ wi1h income

66.5

46.1

23.7

~

n.l

50.4

32.0

wi1h staIuS of proIession

with the status of the legal profession showed a much lower level of satisfaction, with only 130/0 being "very suisfied" with the status of their profession. Even though 57% were either very or somewhat satisfied with the status of their profession, this combined percentage was significantly lower than the combined percentages for the other four categories.

We would be remiss if we did not attempt to explore the reason for the dissatisfaction expressed by Association members. Those things not related to satisfaction/dissatisfaction are almost as interesting as those that

ance between private life and work life, income, and kind of work the member is doing. The older the attorney, me greater the satisfaction with all four of these issues.

Recent surveys of Chicago arrorneys suppOrt this finding. See R~larching Lnw, American Bar Foundarion. Vol. 9. No.4, Fall 1998.

No difference in job satisfaction was found between the sexes, but age differences similar to the one reported here were found.

Older attorneys reponed more satisfaction.

Age is related to income but also related to self-selection. Undoubtedly, some attorneys that were dissatisfied have dropped out of the profession while satisfied attorneys have remained.

Finally, it should nor come as a surprise that the fewer the number of hours that the attorney works, the greater the satisfaction with his/her ability to balance work and priva,e life. [Table 5] Association members were asked if mey were in school today, would they again choose becoming an attorney. Responses to this question produced the most distressful, if not unexpected, findings of the survey.

Less than half (46%) said that they would become a lawyer again without hesitation.

Almost four in ten indicated that they would think twice about the prospect of becoming a lawyer and 15% said they would choose anomer profession. This level of dissatisfaction with career choice remained regardless of the age. ethnic background, marital status, gender, or number of attorneys in the firm with the member. {See page 20 for the complete survey results.]

This dissatisfaction with a legal career also seems to be national in scope. In the same Researching Law article it was reported that research in California and Michigan yielded similar findings. Only half of those in California indicated that they would choose ro become a lawyer again. In Michigan three out of five were of the same mind.

The reasons for this dissatisfaction with the profession are very complicated and were nOt the intent of this study.

Nevertheless we have been able to identify three faCtOrs mat are related to this issue.

Satisfaction with the status of the profession, career progress, and income were all related to responses to the question of again choosing a career in law. The more satisfied the atrorney was with his/her career progress, income, and status of the profession, the more likely he/she was to indicate the choice of a legal career without hesitation. [Table 6]

1m

are related to member's satisfaction. The number ofattorneys in the law firm with the member, emnic background, marital status, and gender were not related to satisfaction with the career issues addressed above. The age of the attorney and the number of years licensed to practice law were related to some of the career issues. Af,e and length of practice, however, are highly related to each other, and upon closer examination it appears that age is discriminating issue in satisfaction for several questions.

Data in Table 4 indicate that age affects the satisfaction with career progress, the bal-

me

"hhhe In_

8.1%

InClyor~

15.4

54.4%

3O.0'Il0

5.4%

2.1%

54.4

24.4

5.0

0.8

.......

All

IIIIIIIIIII

CII!gMItI

31.11%

44.4%

28.3'110

,

b

'lee

28.1%

41.2'1(,

39.7'1(,

PROFESSIONAUSM AMONG PEERS

.........

Yea lNR No

31A 22.2 48.1

r..-.

I.-:

••

1HZ

45.7'1(, 27.4 28.9

31.,", 38.0 32.6

39.0'Il0 21.9 39.1

-- ...• IHI

3I5A 18.1

48.3

18.7'1(, 12.7 7o.e

II HUD 1 Automatic Calculations II Checks & Escrow Accounting II Word Processor· Spell Check II Data Base Reporting II 1099S Reporting II Regulation Z APR's II Aggregate Escrow

$1,695.00 •Also Available: On Site Training Deeds & Mortgages Commitments & Policies

(800) 937-2938 htlp:www.landlechdata.com

LANDTECH DATA CORPORATION 1402 Royal Palm Beach Blvd., Building 200 Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411

Members were asked [0 rate me level of professionalism of lawyers in their city or county and [0 also rate me professionalism of attorneys state-wide. Local attorneys, people who are worked with every day, F.ued better than attorneys state-wide. [Table 7] UNAIJTHORJZEO PRAcncr OF LAw

Members' perceptions of the seriousness of the unauthorized practice of law were quite varied. Twenty percent were unsure of the seriousness of me problem. Anomer one in five thought it was not a problem. At the other exueme, sl.ightly over one in ten thought it was a very serious problem and almost one in five considered it moderately serious, with a combined 31.6%. [Table 8] Concern about the unauthorized practice of law appears to be unrelated to member's emnic background, age, sex, marital status, number of years in practice, number of hours devoted to practice, or the number of attorneys in me law firm. It does appear, however, to be related to area of the state in which the member practices. Data in Table 8 indicate attorneys in Jefferson and Craighead counties are more likely to perceive the unauthorized practice of law as a problem than other areas of the state. (In six rural counties the unauthorized practice of law was rated as very or moderately serious by over 60% of the survey respondents in each county.)

IMPAIRED lAWYERS

This question about impaired lawyers was included due to the increased incidence of substance abuse within the legal profession.

Disciplinary authorities in Arkansas and omer states have reported this increase. Our Association's Task Force on Lawyer Admission & Discipline is examining this

......

......

34.,",

24.5%

All

...,.

E I

7

Oil

$

Ill ......

63A

....

30.0%

AlII

r..

fIlIRI

I11III

53.8"4

31.3'llo

72.7'

'

t

r

IIIIID

35.2'1lo

â&#x20AC;˘

35.3%

"

7

33.6%

....

J:.-..

3ll.O'lo

probl<m, and lh< Pulaski Couney Bar Association has a committee working to establish a lawyer assistance program. The survey results appear to support the need for such initiatives.

AboUl on< in thrÂŤ m<mh<rs (34.4%) said that in th< past rwdv< months th<y had encoumered a lawyer impaired by reason of substance abuse or psychological instability.

Women and younger anorneys were more likely to indicate an encounter than men and arrorn<ys ov<c ag< 65. [Tabi< 9J Encounters with impaired attorneys within the past J 2 months were not uniform throughout the state. Data in Table 10 indicate this diversity. It must be nored that question deah with recognition of such impairments, not the frequency of impairments.<-

me

MEDICAL EXPERTS Timely Response

Put the

Streng

of Arkansas' Most Respected

Professional Matching All professional specialitiesOB/GY ,ORTHO, EURO,PEDS, SURG,O COL, NUR HOME, RADiOL. Your success is our goal.

Mediators & Arbitrators to Work for Frank Hamlin

Jack Davis

Let our 16-year experience provide you credible, board-certified, practicing physicians who we will match your case.

Your Clients

Sid McCoUum

Bob Hornberger

INC Alternative Dispute Resolution

We don't just provide a name, we work for a match!

1-888-336-5127

Bentonville 1104 South Walton Blvd.

Suite 20 501-271-2237

Little Rock Museum Center, River Level 500 tast Markham Street 501-376-2121

1"[.I,j So. If\I'illlr Ill!

Fort Smith 423 Rogers Avenue Suite 101 501-783-1776

ne Arklllil LaWllr

II

MEMBERSHIP SURVEY REsULTS (Answers are Expressed as Percentages) The ftllowing ,m the 0V<Ta1J mulls ofthe 1998 Mmrbmhip SurvtJ- Due to sp4« a"J timr constrtUnts. the only analysis ofthe mulls is the tltcomponying artUk on the surtJ<} ",pons" dealing with profissioruJism. Thus. rra.tkn arr CtlMtionnJ about Jrawingfiltlli concbuions absmt sut:h ana!}sis. (Since the gross mulls wcrr alrrady being supplird to the two governing boJj" ofthe Ass«ituion a"J a number ofcommitt«s. it was fill that the mulls should be published now ftr the entirr membmhip.)

An exttmpk ofthe above caution am be ftu"J in somr ofthe tkmogrrzphic a1lSUlm. For exampk. the pcrrrotltgc ofAss«ituion membm who arr fmrak is now 21.4%. In 1987 the pcrcentltge was under 15%. Additional analysis shows thar the pcrcrotItgc ofthe younger mmrbm ofthe Associlltion who arr ftmak is 34% (members 35 or under).

The same "."J ofchange in the lawyer landsrape occurrrd with other surtJ<} mulls. A prime exampk is the decrrasc in the pcrcentltge of, Association members whose primary occupation is the private law firm. It is now 72.6%. as comparrd to 81% in 1987.

1998 MEMBERSHIP SURVEY ARKANSAS BAR ASSOCIATION NOTE: The term finn herein refers to the private or govemment entity for which you work. including all firm otfices located within At1<ansas.

PROFESSIONALISM The issue of "Professionalism" among the lawyers of At1<ansas has been identified by Association President Bob Cearley as a strategic issue for the Mure of the legal profession. For the following questions. we would like your opinions about attorney professionalism. Please check those resp0nses that best fit your opinions on each issue.

1. How satisfied are you with: VERY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT VERY NO SATISFIED SATISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED OPINION The kind of work you are doing 47.8% 41.8% 7.3% 2.1% 1.1% The status of your profession 13.3 44.3 31.7 10.3 .5 Your income 23.7 19.5 49.4 6.7 .6 Balance between private life & your work 25.5 44.3 21.9 7.3 1.1 Career progress 37.0 13.5 44.4 2.9 2.1

2. II you were In school today choosing a profession or o"upatlon, would you: Become a lawyer again without hesilalion-46.O% Think twice about becoming a Iawyer-39.1% Choose another profession or occupalion-15.0%

3. In general, how would you rate the level of professionalism among the lawyers (al In Arbnsas: (bl In your city or county:

Excellenl-8.1% ExceIIent-15.4%

Good-54.4% Good-54.4%

Fair-3<l.O% Fair-24.4%

Poor-5.4% Poor-5.O%

No Opini0n-2.1 % No Opinion-.8%

4. How would you rate the following suggestions tor Improving the professionalism among Arbnsas' attorneys: VERY SOMEWHAT NOT NO IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT OPINION An Association professionalism code for members to sign and post in their offices 11.4% 35.4% 49.2% 4.0% A seIf-evaluation manual for lawyers to assess their own level of attaining professional status

13.8

46.3

35.4

4.5

More emphasis on professionalism. preventive law, and client relations in : + law school curriculum

58.0

34.0

5.8

2.2

+ Bridging-lhe-Gap course

42.2

41.0

10.3

6.5

+ CLE Offerings

44.4

43.0

10.3

2.3

35.3

44.1

11.5

9.1

Streamline discipline procedures in cases where unprofessional conduct is probable

20

The Jlrkllm La"J1r

fll.lItlo. Itllinl1r 1999

Better judicial enforcement of rules of court procedure

47.6

38.6

9.3

4.5

More frequent & stiffer sanctions for violations of professional rules

42.0

39.0

12.9

6.1

Internship requirement for new admittees with emphasis 011 professionalism

32.5

34.9

24.2

8.4

5. HlIV8 you encountered an Impailld lawyer within lIle ""'12 months? (subslance abule or psyclIolotllcally unstable) Yes---'l4.4%

No-42.4%

Unsure-23.2%

6. How serious 01 a problem Islbe unaulborlzed practice 01 law In Arkansas: Very Serious-ll.5%

Moderately serious-19.9"1o

Somewhat serious-26.9"1o

Not a Problem-21.8%

Unsure-20.0%

TECHNOLOGYflAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT 7. If you use a compuler al work. check which ollhe lollowlng lunctlons you utlllzelbe compuler lor: word processin!t"66.7% e-mail inside your ofIice-48.7% calendaring-44.5%

access to World Wide Web (Intemet~. 7"10 conflict checking-25.1 % billing--45.9"1o

legal researctHlO.8% e-mail outside your 0~.3% timekeeping-34.0"10

8. Which word processing software does your Ilrm use (check alllhal apply): WordPerfect-63.6%

Word-28.5%

Unsure-5.3%

Other-4.0%

9. Do you individually use or plan 10 use any ollhelollowlng compuler assisted legal research services?

Plan 10 use wllhln N/A 10 my Use now next 12 10 24 months practice CD-ROM Commercial Online Public Online

78.0"10 53.5% 55.6"10

8.0"10 15.3% 15.3%

14.0% 31.1% 29.0%

10. II you do have computer-assisted legal research. check Ihose items below wllb which you agree: Too dilficutt to use-7.7% Easy to use-52.1% I'm learning to use tt-40.2%

Too expensive-32.8"1o Affordable-34.8% Fairly priced compared to books-32.4"1o

Are the future of legal research-70.4% Will never replace books-29.6%

11. Should Ibe Arkansas Bar Assoclallon oller more assistance 10 Its members In Ihe area 01 compuler lechnology and lrainlng: Yes-72.6%

N~.5"1o

Unsure-17.9%

12. Whal problems does your firm lace In utilizing or adopllng compuler lechnology? (Check all that apply) Shortage of financial resources-28.3% Lack of trainin9-45.0% Lack of m9mt interest in using technology-II. 1% Lack of knowledgeable Lack of inhouse knowledge Lack of technical information-20.0"lo vendorslconsultants-20.4% Lack of time 10 researcMmplement-44.1"1o

about technology tailored for law firms-36.6%

13. How do you rale Ibe Informallon on Ihe Assoclallon's Webslle (www.arkbar.com): Excellent-2.6%

Good-19.1%

Fair-9.5%

14. Do you need law office managemenfsupport?

Yes-24.2"I.

Poor-1.5%

No-53.9%

15. II so, whal type 01 support? (Pleau check alilbal apply). advertising and mar1<eting information-18.3% economics of practice surveys-20.2"Io atternative billing information-19.4% consulting services-13.4"1o

No OpiniorHi7.3%

consullant and vendor information-14.1 % other-2.8%

Unsure-21.8%

hands-on training-23.4% technology support-27.8%

1'01. H 11'0.

lill'inler 1999

The ,Irknnsa! I,nwler

21

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION 16. Which of the following best describes the pmlder from which you I!IU!!Y get 50% or more 01 your annual CLE hours: Ar1<ansas Bar Associa1ion-59.5% Local or speciahy bar association located in Ar1<ansaH.7% Private, for-profil provider such as PLI, NBI, etc-12.7% American Bar Association or other national associaliorls-{j.7"10 Other Nonprolils (not bar associations) located in Ar1<ansas-3.2% Other-l1.1%

17. Would you like your Association to hold more CLE Seminars on Saturday mornings: Yes-26.6% N0-53.9% Unsure-19.5% 18. Which 01 the lollowing best describes the physical location where you l!ll!I!.IY get 50% or more 01 your CLE hours each year: within 30 miles of your office-30.5% more than 150 miles from office but within Ar1<ansas-9.8% between 30 miles and 150 miles of your office-44.0% outside of Arkansas-15.7%

ASSOCIATION ISSUES 19. Whether or not you use them, what is the value 01 providing the lollowing educational and inlormational resources to Arkansas Bar Association members? (Please check only one answer lor each listing).

Value 01 Providing No Very High High Average Very Low Opinion Low Handbooks and Systems 50.3% 31.7"/.

13.7% 1.3% .3% 2.7% CLE seminars 47.9 35.7 12.8 1.5 1.5 .5 11.7 6.7 Annual Meeting in June 20.6 24.1 30.5 6.4 36.3 2.4 5.0 Legislative Reports 14.9 30.3 11.2 Association NewsBulietin 10.5 25.9 41.9 14.4 3.0 4.4 Annual Membership/Organization Directory 13.6 26.3 37.1 13.8 5.7 3.4 The Arkansas Lawyer magazine 16.8 38.7 33.3 7.8 1.7 1.6 Association Website 6.3 16.8 30.8 14.4 5.2 26.5 Brochures for clients & civic groups 7.1 19.2 31.8 20.4 6.7 14.8 28.9 The UALR Law Journal 21.7 34.4 9.8 2.8 2.4 The Arkansas Law Review 24.6 33.9 27.8 9.4 2.5 1.7 20. Association members are eligible to receive the lollowing discounts and commercial benefits. Please indicate the importance 01 each to you, by checking the applicable answer in Group A, and indicate your use/awareness by checking the applicable answer in Group B. Not No I do Not aware Aware 01 ii, ; [Important Important OPiniOn] ~ [use it 01 it but don't use] Professional Liability Insurance e 70.4% 13.7% 16.0% 38.0% 8.9% 53.1% Handbooks & Systems "81.5 9.2 9 . 3 " 71.9 6.2 21.9 Legal Research 55.8 18.4 25.9 22.3 37.2 40.5 Disability Insurance 48.5 24.0 27.5 14.2 15.2 70.6 Association CLE 86.2 6.4 7.4 80.5 4.9 14.6 HoteVmotel 27.6 44.6 27.8 12.1 35.5 52.3 Life Insurance 37.4 36.9 25.8 12.0 19.0 69.0 Overnight Delivery 26.8 39.1 34.1 8.3 45.2 46.5 Preferred Credit Card 18.8 54.8 26.4 12.8 21.8 65.4 Car Rental 23.4 48.9 27.7 12.2 24.3 63.5 Mobile Telephone 28.4 41.4 30.3 7.5 43.2 49.3

e

21. II the Arkansas Bar Association was able to provide any 01 the lollowlng commercial benetits lor members, how important would the benefit be to you: Important Not Important Unsure Computer Training Packages 59.2% 22.4% 18.3% Computer Hardware 45.3 32.6 22.0 Computer Software 61.4 21.4 17.2 Health Insurance 53.8 28.4 17.8 Workers' Compo Insurance 31.1 43.9 25.0 Paper Office Products 27.8 44.9 27.3 Copy Machines 32.7 41.1 26.2

22. Check below the lour most important reasons you belong to the Arkansas Bar Association. Do not check more than four. legislative & govemment relations-37.5% opportunities to make a contribution to the profession-55.6%

12

fbr ,Irkmill Lalljrf

\ol.ll NI. Il\\iolrr 1999

continuing legal education-83.6% public service opportunities-15.0%

prolesslona ne oikinlf5 .90 0 discounts on products-9.5% requirement policy or encouragement 01 employer-14.2% 23. Your Association produces ten practice Handbooks and Systems (e.g. Arkansas Form Book & Domestic Relations Handbook) and sells them to members at a discount. Which 01 the lollowlng mediums are the ones you preler lor the Handbooks and Systems (check all that are prelerred, and don't lorget your secretary): Print~.8% Word processing disk-30.5% CD路Rom-47.2% Intemet-18.2% 24. How aware are you 01 the Arkansas Bar Association's legislative activities on behalt 01 our membership, the judiciary and the legal protession?

