Issuu on Google+







In my practice, I look for dependability.

Westlaw delivers. "I hate surprises, whether I'm paying bills from an online research provider or facing a tough opponent in court. "Th~t's why

I oepeno nn Westl~w~ I,nnk. when you're a small firm, you have to run your practice like a business - with one eye on overhead all the time. "I do mostly P.I., some work comp, and a little of whatever comes through the door. So I had my West Group rep set me up with a flexible. cost-effective WestlawPRO package that exactly matches my practice. I pay exactly the same thing every month. o surprises, no technical glitches and no bumps in

the firm's financial road. Cases. practice materials. even forms - they all tie together. I can navigate my way through about any issue. And when I get to the other end, I'm always confident that I got it right "Find it fast, get it right. don't pay too much. To me. that kind of peace of mind is worth plenty. Westlaw delivers."

For a personal introduction to Westlaw, contort your local West Group rep, phone 1-800-762-5272, fax 1-800-291-9378, or go online to When you call, please provide OfFER NUMBER 142308.

Arkansas Cases • Arkansas Cade • USCA • KeyCite • WestlawPRO




C 2000 West Gfoup

The Irademclfk. lOOwn w,lhin cue uoed unde, IIC~Ml

49993-1/11.00 11423081


PUBLISHER Arkansas Bar AssociatiOIl Phone: (501) 37.5-4606 Fax, (501) 3754901 Homepage: E-Mail;

EDITOR Doll Hollingsworth GRAPHIC DESIGN Sara umdis

EDITORIAL BOARD David H. Williams, Chair Wiley A. Branton Thomas M Carpenter Jacqueline 1. Cravens Morton Gitelman James C. Graves Lucinda McDaniel Stuart P. Miller Jacqueline S. Wright OFFICERS President Ron D. Harrison President-Elect Sand.ra Cherry

on en s VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1

Features 12 Implementation of the New Judicial Article

by jim julian

Immediate Past President Louis B. (Ducky) Jones, Jr. Secretary路Treasurer William A. Martin

Board of Governors Chair Frederick S. Ursery Parliamentarian Gwendolyn D. Hodge Young Lawyers Section Chair R. Scott Zuerker Executive Director Don Hollingsworth

13 Revised Article 9 Unifotm Commercial Code (1998)

by Philip Carroll

Associate Executive Director Judith Gray

BOARD OF COVERNORS William M. Clark, Jr. Murray H Claycomb F. Thomas Curry Thomas A. Daily Elizabeth Danielson Kay West Forrest Lance B. Gamer Dave WISdom Harrod Philip E. Kaplan Knox B. Kinney Edwin N. McClure Lance R. Miller Marie-Bernarde Miller Charles C. Owen James M. Simpson, Jr. James D. Sprott Danny Thrailkill LIAISON MEMBERS Alice Holcomb H. William Allen Donis B. Hamilton Judge James H. Gunter, Jr. Carolyn B. Witherspoon Jeffery E. Hance

16 The New Arkansas Lawyer Assistance Progranl

by Ron D. Harrison

20 Liability Issues Facing Online Businesses by David E. Shipley

Th~ ArttinSIU 1.,Ilw!p (usps.54拢t.O.W)

is pubLished quarterly by the Arkansas Bar Association. Periodbls postage paid .11 Little Rock. Arkansas. POSTMASTER: send address changes to 17u! ArbnS4S {"Ilwyer, 400 Wt31 Markham, Ullle Rock. Arkansas 72201. Subscription price to non-members ofthe Arkans<'ls Bar Association 525.00per year. Any opinion expressed herein is that of the author, and nol necessarily th.1t of the Arkansas Bar Association or The Arbnsll5 U1wyer. Conlributions to The Arka"sas Ltlwyt1 are welrome and should be SCt"lt in two copies to EDITOR, The ArklufSllS LAwyn', 400 We;!; Markham. UIIIe Rock. Arkansas 72201. All inquiries regatding ad\路ertising should be 5/.'fl1 to Editor, The Arbnsas LilW"Ytr al the above llddteS5. Copyright 2001, Arkansas Bar As5ociation. All rights


On the Cover: Merger of Law and Equity, and Nonpartisan Election of Judges - Two of the Significant Changes in the New Judicial Article.

Conlents Continued on Page 2

Contents VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1

In This Issue 3


President's Report, by Ronald D. Harrison

Judicial Disciplinary Acts

35 Executive Director's Report, by Don Hollingsworth

CLE Calendar



Mp2 - My Pracrice, My Pleasure by William A. Martin

Law Office Technology, by Jeanette Hamilton



Lawyer Disciplinary Actions

YLS Section Report, by R. Scott Zuerker



In Memoriam

Thank You to CLE Speakers and Program Planners for 2000

56 Classified Advertisingl Index to Advertisers

ARKANSAS BAR ASSOCIATION 400 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 HOUSE OF DELEGATES Delegate District I-SE: Ray Allen Goodwin Delegate District 2-5E: Henry H. Boyce, Mark R. Johnson, Katharine C. Wilson Delegate District )路5E: Cindy Thyee, Michael E. Mullally, Paul D. Waddell Delegate District 4-5E: Bill E. Bracey, Jr. Delegate District 5-5E: William C. Ayers, James Bradley Delegate District 6-SE: Michael L. Ladd Delegate District 7-5E: Donald E. Kee Delegate District 8-SE: Howard L. Marrin Delegate District 9-SE: Charles E. Halben, James Pat Flowers Delegate District 10-SE: David R. Bridgforth, William Kirby Mouser Delegate District II-SE: Paul W. Keith Delegate District 12-5E: Paul D. Selby Delegate District 13-5E: Walrl:T K. Compton, Steve R. Crane, Brian H. Ratcliff Delegate District 14-5E: Frank A. Poff, Christie Adams Delegate District IS-SE: Barry D. Barber, Todd M. Turner Delegate District 16-SE: Shannon M. Carroll, Ronald D. Kelsay Delegate District 17路SE: Yolanda L. Dreher Delegate District I-NW: Edwin N. McClure, Glenn E. Kelley, HardyW. Croxmn,Jr., George R. Spence Delegate District 2-NW: James M. Graves, Donna C. Pettus, Kathryn E. Plan, Ernesl B. Cate, Boyce R. Davis, April M. Rye, Shannon L. Fant, Raymond L. Niblock, Steven S. Zega Delegate District l-NW: Niki Cung, J. Marvin Honeycun, Claude S. Hawkins, Jr., Wyman R. Wade, Jr., Eddie H. Walker, Jr., Shannon L. Blan, Timothy C. Sharum Delegate District 4路NW: Daniel B. Thrailkill Delegate District S-NW: Gordon Webb Delegate District 6-NW: Hugh R. Laws, John T. Tawm, David L. Eddy Delegate District 7-NW: H.G. Foster, Danny M. Rasmussen Delegate District 8-NW: Jerry D. Patterson Delegate District I-e: Anthony W. G. Black, Shannon L. Boy, Brad Hendricks, William O. James, Jr., James L. Julian, Swan P. Miller, Todd Wooten, Gwendolyn D. Hodge, Ron A. Hope, Philip E. Kaplan, Harry A. Light, Stark Ligon, William A. Martin, Charles C. Owen, Charles L. Schlumberger, Don K. Barnes, Elizabeth A. Thomas, Marshall S. Ney, Melva J. Harmon, John C. Wade. Jeff Broadwater, Marcella J. Taylor, Reed R. Edwards, M. Stephen Bingham

Law Student Representatives: Valerie Glover, University of Arkansas School of Law; Brandon Meadows, UALR William H. Bowen School of Law


T~e lrkusas

LaWler www.arkbar.cll

1l l'llsidl'lIl's IIllplll'/



ackpackers and hikers have an expression reserved for chose fare experiences which, almost singular, are set apart from all others. These wonderful evems are called mountain top experiences.

Novembet 17rh and 18th, we began to explore the possibiliries of how to affect change, to make a difference. Fundamentally, we are seeking change because it's the right thing to do. But for chose who seek additional incentives, it makes good business sense, too. Prior to the conference we continued ongoing efforts to involve lawyers diverse in color and gender in leadership roles within the Association. Although these efforts will continue, we musr do much more. I am convinced that one thing we can do quickly,

gather with our old friends, former classmates and annual meeting friends during the course ofour Association events? When we do, without realizing it we have left out or left alone many lawyers, young On the trails and in the mountains of and old, who may not return, may drop Northwest Arkansas where my family and I out, or may even openly reject the have camped or hiked, I have experienced a Association. few such events. One occurred during a I place great fajth in the fundamental sunrise service conducted literally on the goodness of our lawyers. Our members do edge of a mountain over looking the not intentionally ignore or seek to exclude Buffalo River at Camp Orr, a Boy SCOut others. Our focus for the future must, Camp in the Ozark however, include a recharged commitment, Mountain range. We have a heightened awareness to experienced the sensation in make all welcome to the the beauty of the changing Association. We must engage color of the mountain forests each other, speak plainly and in October at Devils Den honestly to each other to the State Park. Recently, I was end that we become or blessed ro enjoy another remain friends. Look around mountain cop experience at at our meetings, seek out new Eden Isle on Greers Ferry faces, invite a new member to Lake. lunch or dinner, share a cup The experience came not, of coffee, invite a new however, from rhe member or new acquaintance shimmering lake or the to sit with you at a program surrounding foresr, bur from segment, invite them to join a Committee or Section. Please the fellowship with brothers ABCD Members. Front row: Cynthia Nance, James Crouch, Philip and sisters of the bench and join me in making sure that Kaplan, Kathryn Fitzhugh, and Teresa Wineland. Back row: Peter bar at the first conference of no one is left behind. "We Kumpe, Judge Henry Jones, Ron Harrison, Brenda Stallings, Troy Price, Sandra Cherry, Austin Porter, Jr., Milton Dejesus, Allan the Arkansas Bar came into the world like Gates, Barry Deacon, and Judge Kathleen Bell. Not pictured are Commission on Diversity brother and brother; and now Tom Carpenter, Murray Claycomb, Richard Downing, Judge (ABCD.) In a small let's go hand and hand, not Wendell Griffen, Gene McKissic, Judge Andree Roaf, and Amy Tu. one before another." conference room at the Red Apple Inn lodge, warmed by One more thing! We a crackling fire in the fireplace and the easily and whole heartedly is to be berter will have a number of products available for goodwill of those present, we began our ambassadors of the Association, each one of purchase which depict the logo or name of effort to make a difference in a complex us. We have quite innocently failed ro the ABCD. We invite you to join with world. It was for me another Arkansas always provide a welcome environment to members of me Commission in displaying some new members of the bar - - regardless these symbols of our commitment. mountain tOP experience. The work of the Commission is of color. The impact sometimes is greater if Contact the Association website or office for more information on what products will dedicated to encourage and advance the attorney is from a minority group. Our members are good, decent, caring, be available, and visit ABCD displays at diversity first in the Arkansas Bar Associarion, then in the legal profession in professionals. But, think abour it. Like future Association meetings.+) Arkansas, generally. At our conference others in any serting, don't we rend to

1'01.16,1'0. 1/ll'inler 2001

Tie lrkanml,lwlcr


ASpecial Thank You to the Members of the Arkansas Bar Association Whose Volunteer Efforts Made Possible The New Judicial Article for Arkansas Ronald D. Harrison, President Arkansas Bar Association

A Tradition of Professionalism & Public Service


[w(' UIill' II i1'1'('1 01' 's I'pOl'l


A S OUf Association moves inco the .ÂŁ'\.second year of the three year governance transition, the following Delegates and Governors will be elected this coming Spring. The most significant election changes are some delegate djsrricrs for the House of Delegates contain different counties from previous years, the new geographical areas from which Board of Governors are elected, and increases in the number of delegates co be elected from the more populous areas of the state. The House of Delegates and Board of Governors address matters which are important co the legal system, our Association, and every attorney in Arkansas. For example, the House decides Association policy on new initiatives before the Supreme Coun and on legislation before the General Assembly which affecrs the legal system. Recent examples include the new Arkansas Lawyer Assistance Program (see article In this issue) and the Association's legislative package for 2001. The Board handles the business aspecrs of the Association plus keeps up with trends affecting the legal profession. Being in the House or on the Board is a chance to get acquainted with lawyers allover the state, to be recognized as the representative of lawyers within the individual's district, and to help shape the future of the profession. BOARD OF GOVERNORS ELEcnONS

One Governor will be elected for a partial cwo year term from each of the following cwo positions: 3-BG

Cleburne, Whire, Lonoke and Jefferson Counties 4-BG Phillips, Arkansas, Cleveland, Lincoln, Desha, Drew, Calhoun, Bradley, Union, Ashley and Chicm Counties

Governors will be elected for full three year terms for the following Board of Governor positions: I-BG 5-BG

8-BG 12-BG

17-BG 18-BG

Sharp, Randolph, Lawrence, Clay, Greene and Craighead Counties Columbia, Ouachita, Nevada, Clark, Hempstead, Howard, Sevier, Little River, Miller and Lafayecre Coun ties Washington County Crawford, Sebastian, Franklin, Johnson, Pope, Logan, Yell, Scott and Polk Counties Pulaski Cou nty Pulaski County

2-NW Washington County (3 deleg;!tes to be elected) 3-NW Sebastian, Crawford Counties delegates to be elected) 4-NW Pope, SCOtt, Logan, Johnson and Franklin CoulHies 7-NW Faulkner and Van Buren Counties 8-NW Marion, Baxter, Fulton, Searcy, StOne and Izard Counties l-C Pulaski County (10 dekgates ro be elected)


Delegate quaJifications. The attorney must be an Association member residing within the Delegate District. ELECI'ION PROCESS

Qualifications for Board of Governors. The attOrney mUSt reside in the geographical area for the Board of Governors position and must have served one year in the House of Delegates or must have been an Association member for seven years by the time of joining the Board of Governors. HOUSE OF DELEGATES

One Delegate (except where specified otherwise) to the House of Delegates will be elected from the following Delegate Districts for full three year terms: 3-5E 5-SE 6-SE lO-SE 12-SE 13-SE 16-SE 17-SE I-NW

Craighead and Poinsett Counties Crirtenden County Cross, St, Frances and Woodruff Counties Jefferson County Ashley, Desha, and ChicO( Counties Columbia, Ouachita and Union Counties Montgomery Garland and Counties Saline County Benton County

For both Delegates and Governors, a nomination petition signed by three current members of the Association, who reside in the geographical area of election, must be filed with the Secretary/Treasurer at the Association's office no later than April 2, 2001. A sample petition is available from the Association. The current members of the House of Delegates and Board of Governors are listed on the Association's website at on "About the Association." LAWYER ADVERTISING

Our Association regularly receives inquiries from members and consumers about lawyer advertising practices and rules. There is a recent article on this subject by Associare Professor Judith Kilpatrick at the University of Arkansas School of Law: "Arkansas' Amended Advertising Rules, Solicitation and the Internet", Arkansas Law Notes 2000,

1'01.16 No, 2001

Tbe ,Irlma! I,alljer

The POWER of

Practice Handbooks Hav~ it

Ytmr way! Customiu Ytmr Library ofAssociation Handbooks to Suit Your Pmona/ Styk

Select from among prine offerings including the Arkansas Form Book, Domestic Relations, Debror/Credicoc, Probate Law, Handling Appeals or Real Estate Title Standards in

LEXIS-NEXIS LEXIS-NEXIS New Exclusive Bar Association Member Benefit Program LEXlS-NEXlS has developed a dramatic, new and exclusive bar association member benefit program just for solo and



small firms.

Beginning November 2000, members of the

Choose the Arkansas Form Book, Debror/Credirof or Probate Law Handbooks in word processing format,

LEXlS-NEXlS Bar Associarion Member Benefit Program


can enjoy dramatic new offerings, with unprecedented

Opr for rhe simpliciry of a CD ROM conraining anyone or any combinarion of rhe following: Arkansas Form Book, Debtor/Creditor, Probare Law, Handling Appeals in Askansas or Real ÂŁSrate litle Standards in Askansas.

flexibility, including access on a daily and weekly basis!

\'V'arch for details on the latest technology offering when a new Arkansas Bar Association mem~r benefit will make the Practice Handbooks available on the Incernct through Lexis

Publishing. To order call 501-375-4606 or 800-609-5668 or email Or visit our website at www.a.rkbarcom for further information.

After listening carefully to the small law firm attorney members, LEXlS-

EXlS brings you specially priced and

packaged flexible research offerings rhrough your bar asSOCIation.

ow you can choose a plan designed to meet

your exact needs!

For additional information, visit LEXIS-NEXlS is a registered trademark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc.. used under license.


OU r Membersh I p arkansasfindalawyer

Insurance Discounts

An on-line attorney directory

for Association memlxrs only. Review me directory by going

to • Provides Association membas a COSt-df~ve. n~ source: of

clients with an acrorate


d.:m: lining - in o\"er 50 arns of

pnroC(:. • Frtt Link to firm's website.

CLE Seminars at Reduced Cost

The cornerstone of an attorney's professionalism is up-to-date information and skills. The Arkansas Bar

Association provides the most comprehensive statewide

Call Rebsamen Insurance at 50 I-664-879 I or 888-2726656 for Association discounrs on: • Group Term Life Insurance • Professional Liability • Accidem • HospitaJ Indemnity • Overhead Expense • Disability Income • Long Term Care • Critical Illness

Delivery Service Call UPS at 800-325-7000 and identify yourself as a member of <he Arkansas Bar Association or use account #CP290001685.

Retirement Plan

pay reduced tuition!

ABA Members Retirement Program. Call 800-8268901 or visit the website at htrp:llabm,rjs,ssga,com.

Professional Networking

Credit Card Program

CLE program, and members

The Arkansas Bar Association is the best opportunity in Arkansas for attorney in teraction through the Association's public service projects. sections, and committees. The Annual Meeting of the Association each June is mended by 1,000 Arkansas attorneys and hundreds oHamily members.

The MBNA Platinum Plus 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.

Publications FREE to Members

· · ·


On-line legal research

Tlu Arkansm LaW]" Magazint

Tht Nnusbulktin

from Lexis-Nexis is

Annual Mnnhtrrhip Dirrclory and Organizational Guidt


Ugislar'-w Summary From tht · HiU

for members.

· · ·

GuitJ~ 10 Arkansas StlltuU of limitations



Tht ArKansas Low Rrvinu Tht UALR Law Rroitw

1178. Improving the Legal System

Conference Room Association members can

utilize the conference room at <he Arkansas Bar Center for client meetings, depositions and similar matters. Contact the Association office ar 501-375-4606 or 800-609-5668. The room has searing for 12 ro 14 persons. The Bar Center is located across the street from rhe Pulaski County Courthouse.

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 <he public. Association members do this through the legislative program. KCtions and commirtees. the Association's Mock Trial Program. the Young Lawyers Secrion's projc:etS. and s~ial studic:s.

Advisory Ethics Opinions It's not always black and whire. [n the practice of law, there's a lot of gray. Your Association's Professional Ethics and Grievance Committee can help. Wi<hin specific guidelines, the Committee wiU issue an opinion on the member's proposed conduct. There is an administrative charge of $50.


Booklets & Guides

• Consumer Law Handbook

· ·•

Senior CiTizens/Caregivers Guide Small Claims Bookler Arkansas Veterans Handbook

Call 501-375-4606 to order

or download from

MP~ My Pl'actice. My Pleasure. Mp2 - My Practice. My Pkasure. is a new column of The Arkansas Lawyer Magazine dedicated to the perso1Ul/ and professional wellneu ofthose working in the legal profession.



Edited by Amiram Elwork and Mark R. Siwik The Vorkell Group, Gwynedd, PA, 200 I, 204 pages, $26.95 Reviewed by William A. Martin

This book will be helpful to the lawyer introduce most chapters with an who is feeling dissatisfied with the appropriate and thought provoking practice of law, but even more helpful if quotation from a lawyer. judge. or other read and heeded by lawyers before they Famous person. My first encounter with Dr. Amiram get to that point.


uccess, as implicidy defined within the seventeen shorr inspirarionaJ essays, stories, and poems in this excellent little book, means something far different from mere financial achievement. Two words which kept impressing themselves on my mind as I read it are "balance" and "caring." The authors of me chapters, by describing their lives, or lives they look ro for guidance. or what is important (0 them, give us persuasive examples of che life in the law we would like to achieve- success in a form which gives more satisfaction man money alone ever can. Thanks ro excellent editing that produces clear and consistent parts in plain language from the seventeen different authors (all but Dr. Elwork are lawyers), this book can be a fast read. It is possible to read one or tWO chapters, put it down and corne back later without a significant loSt of thought. However, as I gOt more into the book I found I wanred <0 push ahead and quickly comple[e reading all of it. A[ a deeper level wonderful metaphors and memorable phrases provide us with positive pictures of the legal profession. The examples from lawyers who. sometimes late, find what is truly important to them in terms of balanced lives and caring relationships with clients, peers, family, and members of their community give us poinrs ro ponder and the inspiration and courage ro redefine success for ourselves. [n at least one, and probably several, of me word pictures we will see ourselves and our possibilities. In a valuable addition the editors

s ne lrlusll Ll~),r


Elwork and Mark Siwik was at the American Bar Association meeting in August 1996. There mey presenred an outstanding program on stress management which included practical tips and illustrations of fictional lawyers such as Atticus Fitch in To Kill a Mockingbird who won the love and respect of their community. Out of this meeting came a program wim Dr. Elwork, a psychologist, on his book, Stress Management for L:owyers, ar [he 1997 Arkansas Bar Association Annual Meeting. The presentation attracted such a large and appreciative audience to the Arlington Ho[e1's Crystal Ballroom mat all chairs were taken and lawyers were sitting on the ow Dr. Elwork and Mr. Siwik have floor. refined parts of their program into Success Briefs for Lawyers and a series of seminars designed to help lawyers recognize. in the words of their introduction, "... what is right and good in the legal profession and what they can do to be more effective and satisfied with their lives." In this book they are successful in achieving this purpose. Over time in my columns for The Arkansas Lawyer I often referred to success and tried to hold out the idea of what lawyers should be as people. I was gratified to find many of the authors of the chapters in Success Briefs for Lawyers quoted from the works of writers and other famous people whom I had been impressed wim, quoted from, and referred to. I n a talk I gave to neW Air Force lawyers on success I described it as a journey and that they should recogniu: and take joy in small successes along the way. One of the

moughts from me book is [hat people who achieve their fuB potential "tend to focus on enjoying the journey as well as the destination." A sampling of other valuable, instructive moughts I found within the chapters is: .. Maybe saying no is the secret - I muse -- no to the temptation of the extra dollar. that new committee. if the no means yes to me family." ") seek the perfect balance, that certain balance that brings peace, contentment, and fulfillment." "There is a great deal of goodness in people if we just take time to bring it Out in them through our own acts of decency." "The guy I married dreamed of making a contribution to society someday. It wasn't all about money." "I came <0 realize mat me best lawyers I have known all had mree qualities ... They were all highly competent, had unshakable integrity, and truJy cared - about their families, their colleagues, their clients, and their community." "Among the things than can significantly help you get through mOSt situations is a healthy sense of humor." "He loved [he law and delighted in serving others." "Does my appointment calendar reveal what I treasure and think is most essential in my life? If my life ended <oday, would I view i[ as being fulfilled by what I accomplished as a lawyer, a husband, a father, a &iend. a human being?" "My greatest asset to my clienrs was my ability to help mem solve meir problems creatively. How could) be creative if I had no time set aside for recharging my own batteries -- taking time for selP" "I realized the true function of a lawyer See Book Review Continued on Page 56



fie lei ...-...1


F.fYlries 10llb



~ Go


the icon of good law.


exclusively on® k:rlJ.rom and Shtp,mJ, are fl'g'Sfertd Ir~dell\;lrQ of Rffil


PrOflC'"'elI Ioc.. usN under !lcen~.

01"," prodocu and $m'JCe truly M rradnnukJ or ~JlrmJ lndemukl of tllcir fnl'«!lH companlcs. 02001 kXl5-Nc:KlS, a d"'$'on of Rl'td F.l~~,cr I"", All "~U I"dffi'<:<l.

I AL2877 I

Come to the Meeting That offers It All

The 1 03rd Annual Meeting of the Arkansas Bar Association June 13-16, 2001, Arlington Hotel, Hot Springs



Experience An Opportunity to: • Break from your routine

Observe The American Board of Trial Advocates Master in Trial

• Catch up on the latest in the law • Earn your CLE houts • Hear great speakers

present A Trial Demonstration From Opening Statements To Jury Deliberations

• Have a mini family vacation • Conduct business in a relaxed environment

Outstanding trial counsel from Arkansas and around the nation

• Play golf

will examine witnesses and

• Be entertained

experts before a real judge and a

• Nerwork with colleagues

real jury.

Experience the jury

A performance by Clay Jenkinson who has mastered the life, the

• Play tennis

deliberation broadcast live Into

• Join the legal runaround

the seminar room.

vision and the achievement of

• Enjoy your favorite Hot

Thomas Jefferson. His method is to stay resolutely in character, but to permit Mr. Jefferson to comment carefully on a world he did not live to see. Visit

for more information.

Springs restaurant • Check out the Exhibit Hall • Win a prize • Meet with your committee • Attend the receptions

Sponsored by: The Arkansas Board of Trial Advocates

ROSE lAWFIRM Welcomes Its Newest Associates:

Causley Edwards, Jessica

c. McGhee, John D. Coulter, Dan C. Young,

Holli Fawcett Jones, Joanne Baldwin, Charlene J. Kim

Rose Law Firm a ProCessional Association

120 East Fourth Street Litrle Rock, Arkansas 72201·2893 Telephone (501) 375·9131 Fax (501) 375·lJ09


[Editor's Note: This article was written in December prior to action on specific proposals by our Association or other organizations.] The Amendment 3 victory on ovember 7, 2000 was a culmination of 30 years of work by anorneys and judges to reform the outmoded Judicial Article in the Arkansas Constitution. Now we are tackling me job of implementing the new judicial Article. It will requite legislation by the Arkansas General Assembly, rules by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, and education of all professionals who work in me judicial system. The Supreme Court of Arkansas has taken the lead in the coordination of judiciaJ Article implementation. Several weeks after the November election, the Coure appointed the "Amendment 3 Implemenration Committee" composed of Ronald D. Harrison, Jim L. Julian, Judge Robert J. Gladwin, Judge David B. Bogard, Judge John F. Stroud, Jr., Judge Andree L. Roar, justice Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice Robert L. Brown, and Chief Justice Dub Arnold, Chair. The members of the Commirree represent the primary organizations and committees which will be involved in developing proposed legislation and court rules: the Arkansas Bar Association, the Arkansas Judicial Council, the Arkansas Municipal Judges Council, and the CoUrt'S Civil Procedure Committee and CriminaJ Practitt Committee. The '"Amendment 3 Implementation Committee" is also working with the Executive and Legislative branches of state governmenr as wel1 as the coun clerks'

About the Author jim julian is a partner in the firm of Chisenhall, Nesrrud & Julian and is the Chair of the Association's Legislation Committee. julian was Chair of the Amendment 3 Committee.

12 Ue Arkll!ll LIMJer


organizations and other interested parties. Each organization represented on the Supreme Court Amendment 3 Implementation Committee has formed a committee to assess me issues relating to implementation of Amendmenr 3. Due to the January B, 200 I start of the 200 I Arkansas General Assembly, the initial focus will be on the Legislation needed for implementation. President Ron Harrison has appointed the "Judicial Article Implementation Task Force" for our Association, which is chaired by Professor John Watkins. By the time this article reaches your desk, the Committee will have cackled implementation issues which must be addressed by the 200 I Legislature. It is likely that our House of Delegates will have considered one or more legislative proposals at its January 27th meeting. Although it is anticipated that mOSt of the changes necessitated by the new judiciaJ Article will be the subject of rule making by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, the Legislature will need to establish the timing and procedure for the non-partisan election of circuit court judges and appeUate court judges. The Legislature must d.ecide whether or not to hold the judicial elections during the ovember general election. Since me new judicial Aniele requires a majority vote in judicial elections, the timing of run-off elections must be eslablished also. The amount and use of filing fees for judiciaJ candidates is anomer matter to be decided by the Arkansas Legislature. It is anticipated that legislation will address issues relating to the clerks' offices concerning the merger of courts of law and equity. As the review process continues, other areas of necessary legislation will be uncovered and addressed by the Committee:. The potential changes involved with the creation of new district courtS have been the subject of much concern and discussion, both before and after the November 7th election. MunicipaJ courts and other couns

of limited jurisdiction will remain unchanged umil January I, 2005. Judges aurendy holding office wiU remain in mat position uneil December 31, 2004. Since new district coura do nor come inca existence until January 2005. it is nor necessary char the Arkansas Legislarure address this subject during the 200 I Legislative Session. However. some issues relating [0 the District Court structure may come before the 200 I General Assembly. lmplememation of the merger of law and equicy continues co also be a subject of great discussion and concern. All trial court level judges will become Circuit Court judges beginning July I, 2001. The Supreme Court will promulgate new rules concerning the manner in which the judicial districts will administer the merger of courts of law and equiey including. for example. the creation of subject matter divisions in cercain judicial districts. For current information on the Judicial Article, as well as a redacted copy of me article itself, one may visit The website for the Arkansas Genetal Assembly is



Prof. John Watkins, Chair, SCOtt Stafford, Dent Gitchel, Henry Hodges, Charles Sch1umbetger, Don Henry, Judge Mary McGowan, Judge Mark Hewett, Judge David Saxon, Bill Clark, H.T. Moote, Jonann Coniglio, Lavenski Smith, Robin Carroll, Jim Julian, Judge Robin L. Mays, Judge Don Glover, Alice Holcomb, David Beatty, Wendy Johnson, Earnest Brown, Donald Warren, Tina Green, Olan "Butch" Reeves, Judge Michael H. Mashburn, Scott Morgan, Tim Humphries, Judge Grisham Phillips, Robert Hornberger, Donna Gay, and ExOfficio members Judge Andree Roa[, Ron Harrison, Murray Claycomb, Louis B. "Bucky" Jones.

Spefill Stfli'l REvISED ARTICLE




By Phillip CatroU [EditOt'S Note: Revised Article 9 is a part of the 2001 legislative package of the Arkansas Bat Association.]

essential if state, rather than federal preemptive law. is to continue to govern commercial transactions.

