Lawyer 3 85 web by Alabama State Bar Association

'~t Union Bank, Ire UXJrk hard to

elDTl YOllr trust. " - Henry A. Leslie

President and Chief Executive Off~r

Union Bank works closely \'~ I h Illany A(ab,Ulla altomevs in Ihe adlllinislrOltiorl Of ll'-l515 and estates. olil' investment capabilities have in cll.~'Lsed dmmalically in the p;:ls i yem' by the addition of a state-of-the-m1 computcl;zed system. As Al'lb.allla's laIS!;!!;! independent bank, we conlml all our' investment processing within Ihe Trllst DelXU1 men t 10 assure constant attention and comple le confidellliilHly for your" (;lients.

"'Ve invi te y O lll" questions about Union Bank's Ilus \ Our c.xpClicnccd Il'us \ omcer~ wiUbe gl,ld 10 d iscuss any busines.'>. fimUlcial or admin istrative aspect of the sc ,,~ces we plU\~de. sel \~ces.

RUST.._~ 60 Commerce Slrt.'e l ~" ontgomel y, AlalKmtil ,Ui"l04 (205 ) 265-8201

Nursing Homes and the Law: State Regulation and Private Litigation br Sandr.• H.}ohnson. Nicolas P. Terr),. Michael A. Wolff Nursing home law. v.ry in . lmosr ~v"ry . rate a nd ,he regul.,ory p"ncrn. orc very complex. Th~ major !fends ,h., have emerged are <rca,ed in dcp,h in ,hi. !lmdy an d us<:fu l new work . , 1\IIj~

$36.95 The Insanity Defense: A Bibliographic Research Guide bJ' D. C her)'" Pic-quc. and Reb.. A. DeS! TH E pl ac~ '0 begin your research. A compi l.,ion of ~very conceivable. ava, lable r~SDurce. ,hi. new Guidc w, ll d irec, and ~nhance anI' ,ype of research into ,he .ub"",,- '9>lS

$3 5.95 ............................................................................................................. ACT ION FORM 1'1<... ,n«.... o,-J" fu, ,ho, ""bI",,",", 1,,,«1. ,ntlo<l,al ,aT '"M>I<m<"'~ """"'"' «rl><._o, _ _ ""iKd vol ...... "'_' odd""",01 '''' ....... 0<1 ", ... «1 m....... , 1 .oJ.",.oo 1 ""'T or on, """ <00«1 m, ..-.It, for , .... ,.",,~ ..... o,~ " " _ by ... m("""ro" Th< H.",,,,,, C>m",", 'n _" '''"1·C ...""",,, o-n ,.,."".,i< ,.born",",," ~',11 ",a"",,, ro = ;,,, P'''''' r,i<n ."~J«' '" ,ho".., .i,",-

.,.t",",.....""'""..,

<I,.

-~ On <>oh .. b d.. ", .. no hoadha, oka ..... ' 00 Th< fl."""", C>mron, ~,1I "., fOO""'- '" (moh.. H.OOha, ,ho,.,.. pi .. """_ .,.I... ;~~, ",11 "" odtk<I '" ALL OTHER SAL~ _ Nu .. ;a~ Hum.. ,ad 'h' Low, S..,. R<"gub';oa ,ad Pr""" U ,;~''';'''' (H5(}1 S) _..... _ .......... _ .... _..... _...... .. $J6.9S

- - I a .. ai" D<>I,a .. , A Bibl;ogr.phi< R.... "''' Gu;J. (Z917.!O) .... _ ................. _ .... _..... _ ........... * ..... * .... _ -..lIr1l P",,,,,01 A«GUn,

......................

$15.9S

-Brll Finn A«<>uo'

r,,,,,

s,.~

.....

81'10

T H E HARRISON CO MPANY. P U BLI SHERS . 3 110 C...,...inll P.rk· PO Sox 7500- No",.-.-. GA J()(l91'75OO

. _........ ---, ....