Very Aware-24.5% Moderately Aware-40.3% Somewhat Aware-26.7% Not Aware-8.4% 25. How effective do you believe our lobbying efforts to be: Very Effeclive-13.1 % Moderately Effeclive-50.3%

Unsure-27.4%

Not Very Effective-9.2%

26. Check below the three most Important sources 01 your Information on Arkansas Bar Association activities and services. (Do not che more than three.)

CLE Brochures-58.9% colleagueslfriends-31.4% Association NewsBulietin-56.5% Association Website-3.2% maiVfaxes-37.8% The Arkansas Lawyer magazine-82.3% other-l.7% news media-7.7% 27. Overall, how would you rate the service you receive lrom the Arkansas Bar Association: excellent-19.7% good-59.7% lair-15.4% poor-l.4% FirmiEmployer-46.7%

8. Who pays your Arkansas Bar Association dues: 9. What is your primary occupation: Private law firm-72.6% In-house/corporate counsel-4.7% Nonprofit organization Iawyer-l.6% Other nonlegal OCCtJpation-2.3%

no opinion-3.8%

State or Local Govemment lawyer-8.6% Federal Government lawyer-l.6% Other legal-3.0%

Other-.3%

Judge-3.8% Law school faculty-1.7%

O. II you are In the practice otlaw (broadly delined), how many lawyers, Including yoursell, work In your lirm: Solo Practice-27.9% 6 to 10-14.3% 21 to 30-3.4% 2to !)-34.2% 11 to 20-8.2% over 30-11.9% 31. How many paralegalS/legal assistants does your IIrm employ?:

none-35.4%

1-22.9% 2to 4-22.9%

over 4-18.8%

DEMOGRAPHIC 53 to 6!)-18.6%

36 to 52-46.8%

2. What Is your age: 35 or under-23.3% 33. What is your ethnic background: African American-2.5% Caucasian-95.5%

American Indian-1.0% Other-.5%

Hispanic-.l % Asian-.5%

34. How long have you been licensed to practice law (all jurisdictions): Less than 1year-l.5% 5 to 10 years-16.9% 1 to 4 years-16.8% 11 to 20 years-28.8%

21 to 30 years-18.4% over 30 years-17.5%

35. On average how many hours per week do you devote to the practice 01 law: Less than 20-9.6% 30-39-11.5% 20路29-3.5% 40-49-40.5% 36. Marital Status: 37. Sex:

Male-78.7%

Married-81.1 %

over 6!)-9.3%

50-59-28.3% More than 60-6.7%

Single-18.9%

Female-21.3%

38. Are you actively engaged in the practice of law: 39. 1consider mysell: Very active-21.5%

Yes-87.6%

Moderatelyactive-43.4%

NcH2.4% Inactive-35.1%

in Arkansas Bar Association activities.

101, II No. I/Ilioler 1m The Jlrkaosas LaWler

!l

THE POWER OF YOUR MEMBERSHIP For more information about member benefits or programs call Barbara Tarkington (SOl) 375-4606 or 1-800-609-5668.

CLE SEMINARS AT REDUCED COST The cornerstone of an attorney's professionalism is upto-date information. The Arkansas Bat Association provides the most comprehensive statewide CLE program, and members pay reduced tuition! Over 20 CLE Seminars are produced annually.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

You are well-represented on legislative issues affecting the profession and legal system. The Association's lobbyist represents its members' interests in the Legislature.

INSURANCE DISCOUNTS

CAR RENTAL

AVIS - for discounts call 800-331-1212 and gIve them this number, B-314500.

24

Tie lrkaasas Lawllr

1'01.1路( 10. I/Wi,ler 1999

,

Call Reb.amen at 501-664-8791 for these insurance products (5% discount for members): Professional Liability, Accident, Term Life, Hospital Indemnity Protection, Overhead Expense, Disability Income, and two NEW products-Long Term Care and Critical Illness.

IN THE ARKANSAS BARASSOCIATION HANDBOOKS MEMBERS RECEIVE A SPECIAL DISCOUNT

Ten practice handbooks on CD-ROM from LOIS and in print and disk from this Association. The 1998 version of the Arkansas Form Book is now available.

To order, caJi Diane at the Association at 501-3754606 for print or disk versions or call LOIS at 1-800364-2512 for the CD-ROM version.

PUBLICATIONS FREE TO MEMBERS

• The NewsBulletin • The Arkansas Lawyer • Legislative Summary From the Hill • Guide to Arkansas Stature of Limitations • Annual Membership Directory

• The Arkansas Law Review • The UALR Law Review Brochures on Law-Relared Topics are available for members to share with clients or civic groups.

DELIVERY SERVICE ADVISORY ETHICS OPINIONS

UPS gives Arkansas Bar Association members discountS and quick response time. Call 800-325-7000 and identifY yourself as a member of the Arkansas Bar Association, or use account #CP290001685.

CREDIT CARD PROGRAM

Plus • The MBNA Platinum MasterCard includes a card with the Arkansas Bar Association logo, no annual fee, miles plus option, a low APR, and travel services. Call 800-847-7378 for an application.

RETIREMENT

This Association has endorsed the ABA Members Retirement Program offering retirement plans and comprehensive support services to law firms and sole pracritioners. Call 800-826-8901 or visit the website at http://abra.ris.ssga.com

ALLTEL MOBILE

Call ]effFlowers at 501-905-7412 or 501-680-5055 for discounts on services and equipment.

It's not always black and white. In the practice of law, there's a lot of gray. Your Association's Professional Ethics and Grievance Committee can help. Within specific guidelines, the Committee will issue an opinion on the member's proposed conduct. There is an administrative charge of $50.

IMPROVING THE LEGAL SYSTEM

The Arkansas Bar Association has historically worked to secure adequate funding of the court system, to revise outdated laws, and to provide needed legal information to the public. Association members do this through the legislative program, Sections and Committees, the Association's Mock Trial Program, Young Lawyers Section's projects, and special studies.

LEXIS-NEXIS

Online legal research from Lexis-Nexis is discounted for members. Look for new "Lexis-Nexis Association Rewards" Benefir Program.

1-800-356-6548 ext.

1178.

.Coming Soon...

"Find a Lawyer" and "E-mail"

1'11.11 No. I/Il'lller 1119

TIe Arkmasl,awjrr

~i

tilll

linin' TI'l'hnolog)

Y2K: Been There, Done That, But the T-Shirt Didn't Print Out'

by Gerry Schulze

Next year's bar examination has been leaked. Here is one of the questions: O. Julius Bananaherry was president, general manager, and sole stockholder of the Groovy Mood Ring Company. Inc. By 1998, the Groovy Mood Ring Company (like mood rings in general) had seen bener days. The aging workforce was quiddy approaching retirement age. As experienced workers left, Mr. Bananaberry found them difficult to replace.

One day at Saxon Heights Country Club. Mr. Bananaberry mer Will Robinson. Mr. Robinson was an up-and-coming robotics engineer and computer programmer. Mr. Robinson convinced Mr. Bananaberry that the Groovy Mood Ring operation could be automated. After considerable scudy and discussion, Mr. Bananaberry and Mr. Robinson reached an agreemem. Mr. Robinson would provide new computers and machines. He wouJd do alJ necessary programming. The upgrade was completed on June 2. 1998. By the end of the year. all of the employees had retired and Mr. Bananaberry was running the operation alone.

On Monday, January 3, 2000, Mr. Bananaberry came inca his office. There-manufactured, packaged, and ready for shipmem-were fifey-two million mood rings. Mr. Bananaberry looked inca the faCtory. He saw that something had gone terribly wrong.

Many machines were broken. The remaining machines were running wildly out of control. He looked inca the storage room which had once contained an ample supply of phlogiston, the active component of mood rings. Not only was the storage room empey, but where there had once been a floor, there was now a ten-foot-deep hole in which a robot was niH desperately seeking phJogiston.

Mr. Bananaberry fainted. While he was unconscious, a UPS deLiveryman arrived and dutifully loaded the packages inro bis truck and left.

When he awoke, Mr. Bananaberry called Mr. Robinson to tell him what was happening. Mr. Robinson hurried co the faCtory. He shut down the operation. After several hours of working on the main computer system, he idemified the problem.

The computer that ran the automated manufacturing operation used data and computer instructions from the old system program. Thus, there was continuity between the old system and the new one. The old program, written in COBOL by Zachary Smith over thirty years earlier, used a two digit code for the year. When 1999 became 2000, the computer thought it was 1900. The computer then instructed the robots to make all the mood rings for which orders had been placed. Ir had essenrially filled every order thar the Groovy Mood Ring Company had raken since July 13, 1966.

In no instance were serviceable mood rings shipped in response to an outstanding order. The orders were executed in chronological order. The first rings manufactured were shipped to fill orders from the sixties and sevemies. Most recipients were no longer in business, and those few that remained had no need for mood rings. fu the robots ran Out of phlogiston, they used cemem from the floor and, after that was exhausted, the dirt beneach the floor. Dirt and cement do not make functional mood rings.

Shipments to businesses no longer in existence were returned. Mr. Bananaberry had CO ~eld calls from current customers who received shipmem of the subscandard mood Clngs.

You represent Mr. Bananaberry. Identify and discuss all causes of action which Mr. Bananaberry may have.

26

The .lrk/Oll! Lllljer

fol.ll So. I/llioler 1999

A t Gary Eubanks and fusociates we have ..li..relied heavily on our computer network for about a decade. We now have about fifty computers and other devices in three cities linked to a common network. It is difficult for me to remember how we ever practiced law without a computer network.

Last year we did an inventory of our computer system with an eye toward the "Y2K" problem. Certainly by now everyone has a basic understanding of the Y2K or "Millennium Bug" problem. The Y2K bug is the most notorious, and probably the most serious, of the "calendar" bugs expected to crop up in computer systems over the next several years. Calendar bugs occur when programmers ignore the effect that changes in the calendar will have on the way programs, operating systems, and even some hardware will function. Because of the way computer programs and operating systems work, calendar related malfunctions can be expected to surface at the beginning of every month from now co the Y2K date, January I, 2000. We can also expect minor eruptions 011 April 4. 1999. August 22, 1999.

Seprember 9. 1999. February 29. 2000.

January 19. 2038, and the one thar really keeps me up ar night. January I. 10000 2 The Y2K is the granddaddy of all calendar bugs. Although there are predjctions of major disruprions, with reasonable preparation, society can avoid apocalyptic consequences. To be sure, there will be isolated, serious consequences. There will be a lot of money lose. There will be a lot of overtime earned. But in my humble opinion, most disruptions will be invisible to the consumer and the general public after about a week. It is unlikely that civilization as we know it will collapse. In fact. I predict that the biggest risk of disruption comes from the panic that these apocalyptic predictions may bring about. People will withdraw a lot of extra cash from the bank in December 1999. Some non-perishable foodsruffs will be in high demand.

The problem with calendar bugs is that the problems are unpredictable. You never know what will happen until you actually experience the change. Some Y2K problems are merely inconvenient, while others will cause serious malfunctions or even prevent

computers from functioning.

When we did our compmer synem invemory, we recognized a number of risks of Y2K problems. Most of the risks were remme. Nevertheless, we resolved co take a series ofsteps which would diminish the risk of Y2K related problems.

One of me changes was installation of a new operating system for our network server. The instructions which make me hub of our information system Store: and share information would be changed.

Unpredictable disruptions of our network were inevitable. We chose to make the change between Christmas and ew Year, when nobody does much useful work anyway.

We were prepared for the glitches we suffered during the lasr week of the year, bur when the problems continued on January 4, 1999, people began to get antsy. Some computers were still malfunctioning. Some people couldn't receive their e-mail. Others couldn't send it. Some couJd not print, some could nm save, and a few could nOt get their computers to come up at all. We had to prepare a pleading on a laptop and print it Out on a very cheap ink jet printet, just to get it filed on time. By January 5, we were desperate. We decided that the solution was co have a framic, semi-computer-literate lawyer (guess who) take charge of the tecovcry operation. I began day-to-day monicoring of the recovery efforts. I ran from computer to computer looking at problems. In spite of my meddling. the compurer professionals slowly made progress. Now our system is better than before. We learned a few lessons, though, and I'd like to pass them on.

PUN AHEAD FOR FAILURE

If major revisions, modifications, or upgrades are necessary co make your system Y2K compliant, you may have unexpected problems. Software: settings will have to be reset. Shortcms and macros may have to be revised. This will take time. Come up wim a short term solution CO keep operating while all this is going on. Arrange to attach some computers to printers to operate stand-alone.

DOS OR WINDOWS 3.1 '95 OR '98 This is a recommendation a 1m of the experts make, and I agree with it. You're going to have to do it anyway. We were able to avoid this problem in part because we had UPGRADE ALL

CoMPlITERS TO WINDOWS

to replace a lot of old computers with new ones. New compmers now usually come with Windows '98. Actually replacing hardware can be a major expense. If you have any old software, i.e. something you gOt before say 1995, consider upgrading it. The closer you get co the millennium, the closer you get to Y2K awareness on the part of programmers.

REALLy DO YOUR BACKUPS

You've been warned to back up all hard drives for so long that the warning almost seems trite, but how many of you have actually backed up this week, this month, this year, ever? Before you try to upgrade, definitely do your backups.

REMEM BER TIiAT TAPE BACKUPS CAN fAll

We keep twO or three tapes in circulation.

Iflast night's back up was bad, we have the back up from the last time we did it.

research software is date sensitive. It is programmed to become inoperative when stale.

Lexis- exis software, for example, gives a warning and doesn't work if you try to pur in a disk that is (00 old. Furthermore, the Lex.is-Nexis software detects when you've reset the system clock. Therefore you will not be able to test some of this software, and you will probably have to reinstaJl it from scratch after the test.

Involve non-computer literate personnel.

Involve people with limited computer knowledge in the upgrade. It is one iliing to know what the computer geek will do when a problem arises. It is another to know how the non-geek will react {Q unexpected glitches. Use some of your less technologically inclined people as guinea pigs.

We had our Y2K experience a year early.

We hope that our efforts will make for a smooth year 2000. We'll JUSt have [Q wait and see what happens to us, and to the rest of the world.~

Y2K I. This article is protected by the "Year Many articles I've read suggest that you should do a Y2K simulation. Some Friday 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure night, back up everything. Reset the time Act," p.L. 105-271 (1998). on the network and all computers to 2. "The Bugs in Your Future," Wjr~d, December 31, 1999, at 11:30 p.m. Wait January, 1999. p. 76; "Rolling Thunder: thirty minuecs and see if your computers When the Bug will Strike," explode. Then come in Saturday morning hllp;/Iwww.msabc.com/news/227 483,asp; and simulate all the work you can. See how Capers Jones, "Dangerous Dates for your database works.

Run billing and Software Applications," accounting software. Check carefully for http://wwwcomlinks.com/mag/ddates.htm . errors. Make sure due dates aren't February 1900. Make sure your computer doesn't cal- r-:~iiii;-- James Gerard "Gerry" culate 100 years of interest. Do some Schulze is an attorney with Gary Eubanks & research. Print some form letters. Surf the net. Then wipe out everything you've done Associates in Little Rock. and restore from the backup. We didn't do He focuses his practice on this, but it is recommended by a lot of personal injury, Social Security, and appellate litexperts. igation.