WHAT IS REVISED ARTICLE 91 Revised Article 9 is the product of six years of study and drafting by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute. It has already been adopted in 28 stares with an effective dare of July I, 200 I. Lawyers know [hat Ar[icle 9 deals with consensual

WHAT ARE THE MACRO BENEFITS OF REVISED ARTICLE 91 It will greatly facili[a[e personal property secured financing by (a) expanding the scope of Anicle 9 to cover many new types of personal property secured transactions. and (b) simplifYing and clarifYing the rules governing the creation, perfection. priority. and enforcemenr of security interests in personal property. I[ will lower the costs and incrc:asc: the availability of secured credit. It will offer significant benefits to consumers in credit transactions.

security interests in personal peopeny and flXÂŁUres. The original version became law in Arkansas in 196 J. Revised Ar[icle 9 retains the basic structure of the current version. bur i[ expands the Ar[icle's scope (for example. it brings within its scope sales of payment intangibles and promissory noces).

modifies some definitions. creates new definitions, modernizes the filing system for financing statements, provides additional methods of perfection and some additional

priority ruJes, and formulates clearer rules for the enforcemem of security interests. In addition, Revised Article 9 provides specific transition rules. A bill containing these: major revisions consisting of 137 rypewri[[en pages will be introduced in the 83rd General Assembly [hat will convene in January 200 I. The Official Comment, consisting of approxima[e1y 350 typewrirren pages which assist in intetpreting and understanding the black letter text of the Act, will be primed in one of the Commentaries volumes of the Arkansas Code. Efforts are being made to present the 1998 revisions to the legislatures of all of the 50 states and the territories so that the revised law will go effect throughout the United States on the same dare. Article 9 is me principal sramroty law governing commercial transactions in the United States. It presents a comprehensive scheme for the regulation of security interests in personal property - it has been described as the engine that drives commercial financing in the United States. Commercial transactions involving billions of dollars governed by Ar[icle 9 rake place each day. Passage of this Uniform Act is


WHAT ARE SOME OTHER MAJOR BENEFITS OF REVISED ARTICLE 91 It will make much easier the perfection of security interests in personal property by permi[ong addioonal classes of personal property to serve as collateral. It will significandy reduce [he difficulty, uncerrainty, and expense of perfecting a security interest in personal property when the property is located in multiple jurisdictions. In most transactions, only one financing statement must be filed in a single location. Dual filing as it exists in Arkansas today will be eliminated. Electronic filing and searching with respect" to financing statements will be made possible. The Arkansas Secretary of Smte, in anticipation that her office will become the sole depository for thousands of additional financing statements and related documents, has already acquired the hardware and software [0 fulfill her obligations under the Revised Act. ARE THERE OTHER MAJOR BENEFITS OF REVISED ARTICLE 91 Yes. The rights and duties of a secured creditor when the debtor is in default are clarified. The Article contains an expanded definition of "good faith" to include honesty, in fact, and "the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing." I[ provides for pre-sale and posrsale nodce rules applicable to foreclosure

sales. Thirty-nine years of experience with the original Article 9 and an c:xhaustivc study of numerous federal and state court decisions involving the existing law have made it possible for scholars to craft a revision that will eliminate many ambiguities and make the law more uniform throughout the nation. From 1993 to 1998 [he Draf[ing Committc:c:, made up of commercial law expens from across the nation, met on fifteen occasions. These meetings were open co all observers and were attended by numerous advisors and other imerested parties. It was reviewed at various Stages by the ALI (American Law Insom[e) Council and membership and by [he CCUSL (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws) at its annual meetings. Consumer advocates were included. fu a resu 1t, Revised Article 9 contains important new provisions for the protection of consumers. For example, a secured party must, following the disposition of coUatera I, provide a consumer debtor with an explanation of the calculation of any deficiency claim before making demand upon the: consumer for payment of the deficiency. In a consumer transaction, a secured party may not retain collateral that is in the possession of the debtor and may nor retain collateral in only partial satisfaction of the secured debt. A consumer debtor may nor waive his right of redemption, even after default. These are only a few of the new protections for consumers. See UCC Continued on Page 56

About the Author Phil Carroll is a partner in the Rose Law Firm and a Past President of the Arkansas Bar Associa[ion, 1980-81. Mr. Carroll has served in numerous capacities in the devdopment of uniform laws, including NCCUSL President, 1985-87, and Chair of this Association's Uniform Law Commi[(ee.

1'~.lS lit.

I/l\iltr.r 1111

TIt IrkllW LI~W


The Law Firm

of EICHENBAUM, LILES & HEISTER, EA. is pleased to announce that

Charles D. McDaniel and Richard L. Ramsay have joined the firm as shareholders

Leonard L. Scott

Peter B. Heister

Gary F. Liles

James H. Penick, III

Christopher O. Parker

Joe A. Polk

Martha Jett McAlister

124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3736 Telephone: (501) 376-4531 Facsimile: (501) 376-8433







o describe the work of the Commirtees of the Pulaski County Bar Association and the Arkansas Bar Association for the establishment of a Lawyers Assistance Program. I recently borrowed the words of Margarer Mead. .. ever doubt that a small group of thoughtful and com mined citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." It is my honor and privilege to announce that the Arkansas Lawyer Assisrance Program (ALA.P) is a reality. The framework for the program was established at the request of these twO associations by per curiam of the Arkansas Supreme Coun issued December 7. 2000. We are reproducing portions of the Order and Plan in this volyme to provide expanded notice of its passage. Please review the emire Order and Plan, however. You will sec the program will nO( only help to ptOrcct the public, it provides an opportunity CO show kindness and mercy to our bromers and siners of me bench and bar. (To access the opinion, go to and click on ew & oteworthy.) On behalf of a grateful Association, I extend our heanfeh thanks to the Arkansas Supreme Coun, the members of each Committee, and the many lawyers who have quiedy, bur faithfully, offered a helping hand to lawyers and judges in need, and all of whom have laboted long and hard for the establishment of this ptogram. The Arkansas Bar Association Comminee members include James E. Smith, Jr., Chait, Anthony W. Black, President of the Pulaski County Bar Association, Jack Browne, Lynn Foster, Honorable Wendell L. Griffen, Ron A. Hope, Kendall B. Jones, William A. Martin, Sandra B. Moll, Randall W. Morley, Cynthia E. Nance, William B.

II He ,Irkmll L.l~!tr


D. Harrison

Purman, IV, Honorable David A. Stewart, Griffin J. Stockley, and Past Presidents of the Pulaski County Bar Association, Richard Downing and Wayne Gruber. We also received information, research and encouragement from lawyers throughout the United States who serve as volunteers and executives in other lawyer assistance programs. We panicularly extend our thanks to Edwin L. Blewer, Jr., Chairman of the American Bar Association Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs, William R. Leary, the Executive DirectOr of the Louisiana Lawyer Assistance Program, Donna Spilis, staff member of the American Bar Association, and my friend Kathryn Reed Edge, President of the Tennessee Bar Association. We also owe our thanks to Past Ptesidents Robet< M. Cearley and Louis B. "Bucky" Jones for their establishment of the Arkansas Bar Association Lawyer Assistance Committee, which I was privileged to Chair in 1999-2000. Finally, please allow me to express a special note of appreciation to Philip K. Lyon, a great Arkansas lawyer who years ago kindled the Aame which ultimately helped forge this plan. Philip, though we may not have always "r.ended the fire," we never let it die. We continue to stand ready to support and assist r.he Arkansas Lawyer Assistance Program of the Arkansas Supreme Coun and "welcome home again discarded faith" of mose who may have wondered whether this program would become a reality. We will need the help of many volunteers in service to the ALAP for the program to be successful. Please let us know if you are willing to serve as a volunteer.






established a state-wide lawyer assistance program to be known as Arkansas Lawyer Assistance Program (or "MAP") which shall provide immediate and continuing help to lawyers and judges (hereinafter "members of the legal profession ") who suffer from physical or mental disabilities that result from disease, substance abuse, disorder, trauma, or age and that impair their ability ro practice or serve. B. Purpose. MAP has three purposes: (I) to protecr the inceresrs of clients, litigants, and the genem! public from harm caused by impaired lawyetS or judges; (2) to assist impaired members of the legal profession to begin and continue recovery; and (3) ro educate the bench and bar ro the causes of and remedies for impairments affecting members of the legal profession. C. Funding and Administtatioo. (1) The Supreme Court of Arkansas shall collect annually and remit to AlAP a fifteen dollar ($15.00) annual fee from every anomer for the purpose of funding this program. (2) Funding for ALAP may also include gifts or bequests from any source and earnings on investments of the AlAP fund. RULE 2, ALAr COMMITTEE A. Members. The Arkansas Supreme Coun shall appoint committee members [Q administer the ALAr. Officers of the committee shall consist of a chair, vice chair, and secretary/treasurer. The chair shall be appointed by the Supreme Court. Each of the other officers shall be elected by the members of the committee annually. B. Composition. The committee shall consist of nine (9) members, chosen on the basis of geography and diversity and shall include three (3) citizens who are not members of the legal profession. The members shall have diverse experience, knowledge and shall have demonstrared competence in the problems of addiction and other common difficulties that impair members of the legal profession.... C. Duties of the Committee. The committee shall have the following powers and duties: (I) To esrablish ALAP policy and procedures consistent with the purposes of this

RULES OF THE ARKANSAS LAWYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (ALAP) program. Such policies and procedures shall


be esrahlished after reasonable notice to the

ALAP shall provide the following services: (A) immediate and continuing assistance to members of the legal profession who suffer from physical or mental disabilities that result from disease, substance abuse disorder. trauma, or age and that impair their ability co practice; (B) planning and presentation of educational programs to increase the awareness and understanding of members of the legal profession to recognize problems in themselves and in their colleagues; to identify the problems correctly; to reduce stigma; and, to convey an understanding of appropriate ways of interacting with affected individuals; (C) investigation. planning. and participation in interventions with members of the legal profession in need of assistance; (D) aftercare services upon request, by order. or under contract that may include the following: assistance in structuring aftercare and discharge planning; assistance for entry into appropriate aftercare and professional peer support meetings; and assistance in obtaining a primary care physical or local peer counselor; and (E) monitoring services under RuJe 7 or under comract that may include the following: alcohol andlor drug screening programs; tracking aftercare. peer support and rwelve-step meeting attendance; providing documemation of compliance; and providing such reports concerning compliance by those participating in a moniroring program as may be required by the terms of that program.

Arkansas bench and bar and opporruniry for comment....

RULE 3. DIRECTOR Of THE PROGRAM A. Appointment/Hire. The committee shall hire the ALAI' director with the consent of the Supreme Court. and the director shall serve at the pleasure of the Coure. The committee shall oversee and supervise the work of the director. B. Qualifications. The director shall have sufficient experience and training to enable the director to identify and assist impaired members of the legal profession and to work wdl with the volunteers. C. Duties and Responsibility. The director shall: (I) Provide initial response ro help-line calls. (2) Help lawyers. judges, law firms, courts, and others to identify and intervene with impaired members of the legal profession. (3) Help members of the legal profession and their families to secure expert counseling and treatment for chemical dependency and Q[her illnesses. maintaining current information on available treatment services, both those that arc available without charge as well as paid services. (4) Establish and maintain regular contact with other bar associations. agencies. and committees that serve either as sources of referral or resources in providing help. (5) Establish and oversee monitOring services with respect to recovery of members of the legal profession for whom monitoring is appropriate under Rules 5 (E) or 7....



The program shall enlist volunteers working in conjunction with the Arkansas Bar Association. whose responsibility may include: (A) assisting in interventions planned by


A. Self-referral. Any member of me legal profession may seek assistance from ALAP. B. Other Referrals. ALAP shall receive referrals concerning any member of the legal profession from family members. colleagues, friends. law firms. or any other source.

(B) acting as twelve-step program sponsors; (C) acting as a contact between ALAr and couns. bar organizations. and local committees; (D) providing compliance monitoring when appropriate; or (E) performing any other function deemed appropriate and necessary by the committee ro fulfill its purposes.


lawyers or judges under investigational. provisional. or probational scams with [he Arkansas Professional Conduct Committee. Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. or any disciplinary agency with disciplinary authority. B. Progress Reports. When MAP accepts a referral under Rule 7 (A), ALAP shall provide progress reports or rcpons of noncompliance. Notwithstanding Rule 10, (hese reports may be used as evidence in any proceeding or appeal relating to such referral from [he Arkansas Professional Conduct Committee. the Arkansas Judicial Discipline: and Disabiliry Commission, or a disciplinary agency with disciplinary authority.


LOCAL BAR PROGRAMS ALAP shall coordinate its activities with local impaired lawyer programs.



From the funds received under Rule 1 (C) (2), ALAr may establish a revolving loan fund. Such fund shall be made available to impaired lawyers and judges under rules and regulations established by the commi((cc. as a low interest loan for the purpose of defraying the cost of treatment.

RULE IQ. CO FIDENIIALITY Information and actions taken by ALAP shall be held in the strictest confidence and shall not be disclosed or required to be djsclosed [Q any person or entity outside of ALAP, unless such disclosure is amhorized by the member of me legal profession to whom it relates or as provided in Rule 7 (8) hereof, Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.3 (d) and (e). or Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3D (4) and (5). Excepr as provided in Rule 7 (B), Model Rule 8.3 (d) and (e) or Canon 3D (4) and (5), such informarion and actions shall be excluded as evidence in any complaint. investigation, or proceeding before me Arkansas Professional Conduct Committee. Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. or disciplinary agency with jurisdiction. Committee members. employees, and agents including volunteers recruited under Rule 4 are relieved of the duty of disclosure of information to authorities as imposed by

I'll, 1I111. I/I\illlr 1011

n, Arturo U"Jlr


RULES OF THE ARKANSAS LAWYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (ALAP) Rule 8.3 of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conducr and Canon 3D of the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conducr excepr as provided for in Model Rule 8.3 (d) and (e) and Canon 30(4) and (5).


A phys;rian managed rompallY


ne ,lrkllSIl Ll~ler


RULE 11. FACIL11Y The ALAP office shall be so locared as to be consisrenr with the privacy and confidentiality requirements of this rule.

Arkansas Supreme Court and shall cease to exist on December 31, 2006 unless the Arkansas Supreme Court provides otherwise.

RULE 12. PROGRAM REVIEW ALAP shall be reviewed annually by rhe

MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 8.3. Reporting professional misconduct (a) A lawyer having knowledge rhar anorher lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substanrial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority. (b) A lawyer having knowledge thar a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substanrial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority. (c) This rule does nOt require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. (d) This rule shall nor apply to a member of the Lawyer Assistance Committee (" the Committee") of the Arkansas Lawyer Assistance Program (" ALAP") or a volunteer serving pursuant to Rule 4 of the RuJes of MAP regarding information received in one's capacity as a Committee member or volunteer, acting in good faith. unless it appears to said member or volunteer that the attorney in question, after entry into the MAP, is failing to desist from said violation, or is failing to cooperate with a program of assistance to which said attorney has agreed. or is engaged in the sale of a controlled substance or theft of property constituting a felony under Arkansas law, or the equivalenr rhereofif rhe offense is nor within rhe Srare's jurisdiction. (e) Excepr as provided by the preceding subsecrion (d), and Rules 7 (B) and 10 of the RuJes of ALAP, no information received, gathered, or mainrained by the Committee, its members or volunteers, or by an employee of the ALAP in connection with the work of the Committee may be disclosed to any person nor be subject to discovery or subpoena in any administrative or judicial proceeding, except upon the express written release of the subject attorney. However, the Committee may refer any attorney to a professional assistance entity, and may, in good faith, communicate




tilll ~ III'S SI't'I inn



information co emiry In connection with the referral. If information obtained by a member of the Committee, a volunteer, or an employee of the AlAP gives rise to reasonable suspicion of a direct threat to the health or safety of the subject attorney or

NEEDED By R. Scott Zuerker, Chair, Young Lawyers Secrion

other person, then the obligation of confidentiality set forth in this subsection (e) shall not apply, and the Comminee member, volunteer, or ALAP employee may make such communications as are necessary for the purpose of avoiding or preventing

said thecaL

ARKANSAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUer CANON 3. D. Disciplinary Responsibilities. (4) Sections 3D(I) and 3D (2) shall nOt apply to a member of the Lawyer Assistance Committee ("the Committee") of the Arkansas Lawyer Assistance Program ("ALAP") or a volunteer serving pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules of ALAP regarding information received in one's capacity as a Commince member or volunteer, acting in good fa.ith, unless it a.ppears to said member or volunreer that the lawyer or judge in question, after entry into me ALAP, is failing to des is[ from said violation, or is failing to cooperate wim a program of assistance to which said lawyer or judge has agreed. or is engaged in me sale of a controlled substance or theft of property constituting a felony under Arkansas law, or me equivalent thereof if me offense is not wimin the State's jurisdiction. (5) Except as provided by the preceding subsection 3D (4), and Rules 7 (B) and 10 of the Rules of ALAP, no information received, gathered, or maintained by the Committee. its members or volunteers. or by an employee of the AlAP in connection with the work of the Committee may be disclosed to any person nor be subject to discovery or subpoena in any administrative or judicial proceeding, except upon the express written release of the subject lawyer or judge. However, the Committee may refer any lawyer or judge to a professional assistance entity, and may. in good faith, communicate information to the emiry in connection with the referral. If information obtained by a member of the Committee, a SeeALAP Continued on Page 56

t seems that each time I write for the Young Lawyers Section or the Bar Association, I ask people to become involved in both the YLS and the Association. In the past, my "call to arms" has been of a general nature; if you want to become involved, we will find you a place. This time, things are different. We have three vacancies on the Yl...5 Executive Council that need to be filled. There are two positions in the Northwest District and one position in the Central District. I encourage, no, I urge anyone interested in taking an active role in their community, association and profession to contact either me or Diane Gerrald at the Bar Association and let us know that you are interested. We hope to fill all three vacancies at the Mid-Year Meeting in Memphis. In addition to the vacancies on the YLS Executive Council. we are trying to set up young lawyer liaisons in each county of the state. The reasoning behind the liaisons is to allow the YLS to better serve its mem bers and to provide a greater opportunity for involvement among the members. Several of you will be contacted in the near future concerning whether you are willing to serve as a county liaison. These are nOt time consuming positions. We simply want someone to let the Executive Council know what the mem bers want on a local level and someone to help coordinate projects on a local level so that all of our worthwhile activities are not limited to the more populated areas of the state. For example. there is a wonderful interview with Chad Trammell in the YLS Newsletter, "In Brief." Chad was the Chair of a Committee that put on an Elder Fraud Seminar in Little Rock. His program was well planned, well executed and well received. The only problem is that it was limited, primarily, to elderly people in Little Rock. Wouldn't it be gteat if your grandmother. grandfather or other


elderly relative in Texarkana or Mountain Home could have the same information made available to them? The answer is surely. yes, and they can if you will agree to volunteer a small amount of your time. How can we make this happen? Chad had the foresight to video tape his program and through some of his contacts and the generosity of the Attorney General's Office. we will have a number of video tapes available to people and organizations that will put them to use. County liaisons are much more Jikely to have knowledge of the people and businesses, or even local bar associations, that could use these tapes. Your involvement as a liaison can be as simple as telling your local bar association that the tapes are available or as involved as using the tapes and Chad's experiences, and the help of the YLS to put on a full blown presentation at a nursing home. The YLS Executive Council IS committed to ensuring that more of our projects are done in such a manner that they can easily be disseminated to a wider audience across the state. Another example would be the Lawyers for Literacy Program started by Mark Hodge in Little Rock. Mark has wotked very hard with teachers and schools to pai r children and lawyers in an attempt to make lireracy a reality for the youth of our state. It seems a shame that these programs are limited to certain areas of the state. These projects do nOt have to be limited to public service either. Are there young lawyers in yoar community that could benefit from retirement planning information. substance abuse information. or practical skills (office management, etc.) If the answer to this information? question is yes, I challenge you to become a county liaison and help the YLS bring this information to your community. As a group. we have the resources and See YLS Continued on Page 56

fol.16 No. I/lfilter 2001

The Arkllslll,IWltr



nline businesses are confronted by a wide variety of liability issues covering almost the full range of the standard law school curriculum. The liability problems which face a small business in Vidalia, Georgia which is selling Vidalia onions and related onion products such as relish and salad dressing at speciality stores, through newspaper and magazine advertising and by mail do not go away when it starts marketing through a Web site. In fact, there might be morc exposure doing business online, and there are variations depending upon the nature of the business in question. For example. as discussed below, an Internet Service Provider (ISP) like America Online has some worries which are not shared by the online Vidalia Onion business. Regardless of the nature of the business, many companies, in their enthusiasm to go online, run the risk of creating legal liabilities and losing valuable assets. Accordingly, the decision to take a business online should nor be raken lighdy. This


About the Author This article was first published in the February 2000 edition of the Georgia Bar journal and revised and updated for presentation to the Southern Conference of Bar Presidents on Ocrober 20, 2000 at Savannah, Georgia. It is reprinted with permission of the author and the Georgia Bar JournaL The author is Dean of the University of Georgia School of Law. He graduated with a SA in History from Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio and received his jD from the University of Chicago Law School.

20 The .Irkansa! Lawyer

article addresses only a few of the high points of this ever changing and expanding subject. Jurisdiction: Where can an online business be sued? How widely exposed is a local business like the Vidalia onion products distributor by putting up a Web site. Courts throughout the United States are deciding cases regarding jurisdiction over online defendants. State lines and national boundaries are meaning less and less, plus a Web site seller often has little ability to restrict access and screen out poteorial customers because of where they live. Some courts have concluded that merely posting a Web site that can be accessed in a state is nor enough for personal jurisdiction, unless the company is using its site to solicit business in the forum state. I For instance, in one case a South Carolina defendant's Web page, accessible by residents of all states, was not a sufficient Contact to subject that defendant to personal jurisdiction in Oregon even though an Oregon resident could place orders with the defendant through the site. 2 Similarly, the sale by a Texas resident of allegedly infringing items on the e-Bay auction site to a Michigan resident did nor create personal jurisdiction in Michigan over the Texan.3 Jurisdiction may depend upon showing that the Web site operatOr seeks contacts within the jurisdicrion beyond just posting a site. 4 On the other hand, some courts may be willing to find personal jurisdiction notwithstanding the passive nature of the defendant's Web site. 5 Thus, if a company transmits information over the Internet while knowing that the information will be disseminated in a particular state, it may be subject to

personaJ jurisdiction in that State for violations of its laws. 6 On the other hand, a recent decision held that personal jurisdiction could not be based solely on domain name registratjon in a state, bur that an in rem domain name suit under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act could proceed.? Foreign countries might try to reach an online business with even fewer contacts to the forum. For example, German law arguably subjects any Web site accessible from Germany to its jurisdiction, and authorities there recenrJy arrested a Compuserve executive when the company failed to take steps ro StOp the transmission of child pornography accessible 111 Germany.8 Similarly, European consumer laws may apply when companies make sales to European consumers over the net. A recent European Community directive mandates that choice oflaw in disputes over consumer contracts is always the law of the domicile of the consumer. 9 It seems that the hypothetical Vidalia ol1lon products company with its Web site marketing plan may be subject to jurisdiction far outside of the Georgia counties where true Vidalia olllons are grown. Invasions of Privac,y: Concerns about Invasions of privacy through new technology predate the Internet; however, its rapid expansion has increased threats against privacy. The Internet has reduced the cost of information, has made access easier than before, and has created new ways of gathering personaJ data. At the same time, information has become more vaJuable. Liability may arise by failing to implement appropriate security measures and policies for maintaining a secure

system. Confidential information held by an online business without a secure system could be readily accessible co a hacker. This should be a concern to doctors and lawyers that operate online. Confidentiality of patient and client information must be protected. Conversely, liability may also arise from improperly invading the privacy of other persons. Accordingly, a Web site which collects user data must have a policy on how it milizes and maintains user information online. 10 The FTC has issued online pnvacy recommendations, the European Union has a Directive on the Protection of Personal Data,ll and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act regulates the collection, use, and distribution of information from individuals 13 years or younger. AJthough this latter statute is controversial and has been challenged,12 chere are many ocher federal sta[Utes which protect the privacy of information. 13 Having an internal policy on e-mail and computer use by employees is imponanr. For example, the University of Georgia's policy on the use of its compurers includes the following statement: Aside from the fact that an employee's computer should be used only for University purposes, employees should understand that what they put on a computer or transmit through electronic communication is not inherently private. There are many instances where administrators will need access to an employee's computer to fix technical problems or to invcstigate cracking/hacking activities. Additionally, when an employee transmits information electronically, there are many ways the communication can be intercepted by persons outside the control of the University. Finally, electronic information generated by a University employee may be subject to the Georgia Open Records Act. fu a result, informacion contained on an employee's computer may be subject to public disclosure. Any employee who reads this statement should undemand chat chey cannor expect privacy protection for their e-mail communications and, in the event a communication is disclosed or made public, that their claim for invasion of privacy could be weak. On the other hand, a provider's disregard of its own privacy policy

can give rise to claims for breach of contract as weU as privacy infringement as i1Justrated by a file against Yahoo! by a private Internet user alleging violations of his consti[Utional and contractual rights to privacy by the disclosure of his identity to his former employer without notifying him in advance. 14 Online businesses muSt be prepared for privacy claims. Protecting credit-card numbers and other financial information of consumers is vital. Doctors, lawyers and other professionals with online operations must protect the personal information of their clients. As the amount of highly confidential information held online increases, there will be a corresponding increase in the number of complaints about invasions of privacy and violations of Statutes designed to protect privacy. IS Tax LiabiliQ>; The Incernet Tax Freedom Act, passed in 1998, imposes a chree-year ban on discriminatory taxes associated with Internet access and services, bur it did not eliminate state taxes that were already in place. 16 Many states have taxes on Internet access, telecommunications services and other types of computer processing. At a minimum, an online business must be concerned about potential sales, use, and income taxes in those states where it is doing business, procuring and supplying goods, and making sales. 17 Professor Walter Hellerstein's summary of the law of sales taxes in a cyber economy is as follows: First, states possess the power to enact sales and use taxes on electronic commerce subject to the limited restraints now temporarily imposed by the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Second, states generally have exercised that power under their sales and use taxes only with respect to tangible (as distinguished from digital) products.

Third, states lack the constitutional power to require a non-physical1ypresent seller who sells tangible or digital products over the Internet to collect any use tax that a state may seek to impose with respect to such products, even though the consumer has a legal obligation to pay such use tax. Finally, Congress possesses broad constitutional authority to expand, restrain, or otherwise prescribe the rules governing state taxation of electronic commerce. IS In short, tax liability issues are not settled. Online businesses should nor expect to receive clear answers to all of their questions about these potential tax issues. Contractual Liability Issues: Pu.rchasers of personal computers and software are now familiar with the warning that flashes on the screen when the machine is turned on for the first time or when new software is loaded; "By turning on this XYZ computer and loading che XYZ software package, the purchaser/operator hereby agrees to the terms of the foUowing license." The terms and conditions of most of these licenses, often called dick-on licenses, are likely enforceable in view of the decision in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeid~nb~rg.19 An online business may need to adhere to another company's license, and it may need to enforce its own click on, click off license. The holding of ProeD also raises a numbet of issues such as what type of notice, if any, is sufficient to inform a buyer that certain contract terms will apply. A pay-now-termslater license was held enforceable in Morunson v. Timb~r/ine Software. 20 This type of license appears to be enforceable even if notice of the terms seems minimal and, according to several courts, the Gateway 2000 "Accept or Return" policy does nOt constitute a contract of adhesion. 21

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘ E.


Thousands of Hours of Interpreting Experience Trained in Court, Insurance & Medica1lnterpretation Contract Linguist with the EB.I. State & Federally Certified ARKANSAS SPANISH INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS, INC.

Statewide Interpreters IN





I'Dl.l& ~I. l/lliDI/r 2001

The irkmaJ Law)/r


Moreover, recent decisions portend regular enforcement of bundled or linked terms, at least insofar as is necessary to reasonably protect intellectual properry rights. However, it is tOo early to tell how these results will be balanced against the willingness of some courts to find such agreements unenforceable when necessary to protect the rights of injured consumers. 22 The doctrine of copyright misuse is gaining acceptance, and courts might apply it more often in licensing litigation. This doctrine is defined as the use of a copyright to secure an exclusive license or limited monopoly beyond that granted by copytight law and which is contrary to public policy.23 For instance, the Fourth Circuit held that a company had misused its copyright by including in its standard license a noncompetition clause which prohibited licensees from creating competing software programs during the ninety-nine year term of the license. The court scated this agreement "essentially attempts to suppress any attempt by the licensee to independently implement the idea which [the copyrighted program] expresses."" The length of the reStrailH also was a problem for the court. 25 However. it is important to note that the concept of copyright misuse is not settled. Recent decisions from the Fifth

and Ninth Circuits took different approaches to this defense. with the former requiring a factual inquiry as to the nature of the alleged misuse and the lattet adopting a p~r It rule against copyright abuse. Drafters of software licensing agreements must weigh carefully the impact of this potential defense. Poor drafting may deprive copyright owners the ability to enforce their copyrights and license agreements. 26 Criminal liability: The Internet can be misused in a variety of ways that may result in criminal liability for the user. For instance, in the spring of 1999 the FBI arrested a Raleigh. North Carolina man on federal charges of fabricating news of a corporate takeover and posting a false report on an Internet site said to belong to the Bloomberg ews Service. This is believed to be the first stock manipulation scheme done with a fraudulent site. Due ro the hoax, the publicly traded stock of the company in question, PairGain, went up over 30% and trading volume increased dramatically.2? In another federal case, a Utah citizen was indicted for making a threatening communication in violation of a federal statute when he knowingly transmitted in interstate commerce a communication stating that he intended to injure another person with a bomb. The fact that the

The very latest...

DigeSJalm Handheld. mohile 3CGeSS 10 your leglslaUVe mlormaUon - Anywhere. AnVllme!