THE MARCH 1985

.-_ .... "." ............ "-,, ,-

• u . . . ,," _

" ....'.,

BOARD OF EDITORS

",, .... 1>..I0I0 ___ 0,..<; .. . ..... P 1_

. """", n,

• -..5.tlrPJdo, ..... _

G......,j._H_..... .

r..,..."H

,Ioo.,j •.. _

"" .. 0 I<ob<o1 W. K<odoo, ... . . . - 0 ' _ l.......

j •. ,_ ~

G...... 5.III<I ..... , .. _

0 ,<,,,>

"'_•. _ -... .' .-.. ...... ,~ T_ • • 1.,...... _ ... . _5._, IV. _

. """" _ _ ........"... . .. _

"'-. ""tsbuIP . 50.- L ...... T _ . _G . ~. EI.ri<oo.

OFFICERS W.. ' .. W. H...... _ . . . - . . ,_

... , ,_. J>_1.

••" ..",,. , _,....., ......".... . .... s.-.o.y

~. , ~

......... T _

\'''''..-

_~ .

BOARDOFCOMMISSIONERS h"_ . u.._~ T_.,. .C .... _ . 2ooIC • .... r . _ .......... c-., ... . !lNe_.j.

~~.. EooI"", . "~e_,Ho.ryW ~,j .......... . ~he....... '".... ".GR•. T... ...... • ~. '''''''' ' Wal, .. P T"""""

Social Securit y Disability Ins u ra nce - pg. 62

e"",_..,

',mo"

e"" ... w ,.....

.. . 7" H. Wo,,,,, I..... "'",,,, .. . $o , C" • .... , ~ J , C_.I).<..... . 91' U ~. Jo-_ 1\ . ....... . 'III> elmo!<. w....... II.

1.ioIot..... _ _

. ,II"wnoo.-..M.IbII.

Dvyou ha"ea,iocnl who is seeking 5oXialSo1'CUmy benefit.? 11 is important to ~nov.' the ground rulj'S for dealing with this adminislrali"e ag.-:ncy.

n..-. . IlIhC......... ' b ....... oJo. ...... .. · I:IO"CO'<OOO. "'" 1L1Iuno.", _ ,,,.

C........ -"OT ,,·- . 5 0 . ' - . ,50.C..... _ " -~)o- _ _ , - ' l ' · '''~ClfCIoIl . 1.ooIort " lII>o1 ... Goo-. . 11I\C_. _ _ ... Iol-.

"".1"""". ,,,,.,_,.01,_, I......

CoIo .. . '90,("_,,,,,,," 1IoII~ ..... _)._Cl.""," • au c,....." w. . 110 . .... , '''''... . ~I., C"",", _

c......,.... _

1Itoo. G G.....,. "'"""" • u... AI AnoIoI.U . """ f"'l' C Ihockob,-, _ .... I~ . 1... C"",", 1.£. ..... , v..- . :&~

lin,"""

c""",.

c_.

N..... · ~_ ... _ . . H ........ l I'hm..

... . . . c....... c... . 1'71> c........ ,

Chatln.1l. ........._ AIIIn1.-11o .

"".C_.)

Iloo

.·_ . .., · :!!'"'C_.H.... '" o-.T_ .. . . . ( - .. BJ. ""'--. ~ · llo. C_. " " ' - R....... _..., • :oz". , _ . .... ,."" K""""'.C ...... . :J:ltiI C........ Edo_ II' ..... oII,Gontvo . 31,0(""""",-,1.-" , 50 .. W..... ,,,, .. . :I;<, C,,,,",,. "', _, l 0...... , _ "' .. . . n C,,,,.,,. 1),1" Ioton, •. _"""

_.SCOO._ "'___ Al_ ... GENERAL INFORMATION ..... ,,'"",_ ... ,_._ .... _ ....' ... . . ...,'-... ........... ... ""-... . . .. ,..................... .......... .. .. ,._ . ,_ _.... .. _ AIo·. .. _ _................ .. _ ....... . ....... _.......... ....,.... _.... ,_....... ....... ...... .-~-....-.... ........ .. _........ ..... ,....... .. .................... ,,,,,....... ...: • VI. C........, ..... U.p f_ _ )0-.. ()poI;ko •

:II!I~

_-,,_ _ --. ._ . . --. . *_-_ _ ----_ - _-_ _ ---'---_-_ ------, -

C_,_F

........

