Lm )PI' lIisl'illliniln \l't inns crimirul cases as they progressed. Reg:mling the.' Missouri
IN[-
lI:r, Ms. G:lTIttt entered an apparamr on Mr. Dodd's behalf and obtained the assisWlCC' of a Missouri anorney, Clifford Crouch. Mr. Crouch, thercaftl.'r, made.' all.appc:annca without Ms. Garren's presC'n« in the.' Missouri manc:r. Ms. Garrett autttcd WI her employment by Mr. Dodd was for the.' purpose of a.ssociaung with his counsd in all mattc:rs in Arkansu and 10 employ courucl for Mr. Dodd on ill manns in Missouri. Upon coruidc:r:uion of formal. complaint, resporuc therelo, and the Arkansas Modd Rules of ProFessional CondUCt. the Committn: on Professional Conduct finds: l. ThaI Ms. Garren's conduct violated Modd Rule 1.3 wMn she failed to akc: any action on her dinu's bdWf in his criminal case in the Municipal Coun of Mounnin Home, Arbnsas. following her cony of ap~ in the mauer, and
me.'
when she.' railed to
~
w
any action on bdWfofhc:r client in his
criminal casc in Butet County Circuit Coun following htl emry ofappearance in the mauer. Modd Rule 1.3 requires thai a Lawyer act with reasonable diligence and prompmcss in represC'nting a clic:nt. 2. Th21 Ms. Garren's conduct violated Modd Rule IA(a) when she failed 10 keep Mr. Dodd informed of the starw of his criminal maners. Modd Rule I A(a) requires mat a lawyer keep a client rnsonably informed aboul the Stllrw of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for informacion. 3. That Ms. Garren's conduct violated Modd Rule 3A(e) when she violated the obligation to appear on behalf of her client, Dennis Dodd, on March 10, 1998, in the Mountain Home Municipal CoUrt; when she failed (0 respond to a reqUC5t by the Honorable Van Gearhart to c:xpl...un why she failed to appear before the CoUrt on March I 0, 1998~ and when she violated the obligation (0 appear on behalf of her client, Dennis Dodd, on April 7, 1998, in the Mount...un Home Munieipal Court. Model Rule 3A(c) requires, In pertinent part, that a lawyer not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rulcs of a tribunal. 4, That Ms, Garrett's conduct violated Modd Rule 8.4(d) by her failure (0 appear on the date and at the time SCt by the Mountain Home Municipal Court, which resulted in dday of the orderly and timdy resolution of matters before the Coun. Modd Rule 8A(d) Stlltes that a lawyer shall not engage: in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. WHEREFOR£, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court CommittC': on Professional Conduct that SUSAN K. GARRElT, Arkansas Bar 10 196122, be, and hereby is, REPRIMANDED for her conduct in this mautt. VirgioJa J. Kinkead Little Rock, AR Sq.tembcr 14, 1999 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is based arose: from tnc complaints of Jeannine Mathis and Carol Counts. M.$. Mathis and. Ms.. Counts an: sisters-in·law of Virginia J. KinKnd, an attorney formerly of Link Rock, Arkansas. In 1986, Harrold Kinlu:ad obl2irKd propm)' from a panition action involving his brothen and sisters. In 1987, Harrold Kinkead, the f.ather of Ms. MadUs, ,...ts. Counts and Ms. Kinkead's husband, rUed suit against his brothers and sisten to obtain accc:ss to his property obuined in the: 1986 partition action. The anomey for Harrold Kinkead was Virginia J. Kinkead. Complaint.'l' wc:rc brought into the matter as thirdperty dcfcndant.'l'. The partition maner ended in 1989 with the granting ofa directed verdict in f.avor of the brothers and sisters of Harrold Kinkead. In 1993, Harrold Kinkead died. Under temu of his will, Robert Kinkead, Virginia's husband, was disinherited. Virginia Kinkead filed an Affidavit to Claim Against the Estate of Harrold Kinkead for the scrvices rendered in the 1987 partition action in which she represented Harrold Kinkead. During the pendency of Harrold Kinkead's probate maner, Virginia Kinkead filcd a quiet title action on behalf of her and her husband and against the Esute, Ms. Mathis and Ms. Count.'l'. Robert and Virginia Kinkead alleged in the Petition to Quiet Tide that they had demonstrated adverse: possession to IWO acres of property that Harrold Kinkead obtained in 1986. The twO acres to which Mr. and Mrs. Kinkead alleged adverse possession was the same property in which Ms. Kinkead had represented Harrold Kinkead in his efforts to
obtain in his b.wsuit filtd in 1987 and concludtd in 1989. In the probate maner, a hearing was hdd on Ms. Kinkead's claim for SCrvK:cs n::ndered in the: 1987 litigation. Following the hearing. the Probate Court enrered an Order finding mat Ms. Kinkead had failed to sustain her burden of proof in cstablishing an employment contnct and imposed smttions in the amount of $750.00 in attorney's fees and COSts in the amount of $ 162.33. Ms. Kindcad appealed the maner to the Arkansas Court of Appc:a1s where the Probate Coum findings wen:: affirmed but the imposition ofsanctions wen:: reversed. M.$. Kinkead responded to the disciplinary complaint and stated that she and her husband, Robert, purchased IWO acres of propcny adjacent to Harrold Kinkead's property foUowing the senlemem of her father-in-Iaw's partition action in 1986. No cascment was provided in the dc:c:d to the propm)' of Robert and Virginia for Harrold to aca:ss his property acros.s theirs. A road was constructed on property adjoining the property belonging to Harrold Kinkead and Robert and Virginia Kinkead. The owners of the adjoining tract constructed a fence which denied Harrold access to the road. M.