You bet. our ......." is a great information resource for legislative and government affairs professionals. And now yOll can have access to your .......,. bill tracking files, committee schedules, bill status, bill text, and more from (he halJs of rhe Capitol, from your car, from Doe's, from wherever you are - all rhrough a device (hat firs in the palm of your hand! You can even e-mail your legislaror from the gallery! (ar J芦O ar fiom a/moIl anywhnr

Arkansas Legislative Digest, Inc. 140 I West Sixth Street Uttle Rock, Aric:ansas 7220 I (501) 376路2843 FAX (501) 374-9256

22 Ue tlrkllm LIW)U


,IJ, in tIN country)

Using our custom designed IIIIIRt,.service and a Palm Vll personnel digital device. Digest subscribers are only a wireless internet connectjon away from our up-to-theminute session information. fir



Dr ....'_ _11._... . _

..... Dr -.I. ell 1511131&-2143.

threatening message was sent to someone in Utah did not block the prosecution because the message first went to America OnLine's facility in Virginia before reaching the Utah recipient. The federal magistrate held that the defendant had used interstate commerce and this was upheld by the district court. 28 In another case, a former network administratOr was indicted for launching a LAN-based logic bomb which was timed ro explode three weeks after he had been fired. This act of sabotage destroyed his former company's software and caused over $10 million in damage. He was charged with violating federal statutes outlawing fraud and other activities with computers. 29 Internet content providers need to be aware that their material can be examined for obscenity not only under the community standards of the place they are located, but also in any community in which the material is available. A pornographic site based in Atlanta could be charged under federal obscenity laws in Arkansas and judged under the community standards in Li nle Rock. 30 The FBI, the Department of Justice and the National White Collar Crime Center established the Internet Fraud Complaint Center last spring. It has received over 1000 complaints of fraud per week since it opened. and it is estimated that the cemer will receive 1000 complaints per day once it is full automated. This shows that the volume of cybercrime is growing rapidly and may soon rival the number of immigration and drug cases now Rooding some federal courts. In five years, mOSt federaJ crimes may involve computers!3 1 Accordingly, computer crime is a growing concern for network operators and online businesses. They must devote more and more resources to avoid system crackers. unauthorized access to their information, damage to data, the spread of viruses, and other kinds of hacking,32 LiabilitY for Unauthorized Practice: Lawyers, doctors and other professionals are using the Internet, and Web sites devoted to medical. legal and financial issues are common. These sites help with marketing and attracting new clients and CUStOmers. However, regulation of professional advertising varies from state to state. Some jurisdictions have begun to monitor lawyers' Web sites. and the medical press is warning doctors about liability issues which may anse from their sites. Moreover, cyberlawyers and cyberdocrors must be

concerned about engaging in unauthorized practice in those jurisdictions where their

sices can be accessed. In January, 1998 che California Supreme Court opined that a lawyer may be engaging in the "unauthorired practice of law" in violation of state statutes, by advising a California client on California law through "telephone, fax, computer, or other modern technologicaJ means. "33

LiabilitY for Fraud and Unfair Trade Practices; Statures and common law proscribing fraud arc being extended [0 deal with online activities. The ITC has sued co halt a pyramid scheme operated on a

ELECTRICAL ACCIDENTS Paul D. Mixon, Ph.D., P.E. Engineering Consultant P.O. Box 3338 State University, AR 7467 (870) 972-2088 (870) 972-3948 FAX

company's Web site,'" and che SEC has pursued a number of fraudulent online marketing schemes.35 More and more companies are selling securities on the Web, and the Internet contains a great deal of information about publicly traded companies. Hence, misleading or deceptive information on a site may result in violations of unfair trade practice and consumer protection starutes. 36 The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,3? with civil and criminal provisions, is a powerful weapon against hackers. For instance, in





Electrical Accident Investigation and Analysis, Contact Cases and Electrocutions, Electrical Injuries, Property and Equipment Damage, Electrical Fires, Safety Codes (NEC, NESC, UL), Expert Witnessing for Plaintiff and Defense Related Cases.



a time bomb inserted into a software update to ensure payment was seen as a possible violation of the act's civil provisions. 38 It is reasonable to conclude that a marketing scheme, trade practice, sales program, or method of doing business which is regarded as fraudulent or unfair in the "omine" world, also will be treated as fraudulent or unfair when it is perpeuated online.

LiabilitY for Defamation and Libel: Managing libelous speech on the Internet is another area of concern. Online businesses

can be liable for slander, deF.unation and libel chrough a wide variety of online activities.



Wade How attorneys find other attorneys.


Financial and Wade Cook Seminars filed suit in federal court for defamation against

several "John Doc" defendants -- unnamed users of Yahoo! Inc. -- alleging chat chey published F.J.Ise and defamatoty stacements about the company on the Yahoo! Business

& Finance Message Board.39 DeF.unation

For more information, contact Barbara Tarkington at 501路375路4606 or 800-609-5668

can occur in a posting on a bulletin board or on a file server, databases can contain defamatory material, and there can be defamatory statements in e-mail. A scanned photo can be defamatory. Here also, an entity responsible for posting a defamatory

101. n No. 1/lI'illlf 1011

ne MkullJ 1,IWJlf 1J

message online can be juSt as liable for its actions as if it had made the defamatory statement in the off-line world. 4o For Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") like American OnLine and CompuServe, a much debated issue is whether they should be liable for the defamatory speech of their members. Permitting widespread distribution of libel on the Internet can damage the community of users, bur mandating liability for ISPs or those in a position ro be moderators of postings can be juSt as damaging and possibly result in regulation of speech and its content. Section

230 of the Communications Decency Act of

1996 granted ISPs broad immuniry from liability if they merely carry content generated by others. 41 In Doe v. America Online, Inc. a tort action for distribution of child pornography was dismissed in reliance on section 230. 42 Similarly. in Zeran v. America Online. Inc. 43 the court upheld an ISP's immunity and explained that Congress's rationale for this protection was "to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication" and to keep ISPs from "severely restrict[ing] the number of and type of messages posted" out of fear of being

liable. 44 The court in Blumenthal v. Drudge rook an extra step and held that even an ISP which pays a member for certain poStings is immune from liability for the poster's libel absent a showing of ISP conrrol. 45 Similarly. in Ben Ezra, Weinstein & Co. v. America Online, Inc. the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a defamation suit against the ISP in which the plaintiff complained of statements made about srock prices of its company in AOL's QUOtes and Portfolios section. The court concluded that AOL was immune under the Communications Decency ACt,46 The debate over whether an ISP should

.---------:-M"C:O=R::-C=-A-N-=T=-HA=-=-U=-,-O::-c:'T=-O=-=O"C:L"C:E=-&--=C=-O=-,I=N-::-::C::-,---' be immune from liabiliry for the libelous


postings of its members will likely continue

Valuation Specialties • ESOPs I dP hi • Fami Y Limite artners 'ps • Limited Liability Comparues • Merger & AcqUIsitions • Buy 7Sell Agreements


\. {:





• Divorces

12 Gaza Lane


Certified Business Appraiser Business Consultant

Hot Springs Village, AR 71909 Phone: 501-922-5405 Fax: 501-922-5405



11518 Fairview Little Rock, AR 72212 501-225-5371 Email:

as use of the Internet grows. Blanket immunity might go roo far, but it is difficult

to predict the chilling impact of holding ISPs liable for members' postings" Liability for Sexual Harassment and Other Employment Issues: The use of Web sites and e-mail can expose companies to claims of sexual harassment. creating a hostile work environment and employment discrimination. A company wide policy defining appropriate uses may be necessary. Moreover, it is important to remember that employee use of e-mail can be evidence obtained through discovery in litigation, yet employer monitoring of company/employee e-mail and Web page use can expose the employer to liability for violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. 48 Liability for Termination of Users: The issue of potential liability for terminating members has not been heavily litigated. bur ISPs are being advised to establish lise policies with members in order co make their authority ro terminate clear. So long as providers are regarded as private actors rather than public forums or utilities, such membership contracts and policies should

~===============================~be upheld.


State and Federal Appeals Former Arkansas Supreme Court Law Clerk Writing Sample and References Available CAROLINE L. WINNlNGHAM Brazil, AdJong & Wmningham, PLC 913 Oak Street Conway, AR 72032

(501) 327-4457


The ,Irkmas Lall'jrr


For instance. in Cyb(r Promotions v. Apex. 49 an ISP's summary termination of a member was enjoined because the contract between the ISP and the member provided for notice prior to termination. The COUrt said that even though the member, Cyber Promotions, was not liked on the Internet• it was entitled to have its contract enforced. 5o

Liability for Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights: Any online business needs to be aware of copyright and trademark infringement issues because "Ii]n general, unauthorized use on the Internet of another's written words, trademarks. trade

names, service marks, literary characters, images, music or sound is a violation of mat party's intellectual property rights, JUSt as it would be in a non-Internet medium under traditional principles ofinrellecruaJ property law."SI Infringement can result from the selection of a domain name that is used to identify and locate the site on the lnterner. Many companies use their trademark as the domain name for their site (such as www.fQrd.cQm fQr FQrd MQror CQmpany), but it is nor uncommon for companies to encounter another site operating under an identical or confusingly similar domain name. For instance, Disney recently agreed ro change its GQ NerwQrk IQgQ and pay $21.5 million to settle a trademark infringement suit fLied by after a federal appellate court affirmed a preliminary injunction requiring Disney ro Stop using a logo thar was very similar to GoTo's.S2 Some of mese trademark disputes are traditional, such as AOL's unsuccessful efforts to stop AT&T WorldNet from using the phrases "You Have Mail," "1M" and "Buddy List." The court ruled that these phrases are generic. S3 Counsel needs to be familiar with the policies and procedures of Network Solutions, Inc., which is responsible for the registration of domain names. the case law on domain name disputes, and the law on trademark infringement and dilutiQn.5 4 FQr example, the WQrld Wrestling Federal WQn a WlPO arbitration ruling against the registrant of the "" domain name. The arbitrator applied the lCANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and ordered the registration transferred to the WWF.SS

With all Qf the news abQut Napster and M P3 almQst everyQne knQWS that cQpyright infringement is very easy with the Internee. Once online, digital versions of works can be uplQaded, downloaded and duplicated with ease, modified, and transmitted to thousands of other users almost instantaneously. Virtually every activity on the Interner - browsing, caching. linking,56 downloading. accessing information, and operating an online service - involves making copies. For instance, using protected photographs on a Web site without the copyright owner's permission infringes. S7 Copying is inherent to the medium, but there is still uncertainty about me scope of copyright owners' rights. They may have potentially unprecedented rights over the use of their materiaJs on the Internet. and balancing their rights with user interests wiU have to be struck by application of the fair use doctrine and recognition of implied licenses. s8 For instance, a recent lower COUf[ decision held mat fair use permits Internet "spiders" to make temporary copies of web pages in order to extract and republish unprotected factual information. 59 On the other hand, agreements with publishers and other partners, an entrepreneur's venture allowing customers to search online for information on certain topics from published speeches. articles, dissertations. and TV transcripts might run into problems if those publishers and other partners have not been granted the right to reproduce the speeches and articles from the freelance authors of those works. GO Similarly. Universal and other major movie studios recently won a preliminary injunction barring Web site operators from

distributing software that permits users to decrypt and CQPY movie DVDs. The operarors' activities arguably violated the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 6 ' Other intellectual property issues include whether the developments in a sporting event like a basebaJl game can be distributcd simultaneously by pager; who controls the right to POSt on the Internet the hole by hole results in a golf tournament; and whether a newspaper can usc me image of an athlete to promote itself. 62 Discovering, tracking and stopping trademark and copyright infringement on the Internet is daunting, but techniques and technology are being developed to monitor the Web for illegal use of trademarks. copyrighted materials, and other works. G3 Franchise Liability: Franchise law violations can occur in cyberspace in any jurisdiction from which someone can access a supplier's Web site. The FTC has proPQsals to deal wirh the application of franchise regulations In cyberspace. but these propQsals will not help suppliers of computer hardware and software determine whether their distribution agreements are subject to franchise regulation in the first place. If a supplier does not want to deal with the laws and regulations associated wim being a franchise, it may need to change irs relationship with distributors to avoid having contracts satisfy the definition of a franchise. 64 Liability for Advertising; The Internet works well for advertising but this easy and relatively inexpensive access ro the global market also gives everyone relatively easy access to the site owner. Every site owner


Rcgistered Professional Engineer in 3 st:lIes.


9 rears of experience as PresidCIll of large distributor specializing in :111 types of safety equipment, major emphasis on metal forming and stamping.


II ye:lrs of experience as President of company involved in repair and rewinding of electric mOiors and mamLf.lcturc, sales, installation :md sen'icing of electrit'lll control panels for indll,Stry.


14 years of experience with Gencml Electric Co. in engineering and industri:11 sales.


Earned OS - Electrical Engineering in 1947.

.... Complete curriculum vitae and references on re<lllest.

JQhn E. McAllister' 3 Palisandro Drive' Hoi Springs Village. AR 71909-4613 Phone: (501)922-1709 Fax: (501)922-4177

101.16 tfo. I/\\inler 1001

The lrkusill La"}er


needs to remember that the site could be subject to regulation or result in liability outside those specific areas being targeted by the advertising. Some couneries prohibit comparative advertising, and others may deem sexual, religious or political contene illegaJ.65 For instance, as noted above, a prosecutor in Munich arrested the local managing director of CompuServe on charges that Internet content distributed by CompuServe's main computers in Dayton, Ohio violated German anti-obscenity laws. The local managing director had nothing to do with the content made available to CompuServe subscribers. 66 Liability Issues Facing Service Providers: Internet Service Providers are confronted by a variety of legal issues. If the system is used as an oudet for defamation, should the user who posted the defamatory statement or the ISP providing the forum be

held liable? If pornographic or obscene material is posted, who is liable? If copyrighted material is reproduced and transmitted without the permission of the copyright owner, who is liable? Can the provider be liable for the spread of a virus? Can the provider be liable for invasions of privacy? What risks are being faced by system operators?67 What if the general service provided by the ISP is deficient? 68 There are several theories for either holding

ISPs liable or arguing that they should be exempt including analogies between ISPs and the print media; asserting that the ISP is a common carrier or broadcaster; or saying that the system is like routine mail delivery, a public forum, or a traditional bul1etin board. In any event, how realistic is it for an

ISP to be able to control or monitor the thousands of messages which are transmitted on its system?69 Fortunately, many of the issues surrounding potencial ISP liability for copyright infringemene are now addressed by amendments to the Copyright Act that were enacted in 1998,70 and the Communications Decency Act of

199671 addresses ISP liability for libelous postings. 72 Conclusion: Taking a business online through the utilization of new information technologies and use of the Internet is exciting. There is no doubt that the potential rewards are tremendous. There are, however, many risks involved and legal counsel should review all aspects of a Web site's operation. Business practices, employee conduct, and other activities which can lead to liability in the "off-line" world, wiIJ also result in liability for the online business. 73 Nevertheless, it is clear that these risks have not stopped entrepreneurs from establishing successful off-line businesses, and the online liability risks do not appear to beholding back many cyberspace entrepreneurs. Log On!

I. Compuserve v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257

(6th Cir. 1996); Bensusan Restaurant v.

King, 937 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), affirmed, 126 F.3d 25 (2nd Cir. 1997).

liz Dowis, RNP CIM,f!P.d legal NUrle Coosuhant


6. L Masters, Professionals Online: Advice

for Travels on the Superhighway, 16 The Lawyer 5 (March 1999). Cendali, C Forssander &

Information Computer See also D. R. Turiello,

An Overview of Intellectual Property Issues Relating to the Internet, 89 The

Trademark Reporter 485, 557-68 (1999).

7. Heathmount A.E. Corp. V., No. I:00-714-A (E.D. Va. July 24, 2000)(60 BNA PTq 276 (August 4, 2000)).

9. R. Dreben <7 j. Werbach, Top 10 Things to Comider in Developing an Electronic Commerce web Site, 16 The Computer Lawyer 17, 19 (May 1999). See also D. Cendali, supra note 6, at 568-74; L. Masters, supra note 6, at 5.

2. Millennium Enters. v. Millennium Mltsic, No. 98-1058-AA, 1999 U.S. Disr. LEXJS 3709 (D. are., Jan. 4, 1999).

Let us turn those stacks of medical records into a simple text.

,Irkansa! LaWI'er

5. See Bunn-O-Matic Corp. v. Bunn Coffie Servo Inc., 46 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1375 (CD. 111. 1998).

8. L. Masters, supra note 6, at 5.

P.o. 80. 488 â&#x20AC;˘ North lilllf:o Rock, AR 72115.0488 501-851-1383'


4. See, e.g., EDlAS Software v. BASIS Int'l, 947 F. Supp. 413 (D. Ariz. 1996.)


edical-legal Consulting Firm, llC


3. Winfield Collection Ltd. v. McCauley, No. 99-CV-75875-DT (E.D. Mich. July 24, 2000)(60 BNA PTq 284 (August 4, 2000)).

10. E. Koster, Zero Privacy: Personal Data on the internet, 16 The Computer Lawyer 7 (May 1999); K. Cranman, Privacy and Technology: Counseling Institutions of Higher Education, 25 Journal of College and University Law 69,80 (1998). For example, an online auction house agreed to setde charges lodged by the FTC that it had violated consumers' privacy by harvesting personal information from a competitor's site and sending deceptive spam ro those consumers soliciting their business. 17 The Computer Lawyer 38 (March 2000).

I J. European Union Directive 95/46/EC 12. See ACLU v. Reno, No. 98-5591,1999 U.S. District LEXJS 735 (E.D. Pa. Feb. I, 1999); 16 The Computer Lawyer 29 Uan. 1999); 16 The Computer Lawyer 31 (March 1999). The bill itself was

The Official Directory Of The Arkansas Bar Association

Your Blue Book of Attorneys Since 1935 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 for your:

101' office manager 101' receptionist 101' paralegal 101' secretary 101' librarian

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

part of the $500 billion 1998 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Pub. Law. No. 105-227.See also 15 The Computer Lawyer 27 (Dec. 1998).

13. See, e.g., Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C ' 1030 (1999); Family Educational Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C' 1232(g) (1999); Video Privacy

Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C " 2710-2711

reported in 17 The Computer Lawyer

(1999); Electronic Communications

23 (July 2000).

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C " 2510-2522 & 2701-271 I (1999); E. Koster, supra note 10, at 11 (listing and discussing federal statutes dealing with privacy). 14. John Doe, aka Acqucool_2000 v. Yahoo! Inc., (CD. California 2000) as

15. L. Masters, supra note 6. at 6.

16. Internet Tax Fteedom Act, Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998); 15 The Computer Lawyer 27 (Dec. 1998). 17. R. Dreben &J. Werbach, supra nOte 9, at 18.

CLIENT SUPPORT SERVICES Moore Stephens Frost is the state's largest Arkansas-based accounting

18. W. Hellerstein, The Law of Sales Taxes In a Cyberspace Economy, 17 State Tax Notes J 11,114 (July 1999).

firm. The diversity of our clients and the resoutces we possess mean that we can dedicate a team of professionals on any project in a

19. 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).

timely and results-assured manner. In fact, our strategic services go

20. 970 P.2d 803 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

far beyond what ttaditional accounting firms offer. Out goal is to support you as you, in rum, suppott your clients. In the areas of Business Valuations and Litigation Support, we offer a number of focused services designed to meet specific objectives. BUSINESS VALUATIONS Marital Dissolutions· Estate and Gift Matters Charitable Contributions· Spin-offs and Reorganization Business Dissolutions· Buy-Sell Agreements Sales or Mergers· Bankruptcy and Reorganization Employee Stock Ownership Plans EXPERT TESTIMONY, CONSULTING AND LITIGATION SUPPORT Economic Loss Analysis· Damages Computations Marital Dissolutions· Due Diligence Forensic Accounting Services· Income Tax Analysis Call Cheryl Shuffield, director of Client Support Services, at

21. Hill v. Gareway 2000, 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997), cert. denied. 118 S.Ct. 47 (1997); Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.¥.S.2d 569, 570 (N.¥. Sup. Ct. 1998)("This document comains Gateway 2000's Standard Terms and Conditions. By keeping your Gateway 2000 computer system beyond thirty (30) days after the date of delivery, you accept these Terms and Conditions").

22. S. Davidson & S. Bergs, Open, Click or Download: What Have you Agreed To? The Possibilities Seem Endless, 16 The Computer Lawyer 1,6,8 (April 1999). Some of the uncertainties may be resolved if adoption of the Uniform Computer Information Transactions

Act (UC1TA). See C Fendell & D. Kennedy, UCITA Is Coming!!! Part One: Practical Analysis for Licensee's

COllnsel, 17 The Computer Lawyer 3 (july 2000) and The UCiTA Is Coming.'!.' Part Two: Practical Analysis

for Licensors Counsel, 17 The Computer Lawyer 3 (August 2000).

(501) 975-0100 for more information.


'9 MOORE STEPHENS FROST "More than an accounting firm"

Cemfied Public Accountants· A Professional limited Company 425 West Capitol· SUite 3300 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

(501) 376-9241· (800) 766-9241· Fax (501) 376-6256 www.msfros{ com


The .Irkansas Lawj!r


23. Lasercomb America v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970, 977 (4th Cir. 1990).

24. !d. at 978. 25. !d. 26. Triad




Southeastern Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir 1995); Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999); R. Katz & Adam

Safer, Copyright right Mi",,,: Incomistent Ca.J" ftom the 1990, and a Simple Form"la fOr the 21" Cent/try, 17 The Computer Lawyer 3, 4 (April 2000); W. Thomson & M. Chu, Overstepping the Bounds: Copyright Misuse, 15 The Compurer Lawyer 1,6 (November 1998). 27. 16 The Compurer Lawyer at 23-34 (May 1999).

4 Ga. B. J. 14, 16, 18 (April 1999). 37. 18 U.s.c. §1030 (1997).

51. Cendali, "'pro note 6, ar 485. 52., Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 2000 (9th Cir. 2000);

38. No. CV 96-71,1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1999, at 22-23 (C.D. Ca. 1996); D. Loundy, "'pro note 32, at 1134 35. 39. 16 The Computer Lawyer 27 (April 1999); See also Masters, '''pro nOte 6, at 6.

28. United States v. Kammersell, 1998 U.S. Disr. LEXIS 8719 and 8712 (D. Utah, April 13 and June 3, 1998); 15 The Computer Lawyer 27 (Sept. 1998).

40. D. Loundy, ",pro note 32, at 1106 & I I 15.

29. 15 The Computer Lawyer 16 (April 1998).

42. No. CL 97-631AE (Fla. St. Ct. June 13, 1997).

30. See United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 70 I (6th Cir. 1996). See generolly

43. 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).

22 Entertainment Law Reporter No. I

at 13 Uune 2000). 53. America Online, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 64 F. Supp.2d 549 (E.O. Va. 1999). 54. S. Zebrak, A Sup-by-Sup G"ide to Handling Domain Name Dispuus. 16 The Computet Lawyer 21, 23 (April 1999). See also Cendali supra note 6, ar 492-523 (summaries of numerous cases involving domain name disputes).

41. 47 U.S.c. §230 (1996).

55. World


Federation v. Bosman, Administrative Panel Decision Case Enrerrainmenr,


No. D99 0001 (WIPO 2000).

45. 992 F. Supp. 44, 47, 49-50 (D.D.C. 1998).

56. Brenda Sandburg, If Web Site Link, Vio/au Copyright. Losers Lou Big, FultOn County Daily Report I Uune 28,2000).

3 I. The Third Branch; Newsletter of the Federal Courts, Volume 32, page 1 (September 2000).

46. 206 F.3d 980 (10th Cit. 2000). See also 22 Entertainment Law Reponcr No.3 at 18 (Augusr 2000).

57. Suze Randall PhotOgraphy v. ReactOr Inc., 2000 BNA Copyright Law Dec.& 28,106 (N.D. III. 2000).

32. See D. Loundy, E-LAW4: Computer Information Systems Law and System Operator Liability, 21 Seattle Law Review 1075, 1131 (1998).

47. Developments - The Low of Cyberspace, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1574, 1600-01 (1999).

58. D. Hayes, Application of Copyright Rights to Specific Arts on the Internet, 15 The Compurer Lawyet 1, 20 (Aug. 1998).

George Delta and Jeffrey Matsuura,



Chapter 8



44. Id. at 330-31.


Law of the Internet

(1997); Cendali, ,upro note 5, at 549.

33. Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon &

Frank, Pc. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. 4th 119, 949 P2d I, 70 Cal. Rptt. 2d 304 (1998).

48. Electronic Communications Privacy Acr of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100

Stat. 1848 (codified In scattered sections of 18 USC.); J. Wilson, "'pra note 36, at 17; L. Masters, supra noce

59. Ticket Master Corp. v. Inc., No. 99-7654 HLH (BQRx) (C.D.

Cal. Augusr 10, 2000)(60 BNA PTCj 3620 (Augusr 25, 2000».

6, at 7. 60. Matthew Rose, Brill's Contmtvi!/~ RUlls

34. L. Masters. supra note 6, at 6. 35. 16 The Computer Lawyer 27 (April

49. 1997 U.S. Disc. LEXIS 15344 (E.D. Pa. 1997).

Into Internet Copyright Wall, The Wall Stteet Journal (August 3, 2000).

1999)(summarizing fouf enforcement

actions ftied by the SEC on Februaty 25, 1999 againsr 13 individuals and companies across the country for committing fraud over the Internet and deceiving invescocs); 17 The Compucer

Lawyer 31 (February 2000)(summarizing a civil fraud action filed by the SEC againsr three tesidents of




manipulating the price of srock by spreading false information on Internet financial message boards).

50. Id. (Cyber Promotions was a spammer a company which, without solicitation, e-mailed its message co

thousands of addresses simultaneously)

. Set also Harvard Developments mpra note 47, at 1604. No court has yer imposed on an ISP a duty to provide notice and a hearing to terminated members. but if the public access model of the Imerncr grows. public

providers may be classified as state actors who should be held to certain


36. See also J. Wilson, What's In a Web Site,



member termination. Id. at 1605.

61. Universal





Reimerdes, 82 F. Supp. 2d 2 I I (S.D.N.Y. 2000); 22 Entertainment Law Reporter No.1 ar 14 Uune 2000). See also Greg Lindsay, DVD-Hacking Trial to Hear From the Kid \Vho Started It All, Inside Media, July 19, 2000. In another recem case involving the

Digiral Millennium Copyright Act the trial court enjoined the sale of "Game Enhancer" device that enables users to play imported games on Sony's Playstation consoles. The device was held to violate the anti-circumvention

I'ol.l! No. I/lIinllr 2001

The ,Irkmas LaK'W


provisions of the act. Sony Compucer Encenainmenc America, Inc. v.

Gamemascers, 87 F. Supp.2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 1999). 62. Felicity Barringer, Times Is Sued By NB.A. Over Sale of Photos, New York Times CI Ouly 11,2000). 63. Cendali, SIIpra note 6, at 486-87. 64. M. Lockerby, Avoiding Collisiom With Franchise Laws on the Information Superhighway, 15 The Compurer Lawyer 8,14 (Oct. 1998). 65. J. Ezor, Representing the New Media Company: Advertising 011 the W<b, 15 The Computer Lawyer 6, 7-8 (May 1998). 66. L. Masters, supra noce 6, at 5; J. Ezor, supra note 65, at 8. See generally, M. Lauria, Controlling Mob Advertising:

Spamming, Linking, Framing and Privacy, 14 The Compurer Lawyer 10 ( ovember 1997).

IIkansas bar commission on diversity

Advancing Diversity in the Profession

67. D. Loundy, supra note 32, at 1081-82. 68. Benjamin Wright and Jane Winn, The Law of Electronic Commerce 17-1

(1998). 69. D. Loundy, supra nore 32, at 10821105. 70. 17 U.S.c. ยง 512 (1999). C. Beams, The Copyright Dilemma Involving Online Service Providers: Problems Solved ... for Now, 51 Fed. Commun. L. J. 823, 827 (1999). 71. 47 U.s.c. ยง 230 (1998).

72. See also nares 40 ro 46 SIIpra. 73. Benjamin Wright & Jane Winn, supra note 68, ar I-I. See also M. Halpern &

A. Mehrota, The Tallgled W<b of ECommerce: Identifyillg the Risks of Online Marketing, 17 The Computer Lawyer 8 (February 2000). )0 1Ie ,Irkusal LaWler

Your legal education probably didn't include developing Web sites. Now with Lawyer HomePages * at lawyers. com, you can stay focused on what you were trained to do. Lawyer HomePages are affordable, customized Web sites from Martindale-Hubbell. Not only is your Lawyer HomePage easy to develop, but with links from, and the AOL Legal Web Center, your Lawyer HomePage will benefit from built-in traffic and Martindale-Hubbell's reputation for delivering solid marketing results. Want more information? Visitlawyers.comJfaq or call 1-800-526-4902, ext. 5095 today. 路Onl)' law fIrms With a bIOgraphical hSling In the current edmon of the Manindale-Hubbell Law DIrectory arc eligible for lawyer HomePages. Martindale-Hubbell, LEX IS and NEXIS are registered trademarks 01 Reed Elsevier Properties Inc" used under license. C2000 Martindale-Hubbell. All rights rese"'ed.


c&h'mo/ cNlamion Tulsa, Oklahoma

.. .for the discriminating traveler .:. Tulsas most luxurious guest accommodation for business or pleasure 8 guest rooms, all with private baths .:. Near Tulsa's Downtown Business District - convenient to Federal and State court houses and municipal buildings .:. Free local phone calls, modem pons, fax and photocopy availability, daily Federal Express service and 24-hour phone access .:. Easy access to Tulsas finest attractions, restaurants, museums and upscale shopping .:. Adjacent to Tulsa's River Parks with trails for running, biking and much more

Yll!:JJirn.ey Y](anSlOn

1414 South Galveston Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74127 15th & Riverside Drive (918) 585-3234 .:. Fax (918) 585-9377

Thiluk lou tofU: SPl1ilkill'S ilud III'ogl'illll11lilUUI1I'S fol' ~1I1111 Andrea A. Abu Christie Gunter Adams Richard



Juslin T. Allen

Robert C. Compton Tim ConkJin Gregg A. Cooke

W. Dent Gilchd

Rep. SIeve Jones

James L. Moore

Phillip G. Coop

Charles W. Goldner. Jr.

John E. Moore. Jr.

Michael S. Moore Rodney P. Moore Charles A. Morgan H. Keith Morrison Ron Motley Rosalind M. Mo~r Joseph S. Mowery Michael W. Mullane Morell E. Mullins Charles T. Mulvey. Jr. Cynthia E. Nance James A. Neal N. M. Norron, Jr. Phillip Norvell Alan J. Nussbaum Debbie Thetford y< Bobby Odom James E. O'Hern III James O'Herron Charles C. Owen Leonard R. Page David L. Pake Glenn Pasvogel Nicholas H. Panon Dr. Earl Peeples Suzanne Penn G. Al:rn Perkins Kathryn Perkins E. Lamar Penus John V. Phelps Andrew Pincus Susie Pointer James M. Pl11tt Charles C. Price Troy A. Price

John P. Gill

Michael R. Jones

Iftnisc Gilliam

Stephen W. Jones

Kimberly Ails

Barry E. Coplin

R. Cole Goodman

Elizabeth Joyner Jim L. Julian

Wm. Gregg Almand

Thomas C. CoUTrway

Donald Goodner

Philip E. Kaplan


Hcnry C. Couner, Jr.

Kachlyn Gr.l.ves

Kevin P. Ketth

Paula Anderson

Ray F. Cox, Jr.