On T he Cove r Th,s beaut iful spnng·li~csceneconJeS 10 us cuurlesy of $cOtisoorO) allorncy John Proclor. The creek. wil h ils flower' inK hanks. runs under Sroll Sllttl in $cOllsOOro and offers mcouragemem Ihal cloudy days and cool wealher cannot last fore,·er.

~. ,

--~-.-

•

Withholding Orde rs fo r Child Suppo rt - pg. 72 lIecenl Iegoslat,on has been eooclOO

10 afford remedies lor d(>hnquencits in child supporl PiI\·ment$. Si rict adher· ence to the StalUlOry requ ''-''ments~,-.,

necessary 10 "blam C(lmpletc relief.

ISSUE IN BRIEF Special T ha nks

•

for C()Nlrilnllw-s III 11r.. Ua~. S/!«NtI/!uu.lts,., /0 !'tll"y II'tI"'",.,

••

R.. ,. Siricitlal/d mod Dorothy Nor .

..""

A RCP 15(c): Relation

Ins ide T his Issue

Back of Ame ndme nt s -1)g·84

PrHident'1 Page ............. 60 E X«Uli\'t' Director's RepOrt ••• _ ......•..... 61 Riding the Circuils .......... 67

Rule 15 A.R.C.P. affords a means of avoIding statute of limitations prot>lenls in adding additional parli~'S \0 a civillawsun. Professor Hoffn,an (If Ih~ Un;,er.,l)' of Alabama la", school pro"1d1'S an exhaustive treatment of the rurffnl Alabama law In thIS art<!.

In Me moria m

- pg. 105 '"I believe the profesliion affords a splendid opp(m ... mly for service 10 (he stale and its j)O!Qple." ThisquOieromcs from lhe La(e J. O. Sem~ll's character and filness affidavIl ol 1932. and pr0bably best summar;ut the Ideals and beliefs of thi s formtr clerk of the s ...· prerne COlIn. Senlell also .....as editor ementus of 7"hr AlDlJarn" l.il"'y<!~_

Bar Brid s... ..... .

CLE Newl ............. Aboul Members. Aroong Firms .........

Young Lawl"ffS' 5H:tion .... kgl5Iali ~ W ... p-Up ...•....• CLE Opport ... nities .........• Rtunl Decisions ...........•

7'9 !lO 82

Opinionli olllle GtneJ'1ll COlInsel _... 98 Disci plinary Report _.. . .... . 101

In Memoriam ..... .........• lOCi .................. 107

ClaS5if~5

Opinions of the General Counsel

- pg. 98 Have )'0\1 ever wondered whelher you. as an auomey. ethically may ma,l letters to alleged o:k>blOrs of a chcm w,thout ha.ing in,-esligated the ""U ler or made a good faith prof.-ssu;mal judgmcnl \hedernand islora 'ahd and subsist Ing claim? Find out thIS and mOn! on I he subject.

•

CoJ!resideqfs <OJ)age Professionalism Synonymous with Independence

he Midrear Meeting ,n Montgomery was an Q\"erwhelmlllg

lUc:oess. We had the utmost in our luncheon 5peake~, Cas" par WcinbcTger. secrc:t3ry of dtftn~.

qu~lily

and Judge Patrick E. Iliggin bol ham of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th

Circuit. We indeedaregralefulloCongressm~n

us the

special debt 01 fr.IlIlOOe for an "elf"\" enth·hour 53'·e." Our co-sponsors in the house and senale, ..... ho"hand\ed the bill. are to becommcndoo for a job ably done. i'!euljjnition of I hese persons .....ilI be noted in my ne xt message. On the local bar K<.!nt. a. }"oor pre$. ident I have had the opportunity of

Bill Dickinson for bnnging ~ary

of defenw and

As )'1)Ur president. I share u'it h taCh

..am't Alaboomian Pal H iggmbotham

iQl' hIS participation. We are indebled

to lhe planningcommiuee for ita Ol'u· standing program and 10 Heggie J[amner and our state bar staff for Of". ganizingand arranging thi$oolwendon. El«:iling news came from .he reo porlS of OIl' <;Ommittres and task for~ made to the board of bar comm;s. ,iooers and 10 the membership. These reports demonstr.ued in pan the ac·

