(Procedures). Mr. McCullough's consent to probation and the conditions theteof arc evidenced by his signalUrt' appearing in the Rapondent's Consent 10 Probation and Conditions of Probation appcndro to Ihis Order and made a part hereof by «f=n~.
WHEREFORE, il is the decision and order of the Arhnsas Supreme CoUrt Commintt on Professional Conduct tholt REGINALD SHELTON MCCUlLOUGH, Arbnsas Bar ID 185102, be, and hereby is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this matter. Funher. pursuant to Section 7E(7) of the Proc«lures, Ihe Comminee, with Ihe wnnen consenl of Mr. McCullough. places him on probation for a period of one (I) year. The imposition of probnion is being utilized concurmuIy with imposition of the rrprimand. Mr. McCullough is therefon: ordered, as a probationary condition of his reprimand, to obtain the agrecmcnt of another lawyer. acceptable 10 the Committee, 10 supervise. monitor and iISIlist him as n-quimi to fulfill the condilions of probation. The probationary condilions directro by the Comminee and SCI OUt in the anachro Consent to Probation and Conditions of Probation shall be effective, and the probation.ary term shall commence on Ihe due of the filing of this Order.
Ray Eugene Hartenstein LilLie: Rock and Conw:ay, AR September 21,1999 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is based arose from the complaint of Odes D. lolben. Roay E. Hartenstein. an anomey practicing law primarily in Little Rock and Conway. was employed to represent Mr. Tolbert in POSIconviction proceedings. On October 4, 1996. Mr. Tolbert was convicted at a jury lrial of four counts of violating ~riOU5 provisions of the Arkansas Criminal Code and rcceivro an aggregate sentenCe of 600 months imprisonmem. Mr. Tolbert desired to appeal his conviction and sente.nce but the attorney who represented him al trial, Frank Shaw, advised him that he would not rt'presem him on appeal. Based upon Mr. Shaw's suggestion, Mr. Tolbert contaCled Mr. Hartenstein who agreed to represent him in pur· suit of his appeal. Following entry of the Judgment and Commitment Order, Mr. Shaw was rt'licved and Mr. Tolben filro a pro se Norice of Appeal Mr. Tolbert's f.unily paid Mr. Hartenslein's fee. During January of 1997, Mr. Hartenstein filro an Affidavit in Suppo" of RLquest 10 Proceed In Forma Pauperis which Mr. Tolbcn had complctro at Mr. Hartenstein's requesl. Shortly after filing the affidJ.vit. Mr. HartctUtein filed a Motion for Extension of lime 10 File Transcripl which was grant«l Ihe same dJ.y it was filro. The $ute of Arbnsas was requirtd to pay the Court Ikponer for Ihe lranscripl after the Circuil Judge ememi an Order declaring Mr. Tolbcn indigent. Wh~n preparation of the transcript was complete, Mr. Hartenstein Iodgcd the with the Supreme Coun Ocrk. Mr. Tolben bc:licvc:d at Ihis time mat Mr. Hartenslein was pursuing his appcal. The day after Mr. Tolbcn's brief ~ due, a Motion 10 Dismiss Appeal was filed by Mr. Hartenstein. The MOlion advised the Coun that afier n:viewing the lnJUCripl, a determi· nation had been made to initially seck rt'lief pursuant 10 Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure ralher than by appcal. Mr. Tolbc:rt did not IC'CCivc a copy of the MOlion until after it was filrd. Although he was uncern.in about dismissing Ihe appeal, he went along with Mr. Hartenslein's advice. Afier the Motion 10 Dismiss was filro, Mr. Tolbc:rt was unsuccessful in his anempu to communicate with Mr. Hartenstein. Mr. Hartenstein explainn:l Ihat since MI. Tolbert ~ required to call collect, he was unaware if he had callro because his answering service and/or mC$$;lge machine will not accept collect calls and will not disclose who is trying to call. The lawyer does not mention whether he had regula!" office hours during which incoming telephone calls arc Iake.n by him or office staff. Mr. Hartenstein also Stated that he sJ>Cnt more time explaining circumStances oflhe case with Mr. Tolbert than any other dient he can recall in the past few yeaTS. However, Mr. 'Iolbcrt did not learn that Mr. HartcnSlein had not f11ed a Petition for Rule 37 relief until late September or early October 1997. According to Mr. Hartenstein, he was neve.r hired to pUTSue Rule 37 rt'lief only to investigate poSI-eon·
K'COro