John S. Gray

Judge Gary M. Arnold

Michael H. Crawford

Roben Gray

Judge Richard S. Arnold ChiefJustice WHo "Dub" Arnold Rhonda Asencio Richard B. Atkinson Joyce Bmdley Babin Donald H. Bacon James A. Badami Coleen M. Barger Steve Barnes W. Christopher B:llTier Mary H. Bassett Barbara B:lStiste Lonnie R. Ikard

Mark Curriden Jim D:thI Thom:lS A. Daily Dawn Davenport John A. "Zan" Davis IV John Gary Davis Beth M. Deere Morris Dees Lucille K. [XGostin Roxane M. [kLaurell Betry J. [kmory Rebecca [knison Jack W. Dickerson John M.A. DiPippa

Todd A. Grtt:r Carol L. G~ory Robe=rt J. Grey, Jr. Judge Wendell L. Griffen Rep. Brenda Gullett Dennis Haase Frank S. Hamlin Jan Hargrave Charles S. Harmon Melva Harmon Morril H. H:uriman, Jr. Eileen W. Harrison Dem:uis A. Hart Hani W. Hashem

Trent KC'isling Kim Keller Christopher Kdley

David J. Beck Senator Mike Beebe Paul B. Benham III Chantell Bequene Garland W. Binns, Jr. Donald E. Bishop Marjie L Blair Tim Boc: Ab~am W. Bogoslavsky Raymond E. Bornhoft Cu rt is L. Bowman

Philip E. Dixon Allen C. Dobson F. Mac Dodson J. Charles Dougherty Thomas K. Dougherry Richard C. Downing Claudia L Driver Mark Drumbl Winslow Drummond Paul F. Dumas Alan Duncan Davis Dury William A. Eckert III David L. Eddy Kathryn Reed Edge John C. Edwards Judge G. Thomas Eisele Jeffrey Fllis Barb.aea. G. Flmo~ Georgia Flrad Michael G. Epley Audrey R. Evans Harold J. Evans Ann P. Fain. James P. Feeney George P. Fletcher Judge Gayle Ford Judge John F. Forster Wendell Fowler R. David FIttU G. Spence Fricke Michael A. Fuhr Kenneth S. Gallan[

Richard F. Hatfield Margaret C. Haynes Sarah J. Herney Judge Jimm L. Hendren Judy S. Henry Mark M. Henry Robert L. Henry 111 Joseph Hickey SUllley Hill Anthony A. Hilliard Ann Hines Mark W. Hodge Denise R. Hoggard Alice Holcomb Larry D. Holifield Bill R. Holloway J. Lron Holmes Robert M. Hono Alblerr D. Hoppe Robert E. Hornberger John HOUl Governor Mike Huckabee Bobby Humphries Eugene Hunt Martha G. Hun[

Jamie Boyd 10m Bramhall Judge Ellen B. Bramley Howard W. Brill Mary Lile Broadaway Senator John E. Brown Kim Brown Justice Robert L. Brown John Brummett Bruce E. Buchanan Joe D. Calhoun III Charles R. Camp Kimberly M. Canova Thomas M. Carpcn[cr Phillip Carroll Robin J. Carroll Rep. Jo Ellen Carson Paula Casey Judge Jerry W. Cavaneau Blake K. Champlin Kermit Channell Tim A. Cheatham Kimberly F. Coats Eldon F. Coffman Cathleen V. Compton Pat Jackson Compton

Allan Gates Tammy Ganis Ann H. Gilbert Melinda R. Gilbert

Chris lies Justice Annabelle C. Imber Donald T. Jack. Jr. James Ralph Jackson Randolph C. Jackson Jill R. Jacoway Judge Leon N. Jamison Gary D. Jiles Glendell Jones, Jr. Dr. Jacob Joseph Judge Edward I~ Jones Judge Henry L. Jones, Jr.

S.Jly Kdky A. J. Kdly William H. Kennedy III Michelle Y. Kinder H. Baker Kurrus Theodore C. Lamb John Lande Joyce Lanoue John T Lavey Martin E. Lan Samuel E. Ledbener Craig Lewis Stark Ligon Senator Blanche Lincoln Lynn Lisk James H. Longino Jennifer A. Love Glenn H. Lowirz Edwin L Lowther, Jr. Don.Jd Lulu> Pat Lynch 0,. .aney Lyon Senator Jodie Mahony James T. Malcolm David J. Manley Kevin D. Margolis Leon Marks D. Price Marshall. Jr. William A. Martin Randall Mathis ancy W. Mathews Naney Bcllhousc May Judge Jerry Mazzanti J. Cal McCasclain Sidney H. McCollum Kathleen McComber Bobby McDaniel Dustin B. McDaniel Lucinda McDaniel James W. McElhaney Elisabeth M. McGee Robert M. McGowan Thomas H. McGowan Phyllis M. McKenzie Karen H. McKinney Taunya Lea Mclarty James Bruce McMath Rona R. Mears Lance R. Miller Judge James G. Mixon


James M. Moody

Harry Truman Moore [II

Linda Lou Moore

Ano""" G<n=I Mvk L. Pulliam Joseph H. Purvis Steven W. Quattlebaum Rich:ud L. Ramsay

Judg< S,q>h<n M. R<aso~ Olan W. Reeves, Jr. Judge Andree L. Roaf Kirk Robertson Gary B. Rogers Mark Rogers Erin O. Royston Dorsey M. Ryan Didi H. Sailings Kathryn Sampson Eugene G. Sayre Richard L. Schwam Isaac A. Scou, Jr. John S. Selig Terry Seligman

l',I.11 XI. IlIl"inlrr tOOl

Melissa &rfass

JudI\" Bobby E. Sh<ph<,-d Steve Sh('ppard Cheryl F. Shuffield James M. Simpson, Jr. Judge Barry A. Sims Graham F. Sloan David A. Smith Judge H. Vann Smith Stan D. Smith James L. Sneed Rick S. Spencer Robert L. Stevenson Amy L. Stewart Judge Bendey E. Story Thomas 5. Streetman Judge John F. Stroud, Jr. Paul C. Suskie Judge David Swirttr Connie Hickman Tanner Sammye L. Taylor A. Wayne Timmons David R. Trusse:1l Amy E. Tu Tab Turner Melba Van Zand[ Guy A1[on Wade Senator Bill Walker Danyelle J. Walker Eddie H. Walker, Jr. Sherry Walker Herbert S. Wander

Judg< Jol<r W.uw.. Wmm John J. Waoons John D. Watson Mary Ann Westphal Bud B. Whcmone Edward L. White Robert W. White Phillip Whitmer Darrin L. Williams Flana WHls John L Wilson

Judg< Will.", R. Wohon. J'. Carolyn B. Witherspoon Judith M. Wolf Linda Wolf Michael S. Wolfe RufUs E. Wolff Arthur J. Wright Lynn Lile Wright Judge Susan Webber Wright William G. Wright John C. Wyvill John R. Yates Judge H. David Young Justice Thomas A. Ziaket R. Scon Zuerker

fbr ,\rkmll Ll"W


.Indiriill niSl'ipliDill} \1'1 ions The Judicial Disciplinary Actions are written and provided by the Judicial Discipline Gnd Disability Commission.

Judge Berlin Jones The Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission announced that a reprimand was imposed on Berlin Jones, Circuit Court Judge, 1st Division, Jefferson County, Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The Commission investigated allegations concerning a charge of shoplifting by Judge Jones on December 13, 1999. While Jones was shopping at McCoy's Lumber Company in Pine Bluff, Arkansas to purchase a brass door sleeve, he picked up and placed twO pencil sharpeners in his front trouser pocket. Later he placed some miniature drill bits in his coat pocket. Judge Jones denies recalling putting any of these items in his pockets. Jones went through the check out counter and paid for the brass door sleeve. He failed to pay for the drill bits and pencil sharpeners and they remained in his pockets. A sensor alarm went off as he

exited the score. Jones was requested to return to the store and he then placed the cwo pencil sharpeners on the register desk. After being informed of the COst for the pencil sharpeners, he declined to purchase them. Jones exited the store a second time and again caused the sensor alarm to go off" because the miniature drill bits remained in his from coat pocket. Jones was detained and charged with shoplifting. The [Ota! of all items were valued at approximately $10.76. Jones appealed his shoplifting conviction from the Jefferson County Municipal Court. Subsequently the prosecutor filed a motion co nolle prosequi the shoplifing charges stating that it was his belief there was sufficient evidence for a conviction in that case. This motion was granted. On December 21, 1999 Judge Jones agreed to recuse himself from presiding over all criminal cases pending resolution of the

disciplinary matters before the Judicial Discipline Commission. Judge Jones resumed presiding over criminal cases as of September 25, 2000. Judges are required to not only avoid impropriety ut also the appearance of impropriety. Judges are required to respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promtes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by a judge. In this instance the judge is aware that his conduct fell below that requited of a judge. His actions created the appearance of an impropriety and also impaired public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. The Commission found that the judge's conduct created the appearance of an impropriety and was in willful violation of Canons I and 2A of the Arkansas Code of Judicia! Conduct.

Medical Malpractice Experts

'Enjoy tfie J{C)'U process - Case pr01Jen strategies. Fr.. step 6y step case anafysis 6y our J{C}l./ :M.eaica{ Support 'Team 6y eaucating counsefto empwy tfre most pr01Jocative case arguments to insure a pofrsfiea performance. We im6ue counsefs intimate case k../WWfetfge regaraing causation, patfiopfiysiowgy, rec01Jery augmentation & empty cfiair arguments. }/<1J)l correct contracts/a{temative junaing avaifa6fe wfiicfi ao not encroacfi on your rec01Jery. 15,000 Cases in 20 'Years

;4..fjUfavits in 4 J{ours!! OurtBasic 'Fee $395 HEALTH CARE AUDITORS, INC. Toll Free (877)·390·HCAI Phone (727) 579·8054 Fax (727) 573·1333


1le lrtlllil Li~)!f


REAL ESTATE SETILEMENT SYSTEM "The Nation's Most Widely Used" Now Available For Windows and DOS II' HUD 1 Automatic Calculations II' Checks & Escrow Accounting II' Word Processor - Spell Check II' Data Base Reporting II' 10995 Reporting II' Regulation Z APR's II' Aggregate Escrow

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

II (800) 937-2938

LANDTECH DATA CORPORA nON 1402 Royal Palm BeactI Blvd" Building 200 Royal Palm Beach, FL 3341 1





J"" •.


Arkansas Bar Association CLE Calendar



5th District Trial Practice Camden, AR

Basic Computer Skills New Horizons, Sherwood, AR

21-24 Natural Resources Law Institute Arlington Hotel, Hot Springs, AR

MAY 2001 4

Bankruptcy/Debtor-Creditor Linle Rock, AR

18-19 Environmental Law Inn of the Ozarks Eureka Springs, AR 25


Tax Awareness Litde Rock, AR


MARCH 2001


22-23 Labor & Employment Law Conference Clarion Resort, Hot Springs. AR



CALENDARS NOW! l03rd Annual Meeting June 13-16,2001 Hor Springs, Arkansas House of Delegares June 16, 2001

APRIL 2001 6


Social Security Law Litde Rock, AR Basic Computer Skills ew Horizons, Sherwood. AR

Workers' Compensation Litde Rock, AR

Best ofCLE June 25-29, 2001 Little Rock, AR





I. If you believed so Strongly in

human liberty, Mr. Jefferson, how do you justify having owned slaves? 2. Is it true, Mr. Jefferson, that in addition to owning slaves, buying and selling slaves, giving slaves away

as gilts, that you also had a slave mistress by whom you fathered mulatto children?

3. How did you come


send me

Lewis and Clark expedition up the Missouri River in 1804?

4. What is me role of women in your Republic. Mr. Jefferson?

For more information,

contact Virginia Hardgrave, Arkansas Bar Association, 800-609-5668, 501-375-3957, yhardgrave@arkbar.eom OR CHECK OUT THE CLE PAGE at

5. What is the meaning of the econd Amendment?

6. Come, come, Mr. Jefferson, your minimalist. decentralized system may have worked in your time sir, but in our global village ...

Th< A,~amas Ba, AssociaTion is proud 10 provitk Ih, higlml quality CLE programJ in Ih< starr. Pkas< join us and support thi Association. You art not a mtmbtr? Wtll, now iJ tlJt timt advantagt afspuial mtmbtr discounts on eLE programs!


brcomt ant and toltt

'Watch the Association's website for more details - Annual Meeting 2001 June 13-16, 2001 The Arlington Hotd - Hot Springs, AR

\'11.11 SI. I/I\'iller 1111

Uelrkulll LI~W



Ullill' TI'fhnlllllg~




BEYOND THE YEAR 2000 by Jeane"e Hamilcon, Chai" Arkansas Ba, Assoc;a,jon Technology Comm;"ee We sure don't practice law like we used to, technology-wise, anyway. During my fourteen years in this profession, I have witnessed the transition from electric typewriters to mag cards to word processors in law offices. I can seill recall the day in the late 80's when my law partner debated with himself ahour whether co go ahead and buy a fax machine now or wait to see if it was going to be "just a fad." I remember first hearing about me internet and e-mail from a technology-savvy attorney friend in the eaely 90's. I though, he was ,alking abour something he had seen in a movie. I simply couldn't comprehend that such miracles were truly possible, much less actuaJly in existence and available to regular folks here in Arkansas. And, I certainly couldn't figure out why anyone would really need these things to practice law more efficiently. For the early years of the law office technology boom, the emphasis seemed to be on obtaining more and better equipment, I.e., "upgrading"; new hardware, software, and faxes, more sophisticated telephone systems. Although atcorneys are still concerned with keeping up with the latest innovations in equipment for their practices, the emphasis is shifting to knowledge management, or information management. The concept of information management in today's law office is a broad one. One of the most important aspects of this concept is the sharing of information between anorneys and other staff within ,he office. A good example of this is the development of new programs such as CaseMap. CaseMap is a da,abase application offering a template into which members of the same office can enter data easily, about a case, for instance. It permits anorneys co organize cases and look at facts, issue by issue, and determine what facts each witness will prove. It also provides a method for creating rimelines, by issue or by witness. Dennis Kennedy, a well recognized anomey who is an expert in

,he field oflaw office ,echnology, has called CaseMap a "classic litigation knowledge management tool." Steven Athenon, an anorney who writes a legal technology column for me Vermont Bar Journal, has formulated three rules (Q approach knowledge information issues. Rule One: "Everything mus' be available electronically;" Rule Two: "Critical information must be securely available outside of the office;" and Rule Three: "Knowledge must be aCces5ible to those who need it when they need it." The ,a,ionale behind Rule One is '0 increase efficiency by having all information immediately accessible to each person in the office at his or her desktop. The reason for Rule Two, having all information available outside the office, is self-evidel1t: giving lawyers access to critical information while taking depositions at another lawyer's office, while in coun, or even on vacation decreases or eliminates the need for lawyers to be in a particular place (Q practice law, thereby allowing more efficient use of time. A5 for Rule Three, the idea is to have all information electronically captured once but used multiple times and in various databases maintained by several individuals within or outside the law firm. An example given by Atherton is an anorney, a client, and an expert witness all working from remote locations on the same case file via a password-protected site accessible over the internet (an extranet). For litigation attorneys and firms, this type of accessibility will soon be viewed as essential for an attorney to remain competitive. Another trend in me area of information management is the ever- increasing portability of the equipment lawyers use to do ,heir jobs. Use of handheld PC's is pcolifera,ing in ,he legal field. Originally used primarily for calendaring and contact/client management, many of these tiny wonders have developed into mini computers and wireless communication

devices. They can be lIsed for e-mail, web access, faxing, paging, money managemenr and word processing. Cellular telephone companies are now beginning co integrate the Palm Pilo, and other hand-held PC's into combination phone/PC's. Michael Arkfeld, author of The Digila! Prac,ice of Law, says handheld PC's are the nex' seep coward "a truly wireless legal system." For fearless, tech-minded attorneys, these advances appear to have unlimited potential for good with )jttle, if any, downside. But as wonderful as these new technologies are, lawyers muS[ keep in mind the purpose for which the technology exists. A balance must be struck between staying on the cutting edge of technology and constantly honing one's legal competency. The best hardware and software in the world can't compensate for inadequate lawyering skills. And sometimes the changes wrought by new technology have unexpected impact in ways that are detrimental to productivity and morale. Costly technological "solutions" may end up only causing more problems. To maximize the chance for positive change as a result of adopting new technology in the law office, attorneys and office managers must first identify and anticipate possible effects before they happen. The need for additional training for attorneys and other staff must be recognized. Objections ro the new equipment should be listened to and responded co. Technological changes tha, are advantageous to one law firm may be disastrous to another. The new technology promises attorneys ,educed drudgery, increased p,oducciviry and a bener quality work product. So long as the changes in equipment and information management allow us ro continue to improve the service we provide, then the practice of law beyond the year 2000 is an exciting prospect.o)

The lAwyer Disciplinary Actions are written and provided by 'lie Supreme Court of Arkansas' Comm;uee PETITION TO SURRENDER UCENSE




Mona M~l Miul1, an anomer residing in LinJc Rock. formerly practicing law in Little Rock. Pulaski County, Arkansas, with Arkansas Bar 10

Anomey Charles Dawson Matchews, an anorney formerly pf'2aicing in Little Rock, Pulaski CoUnty, and now residing in Bella Vista, Bemon County, Arkansas Bar 10 #64026 has been swpended from the PIOlCtja: of law within the jurisdiction of this State for violation of Modd Rule 8A(b) of me Arkansas Modd Rules of ProfessionaJ Conduct. The Arkansas Supreme Coun ddivered an Opinion which sus~nded Mr. Manhew's Arkansas Attorney's Licc:nse for a period of five (5) years on ovemlxr 9, 2000. Pursuant to me Mandate delivered from the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Coun, the suspension became effective on Novemlxr 28, 2000. Please be advised that a suspended anomey shall nOt be reinstated to the practice of law in this Sute until the Arkansas Supreme Court has received an affirmative vote by a majority of me Committee:. If, and at such time as the Committee may reinsute the anorney, you will be provided notice of the reinsut'ement and the effective date thereof.

#85110 has bttn barred from engaging in the pracrice of law in this Sr.ue for violation of the Arbnsas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. On the rttOmmendation of Arkansas Supreme Coun Comminee on Professional Conduct, the Arkansas Sup~me Coun 2C«pted the surrender of the law licenSf: of Mona Marga~c MiuU on Novcmlxr 16. 2000. Attorney Mizell's Petition (0 SUrRnder was basttJ upon violation of Modd Rules 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 demonstrate that on February 26, 2000, Ms. Mizell entered into a Plea Agrct:ment in the maner of United States of America v. Mona Mizell, case no. LR-CR-99-61(6) in me United States District Coun, Eastern District of Arkansas. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Ms. Mizell entered a plea of guilty to violating 1ide J8, United States Code, Section 1341, a fdony.


IN RE, JEFFREY LEE HAYNES FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS OCTOBER 12,2000 Jeffrq Ltt Haynes, an attorney formerly residing in Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas, with iUbn... B", 10 195243 h" b<cn ban<d from engaging in the Pf'2ctifX of law in this State for violation of the Arkansas Modd Rules of ProfessionaJ Conduct. On the recommendation of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee: on ProfessionaJ Conduct, the Arkansas Supreme Coun :lCttpIa:! the surrender of me law lia:nse of Jeffrey Ltt Haynes on October 12, 2000. Mr. Haynes' Petition to Surrender was basa:I upon violation of Modd Rule 8A(b) of the Arkansas Modd Rules of ProfessionaJ Condua. The Petition and attacha:! exhibits on file with me Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Coun, reflect mal the anorney was convicra:! in the Circuit Coun of Sebastian County, Arkansas, of the criminal offenses of Possession of Dwg ParaphernaJia in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated Section 5-64-403 and Possession of Methampheramine (Redua:d) in violation ofArkansas Code Annoma:! Section 5-6440 I, both class C fdonies.

IN RE, STEPHEN EWING MORLEY UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS NOVEMBER 28, 2000 The formaJ charges of misconduc~ upon which this Order is premised aro~ from information that was forwarded t'O me Commjrtee: on ProfessionaJ Conduct ("the Committee") by the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission ("the Commission"). The information pena..ined to the conduct of Stephen Ewing Morley, an anomey plOlcticing primarily in Pulaski County, Arkansas, which was discovered during an investigation by the Commission on a complaint of the attorney's conduct while he was NOM Little Rock MunicipaJ Jud~. In responding to the Committee, Mr. Morley aCttpted I~ and mora.! responsibility for his aeu and errors. HOWNer, he specifically denied of the aeu as contained in the Complaint. It was determined that on November II, 1994, while driving under me influence of aJcohol, Mr. Morley hil a parked 1994 AculOl InteglOl owned by James Scon Stanley. Mr. Morley caused approximately $6,500 in damage to Mr. Stanley's vehicle and S1,727 in damage 10 the vehicle Mr. Morley was oper.tting at the time, a 1994 Honda Passport. Mr. Morley failed to report this collision to me police as required by law. In a subsequent investigation by Sgt. Donnie Bridges of the North Little Rock Police Department, Mr. Morley falsely SUted to the police officer that a "friend" was driving his vehicle at the time of the accidem and Mr. Morley refused to idemify the "friend." Further, Mr. Morley filed a fraudulent claim with his aUlO insurance carrier, Equity Murual, regardjng this vehicle. Mr. Morley falsely claimed to Equity's


Professional Conduct.

adjwlor, L.&R Adjustment Company, that the 1994 Honda Passport was damaged in the parking area of che Excelsior HOieI while Mr. Morley left il unanended, when in actuality me damage was incurred on November II, 1994, when Mr. Morley collided with Mr. Sunley's Acur.t Imegr.t. On March II, 1995, Mr. Morley purchased a 1993 Jeep GlOlnd Cherokee La.redo. Mr. Morley failed to register the vehicle as required by Ark. Code Ann. 27·14-1002 and 1004. Mr. Morley then illegaJJy placed the license tag of a 1994 Honda Passport owned by Dean R. Morley on me Jeep, a violation ofArk. Code Ann. 27-14-306. On May 7, 1995, Mr. Morley was involved in a one car accident involving this Jeep. Mr. Morley f:Usdy reported to Sgt. G.B. Harp of the Arkansas State Police, chat the vehicle was owned and registered to Dean R. Morley, Mr. Morley's F.!ther, when in actuality, it was owned by Mr. Morley and his wife at the time, Kathy Morley. The Jeep was not registered. Mr. Morley continued to make false statementS to Sgt. Harp during the course of Sgt. Harp's investigarion, to include sfating that he had purchased the vehicle from his father. Mr. Morley denied [hat he misrepresemed the narure of the ownership to the State Police Officer. After Bexley's laim Service would not pay the claim on the damaged Jeep, Mr. Morley paid the $1,190 in sales tax and registered the vehicle on July 26, 1997, 167 days after its purchase. In the process of registering the Jeep, Mr. Morley signed a F.!lse affidavil and gave it to the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administr.ttion. The affidavit stated that Mr. Morley had nOI used the vehicle, when in fact, he had driven it approximately 4,000 miJes: and had wrttked it. The purpose of the false affidavit was to avoid the late registration penaJty. Mr. Morley abo provided the CommitTee: with information relating to his personaJ situation at the time of the acts aJleged to have been committed by him as mitigation. Mr. Morley admitta:! that during me time period of these actS, he dlOlnk aJcohol to excess. In addition, Mr. Morley offered that me conduct complained aboUI haein occurred over five yean: ago and that he has pr.tcticed Jaw and conducred himself accordingly since that time. He also advised that because of all of mesc: aets, he was required to resign as onh Little Rock MunicipaJ Judge. At the time set for the de novo hearing in this maner, a propos«l Consent to Discipline was presented to the Comminec: by the respondent pursuant to Section 8C of the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Anorneys al Law. The proposed Consent (0 Discipline consisted of an admission by Mr. Morley that he violated Arkansas Model Rules 8A(c) and 8A(d), and a proposal that he would receive a suspension for a period of sixty days beginning January I, 2000. Upon considera(ion of the formal coOlphtim, response herein, the proposed consent to discipline and the Arkansas Modd Rules of Professional Conduc( (Model Rules), the Comminec on ProfessionaJ Conduct finds:

I'ol.ll SO. IlWilllr iUUI

UI '\rkalllJ Lawl/f


till' ~'l'l' IIisl'iplinill')" .\d ions I. That Mr. Morley's condua violated Rule 8.4(c) of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduce when Mr. Morley stated to a onh Liule Rock Policc= Officc=r during the course of an official investigation, that Mr. Morley was not driving his 1994 Honda Passpon on ~mber II. 1994; when he falsely Stated [0 the onh Lircle Rock Poli~ Office.r that a "friend· was driving Mr. Morley's 1994 Honda Passport on ovember II, 1994; when he filed a false claim with his insurance carrier, Equity Mutual Insurance Company scating [hat the damage to his 1994 Honda Passport was due to an accident in the Excc=lsior Hotd Parking Area, when in f.act i[ was damagdi in the ovember II, 1994 hi[ and run collision with Mr. Stanley's Acura Integn.; wh~n he: iIIc=gaJly placed the fictitious lag of a 1994 Honda Passpon owned and regis[ered to Dean R. Morley, his father, on his newly acquired 1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee; when he falsely stated to an Arkansas State Trooper conducting an investigation after a one car accident involving Mr. Morley's 1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee that the: Jeep was owned and registered 10 his father; when he f.a.lsely staled to the Arkansas State Trooper that he had purchased the Jeep from his father, Dean R. Morley; when he: falsely executed an affidavil to the Arkansas Deparrment of Finance and Administration stating thai he: had nor used the 1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee since the date of its purchase, when in fact, he: had driven in 4,000 miles and wrecked it. Modd Rule 8.4(c) requires that a la~r not e:ngage in conduci involving dishonesty, fr.lud, deceit or misrepresentation. 2. Thai Mr. Morley's conduct viola[ed Modd Rule 8.4(d) when he failed to report that he was involved in a hit and run accident on November II, 1994 involving his 1994 Honda Passport and Jamc=s Stanley's 1994 Acura Integra; when he falsely Stated to a orth Little Rock Police Officer during the course of an official investigation, a "friend" was driving Mr. Morley's 1994 Honda Passport on ovember II. 1994; whe.n he refused ro identify this "friend· to the poIicc= officc=r; when he falsely SU[ed to an Arkansas State Trooper conducting an investig:lItion w'er a one car accident involving Mr. Morley's 1993 Jeep G""d Cherokee tim me Jeep was owned and registered to Mr. Morley's f.ather in order avoid a citation for fiaitious tags; when he falsely executed an affidavit 10 the Arkansas Department of Financc= and Administration suting thai he had not used the 1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee sincc= the date of its purchase:, so that he could avoid the penalty for late registr.ltion of the vehicle. Modd Rule 8.4(d) ~uirc=s mat a lawyer nor engage in condua that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.. WHEREFOR£, it is the: decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme CoUrt Committee on Professional Condua that Ste:phen Ewing Morley, Arkansas Bar 10 #79215, be, and hereby is, SUSPENDED for SIXTY DAYS for his conduct in this matter. The suspension shall become effective as of the date of January I, 200 I. In addition, the Committee imposed a fine in the amount of$IOOO

pursuant to Section 8A(2) of the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Condua of Anomeys. fine due and payable witrun thirty (30) days of the ming of this Order. IN R£, CHARLES J. DOERPINGHAUS BENTON. ARKANSAS

ocroBm 4, 2000 The formal charges of miscondua upon which

this Orde:r is based arose from the complaint ofJohn C. Fendley. Charles J. Doerpinghaus, an anomey primarily practicing in


Saline County,

Arbnsas was employed by Cliffam A. Pack.., Elva Packer. Glynda Packer Isaacs, et al (hereinafter referred. to as "the Packers·) to represent them in a federal lawsuit filed against them by Tom Duer. On September 23, 1998, Tom Duer filed a complain! againsl the Packers in the United States Disrrici CoUrt for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Case No. 97 ·CV-816. After service, Mr. Doerpinghaus timely file:d a joint answer for the Packers on October 14, 1997. On January 14, 1998, Mr. Duds anorney served Rc=quesrs for Admission and Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Mr. Doerpinghaus, as counsel for [he Packers. The Packers were not informed of Mr. Doerpinghaus' rcecipl of the Requests for Admission and Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Further, Mr. Doerpinghaus did not advise the Packers of the effects of failing to rc=spond to these discovery requests. No response to the Rc=quc=srs for Admission was ever made by Mr. Doerpinghaus. On March 16, 1998, Mr. Duer's attorney filed a Motion to Compel in connection with the previously served Interrogatories and Rc=quests for Production of Docume:nts. On May 5, 1998, the Honorable: E1sijane Trimble Roy, Senior United States District Judge: granted Mr. Duer's Motion to Com~1 Answers to Interrogatoric=s and Rc=quc=sts [0 Produce Documents. On May 20, 1998, Mr. Doerpinghaus ~uested additional time to respond to the Order to Compel. His requat was granted and the time to respond was extended until June I, 1998. The Packers signed the Raponses to the Interrogatories and the Requests for Production of Docume:nu on June I, 1998. Thereafter, the responses mailed on June II, 1998. On June 12, 1998, Mr. Duer's attorney filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of liability. On July 6, 1998, Judge Roy granted me Packer's Motion to Extend lime: to Respond to the Motion for Panial Summary Judgment until July 17, 1998. The Packers were not informed on Mr. Doerpingh:aus' rttt:ipt of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or the legal ramifications of it. The Packers were nOt informed of the Order which established fuclS due to the failure to respond to the requesled admissions or of the legal ramifications of the order which established faCtS in their case. Ultimately, no response to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was made on the Packers' behalf, even [hough an extension of time in which to

respond had been granted ~r the ~uest of Mr. Doerpinghaus. Mr. Doerpinghaus never told the Packers he was not ming a Rapo~ to the: Motion for Partial Summary Judgme:nt or its legal ramification of F.Uling to file it. On D<c<mb<, 9, 1998, Judge Roy gnmed M,. Due:r's Motion for Partial Summary Judgm~nt_ The: Order dc=darc=d the: Packers liable: for all claims sn out in the: Complaint and the Am~ded Complaint. Judge Roy appointed an ex~n to caJculate: damages and also sc=t a hc=aring to assess damages for )=(:bruary 18, 1999. Despite: rtttipt of this Orde:r and oticc= of Hearing sent to Mr. Doerpinghaus, he: did not inform the: Packe:rs of the e:ntry of the Ord~r or of the: rttt:ipt of the: Noticc= of Haring on Damages. In addition, Mr. Doerpinghaus failed to inform the Packe:rs of the: 1c=g2J ramifications of this Orde:r and me: hearing on damages. Mr. Doerpinghaus made no response and made: no dfon to d~fe:nd these: actions. On Fe:bruary 18, 1999, Judge Roy entered Judgme:nt against the Packers for $176,406.65, for unpaid overtime, a like amount for liquidated damages, and Social Security Old Age:, Survivor, and Disability Income and Medicare payments of $42,056.88. The toml damages awarded Mr. Duer were $394,870.18. Upon rece:ipt of JudgmeOl, Mr. Doerpinghaus failed to inform the: Packers of the Judgment. On March 8, 1999, Mr. Duds attorney filed an Application for Allowance of Attorney's Fees and Expenses and sc=rved a copy on Mr. Doerpinghaus. Mr. Doerpinghaus did not inform the Packers of his rtttipt of the: Application. Mr. Doerpinghaus made no response to the Application, nor did he inform the Packe:rs that he was not going to respond or defend against the Application. On March 30, 1999, the Court sent Mr. Doerpinghaus a Supplemental Judgment including $28,545.50 in anomey's fees awarded and $279.08 in COSts. Mr. Doerpinghaus did not inform the Packers of the: receipt of the: Supplemental Judgment nor did he inform them of the 1c=g2J ramifications or their legal options due to the entry of the Supplemental Judgment. In f.aa, during this time, when the Packers inquired of Mr. Doerpinghaus of the sr:arus of the lawsuit, Mr. Doerpinghaus ~pl.ied that everything was going well. On August 11,1999, Mr. Duer's anomey fiJed writs of garnishment and execution against the Packers and their property. Subseque:ntly, the Packers learned that a Judgment in excess of $400,000.00 had bet.n rendered against them wh~n their bank and brokerage accounts were garnished. The: Packers then retained Mr. Fendley, the complainant, and negotiated a compromise with Mr. Duer and his anorney. Mr. Doerpinghaus was personally served with a copy of the Formal Complaint, pursuant to Section 5E, Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (Procedures). Mr. Doerpinghaus failed to respond to the Complaint, dc=spite being granted an extension of time to file his response. His failure to

till' ~·lll· respond timdy to the Formal Complaint constitutes admission of the fucmal allegations contained in the Formal Complaint pursuant (0 Section 51(4) of