''''C taken by 50 many of our members in our bar', buSlne55. ThIS does not reflect. howe'~, the \otallty oI.he work and the dedic<ltion of the more than 400 lawyer$ ;0,'01<'00 in committee work who gave and will continue to give so generously of thei r time and talents in an effort to make our profession a betler~. The best n"-'s is roo more ckficil fi· nancing. The Alabama Ug;slalure passed our bill to increase lioffise f1ft to$15O perannum. Weare indebtoo 10 lhe leadership in both houses. bUI Lieulenant eo"emor BIll Kaxley and Stnator Charles Bi shop are 0 .....00 our

uonce 10 our professional SIlOCtS$ and the ~ of the p«Igr'3.ms 01 )'1)Ur Alabama Statc Bar. In belling with I his belief./ held a specIa ll y lIChedulcd meeting of local bar leadel'S during the Midyear J\k-eting in Montgomery. ex· changing ideas and ~Iting the be!lclit of their ad,'ice

"Tile practice of la IV is a professioll. II's 1I0t like making sh.oes or making automobiles. "

of you as [ ha"e u'ith the local bar groups some of my lhoughls and ron" cerns for oor legal profession and our It,pl system . G~ Washlfl/ll.on be1;""'00: ""The administration of justice is lhe firmest pillar of 1IO"ernmcnt:' l happen to believe further our judicial system is the cornerstone of our form of JlO'·e-rnment. and lawyers/ls a prof,,· Jio.. a ~ I he COI"TIt'I""Stone of I hat j ud idal

5y$ltm, As ~torns Harall. f~JR:Si'

- Jus tice Potter Ste wart meeting ""ith ~nd s peaking to the M(lnt · gomer)' Coonty Bar As!Kriation at its

annual meet ing, ..... here the principal s peaker ..... as I're$ident· EIKt William Falsgralof lhe American Bar Asw;:ia· lion. I alSOJ~red u a ~peaker al the annual ~ingof lheCalhoun County Bar Association in Anniston and at a meeting of lhe MadIson Coont y Bar As.wcialion.1 still am committed IOlhe prof>:.>Sition bar ac1,,'ilies and aClions must C(lmmcna' at the local level . These grass roots are of utmost impor·

denl oft~ American Bar Association . upreued it: "Our system III root per. feeL but is by far the best in today's world:' Yet all is n01 ""ell with our system. nor with our proff$Sion . The greatesl threat tooor legal system is the transi · tion 01 the practice of law from a proffSSion toa Ir.lckor busi_. 1 am in lotal accon:J with the princi· pleu~ by JustICe l'otlerStewan : practice of bw ;u profeul(lll. h'f not like- .... killll .hotI or makll'll

~Tbe

automobiles.""

GExecutive <Director's ~port

The Costs of Self-Regulation

Ai:.

indicalM in January. I am

using Ihia month's column 10

iscuu

lisal operation cl

)lOOT association. Thel WO largest ;Iems

of t xpendill,lre in the 1984 fiscal year

were in [heareas of professionallicensiog and rtgUlntion. the statutory re. sponsibililies of the Alabama Slate

roI<. A ~akdown ollhe $92.1 41 figure re,'eals (he I~rgesl sha~ was paid for examiners' annual stipends (thirteen 51.150). exam monitors. (es(ing maleriRls and services. and conlract prin(ing. This tOl.1 i$ 546.498. AllOIher $15.910 "'as spent on character and fitness reponing, coun reponing and legal fees. Travel reimburstmenl ac· rountt<! for allOlhet" $1.515. uamina· lion facilities rental $1.731 and lQStage $2,032. Like the proI"t$lIional rnponsi· bil i t Y0051 S. t here are general ex penses for in· house printing. telephone cha rges and olfi~ rent TIOI included in the 100ai f(gun! r\OIt<! above. General adm inis( ra( ive ex pen ses ac· coun( for the bu lk 01 the expendi(ures ....,maining. The largest s ingle item of expense in (his c~tegory is for salarie!! of nine full·time employees. excluding those dtlle admissions secretary and th e d.scipllnar y stafl. tota!1ing $112.615. The luendant benefits cost S32.942 for I irlnd 100al 01 S20S.617 or twenty-one ptrttnl (21"). Board 01 commisslOl"ll'B' ~ingsrost $21.012 (IrI\"d and per diem only). Th~ Akrl.w",.. l.JJM'Y'"' was alJoc;ateo! $15285 includ\ng salaries and post3&". The Young l.awyers· Section recej\'OO 512.500. and the l~slative counsel was paid $12.000. Anmher major i(em of expense is @