Bue there is at least one special concern for law offices. Some CD-Rom based legal BE GAREfUl ABOlIT SIMUlATING

DONALD COURT REPORTING, INC. po. Box 1733, Sp'ingdale, kkansas 72765-1733 (50 I) 756-2256 1-888-GET-STE 0 (438-7836)

Fax: (501) 751-9153

• CERTIFIED MACHI E REPORTERS • ASCII DISKS • KEYWORD INDEXI G • COMPRESSEDTRANSCRJPTS EXPEDITED DELIVERY AVAJLABLE

• CONFERENCE ROOMS IN SPRINGDALE AND BENTONVIu.E

• ASK ABOlJf PROCESS SERVICE AND VIDEO

FAST ACCURATE SERVICE SINCE 1981 YOUR NORTHWEST ARKANSAS CONNECTION ALL MAJOR CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED

I'll. II lo. I/llilllr 1999

Tbl.\rkaoll! LaliJ/r

!i

\111111~ tilll ~I'I'S SI'ff illn IIl'plll't

Retreat Provides Opportunity to Plan For Future

by Gwendolyn Hodge

A longstanding tradition of the Young Lawyers Section of the Arkansas Bar Association is a retreat for irs Executive Council members and Commirtee Chairs.

The retreat affords the Council members and Chairs an opporcuniry (0 not only get to know one another, but also (0 plan for this and future Bar years. Past years locations include Lake DeGray and Winrock Farms. This year the retreat was held at Rivers Edge. a bed and breakfast in Caddo Cap. Though we all left the retreat at least five pounds heavier, overall the retreat was quite produccive.

The goal of the Executive Council and Committee Chairs is to develop projects

that serve the Young Lawyers both professionally and socially and to develop projects that serve the public. Brainstorming sessions resuhed in laying me groundwork for what turned out to be a successful campaign for Amendment 3; the designation of a new project-the CareGivers Handbook; discussions regarding a YLS Website or Bulletin Board on the Bar Association's Website; and discussions about a social activity at the Annual Meeting specifically for Young L1wyers, to name a few of the topics of discussion. SPOrtS talk led to the decision to sponsor a tennis tournament during the Annual Meeting open to all attendees.

Expect to hear more about these and other

DRACO COLLISION ANALYSIS

projects in the very near future.

Your help is needed on all of <hese projects! If you are interested in being involved wi<h <he CareGivers Handbook. Annual Meeting Social Activiey. Tennis Tournament or Website committee, please comact the Bar Associacion office at 375-4606.

On another note. let me say thank you and congratulations to each of you who participated in the Amendment 3 Speakers Bureau and Campaign. AJso, congratulations go to Co-Chairs John Meyers and Todd Wooten for a job well done on the Bridging the Gap Seminar and to Tim Cullen and his Handbook Revision committee for their work on updating the Senior Citizens Handbook. Thank each of you for the time and effort that you pur into each of these projects.o

10 APPLEBY' BEUA V,STA. AR 72714' (501) 876-6582' FAX (50l) 876-6995 Serui.ces Available. bur nollimited

[0...

• Traffic Collision Report Review and Critique • Limited Reconstruction Report· Analysis of Witness Statement • Single Issue Reconstrucllon Report • Comprehensive Accident Reconstruction Report • Examination of Depositions of the Involved Parties James Dray holds a Senior Certificate in Law EriforcementJor the State oj Arkansas. and GraduQtedJrom Texas A&.M Advanced Accident Reconstruction.

• OVER 20 YEARS LAW ENFORCEMENT' EXPERIENCE·

VISit O!'R WfllSllf: \\ \\ \\ .11

kh.lr uHl1

VALUATIONS CLOSE CORPORATIONS UNIQUELY QUALIFIED CONSULTANTS Analysis & Appraisal

Accountant/Economic Analysis • Business Valuations • Personal Injury Damage Analysis • Divorce (Property & Child Support Issues) Court-Appointed' Regular Court Appearances Richard L. Schwartz

Certified Public Accountant Certified Business Appraiser Certified Fraud Examiner

tS Til Mkmas LIW!lr

111.11 II. 1/\1illlr 1199

Fairview Road, Suite 100 lillie Rock, AR 72212-2445 Phone: (501) 221-9900 Fax: (501) 221-9292 email: schwartz@busvalu.com

11510

Expert Witness

\tlluatlon Arbitration Ownership Transition Planning & Implementation Estate Planning Asslstance

SCHULTZE, MAECHUNG & ASSOCIATES 314 N. Broadway, Suite 1921 SI. Louis, MO 63102 (314) 621-1211

REQUEST OUR BROCHURE

ARKANSAS BAR A,SOUAflO:-.i DISAS (I.R LEGAL A,sIS IA:-.in PROJIC r lOR TOR:-.iADO DISAS (ER VIC II:\IS

Call: 375-4606 In Pulaski County 1-800-650-0856 Outside Pulaski County

TYPES OF LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE

Disaster victims of the recent tornadoes in Arkansas can receive free legal assistance duough the Disaster Legal Assistance Project of the Arkansas Bar Association. This is the same project which assisted hundreds of cornado vic-

Assiscance with insurance claims (Life, medical, proper-

tims in the Spring of 1997. Led by the Association's Young

ty, etc.)

Lawyers Section, the Project is done in conjunction wim

Counseling on landlord/tenant issues and other housing

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),

problems

local bar associations. and local legal services programs.

Baxtet Sharp of Brinkley and Paul Dumas of Morrilton head chis Project for the Young Lawyer> Section. They

Assistance with home repair conuacrs Assisting in consumer protection maners, remedies and procedures

wefe appointed ro this position by YLS Chair Gwendolyn

• Counseling on mortgage foreclosure problems

Hodge of Little Rock. Sharp was the head of this Project

• Replacement of Wills and Other imporranr legal docu-

during the rornadoes in 1997.

ments destroyed in this disaster

Any attorneys not already involved in the Disaster

Legal

Drafting of Powers of Anomer

Assistance Project are encouraged ro volunteer, especially

Estate administration (insolvent)

those attorneys in the affected counties. Anorneys wishing

Preparation of guardianship and conservatorship

[0

volumeer should call the Arkansas Bar Association.

Referring individuals to local or state agencies

... Registered Professional Engineer in 3 States. ... 9 )'ears of experience as President of large distributor speciaJi"Jng in aU t}pe~ of safety equipment, major emphasis on metal forming and stamping. ...

II re'J.rs of experience as Presidenl of compan)' iO\'oh'cd in repair and rewinding of cleCtric mOlors and manufJClure. sales, inStallation and servicing of electrical control panels for industry.

...

14 y<..a rs of cxperience with General Electric Co. in engineering and industrial sales.

Earned 85· Electrical Engineering In 1947.

Complete curriculum vitae and references on request.

1il.ll Sl. I/lfilirr 1111

ne lrkllllll.lKf/I

29

The Official Directory Of The Arkansas Bar Association

Nearly 500 pages of information not readily available anywhere else. Contains all the information to make it the number one reference tool for the Arkansas legal profession.

Order extra copies today for your: V office manager V receptionist V paralegal V secretary V librarian

lO The .lrkaoSllI,I~ler

1'0I.l路I,1'0. 1/lI'ilter 1991

Copies are just $38.00 plus P&H and state sales tax.

Place your order today Arkansas Legal Directory P.O.Box 189000 Dallas TX 75218 (800) 447-5375

THE ARKANSAS BAR AsSOCIArION SAW rES OUR ARKANSAS STATE LECISLAIORS ARKANSAS STATE SENATORS Jim Argue Mike Bearden Mike Beebe Dave Bisbee Jay Bradford John E, Brown Bud Canada Jack Critcher Gunner Delay Wayne Dowd Jean Edwards Mike Everett

Jon Fitch Allen Gordon Bill Gwatney Morril Harriman Jim Hill Cliff Hoofman George Hopkins Gary Humer Tom Kennedy BiJl Lewellen Jodie Mahony David Malone

John A. Riggs, IV Gene Roebuck Mike Ross Sranley Russ James SCOtt Kevin Smith Bill Walker Bill Walters Doyle Webb Nick Wilson Tim Wooldridge

ARKANSAS STATE REpRESENTATIVES Sarah Agee Jerry Allison Evelyn Ammons Sam Angel Russell Bennett Bill Bevis Gary Biggs Cecile Bledsoe Pat Bond Michael Booker Paul Bookour Shane Broadway Geoff Buchanan Ann Bush Jo Carson Herschel Cleveland Olin Cook Tom Courtway Mike Creekmore Keith Davis Joyce Dees Jim Bob Duggar John Eason Dean Elliott Sreve Faris Danny Ferguson Lisa Ferrell Jake Files George French Jeff Gillespie Billy Gipson Bobby,L, Glover Mary Beth Green

Brenda Gullett David Haak Rita Hale Joe Harris Mike Hathorn David Hausam Jim Hendren Boyd Hickinbotham Barbara Horn Don R. House Russ Hum Phillip T. Jacobs Gene Jeffress Jimmy Jeffress Bob Johnson Calvin Johnson Sreve Jones Jan Judy Douglas Kidd Barbara King Jim Lancaster Randy Laverty Jim Lendall John Lewellen James Luker Becky Lynn Sue Madison Jim Magnus Percy Malone Jimmy Milligan Jim Milum Randy Minton Andrew Morris

Steve Napper Sreve Oglesby Par Pappas Marvin Parks Larty Prater David Rackley Sandra Rodgers Mary Anne Salmon Bill Scrimshire Harmon R. Seawel Courtney Sheppard Martha Shoffner Richard Simmons Stephen Simon Mark Alan Smith Roger Smith Terry Smith Marvin Steele Tracy Steele Chaney Taylor, Jr, Larry Teague Lindbergh Thomas Ted Thomas Bobby Lee Trammell Stuart Vess Wilma Walker Paul Weaver Robert]. White Henry Wilkins, IV Ed Wilkinson Arnell Willis Shawn Womack Jim Wood

fIt 1,1 II, I/Willlr 1111

T~e

Arkmll Llwllr

II

Right Strategy Right Address Right Price Right Audience

Down Righi Easvl

Now it's fast, easy and affordable to fe-deh millions of consumers on the Internet. Introducing Lawyer HomcPagcs at laW)'crs.com,

new from Martindale-Hubbell.

You gCI a professional looking Web Site, your OWIl URi. and up 10 len

pages of information on your practice - all man extraordinarily low price! And with a multi-media campaign positioning lawyers.com as fbe online resource for people who need legal representation, your sile

lIill be in the right place to attract new business.

U'\\)'er lIomePages are designed for small law offices lIith professional representation in lhe Martil1dale-Hubbell" 1.lIW Directoryl.

So if you don't have a J'rofessional Biography, now is the time to get one.

This marketing opportunity is simply too good to p'L'iS up!

Call 1.800.526.4902 ext. 5095, fax to 908.771.7792 or Email usatinfo@martindale.com. Or \isit our online brochure al www.lawyers.com/faq for morc infonnation.

L.~\\')'er lIomePages at www.la\\.).ers.com IIle right way to market your practice on the ~nemel.

MARTI DALE-HUBBELL"

e.....

member

orIII(' R芦d EIKYKT pic group

Only law 6nns of up 10 6\'t :Itlom~~ haling Professional nlogrJllhies in the Mflrl;t/{kJle路lfllbfx-l'路 limp Dircc/0rJ' are eligible for this scn1ce.

Mart.il1luJcollubbcU is a registered IrJdemark of Reed

l~

fie lrklllll LI~W

1'11.11 SI. IImller 1111

~JS('\ier

I'ropcrtlcs Inc.. u:>('(l under lkl'fl~.

A SPI ( (,\1 TIIA:-;KS 10 All 01 1111 William Gregg Almand Philip S. Anderson judge Fr.mk A«y, HI Judge Morris S. Arnold judge Rkhanl S. Arnold Chic:fJUSDCl' WHo "Dub" Arnold Richard B. Atkinson Mark Avery Jayer Bradley Babin Robe" C. Bake< Judg~ Harry F. Barnes Stev~ Barnes James R. Barnett W. Christopher Barri~r Senator Mike Beebe: Th~resa Bein~r

Garland W. Binns, Jr. Donald E. Bishop H. David Blair Tun Doe Judge David B. Bogard Bruce: H. Bakony Represcmarive Michael D. Book., Raymond E. Barnhoft Lowell D. Boynton Max Brantley Judge ElI~n B. Brantley Judge Wiley A. BrantOn Daniel W. Bremer Howard W. Brill Bill W. BristOw Jeff Broadwater Bob R. Brook<. j,.

Justice Robert L Brown C,,,hy Bruhn John Brummett Bruce E. Buchanan Governor Dale L Bum~rs Stasia D. Burk John L Burnett, Jr. Leanne Burnett Kim D. Burnette Patrick A Burrow George E. Buder, Jr. Judge Thomas E Butt James Buttry Dennis Byrd Diane Callahan Charles R. Camp Kimberly M. Canova Kelly Carithers Charles L Carpenter, Jr. Thomas M. Carpemer Robin J. Carroll Douglas M. Carson P,u1,j. C=y Judge Jerry W. Cavaneau Robert M. Cearley, Jr. Blake K Champlin Mark Christiansen C,rolyn J. Clogg Tamra Cochran

1998 ARKA:-;SAS BAR AssO( IAIION eLE SPI \KIIlS & PIl()(,IlAM PI ,\N:-;I RS

Cadtlttn V. Comp[on Barry E. Coplin

Jus[ice Donald L Corbin M. Gayle Corley RepresaHacive

Thomas C. Courrw:a.y Junius Bracy Cross, Jr. Nathan C. Culp Thomas A. Daily John Gary Davis Oscar E. Davis, Jf. John A. Davis, 11I

John A. (Zan) Davis, N Judge Robert T. Dawson N~il Ddninger Beny Demo')' Robert L Dep~r, Jr. Marcus C. Devine Jack W. Dickerson M. Jane Dickey Charles Dird~n Philip E. Dixon F. Mac Dodson Mari~ E. Dow Richard C. Downing Winslow Drummond Joan I. Duffy William A. Eckert, III Judge G. Thomas Eisele Georgia K. .EI.rod Audrey R. Evans Betty Everett John C. Everett Melanie P. Ewell Judge John F. Forster Lyle D. Foster R. Ray Fulmer, n Judge Robert F. Fussell Allison D. Garrttt James M. Gary Allan Gates James D. Gingerich W. Dent Gitchel Jimmy Givens Rich Glick Charles W. Goldner, Jr. Kennern Gould Natasha Graf G"S"')' B. G..h"" Judge Alice S. Gnly lina Grttn Todd Greer Judge Wendell L Griffen William M. Griffin, III limomy W. Grooms Jack D. Grundfest Russell A. Gumer Dennis B. Haase Don Hamilton Jeffrey E. Hance Paul J. Hansen Regina Haralson John T. Hardin Melva Harmon

C=n le< Haq> Judge Eugene S. Harris Richard F. Hatfield William D. Haught Mark Hayes Brad L HC'fldricks David M. Hendrix Donald H. Henry Judy S. Henry William E. Hewett ~raId L Hilsher Marcia L Hixson Dav~ A. Hodges, Jr. H~nry Hodges Alice: L Holcomb Theodore Holder Larry D. Holifield P. K. Holmes, III Jenniffer M. Horan Judge Grorge Howard, Jr. Governor Mik~ Huckab« Eugen~ Hum Edmond G. Hurst Peter Hungen Congressman W. As:d Hmchinson Justice: Annabelle C. Imber Judge Lron N. Jamison Uu-')' Jegley G"l' D. jil" Bill Jones D. Bruce Jones David C. Jones Gregory D. Jones Judge Henry L Jones, Jr. Stephen W. Jones Craig R. Kannamer Trent C. Keisling William~irn

Robe" D. Kellogg Tommy Kelly Hal Joseph Kemp Mark R. Killen beck lim Kizer H. Baker Kurrus Judge Don Langston David N. Laser John C l=el Paul Leopoulos Allison ~is Harry A. Light Judge John A. Lineberger Jennifer A. Love Patty W. Lueken Charles Lundeen Robert M. Lyford Representative Rebecca L Lynn Senator Joseph K. Mahony, 1I Dt:lke Mann Thomas A. Mars D. Price Marshall, Jr. David It Matthews N:lllCY BeUhouse May

Tc:ny N. McClure Judge Sidney H. McCollum Lucinda MeDanid Bobby McDanid Ann McDougal James McElhaney Governor Sidney S. McMath

Theodore McMillian E.). Miller UnaR. Mmer Judge James G. Mjxon judge j""" M. Moody John E. Moore, Jr. Harry Truman Moore Michael S. Moore Charles A. Morgan Susan Moseley Karen F. Moskowitz Rosalind M. Mouser Paul Muegg~ Morrell E. Mullins Charles T. Mulvey, Jr. John R. Myers Judge Robert L Neighbors Charles R. Nestrud Marg;mt M. Newton N. M. "Mac" Norton Phillip Norvell Alan J. Nussbaum Michael C. O'Malley Charles C. Owen Sharon Parrish Judge Graham Partlow Billl'=h,I1 Glenn Pasvogel John v. Phelps Sr:acy Pitunan Susie Pointer Susie Powc:1I Charles C. Price Willard Proctor Governor David H. Pryor Joann C. Quirk HeansiU Ragon, III John C. Randolph Semley D. Raul, Judge Stephen M. Reasoner Olan W. Reeves, Jr. M. Randy Rice Elton A. Rieves, III Michael L RobertS Richard A. Roderick Christopher T. Rogers Marl< Rage" Charles B. Rosoopf Judge Charles D. Roscopf Frances Mitchell Ross Judge Flsijane T. Roy Roben A. R"",lI, j,.