Procedures. Upon consideration me formal complaint and

me: Arkansas Model RuJes of Professional Conduce. the Committec= on Professional Conduct finds: 1. That Mr. Doerpinghaus' conduct violated

Mood Rule: I. I when he f.Uled to Cluse his c1ienes' Responses to the ~uests for Admission to be prqnrm. or filed after being served with the Requesu on January 14, 1998; when he n~r responded to or defended against the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment even after being granted an extension of

time in which {Q respond; when he failed to respond or defend against the: Orda granting PactiaI



Summary Judgment Motion and a Notice of Haring on Damages set for February 18. 1999; and.

when he failed to respond (0 or defend ag;;.insr the Application for Attorney's Fees and Expenses filed on March 8. 1999. Modd RuJe 1.1 ~uires that a lawye.r provide competent representation [Q a client, including the I~ knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably nl::cessary for the represt=ntation. 2. Thai Mr. Doerpinghaus' conduct violated Modd Rule 1.3 when he failed to cause his clients' Response to be prepared or filed, after he was served with Jkquests for Admission on January 14, 1998; when he never responded 10 or defended against the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment even afi:er bc:ing granted an extension of time to respond; when he f.Uled to respond to or defend agaimt the Order gn.nting the Partial Summary Judgment and the Notiet= of Hearing on Damages; and, wh~ he f.Uled to respond 10 or defend against the Application for Attorney's Ftts and Expenses. Modd Rule 1.3 requires thai a lawyer act wim reasonable diligence and promptness in represc:ming a client. 3. That Mr. Docrpinghaus' conduct violated Modd RuJe 1.4(a) whe.n he failed to inform his clients of me receipt of Jkquests for Admission; when he failed to inform his clients of the legal ramifications of Requests for Admission; when he failed 10 inform his clients that he did not file a Response ro thl:: R.cqut=St5 for Admission; when he f.tiled to inform his clients of the Motion for Panial Summary Judgment; when f.tiled to inform his clients of the legal ramifications of me Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; when f.Uled to inform his clients of the I:tck of response to me Motion for Panial Summary Judgment; when he FoUled to inform his clients of me Order granting Panial Summary Judgment and Notia of Hearing on Damages; when he fuiled to inform his clients of me legal ramifications of the Order granting the Motion for P.mial Summary Judgment; when he f.tiled to inform his clients of the entry of the Judgment against them in the amount of $394,870.18; when he F.!.iled to inform his clients of the legal r.unifications of the Judgment which was entered against [hem on February 18, 1999, in the amount of $394,870.18; when he f.tiled to respond ro or inform his clients of the Application for Anomey's

Ilisriplinill} .\I't ions

Fees and Expenses filed on March 8, 1999; and, when he failed 10 inform his clients of the Supplemental Judgment allowing assessment of an additional 528,545.60 in attorney's fees and $279.08 in COSts to the original Judgment filed on February l8, 1999. Modd RuJe 1.4(a) requires that a lawyer keep a client reasonably informed about th(: StatuS of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. 4. That Mr. Docrpinghaus' condua violated Model Rul~ 3.4(d) when he f.tilc:d to cause his clients' Respo~ to the Jkquests for Admission 1'0 be prepared and filed and wh(:n h(: fuiled ro mail his clients' Response to Int(:rrogatories and Request for Production of Documents until June II, 1998, ten (10) days m(:r th~ dodline for response. Modd Rul~ 3.4(d) provides, in pertinent pan, that a lawye.r in a pretrial procc:dure not F.lill'O make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with leg<lIly proper discovery requests from an opposing party. 5. Thai Mr. Docrpinghaus' conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d) when he failed to cause his clients' Response to Requests for Admission to be prepared and filing thereby allowing the Requests to be deemed admined under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procc:dure; when he failed 10 file his clients' Responses to Interrogal'Ories and Jkquests for Production until June 11. 1998, ten (10) days after the dodJinl:: for filing the responses; when he F.liled to file his clients' Response to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment thereby causing his clients to be unable to present their defense to the Motion; when hI:: f.tiled to respond to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and de.fend at a hearing on thl:: amount of damages which led to a Judgment in the amount of $394,870.18 being ente~ against his clients on ~bruary 18, 1999; and when he fuiled {O file a response: to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and any response to the application for the opposing counsel's attorney's fees and COSts thereby allowing a Supplemental Judgm~t in the amount of $28,545.60 representing attorney's fees and $279.08 representing COSts be entered against his clients on March 30, 1999. Model Rule 8.4(d) ~uires that a lawyer not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justia.

WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct that CHARLES J.

DOERPI GHAUS, A<karnas Ba< ID #81049, be, and h~reby is, SUSPENDED for one ~ for his conduct in this matter. The suspension shall become effective as of the dale of the filing of this Order with the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court. In addition, the Committee has imposed a fine of 5500.00 for his F.Ulurc: to respond {O the formal complaint, pursuant to Section 51(1) and Sccr:ion 8A(2) of the Procedures. The fine shall be paid no later than thirty (30) days from the filing of this Order with the Arkansas Supreme Court Clerk.

IN Jl.E, PHlLUP D. COOK, JR UTfLE ROCK, ARKANSAS OCTOBER 6, 2000 The forma.! charges of misconduct upon which this Order is premised arose from the Complaint of Barry W Stinson, Claims Consultant for Hanford Insunn« G>mp.ny, (H.rtfonl). PhiUip D. Cook, Jr., an attorney praaicing primarily in Little Rock, Arkansas, was first hired 10 represent Hartford to pursue various subrogation matters during June 1997. During 1998, Hartford began to experience a lack of servia:= by Mr. Cook. He f.tiled to return telephone calls, failed to send StatuS reports, and f.Uled to respond to ~uests for information by agents and employees of Harrford. At me time, Mr. Cook had nwnerous files in which he was to be pursuing Hanford's subrogation interest claims. Fred Westbrook. a Territorial ~ery Manager for Hartford, wrote Mr. Cook concerning me open subrogation files on February 24, 1999. Mr. Cook did not respond. Mr. Stinson, the complainam herein, wrote Mr. Cook on April 21, 1999, and terminated his services. In the letter of termjnation, Mr. Stinson advised Mr. Cook to turn all Hanford files ove.r to the law firm of F~ & Boyce, P.A. Mr. Cook did not do so. As of the date of M r. Stinson's affidavit, January 10, 2000, Mr. Cook still had not responded (0 any attempts 1'0 contact him about the subrogation fLIes. In addition, Mr. Stinson le:uned that Mr. Cook allowed the limitation time to expire

Accountant/Economic Analysis • Business Valuations • Personallnjury Damage Analysis • Divorce (Property & Child Support Issues)

Court-Appoillted • Regular Court Appearances Richard L. Schwartz

Certified Public Accountant Certified Business Appraiser Certified Fraud Examiner

11510 Fairview Road, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72212-2445 Phone: (501) 221-9900 Fax: (501) 221-9292


I'll II SI. Il1I'illlr !til

T~e lrkllm LI~W


Lm )1'1' IIisl'ipliUiIl') \l't ions on at least one of the files related to Hartford. Mr. Cook was personally served wich the formal complaint by a private process server, pursuant to Section 5E. Procedures of the Arkansas Suprt=:me Court Regulating Professional Condua of Attorneys at law (Procedures) on April 20, 2000. Mr. Cook fajled to respond to me formal complaint. His

Jack Davis

f.tilu~ to respond timely to the formal complaint constitutes admission of the F.lCtual allegations contained me!" pursuant to Section 51(4) of the Procedures. Upon consideration of the formal complaint and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Condua, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds:

Frank Hamlin

Sid McCollum



Museum Center, Suite 10, 500 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 7220 1 501-376-2121 1104 South Walton Blvd .. Suite 20, Bentonville, AR 72712 501-271-2237 423 Rogers Avenue, Suite 101, Fort Smith. AR 72902 501-783-1776

,10 The ,Irkmasl,a"'ler


I. That Mr. Cook's condua violated Modd Rule: du~ subrogation mauers of Hartford Insurance Company for which he: was hjred. Modd Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in rt=presenting a c1ie:nt. 2. That Mr. Cook's condua violated Modd Rule 1A(a) when he f.Liled to contaa anyone on behalf of Hartford or respond to thdr requests for information and when he: fajled to kttp Hanford's age:nts informed of the statUS of the 1q;:a1 maners he: was pursuing on thdr bc=half during the last year of his representation of Hartford. Model Rule: 1A(a) requires that a lawye:r kc=c=p a c1ie:nt reasonably informed about the status of a maner and prompdy comply with reasonable requests for information. 3. That Mr. Cook's conduct violated Modd Rule 1.16(d) whe:n, afte:r his services we:rt= te:rminated, he: failed [0 return the open subrogation files as requcstc=d by the agents of Hartford. Modd Rule 1.16(d) requires, in pertinent part, that, upon termination of representation, a lawyer take steps to the otem reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as surrt=ndering papers to which the cliem is entitled. 4. That Mr. Cook's conduct violatc=d Model Rule 8A(d) when he rt=fused to communicate with agents for Hartford and failed to rerum the open subrogation files thert=by delaying the resolution of the legal maners which he was hired to pursue and when he failed to take action on bc=half of his client, Hartford Insurance Company, resulting in at least one of claims being barred by the statute of Ijmitations. Modd Rule 8A(d) fttJuires that a lawyer not engage in conduct that is prt=judicial to the administration of justice. WHEREFORE, it is me decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Commi[{~ on Professional Conduct that PHIWP D. COOK, Arkansas Bar 10 #93085, be, and hert=by is, SUSPENDED fo' SIX (6) MO THS fo' h;, conduct in this mauer. The sanction imposed was enhanced for his fajlurt= to respond, pursuant [Q Sections 51(2) of the Procedures. The suspension shall become dfea:ivt: as of the date of the: filing of this Order and shall rt=:main in dfect until such time as che~ has been an affirmativt: VOte: by a majority of the Commin~ to ~insrate Mr. Cook to the practice of law.

1.3 when he: f.Liled to timdy pursue:

OTICE OF REPRIMAND IN RÂŁ, BRIAN WADE ALBRIGHT HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS OcroBER 31, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is premised arOK from the Complaint of Robert J. Haupt. During February J 998, HG Corp of Arkansas (HGA), a corporation in which Mr. Haupt is a principal, sold assets to PC-KH Corporation, another Arkansas corporation. Two months later, a creditor of HGA filed a lawsuit

tit\\ ~lli' IIisriplimll} .\1'1 ions against both corporations, Mr. Haupt and Paul Chmura, a principal in the PC-KH. Although Mr. Chmura was ~rved with the complaint, ndther Mr. Haupt nor HGA C'Vcr received the complaint. However, an affidavit of S(:rvicc: was filed in the: (jtigation demonstrating that Mr. Haupt and HGA had "refuscer the certified mailing of the: complaint. As a resuh, a Debult Judgment was emerro against Mr. Haupt and HGA on March 18. 1999. Mr. Chmura informed Mr. Haupt of the judgment. After ~iving !.his information, Mr. Haupt contaCt Brian Wade Albright. an anornq practicing in HOl Springs, concerning the matter. During the conversation. Mr. Haupt and Mr. Albright discussed the judgmc:nt and the options available to Mr. Haup!. After the conversation, Mr. Albright wrote Mr. Haupt and Mr. Chmura, his client. In the lener, Mr. Albright advised that there should be no problt:m having the dd:iuh judgmt:nt set asidt:. Mr. Albright also advised that anotht:r anornq would n~ to be t:mploy«l to sign tht: plt:adings to set asidt: tht: judgmt:nt sina: tht:rt: w:lS a conflia of intt:resl dut: to his rq>resentation of Mr. Chmura in tht: samt: lawsuit. In faa, Mr. Albright filM a third party complaint againsl HG Corporation for Mr. Chmura. Mr. Haupt was nOI awaft of this filing al tht: timt: it was filM. Mr. Haupl's lener also contained information cona:rning Mr. Haupt 5«Uring the COstS of Mr. Albright's vacation I't:.nt.a.1. Mr. Haupt was: to do this as payment for Mr. Albright's services in securing the setting aside of the dt:fauh judgment. Mr. Haupt w:lS relying on Mr. Albrighl 10 get the defauh judgmenl set aside. He stressed to Mr. Albright his concern over being personally protected from any judgment that might be obtained by the cra:litor that had brought the lawsuit. According to Mr. Albright, the vacation rental payment was only for his representation of Mr. Chmura. Mr. Albright a.ssened that under the terms of the purchase agrttmt:nt between Mr. Chmura and Mr. Haupt, Mr. Haupt was responsible for any legal fees associau:d with any litigation expense incurred by Mr. Chmura in defense of his interest in the business acquired from Mr. Haupt. Approximately two weeks later, Mr. Albright sem Mr. Haupt a copy of a Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment. Mr. Albright explained thaI the Motion and Brief ~rt= prq>arM with the consent of his c1ienl, Mr. Chmura. In the note that accompanied tht: Motion, Mr. Albrighl explained to Mr. Haupl thaI ht: believed the default judgment would be set aside based upon the law cited in the brief. Mr. Albright admined that he prepared the sample Motion and Brief. However, he asserted thai he never intended to lead Mr. Haupt into believing that he could or would rq>resent him in the maner. At this point, Mr. Haupt beli~ that Mr. Albright would locale an anornq to sign the plt:adings. Mr. Albright did not provide Mr. Haupt any information 10 the COntrary. following his receipt of this information, Mr. Haupt lost what minimal contact he previously had with Mr. Albright. After a few months had passed, and because of his growing

cona:rn ovt:r the situation, Mr. Haupt sem Mr. Albright a letter and specifically faluested that Mr. Albright represent him individuaJly. Mr. Albright did not respond. Finally, on September 3, 1999, Mr. Haupt wrote Mr. Albright and terminated his services. Again, Ihere was: no response. On the same dale that Mr. Haupt sem the correspondence to Mr. Albright terminating his services, he also retained the services of Phil Clay, another anorncy practicing in Hot Springs. Mr. Haupt wrote Mr. Albright one additional time and faluested an accounting of services provided as a resuh of the funds expended by Mr. Haupt for Mr. Albright's vacation n:=ntal. Mr. Albright did not respond to the falUesL According [0 Mr. Albrighl, he spoke with Phil Clay shortly after he received this Ie:ner and believed that everything was fine: so a response was nOI necessary. Mr. Clay sub~uenrJy represented Mr. Haupt in his effortS to set aside the de:fauh judgmem. On October 5, 1999, a hearing was hdd. Following the hearing. the triaJ coun granted the Motion and set aside the judgment. Mr. Albright denied that he ~r intended to misrt=presem anything to Mr. Haupt, but after reviewing the correspondence he saw wht:rt: Mr. Haupt indicated a desire for Mr. Albright to represent him on these maners. Mr. Albright did acknowledge thai he should have been more direct in explaining to Mr. Haupt that he would not rq>resent him in this maner. In addition, Mr. Albright acknowledged mal he w:lS not direct enough when he discussed the n~ for Mr. H:iIUpt 10 ret:lin separate counsel. He exprc:ssed his regret for any conduct thai resulted in an undue burden on Mr. Haupt. Upon considt:ration of the formaJ complaint, the response thereto, and me Arkansas Modd Rules of ProfessionaJ Conduct, the Committ~ on Professional ConduCl finds: 1. 11\3.( Mr. Albright's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3 when he failed to cause a timdy Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment to be filed, at a time when Mr. Haupt understood thai Mr. Albright was assisting in representation of Mr. Haupt and his business. Modd Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. 2. That Mr. Albright's conduct violated Modd Rule 1.4(01) when he failed to respond to Mr. Haupt's various n:=quests for information during the period of time when Mr. Haupt believed Mr. Albright w:lS representing him and when he failed to k~p Mr. Haupt informed of the legal matter in which he believed Mr. Albright was protecting his interests from March 1999 through August 1999. Modd Rult: lA(a) n:=quires that a lawyt::r keep a diem reasonably informed about me StatuS of a maner and promptly comply with reasonable requests for informacion. 3 That Mr. Albright's conduct violated Modd Rule 1.4(b) when he failed to adequatdy explain to Mr. Haupt in his March 1999 correspondence that he would nOI be locating counsel to pursue the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment on Mr.

Haupt's behal£ Modd Rule IA(b) faluires that a lawyer explain a mant:r 10 the extent reasonably nea:ssary 10 permit the: client to make informed decisions regarding the represermnion. 4. That Mr. Albright's conduci violated Modd Rule 1.7(b) when he prt:parcd a plt:ading for Mr. Haupt, which was contrary to the responsibility owed to his client, Mr. Chmura. Modd Rule 1.7(b) requires, in pertinent part, that a lawyer not represent a client if the rt:presentation of that client may be materiaJly limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another c1iem, unless (I) tht: lawyer reasonably believes the rt:presentation will not be adversely affecred; and (2) the client consents after consulrntion. 5. Thai Mr. Albrighl's conduct violated Modd Rule 1.15(b) when he f.1iled to provide Mr. Haupl with information concerning how rnt: funds Mr. Haupl provided in connection with Mr. Albright's vacation renral were orned, despitt: requests for such an accounting. Modd Rule 1.15(b) requires, in pertinent pan, that upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer promptly render a full accounting regarding such property upon request by the client or third person. 6. Thai Mr. Albrighl's conduci violaled Modd Rule 8.4(c) when he allowed Mr. Haupl to continue

Safe Time and Honey Allow us to .ate I diffllfB'tJe in lour rase "'here b~a1(h, illness In.l,r injurl' is an R. As 6fpert cOISullnls, we en mllze and summarize medical dOIJUmenlalion in an elfilJient, cost·eUelJlilc manner takiR! tbe worries on or rou aid lour sial! and,i,!lbe ledinl aspect~ o! lour client's rase.

KIDO &Jj~'OtUTh~' ~ledival-IJegal

Nurse tonsultant~

Kelly D. Kidd, IL~ L.~C Presidell ~OI.914.8384

Pager 909.313.5813 Cellular filII XI. Illfiltlr 1111

TR ,lrUM Li~JIr


tim ~l'l' Ilisriplillill} \rt iOlls to believe he was going to rcpresem Mr. Haupt's interestS even though he could not because of his represenr:uion of Mr. Chmura. Model Rule BA(c) requires, in pertinem pan, a la~r not en~ in conduct involving misrepresentation. 7. That Mr. AJbright's conduct violated Modd Rule B.4(d) because his f.UJurc to respond to Mr. Haupt and advise Mr. Haupt that he was not going to rcprese.nt Mr. Haupl led to a delay in Mr. Haupt hiring counsel to protect his inrerestS in the lawsuit wherein Mr. AJbrighr represented Mr. Chmura. Model Rule BA(d) requires that a la~r not engage in conduct thar is prejudicial to the administration of justice. WHEREFORE, it is me decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee on Professional Conduct that BRJAN WADE ALBRIGHT, kbnsas 1m 10 #93102, Ix, and hereby is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this mattcr.

IN Illi KELLI S. CASHION LIITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS NOVEMBER 7, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is premised arose from the Complaint of Nancy Moore. Kelli S. Cashion, an attorney pracricing primarily in Pulaski County, Arkansas, was hired (Q represent Ms. Moore in a guardianship proceeding. Ms. Moore wished to pursue guardianship of hc=r granddaughter. Ms. Cashion quoted Ms. Moore a fee of $1500 for thc= representation. Ms. Moore paid the emirc fee on June 26, 1998. There was no discussion about the fee agreement other man a request for S1500. On the day that Ms. Moore paid Ms. Cashion, she also signed Petition for Temporary Guardianship which Ms. Cashion had prepared for her. The Petition was filed on thai d.ayalso. In .addition, Ms. Cashion filed a request for Emergency Guardianship which was allowed by Judge Vann Smith, three days laler. Two days after entry of the Order of Emergency Guardianshjp, a hearing was conducted before Judge Smith. Following the hearing. Judge Smith returned custody of Ms. Moore's granddaughter to her daughter. AJ pan of his decision, Judge Smith ordered. that a drug test be completed by Ms. Moore's daughter and her son-inlaw. Ms. Moore never received any information concerning whether the test was adminisrered nor whal the resultS were, if in F.tct it was administered. This was despire Ms. Moore's numerous requestS made to Ms. Cashion for this information. Following the hearing. Ms. Cashion advised Ms. Moore thar she would hire an investigator to conduct background checks on Ms. Moore's daughter and her son·in·law. Further, Ms. Cashion requeSied that Ms. Moore provide her all the information she had available: concerning Ms. Moore's daughter and son·in·law. Ms. Cashion was (Q obtain any information that the Departmenr of Human Services had on record concerning these rwo individuals as weU. Ms. Moore does nor know if any


of this was done by Ms. Cashion, because the date of the hearing was the last time she spoke with Ms. Cashion. Ms. Moore's daughter would not allow Ms. Moore to have contact with her granddaughtcr following the hearing so Ms. Moore began to cry to rc.ach Ms. Cashjon to find out her rights ~re in ~ to visitation. Ms. Cashion did not return the telephone messages. Approximately July 13, 1998, Ms. Moore received a letter from Ms. Cashion advising that the investigaror hired by Ms. Cashion needed all of the information that Ms. Moore had available concerning her daughter and Ms. Moore rued three (3) pages of informacion to Ms. Cashion per the requesr. The next time she heard from Ms. Cashion it was again by correspondence. In the correspondence, Ms. Cashion advised Ms. Moore mat she had been OUt of the office for several weeks because she had b«n involved in an accident. In addition, Ms. Cashion advised Ms. Moore that all the information providcd had been forwarded to the investigamr hired by Ms. Cashion. Ms. Moore followed up with Ms. Cashion in a letter of her own. Ms. Cashion did not respond ro the lctter. By this time, Ms. Moore's daughter had left town with Ms. Moore's granddaughter and she was unsure of their location. Ms. Moore, still being afraid for her granddaughter's safety, continued to anempt to contact Ms. Cashion, with no success. Since shc was unable to speak wim Ms. Cashion, Ms. Moore contacted the investigator that Ms. Cashion had advised Ms. Moore would be working on her legal matter. The investigator informed Ms. Moore mat although he had previously worked with Ms. Cashion on some matters, he had not heard of Ms. Moore nor her granddaughter. Ms. Moore was terribly upset after she spoke with the invt:Stigator. She called another lawyer who contacted Ms. Cashion's office to inquirt of the stams of the legal mattc=r. hortly thercafi:er, Ms. Cashion's secretary called Ms. Moore 2nd advised that a coun date had been set but that they needed Ms. Moore's daughter's address. Ms. Moore informed the: secretary that she did not have the 2ddress because her daughter would not let her ha~ it as she did not want Ms. Moore to know where they lived. The week before the scheduled court date Ms. Moore c:ontaaed Ms. Cashion's office and left: .a message that she wanted to speak: with Ms. Cashion about the hearing. Ms. Cashion did not retwn the message. On the day of the scheduled hearing, one hour before the time set for the hearing, Ms. Cashion's secretary called and told Ms. Moore that the hearing had been canceled. Following several more frustrating months of no contact from Ms. Cashion, Ms_ Moore sent her a letter terminating her .services, requesting return of her file coments and a partial refund of the S1500 advance payment of fee. Ms. Cashion has not replied in any fashion to Ms. Moore. Ms. Cashion was served with the formal complailll by certified, restricled delivery mail, pursuant to Section SE, Procedures of rhe Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Profe:ssional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (Procedures) on June 8, 2000. Ms. Cashion failed 10 respond to the formal complailll. Her

F.U1urc: to respond timely to the formal complaint constitU[es admission of the F.tCtual allegations contained therein pursuant to Section 51(4) of the Proc<du=. Upon consideration of the formal complaint and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Comminee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Ms. Cashion's conduct violated Model Rule 1.1 when she failed to actively pursue guardianship of Ms. Moore's granddaughter for Ms. Moore as she was hired to do. Model Rule 1.1 requires. in pertinent part, dm a lawyer provide competent representation to a client including the thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the represe.ncuion. 2. That Ms. Cashion's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3 when she did not timely seek to enforce Judge Smith's Order concerning the required drug testing of Ms. Moore's daughter and her daughter's husband, and, when she did not djligently pursue Ms. Moore's Petition for Full Guardianship of her granddaughter. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. 3. That Ms. Cashion's conduct violated Model Rule 1.4(a) when she did not respond to Ms. Moore's numerous relephone calls and lenc=rs requesting informacion about the guardianship maner and when she failed to kc=ep Ms. Moore informed of the Status of any action she was taking on her behalf in conneCtiOll with the guardianship maner. Model Rule 1.4(a) rcqillres mat a lawyer keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a maner and promptly comply with reasonable requestS for information. 4. That Ms. Cashion's conduct violated Model Rule 1.16(d) when, mer Ms. Moore terminated Ms. Cashion's rcpT'CS4:nt:nion, she f.U.laJ to return papers and property to which Ms. Moore was entitled and she failed to return the unearned portion of the adV21lced payment offee. Model Rule I. 16(d) requires, in pertinent pan, that upon terminacion of represemation an anorney take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client's intercsu, such as any adV21lced payment of fee that has not b«n earned. 5. That Ms. Cashion's conduct violated Model Rule B.4(c) when she falsely advised Ms. Moore mat she had hired an investigator to assist in the pending legal maner. Model Rule B.4(c) requires, in pertinent pan, thar a lawyer not engage in conduct involving misrepresentation. 6. That Ms. Cashion's conduct violated Model Rule B.4(d) since her lack of action on bdtalf of Ms. Moore has delaye=d Ms. Moore's desire of making certain that her granddaughter is in a safe environment. Model Rule BA(d) requires that a lawyer not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to me adminisrration of justice. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas upreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct that KELLI S. CASHION, Arkansas Bar ID #96006 be, and hereby is, REPRIMANDED for her conducr in this matter.


till' )1 11' IIiSripiiDill') In addicion, Ms. Cashion is fined. as a ~par.lte sanction for her failure to respond, pursuant to Sections 51(3) and 8A(2) of the: Procedures. the sum of $250. Said fine: is duc: and payable within thirty (30) days of the date that this Order is filed.