B" T wenty·tight

~rcenL

(Z8'11o) Or

$210.537 was expellded in tile area of

professional rtllponsibility. ["dus;"c in this figure are lht salaries of thne iulJ.lime anorneys and N'O support staff members. A part-time clerical assistant wu uliliud part ollhe )inC; how~ff. I third full'lime SKretariai position " 'IICfNled in December 1984.

Tra"el and per diem (22t per mile and up to 540 per day) for disciplinary board memben requirfd SS.841. Most perdiem payments arc a $5 meal allowance since onc must be away from his horne baseO"~r ]2 hours before any additional pcr diem ;$ aUllloriloo. Postage aLone COSt $3289 ""hilt court reporting and IItWspaper 1IOIic:n C()I;t

SS.462: 0CIjliff Co!U was another S930. Rental fOf the Cenler for Profes. siona! ~espon sibilit y and s(a(e motor pool

only one salary, that dthe admissions secretary. is included in lhe above 10tal . Act ua II y• s.i x ot het" Slaff people per. form in (his a~a. but in a SfOOOdary

c~'"itI

lotillte! $24,775. No al·

tHnpt Wl$ made toallOCa(eCOSI ol gen.

ffill olfi~ supplies. in·house printing or (e\ephone e~penses as these a~!Ie par.negtneral bud~( C3tepjH. Par(ia! cost ol (he admissions proceu aa:oumte! for $92,141 or tweke peru:nt (lZ%) of the FY 1984 budget. This parlial OOIt figure is such because

rommun'(1ItlOOt COStS - posla&f' and (e\ephone. e05l5. tMlIer than lIOMa! ex· penditurn for admi5Sions and profes· sional resJX)nsibility, ttMalled 521,429 while telephone chatgtfl were $28.102. General offa s upplies cost $13.813. Rental 01 the facilities and equip. ment at 4 15 Dexter Avenue (including utililies) ItMalied 551 .453. while oot-ol· state travel for officertt. s taff and com· mitl~ ~mbeflittMalioo $17.00500 18 IriJlfll. Your bar l$S(\Ciation is a big finan· cial opmItion; ""e spent over $1SO.000 d )'OUT ~. Appro~imalely 6.685 members bouahllicensesor paiddues 10 the association in FY 1984. Nine hundred and fifty "",mbers ,,-ere u · empt from any payment during their first (wo years 01 admission. Special "",mbership dues 01 S50 were paid by 1.742 oltht6.685 total paying members. Each dues·paying member's average cost for FY 1984 was 5112.70. Sinceno licen!W' COlliS over 5100. the excess OJ)eradng costs we~ paid from reserve funds. intertSl on in"nllnents and ex· amination and law s tudent regiSII'lI' (ion f.-es. I hope Ihis brief anal~is ol your bar f,nance$ affords you ~ appncia· tion for the lelf·ugulatory profession 10 "'hich you belong and which ~ou support.. Whilewelrean aaencyofthe State 01 Alabama. "'e reoel"e no gen. era! fund revenues. We all should share !iI.>IIle pride in the manner in which we fulfill OIIr public pUTJ)05e. 0 _ Reginald T . Hamner

GJlolt~ by Ste ... en C. Emem.