viction remroies available to Mr. Tolbc:n. On Octobc:r 7, 1997, Mr. Tolbert allempled 10 have his appeal rt'instaled. The Supreme Court deniro the MOlion because of the length of lime that had passed since the appeal was dismissed. Mr. Tolben also pursucd a pro se n-qUCSt for Rule 37 relief afier he lamed lhat Mr. Hartenstein had nOI done so. His n-quest was denied on the bas.is mat il was untimdy. Upon consideration of the formal complaint. the responk Ihcrc:ro and the Arkansas Modd Rules of Professional Conduct. the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Hanenstein's conduct violat«l Modd Rule 1.4(a), when he ceased to communiClte with Mr. Tolbc:n about the srarus of his matter and failed to respond 10 Mr. Tolbc:n's anemprs to obain information from him afier he obtained the dismissal of Mr. Tolbcn's appc:al on July 7. 1997. Model Rule 1.4(a) requires tholl a Ia~ shal1 keep a diem I'Q5Onably informro about tM status of a maner and promptly comply with I'Q5Onablc requests for informacion. 2. Thai when Mr. Hartenstein did nOI aplain 10 Mr. Tolbert within sixty (60) days following dismis.sa1 of the appeal tholt he would nOt be pursuing posl<onviction n:lief on Mr. Tolbert's behalf he effectively deni«l the client the opponunity 10 make a decision concerning whether lo.seck othet counselor to proccro pro se, he violat«l Modd Rule 1.4(b). Modd Rule 1.4(b) n-quires thai a lawyer shall explain a maner to Ihe atent reasonably necC$$;lry to permit the diem to make informed decisions regarding the represenration. 3. That Mr. Hartenstein's conduct violated Modd Rille 1.16(d) when he made the decision 10 terminale. his representation of Mr. Tolbert and then f:.tiled to give him reasonable nOlice of the same and failed to allow him any time for employmem of other counsd 10 pursue any post<onviction remedies for him. Model Rule 1.16(d) requires, in pertinent part, that upon termination of rt'presentation. an altomey shall rake: steps to Ihe cxtent reasonably practicable to protect the diem's interestS. such as giving reasonable notice to me diem and allowing for time for employmenl of other counsel. 4. That Mr. Hartenstein violat«l Modd Rule 8.4(c) when he advised his client, Mr. Tolbert, and the Suprt'me Coun thai he was dismissing Mr. Tolbert's appeal 10 Sttk relief pursuant to Rule 37 rather than by appeal and failed 10 pursue such relief. Model Rule 8.4(c) Slates, in peninent pan. that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving misrrpresenlacion. 5. That Mr. Hartenstein's conduct violaled Model Rule 8.4(d) since the lotality of his action and inaction in the legal manc:r caused Mr. Tolbert to be withoul any available appellate review of his conviction as .....d l as 10 be without any post-o>n· viction review of trial counsel's representation of him. Modd Rule 8.4(d) states thai a la~ shal1 not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. WHEREFORE, il is the decision and order ofthe Arbnsas Supreme CoUrt Commitl~ on Professional Conduct thai RAY EUGENE HARTENSTElN, Arbmas Bar 10 m061. bc:, and hereby is. REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this maner. Evelyn Hill Mounu..inbaug, AR October 28, 1999
The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is based. arose from the Complaint of Ralph Pressley. Mr. Pres.sky, a truck driver residing in Michigan. rcccivcd a craffic ticket in Fon Wayne, Indiana during April, 1998. Shortly after he rcccivro Ihe ticket, Mr. PlCS5ley saw an advertisement for Evelyn I. Hill, an anotn()' pr.lClieing in Mountainburg, Arkansas. The language of Ihe advertisement lro Mr. Pressl(), to beliC\o'e tlul Ms. Hill could represent him in any state. The advertisemenl did nOI rt'flect that Ms. Hill is only licensed to practice law in Arkansas. In addition. the advertisement advised that traffic tickets could be kept off a person's driving record nationwide. Ms. Hill admits that her adve.rtisemem did not TeAecl that she is lice:nsed only to pTllclice in Arkansas and avers to the Commincc Ihat she .....iII add a notation indicating this faCt. She ~lso admits that the h.nguage could create an expectation th~t she was able 10 keep driving tickets off driving records nation· wide. In milig~tion. slle explains that she never realitcd thai this inlerpreration could be given to the language until she rcccivro the Complaint in this matter.