Do"'}' M. RY"" Mark R. Ryan James G. Schulze R;chanl L Schwmz John R. Scott

Dr. Rosa E. &guin John S. &Iig Dennis L Shackleford Michael B. Shane J. Baner Sharp Linda D. Shepherd judge Bobby E. Shephenl Steven T. Shults Judge Hamilton H. Singleton Edw:rn:l. M. Slaughter David H. Smirn H. MayoSmirn Laura H. Smith Lavenski R. Smirn Oem Rodney K. Smirn !.any Swfield Charles C. Steincamp Mich~ll~ Stephens Judge Dail Stiles William A. Storey Melanie J. Strigel Judge John F. Stroud, Jr. Gary L. Sullivan Tom Tatum Joel Taylor US Supreme Court Justice: Clarence Thomas Jeffrey H. Thomas WLlliam H. Trice, III Carny Underwood Fred Ursery Ralph W. Waddell Bill Waddell, Jr. John C. Wad~ Eddie H. Walker. Jr. John Wallace Sam Walls Judge Joyce Williams Warren William C. Warren, Jr. Judge H. Franklin Waters John J. Watkins Stcve Weaver Senator Doyle L Webb, II Craig Westbrook Bud B. Whetstone Robert White Chad White Gary W. Williams Judge William It Wilson, Jr. bochary D. Wilson Tom D. Womack Judge Henry Woods G. Alan Wooten Todd WOOlen Judge Susan Webber Wright Roben Wright Dr. Robert R. Wright, IU Walter G. Wright, Jr. William E. Wright William J. Wynne Judge H. David Young

fol.li 10. I/\fioler 1999

The ,lrkaoSll La~Jer

II

.llIdifiillllisfiplinaJ路~路\t't inns The Judicial Disciplinary Actions are wriuen and provided by the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission.

JUDGE BENNY SWINDELL # 98-164 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Date: Nov. II, 1998 This Memorandum of Understanding is made between Benny Swindell, Circuit/Chancery Court Judge, 5th Judicial Circuit (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent"), and the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission").

There is presently pending before the Commission complaim # 98-164, comprising of a Scatement of Allegations against Respondent, and in lieu of a hearing on this maner, the parties agree and consent to submit the following Memorandum of Understanding.

Respondem agrees that as of January I, 1999. he will cease to perform any judicial functions, and further agrees to never again serve in any capaciry as a judge or a member of the Arkansas judiciary, or accept appointment to or seek election for judicial office in the State of Arkansas as defined in Article 7 of the Arkansas Constitution.

It is agreed between the panies, that upon the execution of this Memorandum of Under~ standing. and its approval by the Commission, no further action will be taken by the Commission relative to complaim # 98-164. The Commission letter announcing the resolution of complaint # 98-164 will note that while the Commission was investigating allegations of improper conduct, Respondem agreed never to serve again as a judge in the State of Arkansas after January 1. 1999.

It is further agreed between the parties, that if Respondent violates the terms of this Memorandum of Understanding and serves as a judge, or accepts appointmem to or seeks election for judicial office. the Commission may reinstate complaim # 98-164. and shall proceed in accordance with Amendmem 66 of the Arkansas Constitution, Arkansas Statutes and the Procedural Rules of the Commission. The Commission may consider and use this Memorandum of Understanding as evidence in any subsequent consideration of the allegations in complaim # 98-164.

It is further understood and agreed between the panies. that the files relative to complaint # 98- I 64 shall be sealed, and all proceedings, documents. and pleadings remain confidential as provided for by Arkansas Statutes and Procedural Rules of the Commission, except in the existence of a valid coun order to the contrary. The execution of this Memorandum of Understanding is not imended to be a waiver by the Respondent of the confidentiality provisions except as provided for in this Memorandum of Understanding, Arkansas Statutes and the Procedural Rules of the Commission. In the evem Respondent or anyone

H Thr ,Irkansas Law!er

I'n!. HIn. I/Ilinier 1999

speaking on behalf of or in a representative capaciry for Respondent denies. infers. or otherwise suggests that the Commission had insufficient evidence or a lack of Probable Cause to proceed against Respondent. attendant to complaint # 98-164, the Commission is authorized to respond accordingly.

WILLIAM MCKlMM # 97-284 FINAL DECISION AND ORDER Date: Nov. 20, 1998 Pursuant to authoriry granted by Amendment 66 to the Arkansas Constitution. A.C.A. 16-1010 et seq. and the Rules of Procedure of the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission promulgated by the Arkansas Supreme Court. the Commission has jurisdiction over the Respondent, Judge William McKimm and issues this Final Decision and Order.

The Commission filed a formal statement of charges againsr Respondent on September 25, 1998. By letter dated OCtober 19. 1998.

Respondent filed an answer to rhose charges.

I. FINDINGS OF FACfS 1. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent.

William McKimm was and cominues to be the judge of the Municipal Court of Mount Ida, Arkansas.

2. That after a Probable Cause Hearing on May 16, 1997. in Commission case No. 95~260, Respondent was issued an informal adjustment by the Commission. The informal adjustment starcd that Respondent's conduct may have violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. During the hearing, the Commission accepted Respondent's representation that steps had been taken to avoid such an incident in the future. The Commission found that: a) Respondent presided at the trial of Walker v. Standridge on August 4, 1994. The lawsuit concerned a dispure over the failure to pay $2524 for the delivery of certain goods. b) After the trial, Respondent took the matter under advisement. Respondent was contacted by approximately fifteen (J 5) letters and telephone calls by the attorneys for both parties reminding him that a decision was needed in the case. c) As of the date of the Probable Cause Hearing, May 16.1997. Respondent srill had not decided the case. d) Respondent acknowledged responsibility for failing [Q decide the case in a timely manner.

The Commission also accepted Respondent's representation that steps had been taken to avoid this type of delay in the furure.

3. During the May 16, 1997 Probable Cause Hearing, under oath Respondent stated: a) That he was acutely aware of the potential

for public disrepute to be brought onto the judicial system and himself by this failure to take care of cases in a timely manner. He was embarrassed by his F.tilure and would take steps to insure it would nOt happen in the future. b) That he had already prepared and had with him a hand written letter which was his decision in the Walker v. Standridge case, and was ready to enter judgment in the case. c) That the lawyers for both panies had agreed that it would be acceptable with them ifhe issued a decision in the case. Also, that he would have the decision in the mail to the lawyers on the following Monday, May 19, 1997. d) (In response to a comment that he had failed to respond to several letters to him from the Commission) That his failure to respond was not intended to be any disrespect to the Commission or any lack of regard for the complaint. He was embarrassed over this complaint and simply avoided dealing with it. He apologized for his failure to respond to the Commission's letters.

4. In late August or early September 1997.

Gail Walker. the complaining parry in complaint # 95-260, called the Commission staff to ask for help in getting Respondent to make a decision in the Walker v. Standridge case. The Commission staff called Respondenr. The Respondent thought the case had been decided. The case docker sheet reflects an entry on 717/97 "Upon consideration of testimony, exhibits judgment entered for 0" (defendant). Notice of the deci~ sion was not sent to the parties or their lawyers.

Respondent failed (0 dispose of this case and notify the parries of his decision in a prompt and efficient manner.

5. By transmittal letter dated October 16, 1997. Respondent forwarded his decision in the Walker v. Standridge case to the lawyers for the parries.

6. In Commission case No. 97-284.

Respondent was sent twO (2) lettcrs requesting his comments to the complaint. Respondent was sem twO (2) letters requesting his comments to a sworn complaint in this case. Respondent failed to respond to any of these letters.

7. By letter dated May 19. 1998. respondent was requested to appear at a Probable Cause Hearing before the Commission on July 17, 1998 at 11 :00 a.m. Respondent received the letter bur failed to appear at the Probable Cause Hearing.

8. Respondent has failed to cooperate with the Commission. Respondent testified at the May 16, 1997 Probable Cause Hearing in Commission case No. 95-260, and failed to do what he stated under oath. to the Commission, that he would: a) Send the decision to the lawyers represent-

Continued on Page 36

vice for solo practitioners and law firms.

His mission is to help lawyers improve their practice management, Staff organization, productivity and profitability. This highly successful and much sought after law firm consultant will present a three hour program.

PrDgrams YDU WDn't WanttD Miss:

ABA President Philip Anderson is a man with a mission. He wants Americans to understand that judicial independence is essential to a free society.

He also wants to make lawyers aware of the scope and the mounting efforrs by non lawyer professional service firms (such as accounting firms) to provide legal service. Plan [0 hear his message when he addresses the Annual Meeting.

See and hear the "Tigar" ....

Michael Tigar is a rare and gifted reacher and trial lawyer who helps to shape the very craft he has chosen as his own. His uncompromising passion for justice has led him to the counsel tables of such notable clients as Angela Davis; The Chicago Seven; former Texas Governor,

John Connally; accused Nazi War Criminal, John Demjanjuk; and Oklahoma Ciry bombing conspirator, Terry Nichols. The cases he has tried, and their verdicts, have had a profound impact upon the modern body of American law.

NatiDnally Celebrated MDderatDr tD lead Diverse Panel Dn Current CDntrDversy Arthur Miller, the highly respected Harvard Law School professor wiU dissect a major topic of the day with a weUknown panel of experrs...juSt like we were on PBS! This familiar media personality is the legal editor for "Good Morning America," frequent "CounTY" commentaror, newspaper columnist and Emmy Award winner for PBS' "The Sovereign Self."

Mastering Management Challenges Facing Every lawyer and Firm Ezra Tom Clark, Jr., Mesa, Arizona, operates a nationally recognized consulting ser-

Lawyers Doing it DifferendyI Took a Sabbatical and it Changed My life Employment Law in a Nutshell â&#x20AC;˘ Ti ps by the DozenTwelve Twenty-Minute Presentations Family Law Updates Awardable Attorneys' Fees Y2K The Current Status of Arkansas' Attorney Lien Statute To Prepare for Mediation is ro Prepare for Trial Intellectual Property Legislative Updates Law Firm Mergers and Growth Is There Sexual Bias in the Legal Profession Permissible Contacts widl Company Employees and Ex-employees The Current Mayhem in the Insurance Industry's Engagement of Defense Counsel Government Practice Law The Class Action Technology...and More

FDR THE FUN DF IT...

The SecDnd City CDming tD the Spa City

.

Always original, sometimes daring but certainly hilarious, The Second Ciry is a special medley of classic scenes, songs and improvisations. Saturday Night Live is an extension ofThe Second City grooming such notables as John Belushi, Don Aykroyd, and Gilda Radner. Time Magazine called the Second City "A temple of satire"; "Devastatingly Funny" is a quote from the Toronto Star and the Chicago Tribune calls it "A Comedy Powerhouse." Register for the Annual Meeting and reserve your seats early for this national production.

AND... Golf; Tennis; Hiking; Receptions;

Networking;

Piano

Bar;

Exhibit Hall; Dancing; Greet old friends and Make New Ones!

1'01. Ii

No. I/lI'ioler 1999

TIe lrkaososl,owler

l~

.llIdil'iillllist'iplill') .\I't inns Continued From Page 34 iog the parties on Monday May 19, 1997. b) Respond to letters sem to him by the Commission in maners relating to the complaint of Gail Walke<.

9. Respondent fajled to cooperate with the Commission in Commission case No. 97-284 when, after receiving notice of the hearing, he failed to appear at a Probable Cause Hearing before the Commission on July 17. 1998.

H. FINAL DECISION AND CONCLUSION OF LAW The above constitutes a violation of A.C.A. 16-10-410(4) and (5) by being conduCl tim is prejudicial to the administration of justice and is in willful violation of Canons 1, 2A. and 38(8) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission funher finds troublesome, Respondent's actions of failing to respond (0 Commission correspondence, the disregard of the Commission's request to appear at a Probable Cause Hearing on July 17, 1998, especially when coupled with the repeated and continued delay in deciding and issuing the decision in the Walker v. Standridge case, after making assertions that the decision was already drafted and would be issued on the following Monday. These actions with the resulting publicity detrimentally affected the integrity of the judiciary, undermined public confidence in

the administration ofjustice, and constituted and continues to constitute unacceptable behavior.

The Commission indulges in the expectation that Respondent will no longer continue with this unacceptable behavior.

Ill. ORDER h is therefore ordered that the Respondent be censured. h is further ordered that Respondent take action ro correct me continuing nature of the violations, specifically that Respondent develop a plan to insure that me kind of deficiencies noted will not occur again.

Copies of me tickler system, day timer or other similar system that will be used to implement Respondent's to be developed plan, will be photocopied and personally sent to the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission on the first day of every month from December I, 1998 mru June 1, 1999. Failure to provide this information in a timely manner or further instances of this type of inappropriate behavior by Respondent wiU be a basis to re-open mese proceedings for review and determination of other possible sanctions to include the possibility of the rescinding of this censure and the re-opening of me Formal Disciplinary Hearing for me consideration of me imposition of another sanction.

Respondent is hereby censured.

HONORABLE TOM KEITH RE, CASE #98-201

Date: Jan. 20, 1999 Dear judge Keith: During the January 15, 1999 meeting, the Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission decided to issue a letter of admonition to you in complaint number 98-20 I. In mat complaint the Commission found you violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

At a Probable Cause Hearing, the Commission reviewed its file, your reply to the Statement of Allegations and your testimony before the Commission. That Statement of Allegations notes that on November 20, 1997, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing you to act upon a Freedom of Information Act request. That writ was not acted upon for nearly six (6) monms and then only after the petitioner filed a motion requesting the Supreme Court to compel action on the writ.

The Commission found your delay in responding to the Supreme Court mandate to be unreasonable and a failure to promptly dispose of the business of me Court in violation of Canons I, 2 and 3B(8) of the Arkansas Code of judicial Conduct. You are therefore admonished for this violation.â&#x20AC;˘

.llIdil'iill\d\ iSll!') llilininns The Judicial Advisory Opinions are wrilten and provided by the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE TOM GLAZE

Date: December 16, 1998 RE: Advisory Opinion #98-06 Dear Justice Glaze: Your letter asks whether an appellate judge may sit on a jury. We find naming in me Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct or in advisory opinions from other states mat would place any limitation on a judge serving as a juror.

Canon 2(8) requires a judge to "be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of the office." But a judge, sitting as a juror, would not be seeking to advance his private interests.

You further ask whether an appelJate judge would be required to disqualify himself from all cases appealed from the jury panel. Maners of disqualification are left co the judgment and discretion of the judge. Likewise. this Committee finds no support for the position that the impar-

II

Tbe ,lrknslJ LIWler

1'01.1410. 1/ll'ioler 1919

tiality of an appellate judge might reasonably be questioned merely because the judge had been a member of a jury panel.

CIRCUIT/CHANCERY COURT JUDGE, DMSIONII PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER DMSION SEVENTEEN WEST Date: Dec. 4, 1998 RE: Advisory Opinion #98-05 Dear judge Wbiteaker: You have asked this committee whether there is an ethical impropriety in your presiding over cases in which one of the litigants is represented by an attorney for whom your spouse, who is self-employed, performs accounting services.

You state that Mrs. Whiteaker works outside the home rendering accounting/bookkeeping services to her diems, which may include attorneys who regularly appear before you. You state mat

Mrs. Whiteaker is engaged as an independent contractor, has no involvement with firm clients or particular cases, and has only limited contact with the particular firm in general. She has no specific hours of work (averaging less than ten hours a monm in the cliem's office) and that neither taxes, insurance nor social security are with-

held.

Canon 3(E) of the Arkansas Code of judicial Conduct governs the disqualification by judges.

Four (4) specific provisions are covered by the canon, none of which is applicable (0 the situation you pose. Thus. the applicable language is "'A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's imparrialiry might reasonably be questioned..." Canon 2 provides that "A judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of lmpropriety in all the Judge's Activities.".

Legal Research For One Low Rate.

STRINGS Can't get loose from high rates?

With Law Office Information Systems, Inc., you get unlimited access to your law library for one flat rate. No downloading charges.

No printing fees. No surprises. Just a price every practitioner can afford. Now you can research all you want without worrying about the cost. So don't wait. Call 1-800-364-2512 ext. 152 today and find out how you can save using LOIS on

the

Internet or

CD-ROM. With our 30-day money-back

guarantee,

there's nothing to lose.

1路800路364路2512 (ext. 152) www.loislaw.com FIlS!, ACCllrate,

AfJordablt Legal Rtstarch'"

I, il\\}PI'

lliSl'iplillill')\l'tillllS

The lAwyer Disciplinary Actions are writtell and provided by the Supreme Court of Arkansas' Committee on Professional Conduct.

NOTICE OF LICENSE SURRENDERS

NOTICE OF LICENSE SUSPENSIONS

Mr. Bill Dean Etter Jonesboro, AR Attorney Bill Dean Ener, POSt Office Box 1574, 403 South Main, Jonesboro, Arkansas, Arkansas Bar 10 #71027 has been permanently barred from engaging in the unlicensed practice of law in this State for violation of me Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. On the recommendation of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, the Arkansas Supreme COUrt accepted the surrender of the law license of Bill Dean Etter on October 22, 1998. The surrender is effective immediately.