T~ Social Security Administration awarded. in 1983 alon e. over

$106.000,000 in attorneys',fees to lawyers represent ing persons wil h claims

against Iht Social Secu rity Admi nistration. Tllis figure should awaken the Alabama attorney 10 lIN: raet thert is rnooey 10 be made in repre5f1lling in·

d;vidl,l3is (\)fICI!rning their Social Security brndiiS. Over lIOIoof the $106,000.000 paid in

fees las[ year coooerned disability claims. For that reason, thil article concerns itself primarily wilh lhe Ill" presentation of a client !!ef:kingdisab;l· ily bentfits under the Social Security

",.The Social5«urily

ddinesdis·

ability nan "inability lo~in any substantial pinful activity. by reason of • medicany detmninabk! physical or mental impairment. which can be expectfd to result in death or has luted or can be exptCted to last for a continuous period of nOi If'u than 12 months" (20 CFR §404.15(5). Disability benefits are available undereither Tille II or Tille XVI of the Social Security Act. Eligibility urwkr T itle II ilacquired wllm a ...ork~ has achieved "insu red statuI." Genenlly. thi, insured status is determined by the numbt.- of quarters 01 coverage the worker hasoblained. An individual acquires a qua rt er of C(lverage for each

•

quanerof a year he ..:orks under em· p10yment which il CO'o'ered by the Sor cial Security Act If a pel'SOl1 cnnnot Quali fy for cover· age under Tit le JJ then he may apply for btmefits under Title XVI, This title is known as the Supplemental Secur· ity Incomt Act and is a ftderally ad· ministered cash assistallCl" pn:JgI'<Im availa~ to the gtner.Il public. II pr0vides all citil('ns, and i.eg3l1y admiued aliens, have a right toa minimum in· come il they Qualify as aged, blind or disabled and ha"e limited resources. The lim step in representing some· one seoeking disability benefits is to determine what actions to obtain benefits they may have taken prior loam,'· ingat one's oIflCt. There are li"e possi· ~ s!.ilgeS I hrough whoch an applical ion lor benefits may pass. T hese s!ageS are an initial application, a re<Xlnsidera' tion review, an administrati.'e hear· ing. an Appeals Council hearing and a trial in a federal dist rict court , Benefits may be granted al anyone (If these le.,els; however. if the benefits sought are denied tllm tilt application must be appealed to tilt nut Jeo.-el within sixty (50) day .. or the denial becomes pmnar>ent as to that application. In tilt majority 01 cases. the client only ~ks an auorney after he has made both an initial application and a request lor I'flX)I1siderat ion. with both

~~ £""'11$ d('lUl II tId dirtClllnJ/ "'" Ii1/1/ i "If ft·

ggl ttl1/«Ilitm ,,1111 eli,,;""/ t.. XI "... gr<ImJlrr;lh the U";vcnily ",At..· milia School oj fA .... IIf rruilVd /JQlh Iris). D. and I1UJ.A .from Ihf

Unilltl'$ily 0/ Alaooma.

beingdenitd.lkause this is the status Qi the normal application "'hen it is brought to an allomt)'. this anicle foCUstS upon theadministr1ltil'e hearing st• .

T he Ad m in;<;trnti\(' lI en ring At nost.Qitheprocess. priortoan admimstratwe hearing. is the dient affordtd his "day ;n court." Only before an administrative law judge is a claimant allowed to present testimon· ial and documentary evidence , T his is the first stage at which the claimant 's at torney is permilled to object to evj· !k1lC<' already in his file. An attorney should approach the hearing be/on- an administr1luve law judge juSt as if he were tryIng any Clvilla", suit inl·oI ... · ing mjuTll'S and damages. The burden Qi proof in submilling t\·icIence tosuppon hlsd8lm lordisabil· ity is on the climt. T~lore_ it is essential for the auorney to offer the most persuasive evidence available. including as mU(:h hl'e test imony as possible. This evide~ean be secured only through substantial pre-trial effort. Prior \0 the hl'aring. the allornCj' should learn everything aboot theclient ~rding rlK'dical impainTll.'nt. work histOl")'. ability to function mentally and physic3l11y. medlCaltl'Ntment and Olher general data that might ha"e a bearing on the I$$ue Qi disability.