IN Illi WOODSON D. WALKER UTI1.E ROCK, ARKANSAS NOVEMBER 28, 2000 The: forma.! charg~ of misconduct upon which this Order is premised arose from the complaint of

Roic:tte Hollis and the Supporting Affidavit of David Cannon, an anomey practicing in Little Rock. During 1989. Ms. Hollis ~ injured in an amomobile accidem and hired Woodson D. Walker, an attorney practicing in Lime Rock, fa represent her in pursuit of her claims for personal injury. Ms. Hollis decided to hire Mr. Walker after reviewing certain advertising materials about his law firm. The advertising mau:rials contained a material misrepresentation of fact with (ht: starc=, "We'll win your case or you don't owe pay." The stuement gives the clear impression that unless Mr. Walker wins for the client, they will be responsible for no payments. This impression is contrary to the fcc= agreement wherein the client is made responsible for all out-of pocket expenses regardless of whether Mr. Walker is successful in his pursuit of his client's daims. Mr. Walker was able to settle Ms. Hollis's claim in 1993 after a lawsuit was filed on her behalf. Ms. Hollis was presented a Release and a Settlement Disbursement Statement to sign at the time of settlement. he signed both documents but was not provided a copy of either one. $1800 was withheld from her settlemem proceeds to pay any potential subrogation claim of her health insurance: provider, Blue Cross I Blue Shield. Blue Cross I Blue Shield had paid some of Ms. Hollis's medical bills which had resulted from her injuries sustained in the accident. Mr. Walker was unsure whether the subrogcc= would submit a claim for the $1800. He also advised Ms. Hollis that if no claim was made within six (6) months that the funds would be released to her. Afi'cr six (6) months, me funds were not released to Ms. Hollis nor was she informed whether the subrogee had sought the funds. For approximately twO (2) years, Mr. Hollis was given various excuses about the fajlure to temit the funds to her or, in the a.lternative, demonstrate that the funds had hccn pajd to Blue Cross I Blue Sh..idd. Ms. Hollis requested on numerous occasions that Mr. Walker provide her with a State.ment verifying the status of the funds. Mr. Walker fa.iled to respond to the requests. During May 1996, Ms. Hollis sought the assistance of Herb Wright, Jr., another lawyer to assist her with dealing with Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker did not respond to any of the requests for information made by Mr. Wright, either. Finally, on $(:ptember 5, 1997, David Cannon, an associate with Mr. Wright, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Hollis seeking to recover the funds held by Mr. Walker. According to the Answer which Mr. Walker filed, the S1800 was still being hdd in the firm's trust

.\I't inns

account. Although Mr. Walker ag~ to provide certain documentation to Mr. Cannon concerning lhe status of the funds and any requests made by the subrogee for the funds, he did not do so. Mr. Cannon filed formal discovery requests to which Mr. Walker also did not respond, evt:n after the trial judge entered an Order compelling responses. Finally, in January of 1998, Mr. Walker tenderul the funds to Ms. Hollis and Mr. Cannon. It [()Ok over four (4) years and required the hling of a lawsuit before Ms. Hollis received the funds which belonged to her. Following Mr. Walker's receipt of the formal complaint and his complete rr:spo~ thereto, the respondent anorney, through his counsel, Darrell F. Brown, and the Acting Executive Director undertook discussions which have resulted in Mr. Walker's agrttment to djscipline by conscm pursuant to Section BC, Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Regulating Professional Conduct ofAnorneys at Law (Procedures). Upon consideruion of the formal complaint, admissions herein, the terms of the proposed consent to discipline hereinafter stated, and the Arkansas Model RuJes of Professional Conduct, the Commincc= on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Walker's conduct violated Model Rule 1.4(a) when he fajled to explain to Ms. Hollis the StaWS of returning the S1800 to her despite numerous requests made by her and when he ÂŁ:ailed to honor the request of Ms. Hollis's counsel to provide copies of checks disbursed from her scnlement. Model Rule 1.4(a) requires that a lawyer keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a maner and promptly comply with reasonable requests for infonnation. 2. That Mr. Walker's conduct violated Model Rule 1.5(c) when he fajled to provide Ms. Hollis with a copy of her settlement disbursement starement at the conclusion of her petsonal injury maner. Model Rule 1.5(c) requires, in pertinent part, that upon conclusion of a conringent fcc= maner, the lawyer provide the client with a writren statement stating the outcome of the matter and. if there is a recovery, showing the remjrtance to the dent and the method of its determination. I. That Mr. Walker's conduct violated Model Rule 1.15(b) when he fajled to I. promptly deliver the funds held in trust to Ms. Hollis when Blue Cross I Blue Shield did not make a claim to the funds and by fajling to render a full accounting of the 51800 from the time he settled Ms. Hollis's personal injury claim until he settled the lawsuit filed against him on behalf of Ms. Hollis despite the repeated requests fot such an accounting to be: provided. Model Rule I.I 5(b) requires, in pertinent pan, that upon receiving funds in which a djent has an interest, a lawyt=:r promptly deliver to the client any funds that the client is emitled t'O n~aive and, upon request by the client, promptly render a full accounting regarding such property. 2. That Mr. Walker violated Model Rule 3.4(c) when he failed to respond to the Requests for Production lawfully propounded to him in the

bwsuit filed against him despite an Order entered compelling such responses. Model Rule 3.4(c) tequires, in pertinent part, that a lawyer not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal. 3. That Mr. Walker's conduct violated Model Rule 3.4(d) when he fa.i1ed to make an dfort to respond to the Requests for Production propounded to him by his former client even mer an Order was entered compelling him to respond. Model Rule 3.4(d) requires, in pertinent part, that a lawyer not to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party, in pretrial procedure. 4. That Mr. Walker violated Model Rule 7.l(a) when he included the statement "We'll win your case: or you don't pay" in his advertising materials giving the clear impression that the client pays nothing ifhe doesn't win their case, even though the statement is contrary to the language of his employment contract wherein the client is responsible for all OUt of pocket expenses regardless of whether he wins. Model Rule 7.1 (a) requires, in pertinent pan, that a lawyer not make a fa.1se or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services and provides that a communication is fa.1se or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading. WHEREFORE, in accordance with the consem to discipline presenred by Mr. Walker and the Acting Executive Director, Nancie M. Givens, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct that

WOODSON D. WALKER. Arbnsas Bar ID #76135.1><. and hereby~. REPRIMANDED for h~ condua in this matter. Further, pursuant to Section 8A(2) of the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Regulating Professional Conduct of Anorneys ar Law, it is the decision and order of the Committee that Mr. Walker be, and hereby is, fined in the amount of $500. Said fine to be remined to the Office: of the Executive Director, pay.;tble ro the Committee on Professional Conduct, within rhirty (30) days of the filing of this Order. IN Illi WOODSON D. WALKER UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS NOVEMBER 28, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is premised arose From the complaint of Don Heaton. Mr. Heaton is a supervisor for Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. (Farmers), in the division related to the subrogation claims. One of Farmers' insureds, Alicia Brown, was injured in an automobile accident on December 31, 1994. Ms. Brown hired Woodson D. Walker, an anorney practicing in Linle Rock, to represent her in pu.rsuit of all bodily injury claims against the tonfeasor's insurance provider, American National Insurance Company (American). During January of 1995. Farmers was first contacted by Mr. Walker concerning Ms. Brown's

111.11 XI. !/Willtr 1M!

1R ,\r~lIm



tan '.1 1' Uisriplimll} \1'1 ions 1

claims. Pursuant to thaI contact, a medical payments file W2S opened. Oaim forms wc:re then sent to Mr. Walker's office. Then in May of 1996, Willie E. Larry, Mr. Walker's Senior Claims Manager, sent correspondence to Farmers in support of Ms. Brown's medical payments claims. An agent of Farmers sent correspondence directly to Mr. Larry at Mr. Walker's law firm containing a request that their interest be protected. Since no response was rcttived, a follow.up letter was sent approximately twO (2) weeks later. In addition to this correspondence, Farmers also placed American on notice of their claims for medical payments and propeny damage. A claims representative for AmeriCln responded and advised that Mr. Larry had acknowledged the medical lien and advised that the same would be honored at the time of settlement of the claim. Beginning in August of 1995, employees of Farmers routinely sent requCSts for information about the claims to Mr. Walker and ro his employees. In addition, several telephone calls were made which were nOI returned. Finally, in June 1996, a response was received to the numerous requests for information. In that response, Farmers was advised to send all fmure corrcspondence to Karen Spate, another non-lawyer employee of Mr. Walker. On November 20, 1996, a written requcst for a status report was sem directly to Ms. Spate. No response: was forthcoming. On March 19, 1997, during a telephone call initiated by an employee of Farmers, an employee: of Mr. Walker advised that they were waiting on a trial setting. In April of 1997, Farmers learned that an associate of Mr. Walker W2S handling Ms. Brown's file. On April 29, 1997, thaI associate called Farmers and advised that he needed medical information for the subrogation claim. Pursuant to that request, a copy of the payment log for medical claims along with a written status request was sent. On May 4, 1997, the associate called and advised mat the claim had not yet settled with American. Since me claim was not yet settled, Farmers calendared the file and djd nm contact the law office again until a written request W2S sent to Mr. Walker's associate on September 25. 1997. 0 response W2S received. Beginning in January of 1998, many messages were left for Mr. Walker and the associale. After four (4) messages had been left, me associate c:a.lled and advised thal he was not representing Ms. Brown on her claim and further, averrM that he had never advised that he did represent her. 8eCIuse no information W2S forthcoming from Mr. Walker or any of his employees, an agent for Farmers c:a.lled American. During that conversation, Farmers first learned that Ms. Brown's claims had been senled in May of 1997 and mat a settlement check had been sent to Mr. Walker, to the anemion of his associate. in the amount of $8,500 on May 5, 1997. Immediately following that conversation, Mr. Walker was called again. An employee of Mr. Walker advised that the file would be reviewed and Farmers would be C'dJled hack. However, the call was not returned. American provided a copy of the front and back of the settlement check to the complainant. The check lists Farmers as a payee. Mr. Walker


Thl Irkmall,aw,rr


endorsed the check on behalf of Farmers even though he had never been given permission to do so. Mr. Walker admitted that he endorsed the check on beh.Jf of Farmers. He believed that he had the authority to do so since he W2S the attorney-in-fact for Farmers in connection with the subrogation interest. It was never Mr. Walker's intent to dca:ive or otherwise deprive Farmers of irs rightful proceuls. Six (6) messages we", left during February 1998 before Mr. Walker returned the C111 to Farmers. When he called, Mr. Walker advised that his associate had set up his own praaice and had taken some files with him, intimating that the associate had the information penaining 10 this claim which was needed by Mr. Walker. No orplanation was offered by Mr. Wa.lker about the endorsement on the settlement check. Mr. Walker did advise that he would contact Farmers again about these matters. He did not do so until January 1999 when he finally sent payment for me subrogation interest to Mr. Heaton on behalf of Farmers. According to Mr. Walker, all payments related 10 this file were disbursed to the appropriate parries with the exctption of Farmers. Mr. Walker believes that ir was an oversighl on the part of an associate or his adminisrrative assistant. Since it was policy to make sure all payments were made on each file, Mr. Walker did not have reason 10 suspect that il was not done and therefore was not aware of the problem at the time it initially arose. Mr. Walker explained to the Committee that an associate resigned from his firm shonly after Ms. Brown's claim was settled. When the associate resigned, Mr. Walker assumed responsibility for all 105 open files that the associale had been handling. Ms. Brown's claim was not one of the open files and therefore was not reviewed at the time of resignation. At some point in 1998, when Mr. Walker realized that Farmers had not been paid, steps were taken to pay Farmers their subrogation interest. Mr. Walker admined that his firm, for which he is responsible, djd not promptly ddiver the funds to Farmers. At the present, Mr. Walke.r is attempting 10 resolve the mallers whkh arose during the same rime period in which this complaint arose. Mr. Walker also provided his assurance to the Committee mat all reasonable Steps will be taken to avoid these kinds of issues and problems in the future. Following Mr. Walker's rcttipt of the formal complaint and his complete response thereto, the respondent allomer, through his counsel, Darrell F. Brown, and the Acting Executive Director undenook tfucussions which have resulted in Mr. Walker's agreement to discipline by consent pursuant 10 Section 8e, Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at law (Procedures). Upon consideration of the formal complaint, admissions hertin, the terms of the proposed consenl to discipline hereinafter stared, and (he Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I, That Mr. Walker's conduct violated Model Rule 1.15(b) when he failed 10 notify anyone on

lx.half of Farmers when he received funds in which Farmers had an interest and when he F.Uled to promptly deliver me funds to Farmers to which me company W2S entitled after his rcttipl of those funds on or aboUi May 5, 1997. Model Rule 1.15(b) requires, in pertinent pan, that upon receiving funds in which a third person has an interest, a lawyer promptly norify the third person and prompdy deliver to the third person any funds the third person is entitled to rcttive. 2. That Mr. Walker's conduct violated Modd Rule 8.4(c) when he endorsed a check on behalf of Farmers without then providing Farmers, the amount of funds in which the company had an interest, in a prompt manner. Model Rule 8.4(c) requires, in pertinent pan, that a lawye:r nOt engage in conduct involving dishonesty. Further, the Committcc finding good C1lLSC therefor and believing that a probationary period would be appropriate in this matter, a~pts Mr. Walker's rcqUCSt for Consent to Discipline, including a probationary period. Mr. Walker's consent to probation and the conditions thereof are evidenced by his signarure appearing in the Respondent's Consent to Probation and Conditions of Probation made a part hereof by reference. WHEREFORE, in accordance with the consent to discipline presented by Mr. Walker and the Acting Executive Director, Nancie M. Givens, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct that

WOODSON D. WALKER, Arbnsas Bar ID #76135.1><, and h<",by is, REPRIMANDED fo, h~ condua in this matter and placro on PROBATION

fo, EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS. Mr. Walker is therefore ordered, as a probationary condition, to obtain the agreement of another lawye:r, accqnable 10 the Committee, to supervise, monitor and assist him as rcquired to fulfill the condirions of probation. The probationary conditions directed by the Committee shaH be effective, and the probarionary term shall commence on the date of the filing of this Order.

IN RE, WOODSON D. WALKER UlTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS NOVEMBER 28, 2000 The formal chargc:s of misconduct upon which this Order is premised arose from the complaint of Stephanie Steel. Ms. Sted W2S involved in an automobile accident during ovember 1996. Based upon the recommendation of her aunt and uncle, she hired Woodson D. Walker, an attorney praaicing primarily in Linle Rock, Arkansas, to represent her. Most of Ms. Sted's contaa was not with Mr. Walker but was with Victoria Slack, an individual identified as a claims manager. Mr. Walker orplained Ms. Slack did have contact with Ms. Steel, but did so only under his direaion and supervision. It was Mr. Walker's explanation to the Committee that the use of Ms. Slack as a paralegal in his office W2S to aid him in the management of cases and to e.nsure that when he or any other lawyers in

til\\ ~'III' the office wert abS(:nt, clients ~rt able: to speak with someone about thdr casc: and not become frustrat~. During June of 1997. the Walker Law Firm was able: to negociatl: a settlement of Ms. Steel's claims in the amount of $9.000. The senlemem check, settlement statement and release were all p~nted to Ms. Steel at Mr. Walker's office. Mr. Walker

retained funds from the settlement medic:al providers.


pay Ms. Steel's

Ms. Steel understood that Mr.

Walker and Ms. Slack were going to anempr to have the medical bills rrouced. Sevc:....,j months after Mr. Walker received the funds for payment of the

medicaJ bills. Ms. 5t«1 learned that her hospital and pharmacy bills had nOI b«n paid. The account with NaYPOrl Hospital was turned ~r [0 a coU«tion agf:ncy beca~ of the: non·payment. The: pharmacy bill was ultimatdy paid during late 1997. Ms. Sted attempted 10 contact Mr. Walku (0 discuss this matter bm she was unsuccessful. one of her messages were returned by Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker denied ever rc:ct:iving any messages from Ms. 5to:=l. He explained that in 1997, he experienced a significant staff cha.nge at his office which led to many problems which have now been addressed. In addition, Mr. Walker was unaware that Ms. Sto:=l's medical providers had not been paid. Upon learning of the non·paymem after receiving the formal complaint, Mr. Walker paid all of the medical providers involved in Ms. Sto:=l's matter. Mr. Walker has also assured the Committo:= that steps have been taken to ensure thai th~ rypes of issues do not occur in the furore. Following Mr. Walker's rc:ct:ipt of the formal complaint and his complete response themo, the respondent anomey, through his counsel, DarrdI F. Brown, and the Acting Executive Direclor undertook discussions which ha~ resulted in Mr. Walker's agrttmem to discipline by conse:nt pursuanl to Section se, Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys OIl Law (procedures). Upon consideration of the formal complaint, admissions herein, the I'erms of the proposed consent to discipline hereinafter stated, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committo:= on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Walker's conduct violated Model RuJe 1.4(a) when he failed to respond to Ms. Steel's numerous requests concerning the scuus of whether her medical bills had been reduced and whether they had been paid. Model Rule 1.4(a) requires that a lawyt:r keep a client rttSOnably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with rttSOnable requests for information. 2. That Mr. Walker's conduct violated Modd Rule 1.15(b) when he failed to promptly notify Newport Hospital that he had received funds in which the hospital had an interest; when he failed to deliver the funds to Newport Hospital which the hospital was entitled to receive from Ms. Slo:=l'$ settlement; when he Failed for a period offour (4) months 10 advise Ms. St'eel's pharmacy thai he had received funds in which the pharmacy had an interest; when, instead of promptly delivering the

Ilisl'iplillill') \I't ions

fund he had received to the pharmacy, Mr. Walker ddayed four (4) months before remitting the funds to the pharmacy in payment of Ms. Sted's account; when he failed to notify the Diagnostic Medjcal Center of Jonesboro thai he had rc:ct:ived funds in which the Center had an interest until after he received the formal disciplinary complaint; and, when he Failed to deliver the funds to the Diagnostic Medical Center on Ms. Steel's behalf until after receipt of the formal disciplinary complaint. Model Rule 1.I5(b) requires, in pertinent part, that upon receiving funds in which a third ~rson has an interest, a lawyer promptly notify the third person and except as Sloned in this Rule or otherwise pe.rmined by law, that a lawyt:r promptly delive:r to the third person any funds that the third person is entitled to rece:ive. WHEREFORE, in accordance with the co~nt to discipline presemed by Mr. Walker and the Acting Execulive Direaor, Nancie M. Givens, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee on Professional Conduct that

WOODSON D. WALKER, Mkansas Bar ID #76135, be, and hereby is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this matter. Further, pursuant to Section 8A(2) of the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Coun ReguJating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law, it is the decision and order of the Committee that Mr. Walker be, and hereby is, fined in me amount of $500. Said fine to be remined to the Office of the Executive Direaor, payable to me Committo:= on Professional Conduct. within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Order. In addition, pursuant to Section SA(I) of the Pr-ottdures, it is the decision of the Committo:= mat Mr. Walker ~ assessed the costs of the procttdingt in the amount of $90.59, representing postage expenses and the cost of subpoem.. Said costs to be n=:mitted to the Office of the Executive Director, pa)':lble to the Committee on Professional Conduct, within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Order.

IN It£, JOHN LEE KEARNEY PINE BLUFF, ARKANSAS OCTOBER 30, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is premised arose from the Complaint of Eddie Frank Marshall. During July 1996, Mr. Marshall hired John Lee Kearney, an attorney pr2cticing primarily in Pine Bluff, to represent him in a legal matter involving a car accident. Although the fo:= arrangement was for Mr. Kearney to recei~ one-third of any amounl recovered for Mr. Marshall, there is no available written document setting out the fee agrttrnent. Mr. Kearney explained that it was his pr2ctice to have clients sign fee agrttments in contingency cases. However, he was nOI able to locate one in Mr. Marshall's matter so he was unable to demonstrate thai such an agreement was actually signed by Mr. Marshall. In lale 1996, Mr. Kearney requested $200 from Mr. Marshall for the filing fees necessary to file a complaint for him in Circuit Court. Mr. Marshall paid the $200 to Mr. Korney.

Mr. Kearney then filed a Complaint on Mr. Marshall's behalf in Pulaski County Circuit Court against Saturn of Greater Little Rock and John Doe. After the agent for Saturn was served, the attorneys for Saturn filed a Motion 10 Dismiss. In the Motion it is poimed out that the Complaint was filed in a wrong county and should have been filed in Garland Coumy. There were other deficiencies pointed out in the Motion. Mr. Kearney did nOI respond 10 me Motion on Mr. Marshall's behalf. Mr. Kearney explained that he felt thai me Court might trOt the 10 respond as a simple demurrer, as he had no FaCts to support a response to the Motion. A hearing was scheduJed on the Motion ro Dismiss for January 6, 1997. When Mr. Marshall met Mr. Kearney at the courthouse: on that dare, Mr. Kearney discu.ssed filing a non-suit of me ~ with Mr. MarshalL Mr. Kearney advised ML Marshall that he did not have enough evidence about the ~ 10 go forward. Mr. Marshall Mr. Kearney thai he wouJd agree 10 dismiss the ~ for a day but he did not want to drop me matter completely. Mr. Kearney did not adequately explain to Mr. Marshall thai the non-suit was not being taken for only one day. In faa, Mr. Kearney did not re·fiIe the case for Mr. MarshaiJ. Afler waiting several weeks, Mr. Marshall wrote Mr. Kearney and requested his files be returned to him. Mr. Kearney returned some of the file coments to Mr. Marshall but not all of them. Mr. Kearney explained that in retrosJXd he would not file any ~ with no mon=: to go on than he had in Mr. Marshall's ~, but he wanted (0 hdp Mr. MarshaU in any way that he could. After Mr. Kearney requested a de novo hearing from the baUot YOle decision of the Commina:, he presemed a proposo1 discipline by conse:nt pursuant to &aion Se. Proadures of the Arkansas Supreme CoUrt Rc:guIating Professional Conduct ofAttorneys at Law (Procedures). Upon consider2tion of the formal complaint, admissions herein, the terms of the proposed consent to discipline hereinafter Stated, and the Arkansas Modd Rules of Professional Conduct, the Commirtee on Professional Conduct finds: 1. That Mr. Kearney's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3 when he did nOI respond to the Motion 10 Dismiss ftled by Saturn of Greater Litde Rock in Mr. MarshaU's legal marter. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in repr~nting a client. 2. That Mr. Kearney's conduct violated Modd Rule 1.4(b) when he failed to adequately explain to Mr. Marshall that the non·suit which was taken prior to the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was not being taken for one (1) day only. Model Rule ) A(b) requires mat a lawye.r explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to ~rmit the client 10 make informed decisions regarding Ihe representation. 3. That Mr. Kearney's conduct violated Model RuJe l.5(c) in that no document is available to demonstrate that the fee agreement with Mr. Marshall was placed in written form. Model Rule 1.5(c) requires, in pertinent part, that a contingent

fll.lI SI. II\\iltl! 1111

ne .lrkllliJ LIWllf


till' )'(11' fee: agrec:mem be in writing. Funher, the Committee: finding good cause: therefor and believing that a probationary period would be appropriate in this matter, aceq>ts Mr. Kearnq's request for Consent to Discipline. Mr. Kornq's consent to probation and me conditions thereof are evidenced by his signature appearing in the Rc:spondent's Consent to Probation and Conditions of Probation appended to this Order, and made a part hereof by reference. WHEREFORE, in accordana: with me consem to discipline: pl'eS(:nted by Mr. Kearney, il is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme: Court Comminee on Profc:ssional Conduct that JOHN LEE KEARNEY, Arkansas Bat ID 174090, be, and hereby is REPRIMANDED for the aforesaid violations, and placed on PROBATION for NINETY (90) DAYS for his conduct in this matter. Mr. Kearney is therefore ordered, as a probationary condition, 1'0 obtain the agreement of anomer lawyer, acceptable to the: Committee, to supervise, monitor and assist him as required 10 fulfill the conditions of probation. The probationary conditions direcred by the Commince and set OUf in the anached Consent to Probation and Condilions of Probation shall be effective, and the probationary term shall commence on the date of the filing of this Order.

G. B. COLVIN, 1II MONTICELLO, ARKANSAS OCTOBER 12, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Arkansas Supreme Court case of Dianna Smith v. State ofArkansas, CR 2000-458. G. B. Colvin 111, an anomey practicing in Monticello, Arkansas, repl'eS(:nted Ms. Smith in an appea.llo the Arkansas Supreme Coun: in the abovt·mentioned maner. Ms. Smith was represented at a probation revocation hearing by Mr. Colvin on September 7, 1999. On September 10, 1999, a Judgment and Commitment Order was filed with the Chicol Counl)' Circuit Coun:. The Judgmem and Commitmenr Order f.Uled to list the numbe:r of months to which Ms. Smith was to serve at the Arkansas Deparrmem of Correction. A timely otia: of Appeal was filed on October 7, 1999. On October 19. 1999, an Amended judgmem and Commitment Order was filed wim me Chicot County Circuit Clerk. Mr. Colvin filed an amended Notice of Appeal on OClobe:r 28, 1999. An Order was entered by me Chicot Counl)' Circuit Coun on January 13, 2000 exte:nding the time to lodge the record on appeal. The: Order was emered more than ninety days following the flling of the first Notice of Appeal and therefore untimely. The record was not tendertd until April 7, 2000 and the Arkansas Supreme Coun Clerk refused to file the record. On April 14, 2000, Mr. Colvin filed a MOtion for Rule on the Clerk asserting that he believed the lime wirhin which to file the record on appeal began on the date of the Notice of Appeal from the Amended Judgment and CommitmelH Order. Mr. Colvin admitted thai he erred and used the lime: of filing of the Anlended


Tie IrkllllJ Liw)/r


IIisl'ipliUill) .\I't ions

Notia: of Appeal rathe:r man the fir$[ Notia: of Appeal, filed me Motion for Rule on me Clerk, and

the appeal proceeded accoffiingly. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the response herein, and the Arkansas Model Rulc:s of Professional Condua, the Comminee on Profc:ssional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Colvin's conduct violaled Model Rule 1.3. when he failed to file in a timely manner the r.:=cord on Ms. Smith&.rsquos behalf within ninety (90) days of the first Notia: of Appeal. Modd Rule 1.3 requirc:s that a lawyer act wirh reasonable diligena: and promptnc:ss in representing a diem. 2. Thai Mr. Colvin'scondua violated Model Rule 8A(d), when his f.Ulure to timely file the record on appc:a.l delayed the orderly and timely resolution of appellate procec:dings and caused the Coun: to expend additional time and effon: which would not have been necessary otherwise. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme: Coun Comminec: on Professional Conduct Ihat G.B. COLVIN, JII. Arkansas Bar 10 No. 66014, be, and he:reby is, REPRlMANDED, for his conduct in this maner.

IN R£, CARL FREDERICK MOYER GREEN FOREST, ARKANSAS SEPTEMBER 19,2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is based arose from (he complaim of Lesa L Home. Carl Frederick Moye:r, an attorney primarily practicing in Grc:en Forest, Carroll County, Arbnsas. repl'eS(:nred Ms. Home in a civil action in the Boone: County Circuit CoUrt. On Septembe:r 4, 1998, Mr. Moyer filed suit in behalf of Ms. Home in the Boone County Circuit Court againsl Richard Hunt. On March 5, 1999, a be:nch trial was held on the maner. On March 18, 1999, the Honorable Robe:rt W. McCorlcindale, II issued a lener opinion granting Ms. Home a S580.OO judgmenl in the case. The lener directed Mr. Moyer to dnft the judgment. Mr. Moyer asserts that he did prepare me judgmem prompdy after m:e:iving Judge McCorlcindaJe's correspondence. He believed thai it had bee.n sent 10 me judge after preparation. Despite numerous anempts, Ms. Home was unable to communicate with Mr. Moyer regarding the entry of me judgment. On Octobc:.r 4, 1999, Ms. Home anempled 10 file: for a Writ of Execution 10 collect her judgment from the defendant. On Oaober 2 I, 1999, Judge McCorlcindaie rescinded the Wril of Execution due 10 the F.ulure of Mr. Moyer to prepare me judgmem. On Novembe:r 8, 1999, Judge: McCorlcindale dismjssed the lawsuil due to Mr. Moyer's f.Ulurc: to submil me judgmenl. He: stated that he was unaware: Ihal Judge McCorlcindale dismissed the lawsuil due to his Failure to produce the judgment. However, Mr. MO)'er did accept responsibility for the failure of the judgment reaching Judge McCorkindale for emry. Upon consideration the formal complaint, response herein, and the Arkansas Modd Rules of Professional Conduct, [he Committee on

Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Moyer's conduct violated Modd Rule 1.3 when he f.Uled to submit the p~ent in Horne \'S. Hunt as r«Juirtd in judge McCorkindaJe's MaTCh 18, 1999, letter. Modd Rule 1.3 r«Juires that a lawyer act wim reasonable diligrt1~ and promptness in repl'eS(:nting adient. 2. That Mr. Moyer's conduct violated Model Rule 1.4(a) when he f.Uled to inform his dient that he did make a:rwn that the judgment was rtduced to wriring and flied and when he fajJed to inform his client that the case had been dism~ on ovember 8, 1999, due 10 his F.a.ilure to provide the coun: the requirtd precedent. Model Rule 1.4(a) requires that a lawyer keep a dient reasonably informed about me status of a maner and promptly comply with reasonable r«Juesrs for information. 3. That Mr. Moyer's conduct violated Modd Rule 8.4(d) when he failed to submit the precedent In Horne vs Hunt as required by Judge McCorlcindale's March 18, 1999, lener opinion, rcquiringjudge McCorkindale to dismiss me case on November 8, 1999; when he failed to submil the precedent in Home vs. Hunt and fa.iled to inform his diem that he had not submitted it which led to his dient's Wril of Exccution 10 collcct on me judgment being rescinded for the failure 10 submit the prccedem; and, when he flied a case in Boone County Circuil Court which would have been bener filed in Municipal Court as he was admonished by the Judge in the March 18, 1999, lenet opinion. Modd Rule BA(d) requires that a lawyer not engage in conduer thai is prejudicial to the administration of junia:. WHEREFOR£, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee on Professional Conduct that CARL FREDERICK MOYER, Arkansas Bar 190067, be and here:by is REPRlMANDED for his conduct in this maner. In addition, Mr. Moyer is ordered to pay Usa L Home Five Hundred Eighty Dollars (S580.00) in rc:stirution pursuant 10 Section 8A(3) of the Procedures. The restilution shall be: paid no later than thirty (30) days from the filing of this Order with the Arkansas Supreme Coun: aerk.





SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is premised aroS(: from the complaint of Jody M. Harris Cimino. On April 8, 1998, Ms. Cimino hired Lewis Ward Littlepage, an anorney formerly praaicing law in Little Rock, Arkansas, to represem her in a divora: procec:ding. Mr. Littlepage qUOted Ms. Cimino a fee: of $275, wim a portion representing filing fees and COSt of service. The entire $275 was paid to Mr. Lirtlepage by Ms. Cimino on April 10, 1998. On t11at same date, Mr. Linlepage filed the Divorce Complaint for Ms. Cimino. However, he never provided Ms. Cimino with a copy. She was rcquirtd to obtain a copy from the Chana:ry Clerk's office.

till' ~·Pl' After Ms. Cimino's husband was Krved with the Complaint for Divorce, he sem correspondence 10 Mr. Littlepage advising that he wished to senle all

matters rdated


[he divorce.

Ms. Cimino was

never provided a copy of the correspondence despite rqxated requests for Mr. Littlepage [0 provide her a

copy. Mr. Littlepage advis«i Ms. Cimino that her husband did not have an anorney and was procttding pro St. However. when she called the Oerk's office, Ms. Cimino learned her husband was rq>reKnt'ed by [0

me Complaint.

IIisripliUiIl} .\ft ions

when, despite the repeated requests for information made by Ms. Cimino. he failed to comply in any manner with the ~uests for information. Model Rule 104(20) requires that a lawyer keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas upre:me Coun Committee on Professional Conduct that LEWIS WARD

and had filed an answt.r

LIITLEPAGE, k,"",= B", 10 #931;2, be, and

Aner learning this information,

hereby is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this maner. In addition. Mr. Linlepage is fined, as a separate sanction for his milure to respond, pursuant to Sections 51(3) and 8A(2) of the Procedures, the sum of $500. Said fine is due and payable within ~nty (20) days of the date that this Order is filed.


Ms. Cimino attempted, without succas,



Mr. Littlepage. With no other alternative, Ms. Cimino 3.ucmpl'ed to hire anOlher anorney and sent Mr. Littlepage a certified Ic:tlcr aplainjng the same. The letter was signed for on June 26, 1998. Mr. Littlepage djd not contact Ms. Cimino aftc:r his r~eipt of the leuer. Finally. Ms. Cimino contacted Amy Blackwood, counsel for her husband. to explain the simation concerning Mr. Littlepage and her inability to communicat'e with him. Ms. Cimino learned mat Mr. Liulepage had not been communicating with Ms. Blackwood either. Ms. Blackwood provided Ms. Cimino with a copy of the Coumerdaim that she was filing on her clients behalf and also sem notice of a hearing (Q be: conducted on September 25. 1998, in the divorce proceeding. Ms. Cimino was finally able to secure the services of another anorney and her divorce became final. In late September of 1998, Ms. Cimino received correspondence from Mr. Littlq>~ along with a panial refund. Although Mr. Littlepage did refund pan of Ms. Cimino's money, he is still responsible for the delay in her divorce proceeding and also remains responsible for the fact that he took no other action on Ms. Cimino's behalf after filing the Complaint for Divorce on her be:hal( Mr. Littlepage was served with the formal complaint, pursuant 10 Section 5E, Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (Procedures). Mr. Littlepage f.tiled to respond to the formal complaint. His failure to respond timely to the formal complaint constitutes admission of the factual allegations contained therein pursuant to Section 51 (4) of the Procedures. Upon consider:uion of the formal complaint and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Littlepage's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3 when, after filing Ms. Cimino's divorce complaint and causing it to be ~rved. he failed to rake any other action on her bc:.half in the divorce pro<:ttding. Model Rule 1.3 ~uires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. 2. That Mr. Littlepage's conduct violated Model Rule 1.4(20) when he. during the course of his representation of Ms. Cimino, f.tiled co keep her informed of the starus of the legal matter with which he was entrusted, to include Failing to advise her when the Complaint for Divorce was filed, and


Arkansas Democrat Gazelle on February 27. 2000, and on March 5. 2000. that he specialized in Social Security Disability when the Arkansas Supreme Coun has not approved a plan of specialization in the area of Social Security Law. Model Rule 7A(c) States. in pertinent part. that a lawyer not state or imply that the lawyer is a specialist except thai a lawyer who has been recognized as a specialist under the Arkansas Plan of Specialization approved by the Arkansas Supreme Court. WHEREFORE. it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Comminee on Professional Conduct that DONALD CARLTON FRAZIER, Arkansas Bar 10 #72038, be and hereby is, CAUTIONED for his conduct in this matter.