Attorney Etter's Petition to Surrender was based upon violations of Model Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) of me Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The Petition and attached exhibits on file with the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court, reflect that the anorney did not diligently pursue certain of his clients' legal maners, did not reasonably communicate with the clients, failed to properly disburse funds belonging to the clients, and had felony criminal charges filed against him in connection with those maners.

If you have any questions in this regard or you have information evincing the attorney's continued practice comrary to the status of his license, please contact this office.

Mr. Albert Wayne Davis Little Rock, AR Anorney Albert Wayne Davis, 300 Spring Boulevard, Suite 615, Litde Rock, Arkansas, Arkansas Bar 10 #76026 has been suspended from the practice of law within the jurisdiction of this State for violation of me Arkansas Model Rules.

The Committee on Professional Conduct suspended Albert Wayne Davis' Arkansas Attorney's License for a period of one (I) year effective on September

Mr. William Arthur Murphy Sheridan, AR Anorney William Arthur Murphy, Posr Office Box 302, Sheridan, Arkansas, Arkansas Bar 10 #76086 has been permanently barred from engaging in the unlicensed practice oflaw in this State for violation of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. On the recommendation of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, the Arkansas Supreme COUrt accepted the surrender of the law license of William Arthur Murphy on ovember 19, 1998. The surrender is effective immediately.

Attorney Murphy's Petition to Surrender was based upon violation of Model Rule 8.4(b) of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Petition and attached exhibits on file with the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court, reflect that the attorney pled guilty to one count of violating TItle 18, United States Code 1622, to wit: willfully suborning and procuring another to commit perjury by testifying falsely under oath to a material matter in a proceeding before a grand jury in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

If you have any questions in this regard or you have information evincing the attorney's continued practice contrary to the SfatUS of his license, please conract this office.

of Modd Rul", 1.3. 1.4(a). 1.15(a). 1.15(b) and

IS

The Mhnsa! LallIer

1'01.14 Nn. I/Winter 1999

18.1998.

Please be advised that a suspended attorney shall not be reinsrated to the practice of law in this State until the Arkansas Supreme Court has received an affirmative vote by a majority of the Committee. If, and at such time as the Committee may reinstate the attorney, you will be provided notice of the reinstatement and the effective date thereof.

If you have any questions in this regard or you have information evincing the attorney's continued practice contrary ro the status of his license, please contact this office.

Mr. John Thomas Root, Jr. Little Rock, AR Attorney John Thomas Root, Jr., 1307 Loyola Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas, Arkansas Bar 10 #90022 has been suspended from the practice of law within the jurisdicrion of this State for violation 8.4(c) of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee on Professional Conduct suspended John Thomas Root's Arkansas Attorney's License for a period of one (I) year effective on November 20, 1998.

The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Affidavit of Complaint filed by Alan Zoellner.

John Thomas Root, Jr., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, was hired in January 1996 to assisr Mr. ~t1ner and his wife wilh the purchase of certain real property located in Pulaski County. When the closing on the property rook place, Mr. Root received $800 as a settlement closing fee and $100 for preparation of the docu~ ments. Mr. Root also mainrained $2,236.22, OUt of proceeds from the closing, in his "escrow" accoum to pay the seller's 1995 property taxes and her pro rata share of the 1996 property taxes. During February of 1997, one full year after the closing, Mr. Zoellner learned that the property taxes had not been paid. Immediately upon learning this Mr. Zoellner's wife conracted Mr. Root, who advised that the taxes had been paid. Mrs. Zoellner relied on Mr. Root's information and wrote a letter to the Pulaski County Treasurer's office to apprise them of th(ir mistake. An employee of the Treasurer's office explained that there was no mistake, the property taxes had nOt been paid. When contacted again, Mr. Root reasserted (hat the taxes had been paid.

Mr. Zoellner was provided a copy of a check that Mr. Root averred was used to pay the property taxes. The copy of the check fails to establish that it

was ever negotiated. Mr. Root also gave Mr. ZodJner a copy of what he aHeged to be: the back of the check used to pay the property rues. The markings on the copy are nor legible. The personnel at the bank that the check was drawn on requested Mr. Zoellner to obtain the original check from Mr. Root. Mr. Zoellner asked Mr. Root for the original during May of 1997. Mr. Root explained that his accountant had the original check and he was on vacation. To dare, Mr. Zoellner has nor been pro~ vided the original check. During June of 1997, Mr. Root wrote anomer check for payment of the taxes and pr~nted it to me Pulaski County Treasurer's office. The check presented by Mr. Root never deared his account because there were insufficient funds in the aeeDum. Mr. Zoellner again contacted Mr. Root during August of 1997. Mr. Root advised mat he would comact me Treasurer's office and then call Mr. ZoeUner right back. Mr. Zoellner has not heard from Mr. Roor since the conversation during August of 1997. Mr. Root advised the Comminee that he had recencly been diagnosed wim a prolonged srate of depression, which should explain why his action or inaction might be consid~ ered less than satisfactory in the instance involving Mr. and Mrs. Zoellner. Mr. Root expressed regret that his mental state was such that me problem was not solved sooner. The property taxes were finally paid February 19, 1998, twO years after Mr. Root was to pay them.

Upon consideration of the formal complaint and response herein, the Comminee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Root's conduct violared Model Rule 1.3 when he failed ro pay the real property raxes from January 1996 until February 18, 1998, a period of over twO (2) years. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer shall act wim reasonable dili~ gence and promptness in represeming a client.

2.

Thar Mr. Roor's conduct violated Model Rule 1.4(a) by failing to keep Mr. and Mrs. Zoellner and the seller of the property informed about me stanIS of me property tax issue relating to non-paymenr of the property raxes and by nor promptly complying with Mr. and Mrs. Zoellner's reasonable requests for information made on their behalf and on behalf of the seller of the property.

Model Rule 1.4(a) requires that a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed 300m me sratus of 3 maner and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

That Mr. Roor's conducr violated Model 3.

Rule 1.15(a)(I) by his failure to hold rhe funds to pay the property taxes separare from his own property and by failing to deposir and maintain the funds ro pay the property taxes in a trust accounr.

Model Rule 1.15(a)( I) requires that a lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property.

Further, Model Rule 1.15(a)(0 requires, in pertinem pan, that funds of a client shall be deposited and mainrained in one or more identifiable trust accountS.

til\\ ~fll' 4.

That Mr. H.OOt'S conduct violated Model Rule 1.1 S(b) by failing (Q deliver the funds due the Pulaski County Tre:uurer's office for a ~rjod of rim, ",c=ling rwo (2) Y=>. Modd Rill, 1.15(b) requires. in ~rtinent pan, that upon receiving funds in which a client or third JX:rson has an inter· CSt, a lawyer shall prornpdy ddiver to me c1iem or lhird person any funds that the client or third person is entitled to receive.

5.

That Mr. Root's conduct violated Model

Rule 8.4(c) by his repeated misrepr~nt2tions to Mr. and Mrs. Zodlner th:u the tax payment had bttn made; by his failure [0 maintain funds which did not belong to him in a truSt account sqJaTatc from his own property; by using the' funds entrusted to him for payment of property lUes for Olher purposes thereby causing an insufficient account balance when the payment for proper(), raxes was tendered; and, by pr coring a copy of a check to Mr. Zodln~r which he misrepresented to be the check used to pay the property taxes.

WHEREFORE, it is th~ decision and order of the: Arkansas Supreme: Coun Committee on Professional Conduct that JOHN THOMAS ROOT, JR., Ad"",sas Bar 0.90022, bc, and h",· by is, SUSPENDED for his conduct in this matt~r.

Mr. Root's suspension shall be for a period of one (I) year effective as of the date of the filing of this Order.

OTICE OF REPRIMANDS Ms. Laura J. McKinnon Fayetteville, AR A letter of reprimand was issued to Laura J. MdGnnon by the Arkansas Supreme Court Commincc on Professional Conduct on October 6,

1998.

The Committee on Professional Conduct has carefully considered the Complaint Be:fore the Committee and your responsc=.

It was the decision of the Committee that your conduci in this matter was a violation of Rules 4.4, 5.l(c)(I), 5. I (c)(2) , 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) of rh, Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

The: Arkansas Supreme Court has adopted these Rules as the standard of conduct for Arkansas attorneys.

These Rules state, in part, that in re:presenting a c1ie:n1, a lawyer shall nOI ~ means that have no substanti~ purpose othe:r than to embarrass, dday, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a personi a lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer's violation of the rules of professional conduct if the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the sp«ific condua, radfics the conduct involved; a lawyer sh~1 be responsible for another lawyer's violation of the rules of professional conduct if the la~r is a panner in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action; a lawyer shall not engage in con·

/Iisl'ipliUiIl} \rt inns

duct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceir or misrep. resentation; and, a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice:.

You are hereby reprimanded for this conduct.

The Complaint Be:fore the Committee derived for the most pan from information contained in a Judgmem emered against you by Honorable Franklin Waters. Judge Warers' Judgment con· tained information rdating to the conduct in which you engaged while reprcscming various individuals against Johnny L. Bakke:r, a dentist practicing in Springdale, Arkansas. Certain of that conduct resulted in a lawsuit being filed agajnsc you in fed· eraJ court alleging that you had violated the: "Fair Credit Reporting Act." After providing you an opportunity to explain or refute the alleged charges in written form, the Executive Director provided 1'0 each Comminee member the Complainr Before the Commillee along with your wrinen response. The individual Comminee members thereafter consid· ered the information before them. The findings of fact which were made: afte:r consideration of the Complaint and Response are sel OUt specifically in the body of this corresponde:nce:.

The Comminee found that you violated Modd Rule 4.4 when, during the representarion of your die:nts, you threatened Dr. Bakker with the loss of his dentistry licenS(', with financial ruin and with the: deStruction of his career. Other conduct engaged in by you which was found to be violative of Modd Rule 4.4 included accusing Dr. Bakker of child molestation and causing die:nt(s) to fiJe claims for sexual improprieties when the clienr(s) did nor allege the same:. Your conduct in obtaining credit reportS on Dr. Bakker and on his twO adult daugh. ters was also found to have violated Rule 4.4 of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

The findings of faCt upon which the determina· tion was based that you had violated Modd Rule

5.1 (c)(l) and Modd Rul, 5.1(c)(2) ;nvol.. conduct of your associate Nancy Hamm which you ratified and for which you were responsible. During the course of representing c1iems assening causes of action against Dr. Bakker, Ms. Hamm copied Dr. Bakker with correspondence written co the insur· ance company carrying Dr. Bakke:r's malpractice poljcy. In the correspondence, Ms. Hamm threatened Dr. Bakker with his career being seriously jeopardized, with serious harm to his reput::uion, with destruction of his practice, and, with personal ruin.

The finding that you violated Model Rule 8A(c) was based upon your actions in obtaining credit reports on Dr. Bakker and his twO adult daughters under false: pre:tensc:s and for impermissible purpos· (S. Your prep::u:uion of scuemems for dienr{s) con· taining allegations nOt made by the dient(s) was also found to be conduct which violated Mood

Rill, 8.4(e).

Each of the specific findings set OUt herein in connection with Modd Rule 404, Model Rule 5.l(c)(I), Modd Rul, 5.1 (c)(2), and Modd Rul, 8.4(c) also provided the basis for the determination that you violated Model Rule 8.4(d). It was the

finding of the Committee that the totality of these actions by you demonstr.ue conduct which is prejudicial to the adminisrr.uion of justice.

The Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law provide you have the right to a public hearing, tk novo, before this Commjnee upon written request within 20 days. Please be advised that all violations of the Model Rules alleged in the original formal complaint will be considered in a d~ 110VO hearing. The press will be given adV2nc~ notice: of the hearing and identity of the attorney involved.

In the absence ofsuch a request, this reprimand will be entered in the files of the Committee and shall be conside:red in the imposition of appropriate sanctions in the future: event that you are: found to have violated the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Also, this reprimand will be filed as a public record with the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Coun.

Mr. Charles A. Potter Tc:xa.rkana, AR Charles A. Potter W1.S reprimanded by the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee: on Professional Conduct on ovember 3, 1998.

The formal charges of misconduct arose from the: Arkansas Supreme Coun case: of Lllrry DOl1ihoo I). Stau ofArkansas, CR97-766. Charles A. Potier, an anorney practicing in Taarkana, Arkansas, was held in contempt of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, for his conduct in the abovementioned matter. The Conte:mpt Order was bas«l upon Mr. Potter's fa..ilure to file his client's brief.

On July 9, 1997. Mr. Potter lodged the record from the denial of Mr. Donihoo's Petition for Rule 37 relief with the: Clerk of the Supre:me Court. The: brief on Mr. Donihoo's behalf was due on or before August 18, 1997. Mr. Porter contends that the CI~rk of the: Coun fa..iJed to notify him of the: due date for filing me brief. According 10 Mr. Porrer, he did not learn of the August 18, 1997, filing deadline: until August 19, 1997. Rc=gardless of whethc=r the Clerk notified Mr. Potier of the date for filing the: brief, i[ was his re:sponsibiliry to timely file: the: brief or to obtain an ext'ension of time to do so.

Instead, from August 18, 1997, until March 23, 1998, Mr. Potte:r took no action on his client's behalf. A MOlion to Dismiss Mr. Donihoo's appeal was filed on beh~f of the State on March 23, 1998.

Mr. Poner did not respond [0 me: Motion. Mr. Poner explained that he did not receive the Motion until April 3, 1998. Iklieving that he was out of time to respond, Mr. Potter chose nOt to respond.

On April 16, 1998, the Supreme COLIn granted the State's Motion and dismissed Mr. Oonihoo's

appcoI. Eighr (8) days af." th, <fum;ssaI, M,. Porr" filed a Morion to Set Aside: Dismi.ssa.1 of Appeal. In the Motion and in his plea of guilty to contempt, Mr. Polter ac~pted responsibility for failing to timely file the brief.

Upon consideration of the formal complaint and the response herein, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: 1.

That Mr. Poner's failure to exhibit any

I'll. II JI. Il1\iltlr Ill!

TR IrtmlJ Li~W

l!

til\\ )111' thoroughness or preparation in the appellate proceedings of his diem from August 18, 1997. through April 16, 1998. resulting in dismissal of his

diem's ap~J violated Modd Rule 1.1, Arkansas Mood Rules of Professional Conduct. Mood RuJe 1.1 ~uires. in pertinent pan, that a lawyt'-T shall provide competent represcntuion to a client. including the thoroughness and prep;uation reasonably necessary for the represemation.

2.

That Mr. Poner's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3. Arkansas Modd Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to file: a brief on his diem's behalf on or lxfo~ the: filing deadJinc: of August 18. 1997; by f.Uling to seck an extension of

time in which to file: a brief on his cliem's behalf in

the: appellate: proettding from July 9. 1997. through Augwl 18. 1997; by fiUling (0 submit a brief on his cliem's behalf from August 18. 1997. through March 23, 1998; and, by F.uling to respond to me St.ne's Motion to Dismiss Appeal from March 23, 1998, until April 16. 1998, when the Morion was granted. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer shaH act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

3.

That Mr. Poner's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d), to wit: (i) An extreme delay in Mr. Donihoo's appellate proceeding resuJted from his failure to file a brief on Mr. Donihoo's behalf; (ii) His failure [0 respond [0 the State's Morion [0

lIisl'ipliUill} \l't inns

Dismiss comribmed to the dismissal of Mr. Donihoo's appeal thereby requiring the filing and consideration of a Morion to Set Aside Dismissal of Appeal; (iii) The Arkansas Supreme Court had to schedule a show ause hearing because of his failure to file a briefon his diem's behalf and bttause of his failure to respond to the State's Motion to Dismiss; (iv) The orderly and rimely administration and res· olution of appellate proceedings were delayed by his failure to timely act on behalf of his c1iem, Larry Donihoo; and, (v) The Court was required to expend additional time and effort which would nOI havt= b«n necessary except for his failure to timely act on behalf of his diem in his appellate proceeding. Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer shaH not engoage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee on Professional Conduct that CHARLES A. POT~ TER, Arkansas Bar ID #65032, be. and hereby is.

REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this maner.

Mr. Frank E. Shaw Conway, AR Frank E. Shaw was reprimanded by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct on December 8. 1998.

This is confirmation of the Committee's action at

THE LAW FIRM OF LEDBETTER, COGBILL, ARNOLD & HARRISON, LLP IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE DANIEL A. STEWART HAS JOINED THE FIRM AS AN ASSOCIATE Charles R. Ledbetter E. Diane Graham R. Ray Fulmer, II J. Michael Cogbill James A. Arnold, II Rebecca D. Hattabaugh Ronald D. Harrison Virginia C. Trammell Daniel A. Stewart

622 PARKER AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 185 FORT SMITH, AR 72902-0185 (501) 782-7294 40

ne ,Irklllll LI~W

fll.ll XI. Illfilllll!l!

your hearing on November 20, 1998. on the complaint filed by Loretta Armstrong alleging th3( you had viola led the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. With agrttmem betw~n you and the Executive Director, James A. Nea.L the disciplinary matter was presented to the Commi((~ in consonance with th~ P~ures of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Regulating Profrssional Conduct of Anorney al Law, as amended. January 15. 1998.