The IUorM)' should also rev1elo·the SocUII 5«unty Administr1ltion's file

ronoemm, his d~nt. T his file "'ill be al'ailable al the administrative la'" judge 'SolrlCe and ",ill contain a number 01 earlier rlK'dical nanalil'l!!< which wen: the basis u ]lOn which the initial application and reconsideration denial were handtd down. In most instances. the mtdical t\'identt in thedimt's file is months old and "'ill not indicate the permanency 01 his impairment, A phy· sician. fOl' eumple. who GIla' stattd the dient to be "nOl disabled" may hal'e sintt (hanged his opinion and failed tosupplement hisoriginal repor1, After revit'<o'ing the file and di'ICUSli' ing liS com~nli " 'ith the client. it then is time for the allorney to establish OlfItact with and intl!n'iCV\' the physi· cians involved in the claim. Consider· able lime should be spent in assisting the physidanl in confonning their te5'

timony to the ttTminology used by the act in definilli disability. Many doc· tors.fOl' aample. may not immediately have an apprKiation fOI'l question Ttprding whethertheelaimant can per. form ~Iight W()rk. "Theallomeyshould translate such. ttTl1I into the more practical qut$tion: "Can Mr. Smith frequently lilt OI'c.arry boxes weighing more than 10 pounds?" The hearing is held in accordance with the AdminiSlr3til'e Procedures Act and isde"ow. Theproceroingsare direo;ted by the administrative law judge and at tendtd by thecourt report· er. the claimant. the clai mant's attorney and the various witrleSl;tS. The atmos~ ;1 one 01 relatil'e informalny. T he judge begins the Pf"OCftdings by making a .hort Statement fOl' the reron:l indICating who is ~t and offering a short statement Qi the law ~rning theclaimant's application. It is then discn:tionary with the judge as to whether he conducts the hearing himself by qUl!!<tioning the claimant and wit ne5stS or if he allows thcattorMey to do the questioning. [n the el'entthc administratil'e law judge allows the allorney 10 present his own case. he begins by calling his fil"$t witneu. Thil should beoneolthe strongest "'it~ - perhaJ15 the claimant hImself. It should be kept in mind this ilthe judge.s first opportun· ity to ~ the daimant and. if his dis· ability is one " 'hich is readily appar· ent. it is r«:Ommended his disability be highlighttd. Like any trial inl'oII'ing the rlJCOl'cry of damagtll for injuries. the allorney must use his imagination to present his claimant's injuries in as demonstratively and persuasively a manner as po&Sible. [f the claimant is requirtd to use. broce. corset. cane. an inhalator or OIhereq uipment or apparatus at his home. then t~ items should be al'ailable for demonstration so as to emphasi« the elaimant·s in· ability to work and tam a living. Generally. any and all evidence may be reoeh'ed atlhe hearing t\'en though soch evidence ,,'OUk! be inadmissible urnitt' t he Federal Ru les of Evidence. The Administrative Procedures An provides that in an administrative hearing such as this. the test for evi· dence is nOi R5 to its admissibility but the weight to be gil'en s uch evidence.

As a pnlCliall mallCl'. the daiman!"s attorney should place intoevidenceev· ery document. statement . narratiVl' or othtT item which ,",'OU1d help sustain his elien!"1 burden Qi proof. The allOl" !"Ie)' OlfItinually should remember. if there IS an adl'ersoe decision by the ad· minist r1It h"t law judge. his su bstq uen t appeal will be decided primarily on the basis Qi the r«Ord mack at the admi· nistrative hearing. In determining whet her t heevidence supports a finding or disability. the regulations requin: the administrati"e law judge to follow a fil'e-step process. These five steps must be followed in sequence regardless d the nature d the claimant's impairrnenl.lf a deter· mination In individual is 01' is 001 dis· ~bIed can be made at anyone Qi these s teps. eval..."tion under a subsequent step is unn«:essar)'. This ~sequential analysis'· must be follolto'ed by the admini~t.,.tive law judge in writing his opinion and. then:fore. the allorney shoold follow Ihi$ analysis in developing and presenting the ca~ al the ad· ministrat ive level. Se fju c n t ia l An al ys is The first IItp in the sequential analysis is to det~rmine whether the claimant currently is ~ in substantial pinful activity. This means. 1$ a gener;aII'\l1e. if the dimt is WOI'k· ing and CX]ll'(:'lS toearn ITK.lI"t than 5300 per I1IOOth heoonclusi"ely is presumed to be non-disabled and hisdaim "'ill be denied. (20 CFII §4()U574) Assuming the hurdleQithe first ~tep is surmounted successfully. Ihe focus of the second step is to determine "'hethcr the client has a "severe" im· pairment. A severe impairment is one which significantly limits the physical 01' mental capacities to perfOl'm basic wOl'k·related activities. sueh as stand· ing. walking. liltil1jj:. seeing. hearing. speakingand following inSll'\lClions. If the claimant il found not to have a 5e\"ert impairment. the claim will be !knled without further consilkration. (20 C FR §1520) The third step of the process rCo quirel a compa rillOll of the claimant's 5e'o'ere impairments "'ith a detailed li st ingol impairments found at 20 CFR §404. subpt 1'. Appendix l. These are