AfieT Kring the advertisement, Mr. Pra.sl()' call«l Ms. Hill's office to discuss his traffic ticket and to discuss whether Ms. Hill amId rrprcscnl him. Mr. Prc:W()' ~ nOI able 10 speak direct· ly with Ms. Hill, inslead he spoke with Tony. who ~ identified as Ms. Hill's husband. Tonyadvi5cd mal Ms. Hill would rrprcscnt Mr. Prrssley on this maner for a fee of $295. Mr. Pressley promptly sem the funds to Ms. Hill. All of Mr. Pressley's questions about his legal nu.ner were answered by non-bW}V5 in Ms. Hill's ofha. never by Ms. Hill. ~ time mat Mr. Prcul()' spoke with anyone in Ms. Hill's office, he was iISIlUred that someone would be in court to represem him in Fon '\(fayne. T"'lo dJ.ys bcfort' (he schedul«l court appnrance, Mr. Pressley again called Ms. Hill's office to be certain that someone would be wim him in Coun. At mat time. Mr. Pressley was given me name of an auorncy in Fort Wayne to contact about his lraffle lidet and COUrt ap~ce. Mr. Pras.l()' was rt'luc· tant to do SO since he had paid an anomey's fee 10 Ms. Hill for rrprescntation. Ho....-ever. upon me advice ofTony. Mr. PlCS5ley did all me orner attorney who advised him that he would need an additional fee to represent him in mis mauer. Mr. Pressley imm«lialely contact«l Ms. Hill's office and again spoke with Tony. Tony told Mr. Pressley nOl to worry because someone would be thert' to rt'prescnt him the next day in Fort Wayne. However. no one was there with him. On me morning ofcourt. thert' was a mC$$;lge at me Clerk's office from Ms. Hill's office sraff advising Mr. Pressley to change his plea to guilty and ask for Ihe deferred program. Mr. Pressley's request for the deferred program was deni«l by the Court. After his request was denied. Mr. Pressley attempted to comact Ms. Hill but he was unable 10 do so. Once again, he was compelled to speak with Tony who advised him thaI Ms. Hill would pay Mr. Pressley's fine for him. However, there was nothing that could be done about the pointS which had been added to Mr. Pressley's driving rt'cord by the Judge. Ms. Hill admiu tim her husband, Tony Hill. overstepped his role and offercd advice to a diem that should have only come from an anorney. She has notifiro het emire Staff that it is imperative that no legal advice be given by any of them. In fact, it has become office policy th.at any time a dient wishes 10 speak with an anomey tlul the client is immediately transferred to her. Upon consideration of Ihe formal complain!. the response theretO and the Arkansas Modd Rules of Prokuional Conduct, the Comminee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Ms. Hill's conduct violated Modd Rule IA(b) since neither she, nor the safT of her office, C'o'er c:xpLainro to Mr. PlCS5ky Ihal she .....a s not licrnsed to pr.act:ice law in Indiana, thereby denying him the opportunity [0 scde. counsel who ~ Hcensed in Indiana. Mood Rule 1.4(b) requires mal a b~ explain a nu.ner to the extent I'Q5Onably nccasary 10 permit tnc cliem to make informed decisions rq;arding the rrprc:scnr:uion. 2. Thai Ms. HiII's conduct violatro Modd Rule 5.5(b) when she allowed a penon identified as Tony and purponrd to be her husband, bUI who does not appear to hold an Arkansas la..... license. to provide Mr. PlCS5ley legal advice in connection with his kgal maner and to respond 10 all questions that Mr. Pressky had concerning his legal nu.ner in .....hich she was enuuuro. Modd Rule 5.5(b) lCtJuires that a lawyer not assist a penon who is nOI a member of the bar in the performance of activity thai conuilUles the unaUlhoriud practice of law. 3. That Ms. HiU's conduct violarro Modd Rule 7.I(a) in thai her advertisement, upon which Mr. Pressley based his decision to hirt' her. omiuro me fact that she was nOI licensed 10 pf1lCtice law in each state. Modd Rule 7.1 (a) lCtJuires. in perti. nent part. Ihal a Iawyet not make a false statemem or misleading communication about the lawyet or me lawyer's services and provides that a communication is false or misleading if it omits a faCt nccC$$;lry 10 make the St-atement considerro as a whole nOI materially misleading. 4. That Ms. Hill's conduct violated Modd Rule 7.I(b) since her advertisemem creales the expectalion thai she is able to keep traffic tickets off of anyone's driving record nationwide. Model Rule 7.1(bl requires. in pertinem part, that a lawyer not make a false or misleading stalement about the lawyer or the lawyer's services and provides that a communication is false or mislead· ing if it is likely to creale an unjustifiro expectation aboul the results that the lawyer can achieve. WHEREFORE. il is the decision and order of the Arkansas
I'el.li ,Ie. 1III'inirr ~OOO
Th! lrkmas LallIer