Upon your admission that you had violated

Model Rules 1.3 and 1.4(a) of [he Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct during your legal of Loretta Armstrong and upon the recommendation of the Executive Director, the Commin~ accepted. your admission of violation of the abovem~ntioned Model Rules and adopted th~ recommendation that you be reprimanded. for your conduct and be fined in the amount of $250.

Th~refore. you are hereby reprimanded and fined $250 for your violation of Model Rules 1.3 and l..1(a) arising our of your representation of Ms. Armstrong. In addition, you wer~ assessed the COSts in this man~r totaling $22.31.

These rules require that a lawyer shall act with reasonabl~ diligence and promptness in representing a client and, that a lawyer shall k~p a client reasonably informed about the $[atus of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requestS for information.

The factual circumstances appearing from the evidence before the Committee and your admission are as follows: Loretta Armstrong hired you during February of 1996 to represent her in twO matters then pending in Faulkner County Circuit Court.

One of the matl'ers involved a felony drug charge and the other was a probation rnoca.tion matter.

The only motions ever filed by you in Ms. Armstrong's felony drug case were motions to continue pre-trial hearings. You explained. to Ms. Armstrong that you would request a plea offer from the pro.s«uting anomey. At some point during the pendency of the action you had informed Ms. Armstrong of an offer by the pros«utor for a 54 month .sentence upon her plea of guilty. Your c1iem ~jected that offer bm infonned. you that she would accept a 48 month .sentence. Ms. Armstrong made numerous, unsuccc:ssful attempts to contact you and her messages for you went unanswered. You acknowledged. that your client had expressed her readiness to accept a lesser .sentence of 48 months.

On the Friday before the sched.uled trial. the deputy prosecuting attorney infonned you that she would offer a sentence of 48 months. You were given a deadline of noon the folJowing Monday to respond to the offer. You failed t'o accept the offer which Ms. Armstrong had previously requested and was wiUing to accept. Ms. Armstrong did not learn of the offer of 48 months until the day after the deadline for responding. For your part. you explained mat following your receipt of the offer you beame extremely sick that very afternoon. You explained that you were so sick yOli could nOt use the tcle~ phone to discuss maners wid1 clients and, therefore, were unable 10 rclay the offer to Ms. Armstrong.

You did make attemptS to have the offer reinstated ~presentation

tim) Ill' lIisl'ipliUill')\l't inns but yOUf attempts were CO no avail. In addition, the attempts co have the trial setting continued were unsuccessful. Ms. Armstrong was required to go to trial with you as her attorney. The jury returned a

guilty verdict and a sentenl:C of 144 months confinement. eight years more than the withdrawn plea

offer.

This reprimand will be entered in the files of the Commirtee and may be considered in determining the action it might take in the event of funher violations of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct by you. Also, this reprimand will be filed as a public record with the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Coun. In addition the fine of $250 and the COSts assessed to you in the amount of $22.31 are due in the office of the Executive Director wimin twenty (20) days of dlC~ filing of this Icn(:r.

Mr. James Odell Clawson, Jr.

Little Rock, AR James Odell Clawson, Jr., was reprimanded by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct on December 31, 1998.

The formal charges of misconduct arose from information brought to the Committ~'s attention.

James Odell Clawson, Jr., Anorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas, placed an advenisement in the Little Rock, Arkansas, Southwestern BeU Telephone Directory which contained the statement 'Til get you the Most Money in the Least Amount of lime." Mr. Clawson explains that his intent was to convey a commitment on his part to work each case to the best of his abilities, not to compare his services with those of another attorney.

Upon consideration of the formal complaint and response herein, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: 1.

That the statement, 'Til get you me Most Money in the Least Amount of lime" is a comparison of Mr. Clawson's services with other lawyers' services which cannot be factually substan· dated and is in violation of Model Rule 7.1(c), Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Model Rule 7.1(c) requires, in pertinent part, that a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services, including a comparison or the lawyer's ser· vices with other lawyers' services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.

WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct that James O. Clawson, Jr., Arkansas Bar 10 #90219, be, and hereby is, repri. manded for his conduct in this matter.

Mr. John Lee Kearney Pine Bluff, AR John Lee Kearney was reprimanded by the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee on Professional Conduct on December 31, 1998.

The formal charges of misconduct arose from information provided by Ernestine Hurd. Ms. Hurd hired John Lee Kearney, an attorney practicing law in Pine Bluff, ro represent her in a legal matter during May 1991. The legal matter involved

Ms. Hurd's inability to have quiet enjoyment of her home because of late nighr and early morning church services held on neighboring property. Prior to hiring Mr. Kearney, Ms. Hurd had spoken with the police and city council about her problems with the church. Mr. Kearney admits representation of Ms. Hurd in her legal matter involving the church and in numerous other disputes and litigation.

Mr. Kearney did file a Complaint on Ms. Hurd's behalf. The filing occurred on June 25, 1992. Very little was done in furtherance of the cause of action after the defendant filed an Answer and Interrogatories. Mr. Kearney explains that the inac~ tion was based on the lack of supporting evidence and witnesses. A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed by the defendant and granted by the coun. It is disputed whether Mr. Kearney failed to advise Ms. Hurd of the Motion. It is undisputed, however, that Mr. Kearney failed to comply with the Court'S Order Compelling Discovery. Only after the defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss did Mr. Kearney file responses to the Interrogatories. In addressing the delay in responding, Mr. Kearney sets out that it has been his experience thai a great number of responses to Interrogatories by attorneys are late under the rules. Mr. Kearney blames the delay on his inabiHry to obtain information from Ms. Hurd, his client, and her witnesses. Fifteen (15) months after the defendanr filed a Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Kearney filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of Ms. Hurd.

Ms. Hurd was unaware of much of this activity because Mr. Kearney failed to return her numerous telephone calls wherein she tequesred information.

He failed ro keep Ms. Hurd informed of the status of her legal matte.r. Mr. Kearney dispures this factual allegarion and expresses hjs certainry that he returned calls to Ms. Hurd as his scheduJe allowed.

Further, Mr. Kearney's recollection is thar he spoke to Ms. Hurd as often as was reasonable.

Three (3) months after filing the. Amended Complaint, Mr. Kearney filed a Motion to Nonsuit. According to Ms. Hurd, this Motion and its effecr were never discussed with her prior co its filing. Mr. Kearney asserts that Ms. Hurd was specifically advised in his office, prior to the nonsuit, of the meaning and the effect of a non·suit including the one (I) year refiling provision.

Upon consideration of the formal complaint and response herein, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: 1.

Thar Mr. Kearney's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3, Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to promptly and timely file responses to Interrogatories filed in Ms. Hurd's lawsuit on July 3D, 1992; by failing for a period of fifteen (15) months after he filed a Response to Motion for Dismissal, to take any acrion on behalf of his client to advance her cause of action; by failing, from the filing of the Amended Complaint until entry of the Order of Non~suit, to take any acrion on behalf of his client; and, by failing ro diligently and promptly notify Ms. Hurd during the one year time period follow· ing the Order of Non-suir that her case could be

refiled. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

That Mr. Kearney's conduct violated 2.

Model Rule 1.4(a), Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, by repeatedly failing to return Ms. Hurd's relephone calls to advise her of the StatuS of her legal maner and by failing to advise Ms. Hurd thar he nonsuircd the lawsuir and the consequences of such action when asked abour the status of her lawsuit. Modd Rule 1.4(a) requires rhat a lawyer shalt keep a client reasonably informed about the Status of a matter and prompt· Iy comply with reasonable requests for information.

3.

That Mr. Kearney's conduct violared Model Rule 1.4(b), Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, in thar, he failed to advise and consult Ms. Hurd in the decision of whether to non·suit her acrion, and failed to advise of the time within which she had to refile in order to keep her cause of action alive. Model Rule 1.4(b) requires that a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

4.

That Mr. Kearney's conduct violated Model Rule BA(d), Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, to wit: (i) The orderly and timely resolution of the lawsuit was delayed by his faiJure to promptly and timely respond to interrogatories and necessitated the court having to entertain and rule on motions that were otherwise unnecessary, and, (ij) The timely resolution of the lawsuit was delayed by his failure to engage in dis~ covery. Modd Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct that JOHN LEE KEARNEY, Arkansas Bar 10 #74090, be, and hereby is, REP~ RIMANDED for his conduct in this matter.

Mr. John Lee Kearney Pine Bluff, AR John Lee Kearney was reprimanded by the Arkansas Supreme Coun Commiuee on Professional Conduct on December 31, 1998.

The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Arkansas Supreme Coun case of Bobby EA,1 Richa,d IJ. Stau ofArkanstlJ. Jehn Lee Kearney, an attorney practicing in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, repre~ sented Mr. Richard in his jury trial held in Desha Counry Circuit Court. Following the jury's verdicr of guilty to one (I) COUnt of a terroristic act and two (2) countS of attempted capital murder, Mr. Kearney filed a timely Notice of Appeal on behalf of Mr. Richard. Thereafter, a Motion fot Extension of lime to Lodge Appeal Transcript was filed.

However, Mr. Kearney miscalculated the rime to lodge the transcript because he used the date of the Notice of Appeal as the beginning point. Mr. Kearney's error resulted in the transcript being lodged ten (10) days late and required the filing of a Morion for Rule on the Clerk which was gran red September 15, 1998.

\'11.1,1 '\'1, l/Wilter II!!

T~e ,Irkalsll

Llwj'er

II

LiI\\ ~Ill' Mr. Kearney personally signed for the complaint.

Aflcr being granted an extension of time in which to respond, Mr. Kearney failed to respond. His failure to respond timely to the complaint constitutes admission of the F.!.crua! allegations contained in the complaint pursuant to Section 51(4), Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme: Coun Regulating Professional Conduct of Anorncys at Law (Procedures), as revised January 15, 1998.

Upon consideration of the formal complaint herein, the Committee on Professional Conduct

finds: I. That Mr. Kearney's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3, Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, by lodging the record on ap~al with the Clerk of the Coun ten (to) days late. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer shaH act with reasonable diligence and promptness in reprc路 senting adient.

2.

That Mr. Kearney's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d), Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, to wit: (i) The orderly and timely administration and resolution of appellate proceedings were delayed by his failure (Q timely lodge his client's record on ap~al; and, (ii) His failure to timely lodge the record on ap~al on behalf of Mr. Richard requjred the Court to expend additional time and effort which would nOt have been necessary otherwise. Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial [Q the administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct that JOHN LEE KEARNEY, Arkansas Bar ID #74090, bt, and hereby is, REPRJMANDED for his conduct in mis maner, said sanction was enhanced as a result of the aforementioned fajlure to respond. Further, pursuant to Section 8A(2) of the Procedures, it is the decision and order of the Committee that Mr. Kearney bt, and hereby is, fined in the amount of $500. Said fine TO be remitted to the Executivc Director within twenty (20) days of the date of filing this Order With the C1etk of me Arkansas Supreme Court.

NOTICE OF CAUTIONS Mr. Mark Alan jesse Litde Rock, AR Mr. Mark Alan Jesse was cautioned by me Arkansas Supreme Coun Commitree on Professional Conduct on October 28, 1998.

The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Arkansas Supreme Court case of Kmrry 7iJylor v. StltU ofArklt1lJtu, CR98-286. Mark Nan Jesse, an anorney practicing in Little Rock, Arkansas, represented Kentry Taylor through trial in Pulaski County Circuit Coun. On December 10, 1996, a judgment was entered of record demonstrnting the verdict delivered by the jury on OClObcr 29, 1996.

It is undisputed that following the jury's verdict, Mr. Taylor informed Mr. Jesse that he desired to appeal his conviction. However, according to Mr. jesse, Mr. Taylor also made it clear that he did not want Mr. Jesse to pursue the appeal for him. AJ;, a

It

The JrklRllJ LallIer

rul. il Xu. I/lIinler 1999

IlisripliDill} .\I't ions

result, subsequent to the entry of Judgment, Mr. Jesse filed a Motion to Be Relieved by the trial court. The Morion was never ruled upon by the trial COUrt. Mr. Jesse did not file a timely Notice of Appeal on behalf of his client although he was responsible for perfecting the appeal since he was never relieved by the trial court and because he knew Mr. Taylor desired to appeal. Mr. Jesse believed his authority was limited pursuant to Arkansas Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2 because Mr. Taylor did nOt want Mr. Jesse to represent him on appeal.

Because he was aware of Mr. Taylor's desire to appeal, he did prepare a pro se notice of appeal for Mr. Taylor. The pro se notice of appeal was filed prematurely. After Mr. Taylor filed the notice of appeal, the trial judge conducted a hearing and declared Mr. Taylor indigent for the purpose of appeal. Mr. Jesse asserted thar he had no notice of the hearing. Upon learning of the hearing, Mr. Jesse contacted the trial court's case coordinator to confirm whar had happened, and was advised that an Order of Indigency had been entered, thar a pro se notice of appeal had been filed, and the transcript was on order. A number of months later, Mr. Jesse was informed the transcript was ready. He was also informed that the notice of appeal was not effective because it had bten filed prematurely.

Mr. Jesse explained me difficulties he had with obtaining any cooperation from Mr. Taylor.

Further, in his affidavit in response to the Pro Se Motion for Belated Appeal filed by Mr. Taylor, Mr. Jesse averred that he could not file a timely or belated Notice of Appeal because he had not received a deposit for a trnnscript or a completed affidavit of indigency.

In me Per Curiam granting the Pro Se Motion for Belated Appeal, the Court set Out that if Mr. Taylor refused to coopernte with Mr. Jesse in connection wim paying the CDSI of the appeal or providing an affidavit of indigency, it was Mr. Jesse's responsibility to lodge at least a partial record in the appell:ue court to preserve the appeal. Mr. Jesse did nOt do so. Mr. Jesse believed his actions were consonant with the rules and precedenr at the rime immediately following me conviction. He admits that since me issue arose, he has found alternate cases which suppon the Coun's ruling thar he should have filed a partial record. However, he explains that the Per Curiam cites a rule and a case which was issued subsequent to the time for filing a timely notice of appeal. Mr. jesse does admit that regardless of his intentions in this maner, he is at fault for failing ro make certain a timely notice of appeal was filed since he was still listed as counsel of record.

Mr. Jesse personally signed for the Complaint on June 30, 1998. Pursuant to the Procedures, his response was due on or before july 20, 1998. Mr. Jesse did not file a timely response, instead his response was tendered on July 23, 1998.

Upon consideration of the formal complaint and the untimely response herein, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: 1.

That Mr. Jesse's conduct violated Model

Rule 1. I, Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, in that, he was nor thorough enough in his representation of Mr. Taylor [Q make certain that his Motion to Be Relieved filed with the trial court was ruled upon by the trial court; he did not prepare the required documents to comply with his responsibility for perfecting Mr. Taylor's appeaJ even though he knew Mr. Taylor desired to appeal his conviction of October 29, 1996, and even though he was never relieved as counsel by the trial court; he relied upon a non-lawyer employee of the trial judge in determining whemer the notice of appeal had been properly filed instead of being morough enough [Q review the trial court records himself; and, he did not thoroughly research appellate procedure rules before filing his affidavit with me Supreme Coun Clerk on March 23, 1998, because he averred, contrnry to the appellate rules, mat he could not file a timely or belated notice of appeal since he had never received either a deposit for a transcript or a completed affidavit of indigency. Model Rule 1.1 requires, in pertinent part, that a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a c1iem including the moroughness and preparntion reasonably necessary for the representation.

That Mr. Jesse's failure to determine 2. whether his Motion to Be Relieved was acted on by the trial COUrl prior to the expirarion of time to file a timely Notice of Appeal from the conviction of Kentry Taylor and his failure to lodge at least a partial record in the appellate court to preserve Mr. Taylor's appeal, violated Model Rule 1.3, Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

That Mr. Jesse's conduct violated Model 3.

Rule 3.4(c), Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to continue to represent his client, a convictcd defendant, throughout any appeal despite not having been permitted by the trial court to withdraw, contrnry to his obligation imposed by Rule 16 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure-Criminal and by failing to comply with the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arkansas when he failed to lodge at least a partial record in the appellate court to preserve Mr. Taylor's appeaJ. Model Rule 3.4(c) requires that a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.

That Mr. Jesse's conduct violated Model 4.

Rule 8.4(d), Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, to wit: (i) A need for the COUrt to act upon his c1iem's Pro Se Motion for Belated Appeal of Judgment was created by his failure to follow mandatory appellate rules; and, (ii) The Court was required to expend additional time and effort which would nOt have bten necessary except for his failurc (0 properly pursue the appeal of his client's conviction when required to do so. Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer shall nO[ engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of

tim ~f1I' IIisripliUiIl')' \1'1 inns the Arkansas Supreme Coun Comminee on

Professional Conduct that MARK ALAN JESSE, Arl"m"" Bar ID #92\ 07, be, and hmby is, CAUTIONED for his conduct in this matter.

