tit\\ "rl' IIisriplillill} .\d ions amin I~ 2rvices and other assisr:rnce in Mr. Ov.'t:ns'
quest
acquire rhe ourscmding property interests in the 72 acres., (Q include ptqY.lf':nion of Itgal documents and institution of suit. if n~ry. Mr. Pauon. by dll~ terms of the fee agrument pn=pamf by him, was [0 r~ive for his ~rvices a contingC'nr fee of one~third of
NOTICE OF CAlJfJONS
10
the nel proceeds received by Mr. Owens for any subse·
quem sale of his interest in the tract of land. Furth('f, Mr. Owens was to convq the mineral imeresu in the land to Mr. Panon prior 10 any future conveyance by Mr. Owens. Therafter, by the filing of convey2nces on OC(Q~r
23 and 25. 1992. a relative of the com·
plainanu was vested wirh title to the entire
tr.lCt subj~
a timlxr dttd in bvor of Mr. Owens and thC' ~r· anee and convqance of minem tighes to Mr. Panon. In Novemlxr 1992. Mr. Owens sold his tide to the standing timlxr to a third party for a value significant(Q
ly higher than the purch~ pri« hC' had paid. Following 21l cvidC'ntiary hearing at which Mr. Patton ap~ bd"orC'" thC' CommittC'C'", and in KCOgOilion of and considC'r.J.tion of thC' markedly contr.J.dicta. ry and convolUlC'd nalUrC' of mC' evidC'ncC' bC'.forc me CommittC'C'". thC' respondC'OI attornC')' and mC' Executive Director undC'rtook discussions which haVe' resu.lrC'd in Mr. Patton's agf"C'C'mC'nt to disciplinC' by consent pur· suant to Section 8C. ProcC'dures of the Arkansas Supre'mC' Court Regulating Professional Conduct of AttornC'ys at Law. Upon considC'ration of the formal complaint, thC' anorney's response, thC' mattC'rs presentC'd in thC' evidC'miary hC'aring. and the tC'rms of the proposed consem to disciplinC' hC'rcinanC'r St:uC'd. the CommittC'C' on Professional Conduct finds: 1. On occasion, prior to and on August 12, 1992, Mr. Panon advised his thC'n cliC'nts mat mC'rc was no apprC'Ciable valuC' in thC' minC'n.! rights of«min rca! property for which Mr. Patton had undC'rtakC'"rt to effect a we for the benefit of his clients. His clients' intC'rest in the rca!ty was convC'")'td on August 12, 1992, with no panicular part of me purch~ pritt anributC'd to me mineral rights. On September 9. 1992. approxim:udy one month mC'r the sale of the clients' property imer· ests. the attomC')' C'ntetC'd into a ftt agtC'C'ment with thC' purchaser to provide legal services in connection with the property and for which a portion of thC' attornC')"s fC'C'" was to be a conveyance of thC' minC'ral rights in thC' property to the attornC')'. The conscience and deliberate acquisition by Mr. Patton of his former c1icnts' prior mineral interests in such close proximity to the time of thC'ir diVC'Stiture of that inletC'st beliC's thC' lawyer's state· mC'nts and rcpresenrations to thC'm that the mineral rights did not merit anention. II must appear obvious that thC' laW)'C'r placed somC' indC'pendC'nt value on mC' potential of the miner:.tl rights or else he would nO[ have gonc through me drom for the SC'VC'rance and acquisinon of those rights. 2. Mr. Panon's conduct as descrilKd above violates Model RulC' 8A(c). Arbnsas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Rulc 8.4(c) States. in pertinent part, that it is professional misconduct for a lawyC'r to engagco in conduct involving dC'CC'it or mistC'presentation. WHEREFORE, in accordance with the consent to disciplinC' presentC'd by Mr. Patton and the ExecutivC' DirC'Ctor, it is the decision and order of the Arlunsas Supreme Court Committe'e on Professional Conduct thai JOHN WILLIAM PATrON, IV, Arkansas Bar 10 #84119, be, and hereby is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in mis matter.
