tim )111' IIisl'iplimll') .\I't inns this averment to the: Committee despire the faCt that Arkansas Code Anno[2tcd Section 7-6205(b) and Secrion 7-6-103 prohibirs judges from making such contributions and at the time the contributions were made Mr. Wan was a municipal judge. In ovember, 1986, Mr. Wan creared a false document purporting to be a lener from David Hale of eM absolving Mr. Wan of liahiliry on the SBA nOle. At some point thereafter, a dispm.c arose between Mr. Wan and Mr. Hale as to how and 10 whom the notc was (0 be repaid. Mr. Wan presented the Icm:r (0 Mr. Hale in an effort (0 imimidat(' Mr. Hale. On AuguSt 17. 1995, Mr. Wan. in an interview with the Office of Independent Counsd (010, maintained the forged letter was authentic. Ultimately he recanted that Statement [Q the ole investigators. Mr. Watt acknowledged thai he created the false document, albeit in a fit of anger. Mr. Watt stated that he created the document and presented it to Mr. Hale to exhibit the atent of Mr. Hale's unethical and ilJq;al conduct. Mr. Wan acknowledges that he initially stated the document was authentic in his discussions with the Ole. However, once Mr. Wan became aware of the gravity of the situation, he did in faCt recant the previous statement concerning the authenticity of the document. The Commina: was also made aware of the faCt that Mr. Wan resigned his municipal coun judgeship as a result of the conduct set out herein above. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the res-pon.st: herein. the testimony at the de novo hearing, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Ptofessional Conduct Model Rules"), the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. \'Van's conducr violated Model Rule 8.4(c) when, in 1986, he caused twO $1,000 contributions to be made to a polilicaJ campaign in the names of Mary Ann Young and Ellisa Young, his secretary and her daughter, when the funds were actually derived from Mr. Wan; when he created a false document which indicated that David Hale was financially responsible for a S I0,000 SBA loan and used the document in an effon to intimidate Mr. Hale to pay the loan; and, when, during an August 17, 1995, inrervi~ with the Office of Independent Counsel, Mr. \'Van fa.lsely informed the OIC Ihal the November 1986, St:HemCIlI of David Hale was a genuine document. Model RuJe 8.4(c) requires that a lawyer not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Comminee on Professional Conduct that WILLIAM W. \'(fATI: Arkansas Bar 10 #78159, be, and hereby is, SUSPENDED for THIRTY DAYS and fined
r
r
S 1,000.00 for his conduct in this matter. The fine is imposed pursualll to Section 8A(2) of the Procedures of the Arka.nsas Supreme Coun Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys al L'lw. The suspension shall become effective as of January I, 2001 and the fine shall be due and payable no later than December 17, 2000. HARLAN A. WEBER December 29. 2000 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is based arose from the guilty plea of Harlan A. Weber. On January 15, 1998, a Judgment and Commitment Order was entered in the United States District CoUrt for the Eastern District of Arkansas. It found that Harlan A. Weber pled guilty to the misdemeanor violation of 18 U.s.e. 205 which regulatcs the activities of officers and employees in claims against and other maners affecting the Government. Mr. Weber was semenced to three years probation, a 53.000 fine and 480 hours of community service. According to the presenrence report. Mr. Weber was an administrative law judge with the Social Security Administration. A complaint was filed against Mr. Weber by the Office of the Inspector General alleging improprieties on the pan of Mr. Weber in regard to the processing of a social security administration appeal, namely Naney J. Weber, wife of Mr. Weber. Mrs. Weber applied for social security benefits on July 25, 1995 due to health problems that caused her 10 leave her employment in 1992. Mrs. Weber's social security claim was denied. on October 25, 1995. On Oaober 30, 1995 Mr. Weber, writing as Mrs. Weber. requested reconsideration of the denial. On the medical records submined Mr. Weber wrote "Pay anemion to grid rules. Pay attention to decision. NW." That reqUe51 was denied on February 12, 1996. Subsequently, Mr. Weber, again writing as Mrs. Weber, submined a request for a hearing to the Offi~ of Hearings and Appeals in Little Rock, the same office where Mr. Weber works. The case was assigned to Scon Dobbs, Senior Staff Attorney Advisor. A discussion was held between the fWO as to which physician Mrs. Weber was to see. For his response Mr. Weber admined to writing on the medical records and making the requests (or reconsideration and setting the maner for hearing. Mr. Weber admitted 10 discussing the .st:lection of a physician with Mr. Dobbs. Ultimately, Mrs. Weber was represented by legal counsel and had a hearing before an Adminisrralive Law Judge from the Dallas Regional Office, lotally unknown 10 Mr. Weber. She was grallled benefits pardy due ro Ihe grid rules referred to by Mr. Weber originally.
Upon consideration the formal complaint, the anorney's failure to respond, and the Arkansas Modd Rules on Professional Conduct herein, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Weber's conduCl violated Model Rule 8.4(b), when in its Judgment and Commitment of January 15, 1998, the United States District Coun for the Eastern District of Arkansas found that Mr. Weber had pled guilty to a misdemeanor violalion of 18 U.s.e. 205, regulating activilies of officers and employecs in claims against and other matters affecting the Government. 2. That Mr. Weber's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d) when as an Administrative Law Judge for the Social Security Administration he assisted Mrs. Nancy J. Weber, his wife. with her claim with the Social Security Administration by requesting reconsideralion and hearings in her name when in fact il was him making the requests. Mr. Weber advised. the Social Security Administr:nion on the applicable law on his wife's behal( Mr. Weber had a discussion with a Social Securiry Administration anorney as 10 what physician his wife should see. All these actions were aga.inst federal law and required that an Administrative Law Judge from Dallas, Texas hear the case. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Commincc on Professional Conducr that HARLAN A. WEBER, Arkansas Bar ID #69081, be, and hereby ;s, SUSPENDED for THREE MONTHS for his conduct in this matter. The suspension shall become effective as of the date of the llIing of this Order with the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
OTICE OF DISBARMENT PATRICIA DIANNE JACOBS Washington, D.C. January 18.2001 Patricia Dianne Jacobs, an anorney residing in Washington, D.C., with Arkansas Bar 10 #73152 has been barred from engaging in the practice of law in this St2te. On the Petition of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee on Professional Conduct, the Arkansas Supreme COUrt granted Ihe Petition and reciprocally disbarred Ms. Jacobs on January 18. 200 I. The Committee's Petition to Reciprocally Disbar Ms. Jacobs was based upon her previous disbarment by the District of Columbia Coun of Appeals and the Supreme Coun of (he United Stales. The Petition and attached exhibits on file with the Clerk of the Arkansas Sllpreme Coun demonsnale that the District of Columbia Coun
"II. 1111. ilS,rill iii I
T~ .Irllll.lll.w!rr
II