$. Kinkead stated that Harrold did not want to access his property through her and her husband's property as they had made improvcmenu to their property. Harrold Kinkead asked Ms. Kinkead to approaeh the property owners who had constructed the road and reqUCSt permission 10 access his property via the road. That reqUCSt was denied. According to Ms. Kinkead, Harrold was informcd that there was a potential conflict as any apposing partics would argue that access should be obt...uned over her and her husMnd's property. M~. Kinkead stated that she preferred that Harrold access his property through the newly constructed road but she did not undertake the representation of Harrold Kinkead to prevent him from suing her and her husband for access to his property. According to Ms. Kinkead, whether she was claiming adverse possession of the property had no bearing on her representation of Harrold Kinkead and did not materially limit her representation of him. Regarding the allegalion (hat she and her husband were a.sscning an adverse possession claim while at the same time representing Ms. Mathis and Ms. Counts as third-parry defendants in the panition action, Ms. Kinkead stated that the third-JWtY complaint did not concern the rwo acres to which she and her husMnd wen:: asserting on their cl...um but instead involved a CrossIndemnity and Further Assunnce Agrcc:ment which was signed in a prior panition aerion. Ms. Kinkead Stated thac she and her hwband had the same interests in the maner as M.$. Mathis and Ms. Counts and it would have been almost impouiblc to settle that casc in a diffen::nt manner for each third-party defendant. Upon consiclcr-nion of the formal complaint, the response thereto, and the Arkansas Modd Rulcs of Professional Conduct, the Committee: on Professional Conduct finds: I. That M.$. Kinkead's conduct violued Modd Ruk 1.7(b) when.she: represented Harrold Kinkead, hc:r f.ather-in-Iaw, in an aerion involving a tract of propm)' in which she: and. her husband were simultaneously asserting an advcrsc possession claim against her f.ather-in-Iaw; and when die rcprcscnttd Ms. Mathis and Ms. Counts as third-party defendants in an action involv-
ing the:ir interest in the property in which she and her husband wen:: asserting a claim ofadverse possession. Model Rule 1.7(b) requirc:s, in pertinent pan, mat a lawyc:r shaU not n::present a client if chc rcpresentlltion of mat client may be marerially limited by the lawyer's own interests, unless the: lawyer rnsonably believe5 the representation will not be advcrsdy affected and the cliem consents after consultation. WH EREFOR£, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supn::me CoUll Committee: on Professional Conduct mat VIRGINIA J. KINKEAD, Arkansas Bar ID 183100, be, and here:by is, REPRIMANDED for her conduct in chis matter. Reginald SheltoD McCullough Lime Rock, AR Septe:mber 17. 1999 The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Arkansas Supn::me Court case of Antonio Aytn Il. Su" of MA'IWU, CR97-368. Reginald Shelton McCullough, an attOrney practicing law in Little: Rock, Arkansas, was held in contempt of the Supreme Court of Arkansas for his conduct in the appellate procttding. The Contempt Order was based upon Mr. McCullough's failure to file his client's brief on or before the final cuension date of March 25, 1998. On April I, 1997, Mr. McCullough filed the tnnscript with the Arkansas Supreme Court Clerk in case number CR97368 on behalf of his client, Antonio Ayers. When the appeal process began, Mr. McCullough had an associate, Gail Anderson, who was assisting him in Mr. Ayets' appc:aJ and was responsible for briefing the case for appeal. On May 9,1997, Mr. McCullough filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief which was granted by the Court giving Mr. McCullough until June 25,1997, (0 file Ihe brief. Mr. McCullough did not do 50. A second Motion for Extension of Time was filed on June 24, 1997. Nine days later, Mr. McCullough requested a third extension of time in which to file his client's brief. After receiving Ihrcc. atensions, Mr. McCullough filed a brief on be:half of his client on Septe:mber II, 1997. Mr. McCullough explained that the extensions were required primarily due to length of the record and the natun:: of the charge. Thereafter, on Septembc:r 29, 1997, a Motion was filed on behalf of the state requcsting that Mr. McCullough be dirrctc:d to comply with the requirements of Supreme CoUrt Rule 4-3(h). The requCSt was made: bc:cause the abstl1lct of the record Mr. McCullough presemed in me brief was deficient. The Coun granted the: Motion and a new briefing schedule was delivered advising that the deadline for the: filing of Mr. McCuUough's corrected brief in compliance with Rule 4-3(h) was November 15,1997. Mr. McCullough did not men mat deadline:. On February 4, 1998, eighty one (81) days after the corrected abstract and brief wen:: to be: flied, the Oen: of the Supn::me CoUrt wrore to Mr. McCuUough to inquin:: as to the statuS of the corrected brief. According to Mr_ McCullough, the fxt that the ab.'l'tl1lct was deficient was not broughr to his attention until his rccc:ipt ofl.c:slie Stccn's correspondence dattd February 4, 1998. Whcthc:r Ms. Anderson, the associate responsibk for
Accountant/Economic Analysis oBusiness Valuations oPersonal Injury Damage Analysis oDivorce (Property & Child Support Issues)
Court-Appointed Richard L. Schwartz Certified Public Accountant Certified Business Appraiser Certified Fraud Examiner
0
Regular Court Appearances 11510 Fairview Road, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72212-2445 Phone: (501) 221-9900 Fax: (501) 221-9292
email: schwartz@busvalu.com
fol, li 10, I/lfiller 2000