NOVEMBER 7, 2000 The formaJ charges of misconduct upon which this Order arose from information brought to the Committee's attemion. Donald Frazier, an Arkansas attorney, practicing law in Arkansas and ~ York. placed an advertisement in the Arkansas Democrat Gaune newspaper on February 27, 2000. and March 5. 2000, which Stated. in part, AUnable to Work? 0 Income? Specializing in Social Security Disability & 5S1 '"No Fee Until We Win!" Donald Frazier, Attorney" The Arkansas upreme Coun has not approved a plan of specialization in any of the areas listed. Mr. Frazier admill'ed to all allegations of the Complaint and offered for mitigation purposes that (I) he made certain that the advertisement would no longer appear in the noted newspaper; (2) he accepted the responsibility for placing the advertisement; (3) he has practiced in Arkansas for many ycus and never bec:.n cited for a similar violation; (4) the offending reference was not misleading; and, (5) he acquirro no clients as a result of the advertisement in question. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the response thereto. and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Frazier's conduct violated Model Rule 7.1 (a) when he placed an advcnisement in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on February 27. 2000, and on March 5, 2000. that he specialized in Social Security Disability and SSI matters which is a marerial misrepresentation of fact as the Arkansas Supreme Court has not approved a plan of specialization in the area of Social Security Law. Model Rule 7.1 (a) states. in pertinent pan. that a lawyer not make a f':llse or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. 2. That Mr. FeWer's conduct violated Model Rule 7A(c) when he placed an advertisement in the

The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is premised arose from the Complaim of Charles Brell Berry. In or around September 1998, Mr. Berry took his automobile to Bale Toyota in Conway for some repairs. After work began. Mr. Berry was advised that the COSt for repair would be a great deal higher than the quote he had been given when he first took me automobile in for the repairs. Mr. Berry attempted to resolve the matter with the service manager but was unsuc.ces.sful. Thereafter. Mr. Beny sought the advice of an attorney who recommended that he contact Kenneth George Fuchs. an attorney practicing primarily in Conway. Arkansas. During their first meeting, Mr. Berry explained all the circumstances to Mr. Fuchs. In addition, Mr. Berry asked Mr. Fuchs how much money he would need to pay him for his representation. Mr. Fuchs told him that he did not owe him anything at that point but he would need a filing fee if the matter proceeded to a lawsuit. Following this meeting, Mr. Berry understood that the anorney • client relationship had begun. According to Mr. Fuchs. the only service that Mr. Berry requested during the first was that Mr. Fuchs write a lener to Bale Toyota which he did. Mr. Fuchs believed that the correspondence was SCnt in a timely manner and that Mr. Berry is confused over the date when he first took his automobile to Bale Toyota. Mr. Fuchs also explained that he did not charge Mr. Berry for the letter because he felt sorry for him since he was a student and had to drop out of school because he did not have the use of his automobile any longer. From the beginning of Mr. Berry's relationship with Mr. Fuchs. communication was difficult. On ovember 30. 1998. Mr. Fuchs SCnt a demand letter to Bale Toyota. The letter included a demand that Mr. Berry's automobile be released to him. Mr. Berry was not provided a copy of the demand letter at the time that it was sent. Only when he went to Mr. Fuchs' office, weeks later. and demanded a copy of his file did Mr. Berry receive a copy. The copy was

fll. n ~I. I/MIlier 1111

1lt lrhllll Ll~]rr


til\\ ~路lll' the only document that Mr. Berry received at that time. Mr. Fuchs advised that Mr. Berry came: to his office during January 1999, and that they discussed a possible lawsuit against Bale Toyota. The lawsuit discussed was over me: f.tct that Bale: Toyota had ruined Mr. Berry's automobile: by starting the engine afte:r the mechanics had been expressly told not to do so. It is Mr. Fuchs' recollection clm during this meeting, he provided Mr. Berry with a list of many items that he nc:eded in order to file: a lawsuit on his behalf, including the testimony of an expen. On February II, 1999, Mr. Fuchssem Mr.lkrry a lene:r wherein he confirmed that he was to file a lawsuit on Mr. Berry's behalf against Bale Toyota. He asserted that the lawsuit was bdng prepared but mat he needed me filing fee to be paid. The correspondence also included an apology for the staff not having brought the: matter to his atte:mion sooner. Mr. fuchs explained that the letter was seor based on an inquiry by one of his secretaries at a time: when he did not have: the file in front of him. A5 a result, the letter was sem despite the f.tct that Mr. Fuchs still did not have the docume:ntation that he: had previously reque:sted from Mr. Be:rry. Approximately one week later, Mr. Berry sent the check for me filing fee to Mr. Fuchs. The check was endorsal and negotiated on March 11, 1999, by Mr. Fuchs. In the rnnsmimtl letter accompanying the check, Mr. Berry explained that he was anxious to have his automobile: returned to him. After he se:nt the: check, Mr. Ikrry did not hear anything from Mr. Fuchs. According to Mr. Fuchs, he nCYtr rc:ceived a rransmittalletter, JUSt the check. He advised that he placed the check into his trust account because he did nOt want anything to happen to it. Ultimately, Mr. Berry made an appoinonent to see Mr. Fuchs.




Expert Witness Valuation Arbitration Ownership Transition Planning & Implementation Estate Planning Assistance

SCHULTZE, MAECHLING & ASSOCIATES 319 N. Fourth, Suite 909 St. Louis, MO 63102 (314) 621-8211 REQUEST OUR BROCHURE

路IS Thr. ,Irknsas Ll~!er


Ilisriplinill} \l't ions

After Mr. lkrry wait'ed over twO (2) hours, Mr. Fuchs' secretary advised him that Mr. Fuchs was going to be unable to Stt him. Before Ic:aving the ofFke, Mr. Berry left Mr. Fuchs a note: rt:questing that he provide some information concerning the status or Mr. Berry's legal matte:r. Mr. Berry received no reply. It is Mr. Fuchs' statement that on May 18, 1999. he wrote Mr. Berry and advised him that he did not wish to represent him on this maner. Mr. Berry denied that he ever received such a lette:r. Mr. Fuchs' also denied that he ever received the note that Mr. Berry said he left at the office. According to Mr. Fuchs, ifhe had received the note from Mr. Berry, he wouJd have sent Mr. Berry another copy or the lette:r

dared May 18. 1999. According to Mr. Berry, another appointme:nt was scheduled for June 15. 1999. Mr. Fuchs does not recall any meeting with Mr. Berry on the 15th of June. Had there been such a mec:cing. Mr. Fuchs advised that he would have told Mr. Berry that he: was no longe:r interested in representing him on this marter. It is Mr. Fuchs' assertion that he would have also remindc:d Mr. Bc:.rry that he never received any of the: documentation that he: previously requested from Mr. Ikrry. Afte:r the meeting. Mr. Berry did Ilot hear from Mr. Fuchs for several wee:ks. On September 9, 1999, Mr. Berry was in Conway and did not see his automobile on the lot :ott Bale Toyota. He bec.une quite: concaned and called for Mr. Fuchs. He was unable to speak with Mr. Fuchs bur the: secretary advised Mr. Ikrry that there was no information about his legal mauer. After several more Wttks, Mr. Bc:.rry called Mr. Fuchs at home on member 24, 1999. Mr. Fuchs reme:mbered the telephone: calion the 24th of November because it was the eve:ning before: Thanksgiving and he was utterly confused at who was calling him during such a hectic time. During that telephone conve:rsation, Mr. Berry explained to Mr. Fuchs that he was frustrated because his automobile was no longe:r on the lot. Mr. Fuchs again assured Mr. Berry not to worry. Mr. Fuchs also recalled advising Mr. Berry to come: into the office the: following wet.k to discuss the matter. On December 10. 1999, Mr. Berry went to me Bale Toyota garage and was advised that the automobile no longe:r belonged to him. The mechanic advised Mr. Berry that the automobile now bdongc:d to the service manager's son. Mr. Berry Ic:arned that a new title had bttn issued on the automobile as a result of a mechanics'lien which had been filed. Mr. Berry Ie:ft the: dealership and we:nt straight to Mr. Fuchs' office. However, he was once again unable: to see Mr. Fuchs. Although Mr. Fuchs recalled that Mr. Berry came into his office wimout a scheduled appointment during Deee:mber 1999, he believed that it was closer to the: 23rd than the 10th. On January 20. 2000. Mr. Be"}' eheeked the records of the Faulkna County Counhouse and di5CDvered thai nothing had been filed on his behalf by Mr. Fuchs. Mr. Berry believes that as a result of Mr. Fuchs' F.iilure to follow through with action against Bale loyota, he is now paying for an automobile: that is no lon~r his. After several

requcslS, Mr. Berry was finally able to retrieve his file lTom Mr. Fuchs' office. However, the file he received comained documents dun he had never seen. Much of the information contained in the file was inaccurate. In addition, there were cwo leners from Mr. Fuchs to Mr. Berry that Mr. Berry had never received. In the second of the cwo letters, Mr. Fuchs advised Mr. Berry thon he should seek counsel in Little Rock b芦ause Mr. Fuchs does not wish to try a case there. There is no mention of the filing fee that Mr. Berry had already paid to Mr. Fuchs. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the respollSC' themo, and the Arbnsas Modd Rules of Professional Conduct, the Comminee on Professional Conduct finds: 1. That Mr. Fuchs' conduct violated Model Rule 1.2(a} when he failed to pursue all remedies available to Mr. Berry in an effon to securt: the release of his car. Model Rule 1.2(a) rt:quires, in peninent pan. that a lawyer abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. 2. That Mr. Fuchs' conduct violated Model Rule 1.3 when he did not file any proceeding on Mr. Berry's behalf against Bale Toyota although he was provided $100 for the filing fee by Mr. Berry in February 1999 and because me total circumstances surrounding his representation of Mr. Berry demonstrated a lack of diligence and promptness. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. 3. That Mr. fuchs' conduct violated Modd Rule 1.4(a) when he failed to keep Mr. Berry apprised of the StatuS of his legal matter during me course of his representation of Mr. Berry and when he failed to respond to Mr. Berry, despite numerous rt:quests for information. Modd Rule IA(a) requires that a lawye:r keep a client reasonably informed about the Slams of a maner and promptly comply with reasonable requestS for information. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arlunsas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct that KE NETH GEORGE FUCHS, Arkansas Bar 10 #81063, be, and hereby is, CAUTIONED for his conduct in this matter. In addition, Mr. Fuchs is ordered to pay Charles Berry

One Hundred Dollars ($100.00). wh;eh is the amount that Mr. Berry paid to Mr. Fuchs as a filing fee, in restitution pursuant to Section 8A(3) of the Procedures. The restitution shall be paid no later ,han thi"}' (30) days from the foJing of th~ On:!e< with the Arbnsas Supreme Coun aerie. IN RE. LARRY HARTSFIEW UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS NOVEMBER 7, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is based arose from the complaint of Ravyn Wilson. Larry Hartsfield, an anomey practicing primarily in Little Rock, Pulaski County,, was employed by Ms. Wilson to represent

till' "111' her in a JX:rsonal injury maner which 0CC1.1J'ttd in Tenne:ssec. On October 21, 1996, Ms. Wilson was struck by a motor vehicle while she was crossing the street on the campus of the University of Memphis where she was a student. She returned to her parents' home in Little Rock to recover from her injuries. Her medical bills exceeded $100,000.00. In ovembe.r, 1996, Mt. Hartsfield met with Ms. Wilson and her parents at their homC'. Mr. HartSfield agreed to represent Ms. Wilson. However, according to Mr. HartSfield, he explained [Q the Wilsons that he was not licensed [Q practice in Tenne:ssec, nor was he knowlaigeable in Tennessee law. The~ was no discussion of an anome:y's fee, although Mr. Hartsfield advised that he would not charge a fee if he "''Uf' able to conclude the matter with the insurance carrier. On December 3, 1996, Mr. Hartsfield wrote a letter of ~presentation to the driver's insurance carrier. Arrer severaJ subsequem letters, the insurance carrier deniai the claim by letter to Mr. Hartsfield on March 6, 1997. Mr. Hartsfield Stated he attempted to locate Tenne:ssec counsel without success. Subsequently, Mr. Hansfield Stated th:at he communicated with Mr. Wilson, his client's futher, that he was unable to conclude Ms. Wilson's case with the insurance carrier and that his representation was concluded. In the summer of 1997, Mr. Wilson, IUvyn Wtlson's futher, spoke with Mr. Hartsfield by Ielephone. He understood from Mr. Hansfield that the Tennessee S1:atute of limitation was one year from the date of the accident and that Mr. Hartsfield would be filing a lawsuit in Tennessee with the association of Tennessee: counsel. It was Mr. Hartsfield's recollection that he advised the Wilsons of this fuct during their initial consuhation. Funher, Mr. Hansfield assened that he advised the Wilsons that since Tenne:ssec was a pu~ contributory negligence: jurisdiction Ms. Wilson's recovery might be barred on the facts present. Mr. Hartsfield stated that he has worked with Tennessee lawyers previously on such maners. One week prior to the expiration of the statute ofJimitation, Mr. Wilson began calling to speak with Mr. HartSfield withoul success. On Ocro~r 23, 1997, Mr. Wilson was succc:ssful in cont:acting Mr. HartSfield. At that time, Mr. Wilson Jearnai that no lawsuit had been filed and the statute of limitation had expired. Mr. Hartsfield had incorrectly ~Iieved the statute of limitation was not set ro expire until during January, 1997. At this time, a discussion of filing an action in federal coun occurred which would possibly prolong the statute of limitation. Mr. Hartsfield admitted there was a conversation about an anempt to revive: the statute of limitation by Arkansas state law and federal law but that he ultim:nely found that it would be ineffective. On August 3, t998, Ms. Wilson wrote Mr. Hartsfield requesting the statuS of her case and advice on how to procttd.. The~ was no response. There we~ subsequent attempts by Ms. Wilson and her parents to conact Mr. Hansfield which were unsuccessful. On June 10, 1999, Ms. Wilson wrote Mr. Hartsfield by certified mail. Mr. Hartsfield again did not respond. Mr. Hartsfield admittai to

UisripliUiIl} .\l't ions

rettipt of Ms. Wilson's lenett, but rdUsed to ~ply to them believing she had an ulterior motive 10 pursue a malpractice claim against him. Upon consideration the formal complaint, response herein, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Commjttee: on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Hartsfield's conduct violated Model Rule 1.1 when he representai a client in a personal injury case in Tennessee while not licensed in Tennessee and when he allowed the Tennessee one year statute of limimion to expire. Model Rule 1.1 requires that a lawyer provide competent representation to a client, including the skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. 2. Thai Mr. HartSfield's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3 when he allowed the statute of limitation to expire on Ms. Wilson's personal injury claim without raking any action to avoid its expiration. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a cliem. 3. That Mr. Hartsfield's conduct violated Model Rule IA(a) when he f:a.iled to respond to a lettC'r his client, Ms. Wilson, wrote on August 3, 1998 requesting information regarding her case as well as the subsequent attempts for communications by her family for a statUS ~port in the legal matter entrusted to him. Model Rule 1.4(a) requires that a lawyer keep a client reasonably informai about the StatUS of a mattet and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. 4. That Mr. HartSfield's conduct violated Model RuJe tA(b) when he fuilai to notify Ms. Wilson of the expiration of the statute of limitation and the ramifications of its apif2tion, and, when he f:a.iled to fully explain to Ms. HartSfield the ramifications of an Arkansas lawyer handJing a personaJ injury claim in which the applicable law was that of another state. Model Rule 1.4(b) requires that a lawyer explain a maller to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the tepresentation. 5. That Mr. Hartsfield's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d), when he f.:tilai to promptly notify Ms. Wilson that she should seek counsel licensed in Tennessee which caused Ms. Wilson's claims for rdief to be barred by the Tennessee stature of limitations. Model Rule 8A(d) requires that a lawye:r 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 ProfessionaJ Conduct that Larry Hartsfield, Arkansas Bar #69030, be and hereby is CAUTIONED for his conduct in this maner.

IN Iffi jAMFS E. EVANS,jR. SPRINGDALE, ARKANSAS OCTOBER 31, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is premised arose from the Complaint of Kathy Hu~r. On Decem~r 8, 1994, Ms. Huber

contacted James E. Evans, Jr., an attorney practicing in Springdale. Mr. Evans was initially hired (0 review a residential development loan application. However, almost immediately after their first consultation, Mr. Evans was hired to proceed with a divorce for Ms. Huber. Ms. Huber was never provided any ~ offee agrttment either vc:rln.lly or in wrinc:n form. Mr. Evans disputed this statement and :!.w:rr芦l that Ms. Huber was advi~ that his hourly fet would be $105 pet hour OUt of court and $195 per hour in coun. According 10 Mr. Evans, Ms. Huber agreed to this arrangement which included her responsibility for costs associated with

the divor~ proceeding. When Ms. Huber and Mr. Evans first mc:t, she inquirro about

me issue of fees.

Mr. EV2J\S advisro Ms. Hubcr thai she did not need to worry about it. Ms. Huber's first billing statement reflectS thai Mr. Evans charged her $105 to take the Complaint for Divorce to the Clerk's office to File it. On that same billing statement, Mr. Evans charged Ms. Hu~r for four and a half for artendance at a Temporary Hearing. Ms. Huber reports that the time involved was no mo~ than twO hours. Mr. Evans explained that the time for the coun appearance was approximately four and one路half hours of which cwo and a half were spent in negotiations. The first billing st:uement that Ms. Huber received in Ocwber 1995, totaled S21,086.50. Ms. Hu~r was not afforded the opportunity w review the billing statement before she was directed to obtain the monq to pay it from a joint marital account. Mr. Evans disputed Ms. Huber's statement that she was not afforded the opportunity to review the billing Statement. According to him, Ms. Hu~r came to his office on a Saturday and personally reviewed the statement and did nOt have any objections. This was not the only time that Mr. Evans bdieved Ms. Huber reviewed the billing statement. He also asst:ned that she had no objection to the billing until the divorce was almost completed. The second and final billing statement from Mr. Evans was in May 1996. The total on that billing statement was SI7,721.89. After a cursory review of the billing statement, Ms. Hu~r ~e quite upset thar Mt. Evans charged her 45 minutes to over an hour to read lerters she sem him. She also noted that the travel time she was charged for Mr. Evans' trips to Bentonville to the counhouse were inconsistent. Sometimes he charged Ms. Huber 45 minutes other times he charged her an hour. Ms. Huber expressed her disbelief that Mr. Evans only traveled to Bentonville 10 accomplish a task for het but she was unable to disprove his statement with cerrainf)'. In his response to the Commirtee, Mr. Evans denied that the fee he charged Ms. Hu~r in this matter was unreasonable. He based his denial on the circumstances of her divorce and thC' C'nrangl~ents involved. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the response thereto, and thC' Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Ihe CommitteC' on Professional Conduct finds: I. 11m Mr. Evans' conduct violated Model Rule

[II. 1I ll. I/lI"illtr 1"1


ta\\ ~'rr Ilisriplinill')' .\I't ions 1.5(a) when he charged Ms. Huber over $38,000 for her divorce pfOC".C'C' Modd Rule 15(a) requires, in pc:nint:nt pan, that a lawyer's f« be: rc=asonablt:. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme COUrt Comminet: on Professional Conduct that JAMES E. EVANS, JR., Arkansas Bar 10 #74050, be, and hereby is, CAUTIONED for his conduct in this maner.

IN Jill


UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS OCTOBER 27, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is prc=mised arose: from the complaint of Evt:rline Tolbert. Roben David Lewis, an attorney practicing law primarily in Little Rock, Pulaski CoUnty, Arkansas, was contacted by Ms. Tolbert during January or February 1999. Ms. Tolbert had been injured whilt: pumping gas at a StaX norc=. According to Ms. Tolben, and the information repon made at the time of rnt: incidt:m, the pump stuck as she was rt:moving the nowe from tht: tank and gas squirted in ht:r eyr:s and faa. Ms. Tolbert had difficulty locating an attorney to reprt'::Sl:11t her in this maner against the Stax store. According to Ms. Tolben, Mr. Lewis believed that she had a valid claim and one that was worth pursuing. Several Wttks pass«! Ixfo", M,. L<wis' paral<gal, R<bccca Lewis, St:11t Ms. Tolbert a fee contract and medical authoriution to sign. Ms. Tolbert signed both of tht: docummts and TttUmed them to Mr. Lewis. At this time, Ms. Tolbert believed that Mr. Lewis was representing her in this matter. Mr. Lewis acknowledged the contact with Ms. Tolbert. He explained that he advise:d Ms. Tolbert that his involvemt:nt would be investigatory initially and thai he would look into the matter to dett:rmine if she had a valid claim. Mr. Lewis reported to the Committee that he was concerned about the C2S(: for twO reasons. First, he was unsurc= how the fact that gas had squined in Ms. Tolbert's eyes could not be her fault to some degree. &cond, he did not think the rc=coverable damages would exceed tht: necessary COSt for an expen witness. Ms. Tolbert reponed that there was very little communication with Mr. Lewis aftt:r their initial consultation. She did larn that Mr. Lewis had been in contact with tht: Clt:rk of tht: norc= wht:~ sht: had been injurc=d. She learned this information from tht: Clerk not from Mr. Lewis. When Ms. Tolbe:n was able to speak with Mr. Lewis about his contact with employees of the Scax Store, Mr. Lewis advised Ms. Tolben that ht: had sent corrt:Spondt:nce to tht: stort: but had rc=ttived no respon~. Mr. Lewis explained that he did write a demand letter but received no response from anyone on behalf of the StaX Storc=. He also acknowledged that ht: spokt: with employ«s at tht: StaX store. The informacion he received was not beneficial to Ms. Tolben. Mr. Lewis was provided the distinct impression by tht: cmploy«s that the incident was the fauh of Ms. Tolbert. Mr. Lewis admined that he did not advise: Ms. Tolben in a timdy manner that ht: would not be pursuing her

I~ m2ner for her based upon his belief that any lawsuit would be frivolow. He also acknowledged that he should have made Ms. Tolbert aware of this decision regardJess of how linlt: time was left for her to loate another anorney. Following Mr. Lewis' rcct:ipt of tht: formal complaint, the respondem attorney and the Acting Executive Director undertook discussions which have rt:Sulted in Mr. Lewis' agreement to discipline by con~nt pursuant to Section SC. Procedures of the Arkansas Suprt:me Coun Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (procedures). Upon consideration of the formal complaint, admissions herein, the terms of tht: propod con~nt to disciplint: herc=inafter statt:d, the Alternale Committee on Professional Conduct's approval thereof, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. the Committee 011 Professional Conduct finds: 1. That Mr. Lewis' conduct violated Modd Rule 1.4(a) wht:n ht: f.L.iled to advise Ms. Tolben that he would not be pursuing her legal mant:r on her behalf in enough timt: to allow ht:r to l0C2tt: otht:r counsel to protect her intt:rests. Model Rult: 1.4(a) requires that a lawyer k«p a client rc=asonably informed about the StatuS of a marter and promptly comply with rC2S0nable requests for information. WHEREFORE, in 2ccordance with the consent to disciplint: prese.nted by Mr. Lewis and the Acting u«tttive Director, ancie M. Givens, il is tht: decision and ordt:r of the Arkansas Suprc=me Court Commin« on Professional Conduct that ROBERT

DAVlD LEWIS. Nkansas B", ID #68030, lx, and hereby is, CAUTIONED for his conduct in this mart'er. In addition, pursuam to &ction 8A(l) of the Procedures, it is the decision of the Comminee that Mr. lewis be assessed the COsts of the proceed.ings in the amount of $32.68. Said costs fO be ~mitted to tht: Office of tht: Executive Director, pay.a.ble to rnt: Committee on Professional Conduct, within thirty (30) d2ys of the filing of this Order.

IN RE, ROBERT L DEPPER EL DORADO, ARKANSAS OcroBER 31,2000 The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Arkansas Suprt:me Coun cast: of Sheri Lynn Langston v. State of Arkansas, CR 2000-04 1. Roben L Dq>pc:r, an anomey practicing in EJ Dorado, Arkansas, was rc=tained to rc=pre:st:nt Ms. Langston 21 the trial coun level and subsequently required by the Supreme Court to represent her in an appeal to the Arkansas Supremt: CoUrt in the above· mentioned nlattt:r. Mr. Dt:pper rt:presented Ms. Langston in a criminal trial in Union County Circuit Coun. Following conviction on November 10, 1998, Ms. Langston informed Mr. De:pper that she wanted to appeal tht: mam:r. Mr. Dq>pc:r advised that he would not appeal [he judgmt:11I because Ms. Langston was unable to meet the f« quoted. No appeal was ta.ken and Mr. Depper was not relieved by the trial coun as anorney of record for Ms. Langston.

On March 30. 2000. Ms. Langston filed a pro se Motion for Belated Appeal. Su(: Newlx:ry, Arkansas Supn=me Coun Criminal Junia: Coordjnaror. wrote Mr. DepJXf and explained to him that it was the pracria: of the Arkansas Sup~me Coun to request the anorney who represented a pro se movant at trial to submit an affidavit responding [0 the allegations

contained in the movant's Motion for Belated Appeal. Mr. DepJXf failed to respond to the requCSt,

On June 22, 2000, the Arkansas Supreme: CoUtt issued a Per Curiam Order granting Ms. Langston's pro se Motion for Iklared Appeal. As Mr. Depper remained as anomey of record, he was appoinred to rep~n1 Ms. Langston on appeal and was




file, within thirty days, a petition for writ

of ctrtiorari


bring up the record necessary for

appeal. Mr. Depper asserted ill his response to the Committcc mat on more than one occasion he di~ with Ms. Langston her right to appeal and

that the' Notict of Appeal needed 10 be flled within thi")' d2ys of tht: criminal judgmt:nt. Ms. Ungston was that rnt: COSt of appeal would be $5,000 for tht: rc=taint:r and that tht: COSt for tht: transcript which would be approximately $1,000. Mr. Dt:ppc:r advised Ms. Langston that he would not sign the Notice of Appeal without a rc=cainer and the mont:)' for the associated costs of preparation of the transcript. Ms. Langston anempted to employ another anomey prior to the expiration of tht: time for filing a otice of Appeal. Mr. ~ppc:r believed that Ms. Langston would employ another anomey. Mr. Deppc:r admined that ht: rc=ttived a It:ner from Ms. Sue Newbery bur did not review tht: letter closely and did nOt realize: that a rt:Sponse: needed to be filed on or before April 17.2000. Mr. Deppc:r Stated in his rt:Spon~ that he was unawarc= that trial counsel is required to continue to repr~nt a criminal dd't:ndant throughOut the appeal unlt:SS rc=lieved by a COUC1 of appropriate jurisdiction. Upon consideration of rnt: formal complaint, rnt: respon~ herc=in, and the Arkansas Modd Rules of Professional Conduct, tht: Committt:t: on Professional Conduct finds: 1. That Mr. Depper's conduct violated Model Rule I. J, when he fiiled to initially pursue an appeal for Sht:rri Lynn Langston to tht: Arkansas Suprc=me Court as ht: was attorney of rt'COrd for Ms. Langston, he was not relieved as anomey of record by the Union County Circuit Coun, and he was required

by Rul, 16 of th, Nkansas Rul" of Appella« Procedurc= • Criminal, to rc=pre:st:nt Ms. Langston throughour her appeaL Model Rule 1.1 requires that a lawyer provide competent rc=pre:st:ntation to a c1iem, including tht: I~ knowledge, skill, thoroughness and prc=lW'3-tion reasonably necessary for the teprc=sentation. 2. That Mr. ~pper's conduct violated Model Rule 1.2(a) when ht: was advised by his dient, Sherri Lynn langston, that she wanted to appeal and Mr. De:pper failed to pursue her 2ppel1ate rights. Model Rule 1.2(a) requires, in peninem part, that a lawyt:r abide by a client's decision concerning the objectives of rt:pre:st:ntation.

till' ~'lll' 3. That Mr. Depper's conduCI violated Mood Rule 8A(d) when he F.Uled to pursUe' an appeal on

behalf of his client, Sherri Lynn Langston; when he


failed to respond to the:: lena from Criminal Justice Coordin:uor rtquesting that he submit an affidavit to her office bl=:fon= a date; when he F.a.iled to pursue an appeal of a criminal appal on bc=half of his diem which dda~ me orderly and timely administration and resolution of appdlalC' procttdings; and, when he failed to pursue an appeal

which fUluircd the Court and its lX=fSOnnd to expend additional rime and effOrt to addros a pro se Mot;o" foc Bdat<d Appeal. Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer nor engage in conduct that is prtjudicial to the administr2tion of justice WHEREFORE. it is the: decision and order of

the Arkansas Sup~me Coun Committee on Professional Conduct that Roben L. Depper, Arkansas Bar ID #81046, be, and hereby IS, CAUTIONED, for his conduct in this matter. IN RF" OTIO ROBERT FRY FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS NOVEMBER 7, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is premised aroS(: from the Complaint of Shannon Foster. Ms. Foster is an attorney lice:nsed to practice: law in the State of Arkansas. She submitted the information to the Committee pursuanl to the dury imposed by Model Rule 8.3(01) of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Ms. Foster's law practice: is conducted in a building that she leases at 703 Rogers Avenue in Fort Smith. Two othe.r attorneys, John Serde and Micki Burnett, also have solo prxticcs in the building, subleasing spa« from Ms. Foster. OttO Robt:n Fry, an attorney practicing primariJy in Fort Smith, bt:gan working in the building space: during May 1999, as a solo practitioner. At thai particular time, Mr. Fry was JUSl Ixginning his practice and had no client ~ other than thrtt (3) clients from his pra-iow employment wilh the. Wallen: Fmn in Gret:nwood. Ms. Foster had an arrangemctu with Mr. Fry which rc.quirc.d him lO provide her 25% of all profits he made in exchange for clients that Ms. Foster would direct to him since he had no advertising for his practice. Pursuant to this agreement, Ms. Foster would pay the rent, sectetary, utilities, etc. It was also agreed that Mr. Fry could end the arrange.ment at any time with thirty (30) days notice and Ixgi n to P3Y 1/4 of the bills like the rem.aining attorneys in the space sublet by Ms. Foster. Mr. Fry admitted that he and Ms. Foster had an arrangement which allowed him to rent space for 25% of the income he received from clients. He stressed thai at no time did he and Ms. Foster enter inlO a partnership of any kind. During November 1999. Ms. Foster learned from a former secretary that Mr. Fry had been seen recording dient payments on fWO occasions in the Receipt Book for an amount less than the clients had actually paid. When Ms. Foster received this information, she conducted an investigation of the