Ms.

eva B. Witt

tion reasonably necessary for the reprc:sentation.

WH EREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee on Professional Conduct that EVA B. WIlT, Arkansas Bar ID ,n080, be, and hereby is, CAUTIONED for her conduct in this matter.

Ou,k,AR Ms. Neva B. Win was cautioned by the Arkansas Supreme Court Commine:e on Professional Conduct on October 28, 1998.

The formaJ charges of misconduct arose from me complaint of Velma Scrivner. Neva B. Witt, Attorney al Law, Ozark, Arkansas, was employed to rtpr~nt Ms. Scrivner in a maner wherein Ms. Scrivner W2S bitten by a dog and suffered injuries.

Ms. Scrivner met with Ms. Win on ovember7.

1996. in Ms. Witt's office: in Ozark. Ms. Witt agrc:ed to rcprt:Scnt her in the: abovementioned matlcr and wrOlC a letter on November 14, 1996, to the

Mr. Bruce Jamison Bennett Bentonville, AR Bruce Jamison Bennc:n was cautioned by the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee on Professional Conduct on November 5, 1998.

The formal charges of misconduct aro54= out of the Arkansas Supreme Coun case: of Jamn P. £ntwutlr v. Stau ofArltansaJ, CR98-1 00. Bruce J. Bennett, an auoency practicing in Bc:.ntonville,

Arkansas, represented James Entwistle through trial in the Van Buren County Circuit Coun. On October 3, 1997, folJowing trial, a judgment was entered convicting Mr. Entwistle of fraud and of the offense: of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Mr. Bennett W2S advised by Mr. Entwistle that he desired to appeal his convictions. Although Mr. Entwistle believed that an appeal was 1'0 be perfected by Mr. Bennen, no appeal was pursuc:d. No Order was ever entered in the trial coun relieving Mr. Bennet( as counsel for Mr. Entwistle. Ikcausc: no appeal was perfected on his behalf, Mr. Entwistle filc:d a Pro ~ Morion for Ikl:uc:d Appeal.

The CoUrt granted the Motion and oplained that under no circumstances mayan anorney, who has not b«n relieved by the [rial court and has b«n

owner of the:: dog sedc..ing scnJcmcnr for Ms. Scrivnds injuries. Two days following the dare of the letter, $160.00 was remirred to Ms. Win for filing fees and sc:.rvicc:. Ms. Win did nOt file suit on behalf of Ms. Scrivner for he:r injuries umil Sc:ptember 18, 1997. The: Complaint was filed in the Municipal Coun or Fran.klin County, Ozark District. According to Ms. Win, the: inadvertent filing in Municipal COllrt was due to her rc:gular secretary being on leave and her own failure to catch the heading on the complaint. Further, Ms. Win explainc:d thar it was evident that the Complaint was to have b«n fLIed in Circuit Court as the filing fc:c:: in that Court is S 11 0.00 and the service fc:c:: is $50.00. Municipal Court Judge Joe: Ramos wrote Ms. Win on Decembc:r 4, 1997, and advisc:d her that Municipal Court did nor have jurisdiction in IXrsonal injury cases based on neglige:nce or strict liability theory or law, a fact Ms. Win readily admitS. Based upon this information, Ms. Win filed a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice as Municipal CoUrt lackc:d jurisdiction of the maner.

The coun granted the: Motion to Dismiss on Dc:cc:.mber 19, 1997. Ms. Witt thereafter sent to Ms. Scrivne:r a copy of her file along with a nOte stating that due to time constraints and her current workload, Ms. Witt could not represent her. A decision which Ms. Win explains she, alone, makes.

Neither he:r clientS nor anyone else: makes the decision regarding her case: load and work habitS. Upon consideracion of the formal complaint and response herein, the Committc:c:: on Professional Conduct finds that Ms. Witt failed to thoroughly prepare and rc:sc:arch Ms. Scrivner's lawsuit to determine which coun had proper jurisdiction over the cause of action alleged; that she failed to acquire the 1c:ga1 knowledge reasonably necc=ssary to determine what matters could be appropriatdy pursuc:d in Municipal Coun; and that she filc:d an action in Municipal Coun even though Municipal Coun did not have subject-matter jurisdiction, all in violation of Model Rule 1.1> Arlunsas Modd Rules of Professional Conduct. Model Rule 1.1 requires thai a lawyer shall provide competent reprc:sc:nt2tion to a client. Competem reprc:sc:nt2tion requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and prepara-

PATERNIlY CASE? GET YOUR DNA SER\leE RIGHT HERE IN ARKANSAS The surest way to necessary, and there is no establish paternity is age limit on the child. through analysis of a UAJ\1S Medical Center has earned a reputation delicate chain of D A. And UAM Medical for offering Arkansans cutting-edge medical Center is the only place in Arkansas that has an services that aren't readily on-site paternity testing available elsewhere in the laboratory that uses DNA state. Our DNA paternity testing lab is just one analysis. more way we're meeting When you call uS,you can be assured of timely that challenge.

Call for an results and ~'{pert, personal appointment: service - right 686-7668 or here in Arkansas.

1-888-233-0317.

MEDICAL No referral is

UAMS CENTER

World Class Care lJ:\IVEI(SITY OF AIO(A 'SAS FOH ~lEDJCAI. SCI Ei\CES Apollo DNA SL:rvicL's l.:lIlOr:llory. Slnl Sill. 'ijOl \X'cst 1\1;lrkh:l111 l.lulL: IhKk. A I( 7220; • WWW.:lpllltodn:LClllll

til\\ ~I'I' lIisriplinill'~ notified that the convicted defendant desires to appeal during the thirty (30) day period [0 file a notice of appeal, simply abandon an appeal because the defendant has nO[ paid for the transcript. Mr. Bennett was directed to remain attorney of record for Mr. Entwistle. Bec.ause he was responsible for representing Mr. Entwistle, Mr. Bennet[ was directed to file within thiny (30) days a petition for writ of certiorari to bring up the remainder of the record.

Mr. Bennet[ personally signed for the formal complaint on June 18, 1998. His response to the allegations of misconduct was due on or before June 8, 1998. Mr. Bennett did not respond. His failure to respond timely to the complaint constitutes admission of the factual allegations contained in the complaint pursuant to Section 51(4), Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (Procedures), as revised January 15, 1998.

Upon consideration of the formal complaim herein, the Comminee on Professional Conduct finds: 1.

That Mr. Bennett's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3, Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduet, in that, with knowledge of Mr. Entwistle's desire to appeal his conviction, he failed to file a Notice of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the entry ofJudgment; he failed to me any action on behalf of his diem from Oaober 3, 1997, until January 27, 1998, when the Pro Se Motion for Belated Appeal was filed; he failed to £ake any action [0 be relieved as anorney of record for Mr. Entwistle so other counsel could be appointed; he failed to avail himself to the procedure of lodging a partial record in the appellate Court SO his client's appeal could be preserved; and, he failed to submit an affidavit to the Supreme Coun addressing the allegations in the pro se Motion until March 10, 1998, despite being advised of the need for the affidavit on January 27, 1998, and, again, on February

\1'1 inns

18, 1998. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

2.

That Mr. Bennett's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d), Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, to wit: (i) The orderly and timely administration and resolution of appellate proceedings we:re delayed by his initial fajIure to file a Notice of Appeal on behalf of his client and also by his failure to take any action to pursue an appeal on his client's behalf; and, (ii) The Court was required to expend additional time and effort which would nOt have been necessary except for his failure to act on behalf of his client. Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer shaH not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the adminisuation of justice.

WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee: on Professional Conduct that BRUCE JAMISON BENNEIT, Nkan,", B", ID #92140. be. and hereby is, CAUTIONED for his conduct in this matter.

Mr. Clarence Walden Cash, Jr. Little Rock, AR Clarence Walden Cash, Jr., was cautioned by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct on November 8. 1998.

The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Arkansas Supreme Court case of jtUOIl Cart" v.

Stau of ArkallStU, CR98-273. Clarence Walden Cash, Jr., an attorney practicing in Little Rock, Arkansas, represented Mr. Carter in a pe:tition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 .sttking to vacate the judgmem on the ground of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The circuit court denied the petition on February 4, 1997. Mr. Cash was made aware of Mr. Carter's desire to appeal the adverse ruling within the time allowed to file a notice of appeal. Mr. Cash

NEED ASSISTANCE WITH A MARITIME CASE? + Access To Our Fully Staffed Offices In Baron Rouge and New Orleans + Competitive Referral Arrangements • Available For Louisiana Referrals Or For Assistance In Your Area

+ AV Rared By Martindale-Hubbell •

Members of Arkansas TriaJ Lawyers Association

+ The Resources and Experience Necessary For An TriaJs + Maritime, Automobile, Employment And All Injury Cases

JAMFS A. GEORGE GEORGE & GEORGE, LTD. of counsel to KOEDERITZ & BOHRER, APLC 1-800-375-7193

e-mail: jimg@georgeandgeorge.com website: http://www.georgeandgeorge.com New Orleans + Baton Rouge H

ne Ilrklllll L1MW

111.l1 NI. I/"iller 1111

miscalculated the time to file a notice of appeal and instead of filing a motion for belated appeal, he abandoned Mr. Carter's appeal. Mr. Carter was required to file a pro se Motion for Belated Appeal which was granted on May 21, 1998.

Mr. Cash per$OnalJy signed for the formal complaint on July 20, 1998. His response was due on or before August 10, 1998. Mr. Cash failed to respond. His failure to respond timely to the complaint constitutes admission of the factual a1Jegations contained in the complaint pursuant to Section 51(4), Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (Procedures), as revised January 15,1998.

Upon consideration of the formal complaint herein, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Cash's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3, Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to file a timely notice of appeal after his dient's petition for postconviction relief was denied; by failing to take any diligent or prompt action to perfect his dient's appeal of the denial despite being aware that his dient desired to appeal the denial of his request for postconviction relief, by failing to properly calcuJate the date for timely filing a Notice of Appeal; and, by faiJjng to file an affidavit requested by the Court until May 4, 1998, despite being advised of the need for one on March 9, 1998. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

2.

That Mr. Cash's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d), Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, to wit: (i) The orderly and timely administration and resolution of appellate proceedings were delayed by his failure to take any acrion to pursue an appeal on his dient's behalf from the denial of his request for postconviction relief, and, (ii) His fujJure to take action to perfect his diem's appeal, as he desired, required the Court to expend additional time and effort which would not have been necessa.ry otherwise. Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the adminisuation of justice.

WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme COUrt Committee on Conduct that CLARENCE Professional WALDEN CASH, JR., Nkansas B", ID #73017, be, and hereby is, CAUTIONED for his conduct in this mattet. Further, pursuant to Sections 8A(I) and 8A(2) of the Procedures of Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Anorney at Law, it is the decision and order of the Committee that Mr. Cash be, and hereby is, assessed COSts in this matter in the amount of $12.88, and thar he be, and hereby is, fined in the amount of $ J 00. Said COSts and fine to be remitted to the Executive Director within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. +

~-

three

Executive Council.

He rwice chaired Annual Meeting commircees. Among the many commitnees on which he served were: Membership, Economics of Law Practice, Courtroom Improvement, Legal Aid, Law School. Automobile "No Fault Insurance:' Torr Reform, Social Security and Group Insurance. He abo served for ten years on

Rebecca Anderson and Brad Lovell, jr., all of Ho, Springs; and his sisters, Nancy joy Coleman of Waco, Texas, and Clara jewell

Foundation. He was a sustaining member and feUow of thar organil.3tion and he gave

illustrious

legal

career spanned more

man

forty-five years. Walter loved the law and his simple philosophy was his stOng belief ,ha, trial by jury should be preserved and

freely of his rime to [he Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association.

Survivors are his

wife,

Marjorie

iblock, United States Marine Corps and

Hon. Raymond L. Niblock.

protected and mar the contingency fee was Sam L. Anderson) Sr.

Junior College and the Universiry of Arkansas. He received a juris doctor degree

Sam L. Anderson, Sr., 68, died November 27, 1998, after a lengthy baÂŤle wi,h emphy-

me

sema.

He practiced law in Hot Springs from 1954 until very recently. A criminal attorney of some renown, his reputation and litigation skills served him and his clientS well for the past 45 years. His love of horse rac-

United States Marine Corps and the United

ing migh, be the one thing for which he was

Sta,es Army.

In ,he early 1960's he served as secrerary of the Arkansas Judiciary Commission, an

was appoimed to serve as Special Associate Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court and was designated as a Special Duey Anomey

known that could eclipse his reputation as an anorney. His opportuni~ to represent many of the "backsiders." from the grooms to the jockeys, owners and trainers, afforded him his greatest pleasure by combining the things he loved the most. He was also proud to represent, many times at his own expense. many of those in local law enforcement. His compassion for those in law enforcement stemmed from his respect of his father, Marion Anderson, Garland County Sheriff

General of the State of Arkansas in 1970.

1936-1945.

service to his country and served in both

emiry whose mission it' was to survey

Arkansas' antiquated court system. Many of the recommendations for modernization of our court system made during his tenure

were adopted by ,he legislature. In 1966 he

He received a five year appoimmenr

the

He also enjoyed the political arena,

Arkansas judicial Ethics Commi[[ee and served as irs chair in 1979-1980. The

although he only made one run for a poli[ical office. In the early 60's, after a brief stint as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, he ran for

[Q

Arkansas Supreme Court Comminec: on Professional Conduct, which he chaired in

1983, and on which he served from 19791986, honored him wi,h a Scholar of Integriry award in 1986.

WaJrer's service record with the Arkansas Bar Association was exceptional and he served in virtually every elected office and on numerous committees. He was a mem-

grandchildren,

Julie

Anderson,

Warring of Gainesville, Florida.

Herman Carl Bonner Herman Carl Bonner, 64, of Maysville,

Arkansas, died Friday, November 20, 1998, at his home.

Mr. Bonner lived most of his adult life in the Siloam Springs. Arkansas. area. He was a former Siloam Springs City Attorney, Benton Coun~ Depu~ Prosecutor, retired

Chancery and Probate judge from 1979 to

Hammond Niblock; four sons, l .. Col. Fted W. Niblock, USAF, Hon. George Hammond iblock, Lt. Col. W Lester

the ordinary person's key to the courthouse.

He graduated from [he li"le Rock Public School System, and anended li[de Rock

in 1953 and during his law school career was a member of Delta Thera Phi, the Honor Council and Blue Key. Walter believed in

---------

ber of the House of Delegates and the

,he IOlTA Board.

In 1975-76 he chaited the Arkansas Bar

WaI,er Raymond Niblock Walter Raymond iblock, Arkansas Bar Associa,ion President, 1977-78, died january 21, 1999, a' ,he age of 71. His

--

Prosecuting Attorney and lost by some 13 votes. He often said he would be forever indebted to those 13 people, as he went on to a most successful legal career.

He is survived by his son and daughterin-law, Sam I. Anderson, Jr., and Kristi Anderson; his daughrer and son-in-law,

Pamela Anderson-Lovell and Brad Lovell;

1985. and was owner and operator of the Spavinaw Trout Lodge. He was a veteran of Korean conflict.

Survivors include his wife, Nancy; two sons, Kevin Bonner of Springdale, Arkansas,

me

and Ben Bonner of Tokyo, japan; ,hree daughters, Dianna Guanella of McIGnney, Texas, and Krisrj Dodge and Kerry Araiza, both of San Diego, California; one bromer, Jim Bonner of Litde Rock, Arkansas, and nyo grandsons.

Walter Warner Davidson

Walter Warner Davidson, 62, of North li,tle Rock died January 8 from complications associated with Alzheimer's disease.

Walter's life was of tremendous value to

those he rouched. Walter valued most the immeasurable growth he experienced as he listened and learned from others.

Walter graduated with honors from the University of Arkansas School of Law in

1963, where he served as ediror of the Arkansas Law R~view. In 1964. he moved from Rogers and founded Davidson, Horne and Hollingsworth, P.A., where he practiced

until 1993. Bo[h his colleagues and adversaries respected his honest and aggressive litigation skills. His skill in the area of securities law resulted in his appointment by Governor Rockefeller as the Arkansas Securities Commissioner in 1969. He was inducted as a Distinguished Alumnus of the

Universiry of Arkansas School of Law in 1989.

Walter's contributions to r.he communi~ were numerous as he was tirelessly committed co bringing understanding and community among people of different races, creeds and genders. He served as Chairperson of the National Conference of Christians and

Ill.ll SI. I/lfilier 1199

ne t1rkmll Ll"'!er

I~

Jews, and Common Cause of Arkansas. He maintained an active membership in the NAACP, rhe ACLU, rhe Lion's Club International, and the League of Women Voters.

Walter was a member of the Arkansas Bar Association, a Fellow in the Arkansas Bar Foundation, and a member of rhe Pulaski County, American, and ational Bar Associations.

He is survived by his wife of thirry-nine years, Jane Williams Davidson; two sons, Derrick Mark Davidson of Batesville and Darrin FrankJin Davidson of Memphis; four grandchildren, Landon, Tyler, Tatyn, and Barton; his brothers, Victor Davidson of Huber Heights, Ohio, and Mark Davidson of Ward; and his sisters, Ann Ahrens of Fort Worrh, Texas, and herri Furrow of Sherwood.