Willard Proctor, Jr. LirdC' Rock, AR March 19. 1999 The formal charges of misconduct aro~ from the Complaint of Dcxter Roscby. Willard Proctor, Jr.• AnotnC')' at Law, LittlC' Rock, Arbnsas, was employC'd in January 1996 to represent Mr. Roscby in a criminal procC'C'ding. Mr. Roscby was charged with capital murder in the shooting death of Ltt Byrd, a crime for which he was later convictC'd. Mr. Proctor acknowlC'dges that he was initially conDetcod by members of Mr. Roseby's family about the criminal charge and thetC'after was rcwnC'd to dC'fC'nd Mr. Roscby. During one of their initial men.iogs, Mr. Roseby provided Mr. Proctor wim the names of witnesses who cou.ld offer testimony as to his whereabouts on the day me deceased was shot. In addition. Mr. RosC'by providC'd Mr. Proctor with the locarion of rwo gas stations whetC' he had bC'C'n on the day the victim was shot. It was Mr, Roseby's belief that me gas Stations might have him recorded on the tapes from the security cameras. ThefC' 'wetC' also twO codC'fendants chargC'd with Mr. RoSC'by in the capital murder. Both of the co-defendants gave statements when arrested implicadng Mr. Roseby. Although Mr. Procror had this information available to him. he did not contact the potential witnesses nor did he contact the gas stations to tC'ViC'W the tapes from the SC"Curity camera. Further, despite: being served wim a Motion for Discovery by the prosecution, Mr. PrOctor never provided the names of any possible defeltS(: wimcsses in respoRSC' thereto. Mt. Proctor admits his understand· ing that Mr. Rosd>y might want to call alibi witnesses but Mr. Proctor had hopC'd to bC' able to show that me ScatC' EUIC'd to meet its burden without 21ly testimony from the defense being nC'CC'SSary. In addition. ane'r in,·c;nigation. Mr. Proctor determinC'd mat any alibi wimesses would only have pUt his client in a place other than me crime scenC' ",-coU bC'fotC' or aftC'r the murdC'r but nOt at mC' timC' the shooting occurred. HC' also made the samC' decision about what the' security came'r.J. tapes would be ablC' ro demonstrate. At the dose of the State's evide'nce in Mr. RoSC'by's jury trial. Mr. Proctor made a Motion for Directed Verdict, The Motion was nOt made with the necessary thoroughness and specificity. Ai> a result of his fililure to be thorough and specific, on appC':l.l the Arkansas Supreme Court rulC'd that thC')' wetC' prevenrC'd from tC'"ViC'Wing the sufficiency of the evidencC' presenrC'd by thC' State in Mr. Roseby's capital murder trial. Upon considef:uion of the formal complaint and response herC'in, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Proctor's conduct violatC'd Model Rule I. I. Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, when he f.t.i1C'd (Q contxt any of me various aI ibi witnesses, during his preparation for trial; when he fa.ilC'd to contact the service stations to review me security camera tapes made the day of the shooting; when he f.t.i1C'd to provide the names of possible defense wit· nt'SSeS to the State in response to me Motion for Discovery; when he failed 10 subpoena any witnesses on his client's behalf even though he was facing the charge of capital murder; and, when he failed to be thorough and specific in his motion for dirC'Cted verdict at the dose of the Stare's evidence thereby prcve'ming the
Arkansas Supreme Court from reviC'Wing the sufficiency of the cvidC'"rttt presented by the State in Mr. Roseby's capital murdC'r trial. Model Rule 1.1 rcquires. in pertinent part. that a laW)'C'r shall provide competent representation [Q a client. including the thoroughm:ss and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. 2. That, from January 1996 through October 1996. when Mr. Proctor failed to COnt'3ct any of the potential alibi witnC$SCS and did not atte'mpt ro conract anyone to obtain copies of thC' tapes made with the security video cameras. and. when he failed. from May 1996 through October 1996. to advise the proSttUting attorneys of the names and addresses of possible defC'f1SC': witnesses. he violated Model Rule 1.3, Arkansas Model Rulc:s of Professional Conduct. Model Rule 1.3 rcquires that a lawyc'r shall act with tC'a5OnablC' diligC'nce and promptness in tCptC':SC'nting a client. WHEREFORE, it is the dC'Cision and order of mC' Arbnsas SuptC'me CoUrt ComminC'C' on Professional Conduct that Willard Proctor. Jr., Arlunsas Bar 10 187136, be. and here-by is. CAUTIONED for his con· duct in this manC'f.
WUJard Proctor, Jr. Little Rock. AR March 19, 1999 The formal chargc:s of misconduct arose from an advertisement placed on the internet by Willard Proctor, Jr., Attorney at Law, Litde Rock. Arkansas. The advertisemenr containC'd the following: ~WLllard Proctor, Jr. & Associate'S. Specializ..ing in Personal Injury, Criminal. and Bankruptcy. ~ The Arkansas Suprcme Court has not rC'Cognited a plan of specializa-
LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE BANKING INDUSTRY Documencarion Review And Analysis Process Evalu3[ion Expert Witness
JUNE H. THOMAS CONSULTANT (501) 868-4802 hjthomas@aristode.net Over 15 Years Of Banking And Bank Regulatory Experience
1'01.1I NI. J/Sluer 1919
Tie lrkaml LiwW
IJ