Ilisriplinill'r .\d inns

financial records at the office:, including the ~ipt book, deposil slips, and bank statements. At this time, Ms. Foster learned cllat Mr. Fry's deposits totaled ove:r S10,OOO more for the six (6) month period than his dient Kaipt book demonstrated. This discrepancy was despite the faa thai n'Cry dient's payment is to bt: recorded in a ~ipt book to give the client a record of payment and the attorney a record of income.. After she completed the review, Ms. Foster learned that for the months of June, July and August 1999, Mr. Fry did not pay her the share of the fees as requirc.d. Funher, according to Ms. Burnett, whose office was adja«nt to Mr. Fry's office:, Mr. Fry was talcing ash from clients on an almost daily basis, always with me door shut. Mr. Fry vehemently denied all of th~ allegations by Ms. Foster. He denied that he withheld any money. Further, Mr. Fry Stated that at all times a full disclosure of all receipts was made. He explained that he and Ms. Foster exchanged other fees during this period of time because Ms. Foster was pregnant and Mr. Fry attended Court on her behalfon various occasions during those momhs. In addition, according to Mr. Fry, he was rc.quired to put in more hours at work during this period of time because Ms. Foster was rurning all of her business over to him since she was spending a considerable amount of time out of the office due to her pregnancy. Because of Ms. Foster's abS(:n« from the office, telephone calls from potential clients were referred to Mr. Fry by the receptionist. Another pan of the agrec.ment befW~n Ms. Foster and Mr. Fry was that Mr. Fry was to obtain his clients through Ms. Foster since she was responsible for the adve.nising which resulted in the caUs of the potential clients. However, Mr. Fry did not abide by this ponion of their agrttment either. In addition, Ms. Foste.t provided infonnacion to the Committet: con«rning Mr. Fry answering Mr. Setde's telephone lines in order to est2blish a broader client base. Mr. Fry offerc.d that his only contact with any of Mr. Settle's clients was on the occasion when Mr. Settle asked him to represent twO of his clients. Mr. Fry also asserted that he had no fC2SOn to answer Mr. Settle's telephone calls and that, in F.act, he did not do .so hcal.l.SC Mr. Setde's lines were srparate and

distinct from the other office lines. On Dece:mbt:r 10, 1999, potential clients by the name of Mr. and Mrs. Shaffer, called Ms. Foster's office to make an appointment to discuss a legal matter with her. Mr. Fry spoke with the Shaffers and made an appointment with them .uter normal business hours. The paid Mr. Fry S500 but he f.tiled to give them a receipt. Ms. Foster learned of this cont2ct bccal.l.SC the are her cowins and they called to speak with her about their legal matter a wet:k after their met:ting with Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry had not advised Ms. Foster of their visit nor had he paid Ms. Foster 25% of the 5500 fet:. Mr. Fry explained that it was the ShafFers who requested the appoimment .uter office hours because of their work schedules. Mr. Fry admitted that he obu..ined a reu..iner and explained that he had approximately thr~ (3) hours work in the legal maner when Ms. Foster took possession of all of his files including that one. Mr. Fry was contacted by Mr. Shaffer about return of the retainer fee. He advised Mr. Fry that Ms. Foster had told him thar Mr. Fry had moved Out of town. Based on the request by Mr. Shaffer, Mr. Fry returned S200 of the advanced retainer of S5OO. Mr. Fry undertook representation of clients who actually attempted to hire Ms. Foster and Mr. Settle, without the knowledge or consent of either anorney. After Ms. Foster learned of Mr. Fry's conduCT, she procured the dienl files and contacted the individual clients. In addition, she took over various cases for no compensation in order to protect the clients. When confronted with his actions by Ms. Foster, Mr. Fry told her thai he "forgot" to pay her the 25% on the various occasions. Mr. Fry strongly denied this st2tement was a'e.r made by him. Mr. Fry advised that he left the office building because Ms. Foster accused him of breaking into the offi«. When the real intruder was apprehended, Ms. Foster did nOI recant her allegations. When Mr. Fry relocated, he advised that he was unable to cont2ct his dients because Ms. Foster took possession of his client files and refused to rerurn the.m to him. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the response the.rt'to, and the Arkansas Modd Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds:

Free report shows how to get clients Calif.-Why do some la....'Yers get rich while olhers struggle to pay their bills'! ··That·s simple," says California anomey David M. Ward. "Successful la....'Yers know how to markel their services.·· Once a struggling sole practitioner, Ward credits his tumaround 10 a referral marketing system he developed six years ago. "I wcnt from dead broke and




S300,OOO a year.

earning practically


overnight." he says. Mosl lawyers depend on referrals, he noles, but not one in 100 uses a referral system. "Wilhout a syslem, referrals arc unpredictable, and so is your income," he says. Ward has laught his referral system to more than 2,500 lawyers worldwide, and has wrillen a new report, "Ilow to

Gtt Mort Clients 10 A Month Than You No,,· Gd All Ytarl" The report shows how any lawyer can use Ihis marketing system to get more clients, increase their income, and build a successful law practice. Arkansas lawyers can get a FREE copy of the report by calling 1-800-562-4627 (a 24hour free recorded message), or by visiting Ward's web site al www.davidward.rom

l',l.lIll. IIIl'illtr iUDI

ne IrkllSlJ LiWlrr


ti1\\}(1I' I. That Mr. Fry's conduct violated Model Rule 8:4(c) when he intercepted ca.lls from potential clients made to other attorneys in the office building without the knowledge or approval of the other anorneys; when he retained funds belonging ro Ms. Fosrer, despite an agrttment emere:d imo when he sublet office space from her; and, when he provided false information to clients of Ms. Foster and Mr. Settle concerning his association with those [wo attorneys. Modd Rule 8:4(c) requires that a lawyer not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. WHEREFORE., it is the decision and orda of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Condua that OTTO ROBERT FRY, Arkansas Bar ID '98205, be. and hereby is. CAlITIONED for his conduct in this matta. IN R拢, JAMES CU\WSO

UlTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS OcrOBER 31, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is premised arose from the complaim ofTerry Mikolajczak. James Clawson, an anomey practicing primarily in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. was employed by Ms. Mikolajczak to represent her tenant's imerest in a foreclosure matter in Pulaski County, Arkansas. Ms. Mikolajcz.ak entered imo a rental agrttmem with Wynn and Associates in 1998 to rem a home in Pulaski County, Arkansas. Shortly after moving imo the home, Ms. Mikolajczak reponed repairs that neated to be made. Her reports and requests for repair went unheeded by Wynne and Associates. In October 1998. Ms. Mikolajcz.ak was served with a copy of a foreclosure complaint filed against the owner of the home. Ms. Mikolajcz.ak sought legal assistance from Mr. Clawson, in connection with the le:gaI maner. According to Ms. Mikolajcz.ak. she was advised by Mr. Clawson not to pay rent as neither the home owner nor the rental agency had any inremions of making me needed repairs to the home. Mr. Clawson received payment of $1 00 to represent Ms. Mikolajczak's imerests in the foreclosure matter. Mr. Clawson admitted m:e:ipt of the $100 payment from Ms. Mikolajczak and inquired in his response to the Committee. "How much representation does one get for that these days?" In December 1998, Ms. Mikolajczak re:cdved a Citation to Appear in the Pulaski County Environmental Court on December 23. 1998. for Failure to Vacue. Ms. Mikolajczak requested. that Mr. Clawson obtain a COntinuance of the coun date. Mr. Clawson left a message for Ms. Mikolajczak indicating that the maner was continued and that he would ca.l1 her later to d.iscuss the mauer. Mr. Clawson Stated that he tried. to stall Ms. Mikolajczak's eviction from the home by answering the Citation to Appear and by moving the court date. On January 13. 1999. Mr. Clawson called asking whether Ms. Mikolajczak was ready for the court hearing. When asked what he was talking about, Mr. Clawson responded by stating that the December 23 hearing had been continued to


Tie ,Irkmn Liw)!r


ltisriplinill} .\I't ions

January 14 and that Ms. Mikolajcz.ak needed. to be there. Ms. Mikolajczak met Mr. Clawson at the Pulaski County Environmenul Court on January 14. Mr. Clawson informed Ms. Mikolajczak that he didn't know much about landlordhenant law so she \Y;lS going to have' to plead no contest to the charges, a fact that Mr. Clawson disputes. When Mr. Clawson first made this suggestion to Ms. Mikolajcza.k, she stated that she would not do so because she had followed Mr. Clawson's advice and believed that she had a legal right to not pay the rent based upon Mr. Clawson""s assertions to her. Mr. Clawson replied that the charge was based upon the faa that she did not leave the home when she was asked to do so. Ms. Mikolajcz.ak told Mr. Clawson that she was never asked to leave' and had never a notice: to do so until her husband was served with the citation to appear for failun= to vacate. Mr. Clawson informed her that since: he was her attorney. he had the request for her to leave the premises. Mr. Clawson adv~ that she would get a standard fine of about 100. if she entered a plea of no contest. Mr. Clawson then stated that since Ms. Mikolaja.ak had only paid $75 of the $150 that she was requested to pay, that she could use the remaining balance to pay the fine and he would not request the additional fee. Ms. Mikolajczak inquired about obtaining the security deposit she had paid when she first moved into the rental home. Mr. Clawson agreed to send a letter to Wynn and Associates demandjng return of the rental sewrity deposit. Ms. Mikolajcza.k had no funher contact with Mr. Clawson regarding the rerum of the security deposit after he advised her that he would seek the return of it on her behalf. Upon consideration of the formal complaint. the response herein. and the Arbnsas Modd Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. C1awson:s conduct violated Modd Rule 1.I when he advised Ms. Mikolajczak not to Pol,. rent despite the requirements imposed upon her by the lease she had with Wynn and Associates. Model Rule 1.1 requires, in pertinent pan, that a lawyer provide competent representation to a client, including the legal knowledge necessary for the representation. 2. That Mr. C1awson::s conduct violated Model Rule 1.2(a) when he failed to pursue Ms. Mi olajcz.ak's interests in the rerurn of security deposits despite her requests. Model Rule 1.2(a) requires, in pertinent part, that a lawyt:r abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation. 3. That Mr. C1awsonzs conduct violated Model Rule 1:4(a) when he failed to provide Ms. Mikolajcza.k with a copy of the Notice to Vacate which resulted in a Failure 10 Vacate charge; when following a request that he have' the December 23. 1998, hearing in Pulaski County Environmental Coun continued 1'0 a future date, he failed to advise Ms. Mikolajczak whether the hearing remained set for December 23; when he failed to notify Ms. Mikolajczak of the January 14, 1999. hearing until

January 13, 1999; and, when he failed to inform Ms. Mikolajczak of any action rake.n on her behalf regarding the recovery of the security deposits. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme oun Committee on Professional Condua that JAMES CLAWSON, Arkansas Bar 10 #90219, be, and hereby is, CAUTIONED for his conduct in this maner. IN RE. DAVID GLENN NIXON

FAYE1TEVILLE, ARKANSAS SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is prenllse:d arose: fTOm information brought tot he anention of the Committee on Professional Conduct. David Glenn lXon, an attorney practicing law primarily in Fayetteville. Arbnsas, placed Washington County, advertisements In the 1999路2000 Fayetteville/Springdale Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages Directory and in the 2000路200 I Fayetteville/Springdale Southwestern Bdl Ydlow Pages Directory listed the business names of "Accident & Injury Recovery Service"; "Bankruptcy Law Service"; "Divorce and Family Law Center and "Tax Law Center." Each of the advertisements in (he Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages Directory failed to contain the name of at least one lawyer who is licensed to practice law in Arkansas and is responsible for the content in the advertisement. In addition. each of the advertisements failed to disclose the geographic location of the office of the attorney who actually performs the services advertised. Advertisements placed in the 2000-2001 Nonhwest Arkansas Regional Tde:phone Director Listed the business names: of "Accident & Injury Recovery Service"; "Bankruptcy Law Service"; "Corporations Express"; "Criminal Defense Center"; "Divorce & Family Law Center"; and, "Tax Law Center". Each of the advertisements in the Northwest Arkansas Regional Tdephone Dim:tory failed to contain the name of at least noe: lawyer who is licensed to practice law in Arkansas and is responsible for the content in the advertisement. In addition, each of the advertisements failed t'O disclose: the geographic location of me office of the attorney who actually performs me services advertised. Following Mr. Nixon's receipt of the formal complaint. the respondent attorney and the Acting Executive Director undertook discussions which have' resulted in an agreement to discipline by Procedures of the consent pursuant to Section Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (Procedures). Upon consideration of the formal complaint. admissions herein, the terms of the proposed consent to discipline hereinafter stated, the Alternate Commintt on Professional Conduct's approval therof, and the ArkanS2S Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee no Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. ixon's conduct violated Model Rule 7.2(d) when advertisements he placed in the 1999


Liln )111' lIisriplinill') \l't inns 2000 FayC'rteville/Springdale Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages Direclory and the' 2000-200 I

Northwest Arkansas Regional Telephone Directory failÂŤl to indudC' the name' of at least ont: b~r who is licensed to practice law in Arkansas and is responsible for conu~:nt in the' adw=rtisc=:mC'nts and

The Law Firms of


f.tiled fO di.sdo~ the geographic location of the office of the' attorney who actually pr.rforms the savicei in me advertisement. Model Rule 7.2(d) requires that any communication made: pursuant to the Rule permitting advertising through public media. such as a lC~lC'phonC' di~ory. indude me name of at least one lawyer who is licensed in Arkansas and who is responsible' for its content. and disclose the geographic location of the office or offices of the attorney or the' firm in which the:: lawyer or lawyers who actually perform the services advertised principally practice law. WHEREFORE. in accordance with the consent [0 discipline prest:nted by Mr. Nixon and the Acting Execurive Director, Nancie M. Givens, it is the decision and order of thc= Arkansas Suprc=mc= Coun Committe=<: on Professional Conduct that DAVID

Rieves & Mayton and Sloan Rubens Announce the merger of their law practices

G. NIXON, fu'bnsas Sa< ID#88048, be, and herc=by is, CAUTIO ED for his condua in this matter. In addition, Mr. Nixon has agreed, and he is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $250.00 and COSts in the amouhl of $5.95 pursuam to Section 8(A)(I) and (2) of the Procedures. The fine and COSts shaH be paid no laler than thirty (30) days from the filing of Ihis Order with the Arkansas Suprc=me Court Clerk.


under the firm name of

Rieves, Rubens & Mayton and that


David C. Jones, IN RÂŁ, JOHN H. HALEY UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS NOVEMBER 2, 2000 Thc= Arkansas Suprc=me Coun Committe=<: on Professional Conduct has cuefu.lly considerm. John H. H.aley's perioon for rc=inst:uemc=m to the practia of law following his suspension imposed on August 4, 2000. It is thc= dec:ision of the Committe=<: to grant Mr. Haley's peorion. Therefore. the suspension of Mr. Halc=y's Arkansas law license imposed by the Committe=<: is hc=reby tc=rminatc=d and hc= is c=mitled to engage in mc= pracdcc: oflaw within the State of Arkansas effective November 2, 2000.

former Legal Advisor with the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission, has joined the firm.

304 E. Broadway West Memphis, Arkansas 72301 (870) 735-3420

400 West Capitol, Suite 1700 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 376-0504

1'11.1I !I. I/Ifiller tOOl

Tke .lrkllllJ LI~!tr


and his wife, Jenny, of North Linle Rock; and seven granddaughters. P.H. "Hugh" Hardin PH. "Hugh" Hardin, age 74, died on September 22, 2000, at Sparks Regional Medical Cemer in Fort Smith, AR. Mr. Hardin was born in Muskogee,

Oklahoma, November 12, 1925. He graduated from Midshipman School at Notre Dame at the age of 19 and served as

Otis H. Turner Otis H. Turner, age 72 â&#x20AC;˘ of Arkadelphia died Thursday, September 14, 2000. He was born October 18, 1927, in Arkadelphia, the son of the lace Cleve and Laura Eva

Flanigan Turner. Mr. Turner graduated from Arkadelphia High School and Ouachita Baptist College. After service in the Army, he returned to

Arkansas, where he served as a golf pro in EI Dorado, AR, while participating in professional golf tournaments. He later attended Jaw school at the University of Arkansas where he received his law degree. Upon graduation. Turner returned to

Arkadelphia and joined the law firm of McMillan & McMillan, where he practiced his entire career. Turner served as Circuit Judge for (wo years in the 8m Judicial District (Texarkana. Lewisville. Hope, Prescott and Arkadelphia), was an Associate Justice on

the Arkansas Supreme Court, President of the Clark County Bar Association, Southwest Arkansas Bar Association and was a member of the Executive Council of the Arkansas Bar Association. Turner was a Fellow of the Arkansas Bar Foundation. Turner also served as a member of the Board of Law Examiners, the Arkansas Justice

Lieutenant in the U.S. avy during World War II on the U.S.S. Briscol. He mended the University of Arkansas School of Law, graduating with honors in 1950.




uncle, G.c. Hardin, in 1909.


Stephen Alan White Slephen Alan White, age 51, of Charleston, AR, died on Sunday, OCtobet 8, 2000 in Little Rock, AR. Mr. While was a 1967 graduate of Hall High School. He entered the United States

For 50 years he was Arkansas Counsel fot the Kansas City Southern Railway

While in Law School, he won numerous awards, including American Jurisprudence Award for excellent achievement in the

Company. He was a member of Sebastian Couney. Arkansas and American Bar Associations and was a Fellow in the

bachelor's degree. He then entered the Univecsity of Arkansas School of Law in Linle Rock.

study of Civil Procedure I and Civil Procedure II. Shortly after graduation,

American College ofTrial Lawyers. He also


served by appoinment of the Arkansas Supreme Court as a member of the State Board of Law Examiners and was its

Chadeston in August of 1975.

chairman from 1973-74. He also served, by

and served as municipal judge for Somh Franklin County. An active member of

gubernatorial appointment, as Special Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

In 1984, Hardin was selected by the Arkansas Bar Association and Foundation as

the States Oursranding Lawyer. In 1985 Hardin was named Boss of the Year by Sebastian-Crawford

i I 'I\e Arklll1l LilIW

of Tyler, TX, and many devored Strang F.unily members.

Marine Corps in 1967 and served a tour of duty in Viemam. Upon returning from Vietnam, he entered the University of Arkansas at Little Rock where he obtained a

Secreraries Association.

Elizabeth, of Little Rock and Tab Turne<

He was

1innin of Fayetteville and Janet Dougherry

regional trial counsel for Johnson & Johnson and other leading pharmaceutical and other product liability cases throughout the country. His preparation included site visits to foreign laboratories where the pharmaceutical products were manufactural.

Building Commission and the Arkansas

Survivors include his wife, MoHy Stauber Turner; two sons, Neal Turner and his wife,


practiced law in Fort Smith with the firm Hardin, Jesson & Terry, founded by his

Industrial Developemem Commission. He also served on Governor Pryor's staff. Turner was a member of the American Bar Association. Arkansas Bar Association, Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association,

Ametican Board of Trial Advocates and the Anmican College ofTrial Lawyers.


Hardin and her husband, Michael Willis, of Fort Smith; and five grandchildren, Jeremy Hardin Black of Dallas, TX, Elizaberh Ashley Hardin and Michael David Hardin of Arlington, TX, Elizabeth Hardin Rayle and Albert Arnis Rayle IV of Atlanra; one brother, Fred Hardin and his wife, Doris, of Vian, OK, their children, Ann Hogan of Vian, Bob Hardin of Little Rock, Patricia



In June 2000 he

was honored by the Arkansas Bar Foundation for 50 years in the practice of law. He was also an Emeritus Trustee of

Westark College and a 32nd Degree Mason. He is survived by his wife of 43 years, Nadine Strang Hardin; one son, David Hardin of Fort Smith; three daughters, Tara

Black of Atlanta, Betsy Rayle and he< husband, Bert Rayle, of Atlanta, Lori






He was an anorney for American State

Bank and Simmons First National Bank,

Western Arkansas Legal Services, Stephen spent countless hours helping people who could not afford legal counsel. He was a former

member of the

American Legion, VFW, and Charleston Lions Club. He was a direclOr of Logan County



Corporation for 16 years and performed hundreds of hours of free legal services for me corporation. Stephen is survived by his wife, Tad Warren White; and one son. Seth Aaron White, both of Charleston; his mother,

Elizabeth White of Chadeston; one brother, Edwin White of Oregon; one sister, Cynthia

Hanback of Memphis, TN; three nephews;


nieces; and numerous aunts, undes and


Edward M. Owens

Community Bank of Pocahontas, Randolph

District of Arkansas, was also among the

president of Rolling Hills Country Club.

lawyers who worked with STOP. Though

He is survived by his wife, Jacqueline Smith King of Pocahontas; a son. Winston

Edwin M. Owens, age 76, of Pine Bluff, AR, died Saturday, September 23, 2000 at Jefferson Regional Medical Center in Pine Bluff.

King of Providence, R.1. and Martha Ellen King of Jonesboro; a brother, Bill King of Memphis; and a sister, Ann uwnin of Houston, Texas.

Mr. Owens graduated from Newark

High School and then attended Arkansas College at Batesville. He entered the United States Navy, serving three years during

World War II and seeing action in the Pacific Theater. After his naval service, graduated from Arkansas Tech Russellville. He earned his degree from me University

Mr. Owens University at juris doctor of Arkansas

School of Law at Fayetteville in 1952. He joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation. working in the FBI's offices in New York

City and Buffalo, New York. He then joined Murphy Oil Corporation of EI

William Porter uDubb" Hamilton

Dorado as a contract supervisor, later

William Porter "Dubb" Hamilton of Little Rock died of heart failure November 26. He was born in Little Rock, graduated from Litde Rock High School, mended Hendrix College and graduated in 1941

working for Murphy Oil in Shreveport, LA. In 1963 Mr. Owens moved to Pine Bluff where he opened the private law practice in which he was active until the time of his death. He was a member of several professional organizations including the Arkansas Bar Association and the Jefferson County Bar Association.

He is survived by his wife, Sallye Ruth McGregor Owens;

rwo sons.


McGregor Owens of North Little Rock, and Charles Thompson "Tom" Owens of

Sherrill, Arkansas; and two grandsons. Vernon James


from Columbia University in New York. One: of what we now ca.ll The Greatest Generation, he enlisted in the Army,

mended Officers Candidate School and rose to Commanding Officer at Fort Baker in Sausalito, California. He was appointed to the Department of Military lntelligence at the Penf:3gon.

After World War II, he graduated from law school at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, and practiced law in Little Rock

King, Jr.

Woods, a federal judge in the Eastern

County Anorney and for two years was

they were never associated in a major trial

and had litde legal work together, the article said Judge Woods and Hamilton became friends through the Ford Foundation Great Books program, in which Woods was discussion leader for 25 years. He was quoted saying "There were about a dozen books we would discuss during the course of a year." Hamilton's commitmem to his profession was evidem in his contributions to the Arkansas Bar. He was an Arkansas Bar Foundation Fellow and served on the committee to construct the present Bar Foundation Headquaners. Hamilton is survived by his wife. Maxine; twO daughters, Susan Hamilton

Johnson and her husband, Ecror R. "Buddy" Johnson of Mountain Home, Cathy Hamilton Mayron and her husband, Michael, of Little Rock; his brother, Don Hamilton and his wife, Suzanne; and three

grandchildren William Hamilton Johnson, John Edward Johnson and Samuel Barrier Johnson, all of Mounrain Home. Th~ Arkansm &r Foundation acknowkdga with gratqul appr«iation 1M tUapt of manorial gifts and schol4rship c(Jntributions givm in mnnory of

the [oibJwing individUilIs from &pt""b", 14, 2000 through D«""b", J9, 2000: IN MEMORY OF FRANCES "FRlTZJ£" BRIGHT

Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. IN MEMoRY OF Q.Ay GHORMUY


Jack C. Deacon

until 1994. A 1982 article in the Arkansas Vernon James "Jim" King Jr., 56, of

Democrat Gazette described him as a

Pocahontas, died at his home on November

"flashy orator, out of the old school of

17. He was born in Memphis in 1944, graduated from the University of Arkansas

couruoom speech makers." Hamilton, 80, was among the founders

and University of Arkansas Law School. He

of STOP (Stop This Outrageous Purge),

became a member of Sigma Chi Fraternity. He served four years as a JAG officer in the U.S. Navy before opening a law practice in

which recalled three members of the Little

Pocahontas in 1974. He became a highly

Rock School Board allied with then-Gov. Orval E. Faubus in the aftermath of the 1957 Central High School desegreg<ttion

respected attorney active in a wide variety of civic and community affairs. He was immediate Past President of the Pocahontas

crisis. In a recem Arkansas Democrat Gazette article, Hamilton's widow, Maxine

Rotary Club, treasurer of the Pocahontas

"thought it was wrong" to attempt to block


public school desegreg<ttion. Judge Henty



of First

B. "Mackie" Hamilton, said the group


Justice John A. Fogleman Hyden, Miron & Foster, PLLC

Eo OwENs Hyden, Miron & Foster, PLLC



Winslow Drummond

Judith Gray Judge John F. Stroud, Jt. Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. IN


Judge and Mrs. John F. Snoud, Jr.

Book Review Continued From Page 8

UCC Continued From Page 13

was to unite pardes driven asunder." "A5 a lawyer he was like 'a can of oil.' .. . He could cake the friction and heat QU[ of human affairs." "Our calling as peacemakers is at the heart of our profession." "He was successful because his causes, his friends, his colleagues. and his family were more important than his balance sheet. " "I have learned mat acts of kindness are the ultimate measures of one's success, and in turn, one's happiness." "We muS( keep growing, learning. developing, and renewing ourselves." "If you don't enjoy what you do, how can you ever call it success." "The idea is that the qualiry of our Jives is shaped significantly by whether we recognize what is mOSt important to us, and act in accordance with our values." ") came CO realize that if I wanted a court system that operated on the basis of honesty, openness, candor, and respect. then I needed [0 personally honor those values and model them on a daily basis." "Healthy re1uionships begin with lawyers who have a high degree of self worth.... Success is nor measured on the basis of billable hours." "The essence of what we must offer clients is value." "Good law is doing good for society and having a 'positive influence' on the world." "I wem to law school to make a difference." "In my mind, Plato and Aristotle represem twO aspects of the path to success. . . . Together, they teach us to succeed by using both our hearts and our minds." The stories around these quotations are what puts Aesh on these bones of words and makes them memorable. challenging. and inspirational.-o>

IS THE IMMEDiATE ENACTMENT OF REVISED ARTICLE 9 URGENT? Yes! Enactment by the 83rd General A5sembly is the only opportunity Arkansas will have to meet the July 1.2001 deadline for simultaneous effectiveness of this state law throughout the United States. If it is not adopted, a lender in Arkansas may have difficulty in determining how to perfect a security imerest in personal property in a multi-state secured financial transaction; and. if the issue IS subsequently litigated, the outcome of the litigation may depend on where the litigation is commenced. ational uniformity is especially essential for lenders, since they regularly extend credit across state lines and often have multi-state operations. If the states fail to achieve uniformity in this important field so essential [Q the nations continued prosperity, federal preemption may be the only alternative. Arkansas cannm afford to miss this-opportuniry! Revised Article 9 is endorsed and recommended by the House of Delegates of the Arkansas Bar Association and of the American Bar Association. It has also been endorsed by numerous organizations representing lenders, borrowers, and consumers. Every lawyer should contact her or his elected representative in the General A5sembly and urge the passage of Revised Article 9. <0

f1ilssil'ipd .\dnal't isinrr '-

MAP Continued From Page 19 volunteer, or an employee of the Al..AP gives rise to reasonable suspicion of a direct threat to the health or safety of the subject lawyer. judge or other person. then the obligation of confidentialiry set forth in this subsection 30(5) shall not apply. and the Commirtee member, volunteer, or ALAP employee may make such communications as are necessary for the purpose of avoiding or preventing said threat.-o>

ÂĽLS. Continued From Page 19 manpower to help many, but it takes local involvement. Law Day, May I. 200 I. will be here before you know ic. Young lawyers across the state are making practice and life decisions without the benefit of our ~I

n, ,lrkuliJ LIW!lf


resources. Make the commitment to become a county liaison and let us help you bring a valuable service to your community. If you are interested in becoming a county liaison, please contact Diane Gerrald at the Bar Association.oOo

UP-TO-DATE SET OF ARKANSAS DIGEST FOR SALE. $300.00. Call 1870-935-3730. Mid-sized orthwest Arkansas law firm currently seeking associate with 0 ro 3 years practice experience. PI~ ~nd resume to P.O. Box 1424, Springdale, AR 72765. Attn: Personnel. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITES Expert testimony provided related to administration of programs for mental retardation, developmental disabilities, mental health or special education. Particular emphasis placed on propriety of policies, procedures and individual treatment in public or private residential facilities, community living serongs and public school special education. William A. Lybarger. Ph.D.â&#x20AC;˘ 316-221-6415. ASSOCIATE POSITION with Jonesboro firm. Firm practice focused in Commercial/Banking and Insurance Defense. Please send resume and references to P.O. Box 1346, Jonesboro. AR 72403-1346.

Intl('\ (0 .\tln'I'( iSPI's PAGE

ADA. he.


AMFS, Inc. Ma1sas LegislatiYe lligesl, he. Golden Lantem Nations HeaIlht:aIe AucIlors Kidd &Assotiates Lardlech Data l<gaI Diecilries NJisIIilg ll!Jis LAw NJisIIilg

18 22 51 34



.klII1 McAlister McBimey Mansion MedicaJ.lBgaI CoosuIIing

E._ PaiJ !.ixon

M<>ganlhau, O'Toole &Co., Inc. Moo!e, Stephens, FIllS! Retlsamen Insurar<:e RK:haJ1Il. Schwartz Schu~e Maedlling ShuIIieId AppIaisaJ Services West GfOUll Caroline l. Winningham


34 27 9 Inside Bad< CoYer 31 25 32 26 21 23 24 30 Back CoYer 39 48 24 Inside Front CoYer 24

Research solutions priced for the small law firm that doesn't think small.

Only the {"" service offers the most reliable resources-MICHIE: M Matthew Bende~ LEXI


Shepard' and Martindale-Hubbel -with small firm pricing.

So now the specialty practice area and jurisdictional sources you need are available in a fast and easy-to-use fonnat, priced exclusively for your firm. - more flexible and affordable than you ever imagined. For more info, call 1-800-356-6548 or visit {



LEXIS, IIEXIS. Sheplrd's tnd




ndIrTWks. '-tOE


a ~ tnd . .,com •• ....a Il'B1t al RIId e-. Plq81les Inc.. u&etllIldIr bne. ~ 8fI"lI:* lIS I lUgI5teI'lJd 1I1ldeITW1t 01 Mallt'ew BendIr PropwIIs C 2000 l..EX&EXIS.• ciYsIn d Reed EIslJ.w re. '" r9U .-WId


t's all about long-term commitment. For over 35 years the parmership of the Arkansas Bar Association, the Rebsamen Insurance Agency and CNA has served as the state's leading source for professional liability insurance. We've built enduring relationships based on trust, experience, and decades of stability.


In a world of uncertainty, you need a foundation of protection. The expertise and dedication of the Rebsamen agency,

backed by the fmancial strength of CNA, are your assurance of security. It's a promise, and a tradition.

400 w. Markham UllJe Rock, AR 72201

Professional Association Group Division 501-664-8791 888路272-6656 PO Box 3398 L;IlJe Rock, AR 72203路3398

More than insurance.

Your best defense.庐 1niJ IJrogram is wukruniJlrn by ~ or more rf the CNA tompanitJ.

C'NApRO orA i.I a registend servia I11D.r!c and trade 1IllllIl rf CNA FituJlu:ial CorpcratWn.

The Arkansas Lawyer magazine Winter 2001