Jack Wtlson Holt, Sr. Jack Wilson Holr, Sr. (1903-1998) was a noted public servant and family member.

One of II children, Jack began public school in a one-room schoolhouse in Walnut Grove and finished at Harrison High School.

Jack mended rhe University of Arkansas where he received a bachelor of law degree in 1927. Following college, Jack recurned to Harrison and entered legal practice with the lare Judge E. G. Mirchell. During his first year in Harrison, Jack was elected prosecuting attorney for the 14m Judicial District, a position that he held for three terms. Then, at age 32, he was elected judge of rhar same district, but resigned twO years later when he became me youngest person ever to be elected attorney general of the state of Arkansas.

Jack was a premiere trial lawyer, specializing in criminal defense. but returned to public service in 1970 when he was elected judge of rhe criminal division of rhe Lirde Rock Municipal Court.

Jack is survived by his wife, Margarer; by their son, Jack Wilson Holt J t. and his wife Jane. of Little Rock; their daughter.

Margaret Ann "Peggy" Freemant and her husband, Tom, of Columbia, Missouri; twO brothers; four grandchildren; and five greatgrandchildren.

¡11 He ,Irknsas Law!u 1'01.11 So. I/lliller 1199

MitcheU D. Moore Mitchell D. Moore practiced law in Osceola for 50 years, retiring in 1997.

Throughout his career he was active in the affairs of the Arkansas Bar Association.

Between 1969 and 1979 he served on rhe Economics of Law Pranice Committee and in 1971 chaired rhat group. Between 1953 and 1991, he served on the following association comminees: Public Information, Professional Ethics and Grievances, Resolutions, Pre-Law Advisors, Cooperacion with Other Professional Organizations, Pa.ra.Iegai Committee, Environmental Law and Legal Educarion.

Mitchell was a communiry leader. He served 32 years as Osceola ciry attorney and was actively involved in the industrial development of Osceola. He was a member and past president of the boatd of rhe Sourh Mississippi Counry Chamber of Commerce and a past president of the Osceola Kiwanis Club. He was a past Lr. Governor of Missouri-Arkansas Kiwanis International.

Al me time of his deam, he was secretary of the Mississippi County Community College Board of Trustees. He served in World War II in the First Marine Division in the South Pacific and Soumeast China.

He is survived by his wife, Ann Maloch Moore; by three daughters, Carolyn Imboden of Cherry Valley, Arkansas, Judge Janet Moore of Jonesboro. and Bren May of Hot Springs; and one son, MitcheU Moore.

Jr., of Tennessee.

Vincent Joseph Narisi anSI, 86, died in Vincent Joseph October 1998.

He graduared from ilL Ann's Academy, attended Notre Dame University, and was a member of the Lambda Chi Alpha Fr.nemiry. He completed his education at me Universiry of Arkansas, Fayetteville, earning business and law degrees. After college he pracriced law in Fort Smirh, and was a member of the American Bar Association for over fifty years. During Wotld War II, he enlisted in the Army Air Corps, and was promoted to Captajn in the Intelligence Service of the United States Army. He was a member of the Immaculate Conception Catholic hurch, and a former Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus. He was president of Professional Life Insurance Company; a former owner of the Goldman

Hotel; and a real estate developer, building several apartment houses. He was a member of rhe Town Club and rhe Fort Smirh Arhletic Club. A long-time supporter of Sr. Jude Children's Research Hospiral, he was co-chairman of rhe local Sr. Jude Telerhons for over ten years.

Vincent is survived by one daughter, Maria Narisi Brock of Galveston, Texas; two sons, Jacob arisi of Plano. Texas and Vincent arisi, Jr.â&#x20AC;˘ of Fort Smith; and one sister, Connie Narisi Bianchi of Fort Smim.

Gerland P. Parten Getland P. Patren, 91, of Litde Rock, died October 8, 1998, at his home.

He was born in LewisviUe, Arkansas, on January 5, 1907, to the late George and Cleo Simms Parten. He graduated from me Arkansas Law School where he later served as assisrant dean from 1949-1967 and taught classes from 1937 to 1960. During the course of his career, he was a member of the Executive Committee of the Little Rock Bar Association; was secretary-treasurer of the Arkansas Bar Association; was an Assistant U.S. Attorney; and in 1973 was President of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association. He firmly believed that foUowing a legal career demanded rhe highest degree of integriry and honor.

His involvement in communiry affairs was extensive. He had a keen interest in history and the glories of this counuy. and made it a point to rake his grandchildren on many visits covering our emire country, Canada and Mexico. He later made aips overseas to Europe, England, Scotland, Wales, Soviet Russia, Egypt and China.

Total joy was bitd hunting wirh his dogs or elk hunting in the mountains. He was a member of rhe National RiAe Association and active in Skeet and Ttap clubs. Gerland had an indomitable and generous spirit, which he carried to the very end.

He is survived by his daughter, Yvonne Law; and grandchildren: Tricia Srearns of California; Marci Woolf and husband Frank, of San Antonio; David Law and wife, Patty, of Colombia, Sourh Carolina; Brian Law and wife, Robin, of Herndon, Virginia; Leslie Lehrman and husband Tom of Fort Worth. He has eight great-grandchildren.

III lhlllllll'iillll The Arkansas Bar Foundation acknowledges with groteful appreciation the receipt of memorial gifts and scholarship contributions given in memOlY of the following individualsfrom September 25, 1998, through Febn/QlY 2, 1999.

DoNAl.O

J.

AOAMS SCHOLARSHIP FUND,

Doug Daniel Gresham & Kirkpatrick Robert W. McCorlUndale, n Johnny L. Nichols Reeves Law Firm Thomas Benton (Tom B.) Smith Thomas Bemon (Tom B.) Smith. 50, of Wynne, died suddenly January 29, 1999, following a massive heart attack.

Tom B. attended the University of Arkansas at Fayeneville. In 1974 he graduated from the University of Arkansas School of Law and emceed the private practice of law in Wynne with his grandF..ther, James Levesque "Bex" Shaver, and his uncle, J. L. "Jim" Shaver, Jr. Following a family tradition of Arkansas Bar Association service (both Bex Shaver and J. L. Shaver, Jr., were presidems of the Arkansas Bar Association) he became active in the association and served on many comminecs and as a member of its House of Delegates.

He was Cross County anomey and deputy prosecuting attorney from 19891991. Since 1993 he was Cherry Valley municipal judge and city attorney for Hickory Ridge. On two occasions he served as special Arkansas Supreme Coun Justice.

A staunch democrat, Tom B. had been chairman of the Cross County Democratic Central Committee since 1988. served as State Democraric Committee treasurer from 1976-1986, was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1976 and 1980 and was a delegate co all Democratic State Conventions since 1974.

He was a charter member and founding area chairman of the Shaver-Farmer Chapter of Ducks Unlimited and served as Chairman of Arkansas Ducks Unlimited in 1984-85.

Survivors include his wife, Counts Felton Smith of Wynne; a son, Thomas Benton Smith, Jr.; a daughter, Counts Louise Smith; his mother Winnie Bob Shaver Smith of Birdeye; twO brothers, James Harmon Smith and William W. Smith; and twO sisters, Carolyn Smith Rafferry and Meredith Smith Schweighart.

IN MEMORY OF FRANK MURPHY

William A. Martin

IN MEMORY OF DONALD ADAMS

IN MEMORY OF WALTER N,BLOCK

IN MEMORY OF CARL BoNNER

Georgia Elrod and Danny Elrod

L" MEMORY OF JOAN CORBOY Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. L~ MEMORY OF WAl.TER DAVluSON

Don Hollingsworth

W. Christopher Barricr Jack C. Deacon Lewis E. Epley, Jr. Judith Gray Don Hollingsworth Ledbetter. Cogbill, Arnold & Harrison, LLP William A. Martin Jame and Betty McKenzie Judge Janles and Lisa Moody Bruce A. Rhoades William H. Sutton Warner, Smith & Harris, PLC

IN MEMORY OF JUDGE JACK HOLT, SR.

Nancy H. Bailey Anthony W. Black Judge John and Marietta Stroud

IN MEMORY OF MR. RABIEJ

Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. IN MEMORV OF TOM B. SMITH

L" MEMORY OF MATTIE HICKS Judge William R. Wilson, Jr.

Judith Gray IN MEMORY OF LEN TOMIIAVE

L" MEMORY OF LoUIS B. JONES, SR. Judith Gray

Judge William R. Wilson, Jr.

IN MEMORY OF MITCHELL MOORE

Jack C. Deacon Judith Gray

ARKANSA BAR

Fou DATION MEMORIAL GIFTS

The Arkansas Bar Foundation hopes attorneys think of it when they wish to make a memorial gift honoring a family member, a colleague or a friend who was a lawyer, a judge or a friend of the profession. Memorial gifts are recorded in the Foundation's Memorial Book and provide a lasting tribute. Memorial cards are sent by the Foundation to the family of the deceased advising them of the contribution.

Memorial gifts to the Foundation are deductible for income tax purposes and support the Foundation's work in making scholarship funds available for law students, financing research and other projects which support the system of justice, aiding in education of the public about legal matters, and funding other legally related charitable efforts.

Memorial gifts may be sent directly to the Foundation. Contributions or requests for more information may be sent to: Arkansas Bar Foundation, 400 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 7220 I, or call (50 I) 375-4606 or 800-609-5668.

111.1111. Ifllinl" 1111

Tit Irlulll LIM}!!

Ii

III Ilf III III III III III III Ilf III III III Ilf III III III Ilf III III III III 'KII' I K \( 1\(, I O( \I OK

Arkans

Need to locate someone? Will locate the pe'rson or no charge and no minimum fee for basic locate.

87% success ratC'. Nationwide. Confidential.

Other anorney netded searchesln::cordsl reports/information services in many areas from

our extensive database. Tell us what you need.

Verify USA. 888-2-Verify.

1\llfl'l \1)1 \ I ( 0\ 1U \{ 10K

Covered up? General Practitioner, four years experience. will help you catch up as independent contractor. Hours and pay negotiable. 501-372-

5575.

March 25-26, 1999 22 DANNUAL LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAw CoNFERENCE Clarion Resort, Hot Springs 10.5 Hrs. LE March 26, 1999 BANKRUPTCY/DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAw INSTITUTE UALR School of Law, Little Rock 6 Hrs. CLE April 9, 1999

May 20,1999 SOCIAL SECURJIT LAw Hilton Inn, Fayecteville 6 Hrs. CLE Co-sponsored with Universicy of Arkansas School of Law May 21,1999 BUSINESS ENTI1lES: CHOICES AND CoNSIDERATIONS Hilton Inn, Fayetteville Co-sponsored with University of Arkansas School of Law

WORKERS' CoMPENSATION

Holiday Inn Select, Little Rock 6 Hrs. CLE April 30, 1999 LAw & THE iNrERNET: A BUSINESS LAWYER'S GUIDE UALR School of Law, Little Rock 6 H". CLE April 30, 1999 1999 TAX AWARENESS INSTITUTE UALR School of Law, Little Rock 6 Hrs. CLE May 14, 1999 REcENT DEVEWPMENTS FOR THE GENERAL PRAcn1l0NER Westark Community College, Ft. Smith 6 Hrs. CLE ~(}tc:

May 21-22, 1999 22ND ANNUAL JOINT ENvJRONM>NL'.l.

LAw CoNFERENCE Inn of the Ozarks, Eureka Springs 9 Hrs. CLE

June 24-25 & 28-30, 1999 BEST OF CLE UALR School of Law, Little Rock 30 Hrs. CLE (5 Hrs. ethics)

All programs indude one hour of cthio.

See our Website for more program listings at http://www.arkbar.com

Tke .lrkllSlJ Liw)er

I'll. 1111. IIlIilter 1111

\\\\(Ill

Little Rock attorney or firm to take over mwtimillion dollar class action suit against state for iUegal income taX on non-residents. Contingency only: 50/50, all expenses and fees. Shrevepon, LA 1-318-865-2245. In litigation.

Ind(l\ to .\dwl't iSPI's PAGE

June 9-12, 1999 ARKANSAS BAR AssOCIATION ANNUAL M拢EnNG Arlington Hotel, Hot Springs over 30 H rs. CLE

As a volllntary association, we depend on yOIl, our members, to SlIpport our eLE programs. Yourfinancial slIpport benefits every Arkansas Bar Association member with enhanced membership benefits and discounts as lI'el/ as the highesl qUlllity CLE programs in Ihe slllle.

IS

Closing Office: Arkansas Digest 1820 to date, current; Southwest Repon, Arkansas Cases, 1st and 2nd, current; Best Offer; Also solid walnut traditional office furniture, bookcases, work tables, telephones, adding mathines <te. (870) 449-4019; PO Box 1090, Yellville, AR 72687.

AOR, Inc. Commuter Computer OonaId Court Reporting Oraoo George & George Health Care Auditors INA Arkansas John McAlli~er landtech Data Legal OirectO<ies Publishing Le~s路Ne~s Publishing Lexis-Nexis Qn.ine

LOIS, Inc. MartindaJe.HubbeII Me<fo:al Experts Referral Service Paul M~on Rebsamen Insurarx:e Ric!lard L Schwartz Schuhze Maechllng UAMS Patemity Testing UPS West Group Class~ed Adveftising

19 11 27 28 44 8

4 29 18

30 9 Back Cover 37 32 19 5 Inside Back Cover

28 28 43 10 Inside Front Cover 48

'What's in it for my firm?'

• a managlng partner might rightly ask.

Why theCNA acquisition of Continental Insurance

The CNA Insurance Companies became one of the largest writers of lawyers professional liability insurance in the nation earlier this year with their acquisition of Continental Insurance Co. The CNA member companies now insure over 50,000 attorneys in 49 states.

The Merger makes the CNA more valuable both to the firms we now insure and to those that are considering our coverage.

'Combined underwriting expertise enables us to price policies more flexible for small as well as large firms.

• •

1S 1mportant

· Greater underwriting resources make it possible for us to offer coverage for higher-risk practice specialties.

to attorneys

· Enhanced resources will improve responsiveness and service. · Highly focused loss-control services for a broad variety of specialties will continue to be offered and enhanced.

Firms currently insured by CNA can now expect even more value for their premium dollar.

For firms not insured with CNA, we can demonstrate how we will perform for you.

Call Rebsamen for more information.

Telephone (501) 664-8791 Fax (SOl) 664-9487

The Arkansas Bar Association endorsed Professional Liability Program is underwritten by Continental Casualty Company, one of the CNA Insurance Companies.

CNA is a registered service mark of the CNA Financial Corporation, CNA Plaza, Chicago,lL 60685.

~

With MVP,

•• • EaseofUse LEXIS··NEXIS· just got easier for solos and small law firms in Arkansas.

MVP Arkansas $100"/mollth

Whether you're aPRO or anovice, with LEXIS-NEXIS MVP iI's easier Ihan ever to use the power of your computer to conduct your legal research. Offering you more flexibility and more affordability Ihan any other online legal research program, MVP allows you to mix and match the state, federal and specialty materials you use most. With MVP's easy-to-use features, you can ...

•

IMMEDIATELY ASSESS the key points of law and factual

issues of the cases you lind - from actual language used by the court - with new Core Terms ... an alternative to headnotes!

•

LINK QUICKLY 10 relevant federal and state cases, statute sections

and law reviews outside of your flat-rate library, Irom virtually any jurisdiction, at no addillonal charoe.

•

ACCESS ON THE INTERNET Ihrough an easy-to-use

browser interface.

Predictably priced for solos and small law firms, LEXIS-NEXIS MVP gives you

Includes unlimited access to: • AR Caselaw from 1943 • AR Code Annotated (current and archived) • AR Court Rules • AR Administrative Files • AR UCC and Bankruptcy Filings • AR Law Reviews • AR Regional News • AR Martindale-Hubbell'" Listings • And More!

PLUS, add unlimited use of the premier citation service SHEPARD'S'" Citations or state Deed Transfers and Property Records to your MVP Arkansas libraryall for an addilionallow monthly flat rate.

more coverage and more current, comprehensive information - all for one flat monthly rate l

Easier Than Ever.

No Hidden Costs. No Surprises.

1·800-356-6548 ask for ext. 1233

www YEAR 2000

COMPLIANT Upgrade Now! 1·800·925·9265

lexis.com

• Puce quoted is IOf one attorney Mdllional charge applies 10 each attorney in lhe rum Note SIaIe ancllocal taxes not UlctlJded Some fesllicllOflS may apply Pm:es subject 10 chanllll.lEXIS and NEX15 are registered lrademarks D1 Reed Esevier PfO(leflies Inc. used undef license The INFORMATION ARRAY 1000 is a tlaoemar~ of Reed Elsevier Pl"QDeflies loc., used under license. SHEPARD'S is a regIstered trade\mk 01 Shepald's C~ C 1998lEXI$-NEXIS, adroolsion 01 Reed Elsevlellnc All rights reserved

~- LEXIS·· NEXIS·