of such ",,'-erny t he So. c",1 Securuy Admimsn3uon deoems them to be diubhflJl. II there exists an Impairment .... hlCh meetIQHqU3]sany one or more cltliew "listed" impa,r' _nts. thal_ lindlflJl cI disabilit>' " 'ill be made ",,,11001 further ~sider;i tion, In detefll1lnil1ll "'hether the med' ical equivaitnt 01 ~ ]isted impainnent exists. the Socia] !)«urily Administ"'tion may ~uire a physician. ",,1<'<:led by them, agree the cl,em'. impairment Is the equ ivalem of one listed, Imp;Urll1cnt~

(SSR 83-]9) If the client', impairment is not Sol','ertellOtJgh to meet or equal one listed, the procff'(ilf\II'I1IO f<ll'W~nl to the loorth ,tepclthe~lM'Iltial evalU3lioo. T his Sti. at of the pnnss focuses upon a detenninatlOl1of .... helher lheclaimam is able 10 rrturn tQany work performed wnhin lhepaU ]SytaB. BefOfUdecision can be madeon this iss~, specific findll1gs musl bemadeo::rnceming the client'. "'l'tIIidual flll'ICti(KIal ca~lY_"' The purjXlSe of Ihe residual fullt' tiona! ca~IY assessm~nt is to determine to what cxtCnt the impairnlent keeps the individual from per· forming p.ar\lcular work acti,,;ties on a $uJ;lai ll('(! baSIS. These work-related aClivil~ are OOot>\ed from the Vic· tlOl1al)' 01 Occupati(KIal Titles and are divdedll1tofh-ebmaclcal~ These

are defined at 20 CFR §40U561 as follows: I. Sodcntary Wor-k _ Work ..-hoch ,no voI'.... lIfulllt no mO'"'''iuon tOpounds 11 I 111111' and occ;oSI(IIUUy lilling orcarrymjj Irtoc .... liu, dock •• hies. ~ Ind lmall tools. I'nmarity II muSI be I job which can be ...... formed IlIt;ng Ihhoulth IIm iled ~m""nll 01 WIlk ing and slanding ml\' be ~",rt'd. 2. tighl Work - Wor-k ,,"'hich in,t>1>., ii/tonI: no!llOf'e than 20 pounds al a lime "'ith Ir~utnl hIlI". or- carry-i.,. 01 oIIjocu ..~h.". up 10 10 pounds. t:'"m though 1t.. .."tigbI ~ft"" may be .-ny hilt., a job i$ In thIS caltgOl"Y "'hm II ""lUl~' gOOd .....1 ol walk,,,. or- Oland."., or when II ;n>'d,~ 11111111[ rnosI 01 the lime .... nh IIOInt pushl". or- pulhng olorm or-Ieg <X1I1troil. 3. M<d,um Work - Work " 'hich in· vol '"6 Ii flIng no mort Ihon 5() pound, II a 111111' wllh Iffllu~nt liftingor car· ryi". <:I obi«" ,,"'tighlng up 10 25

~"'

•

4 1I",vy Work _ Wor-k "'hich in,..,t"rI

I./I,ng no mor-. ,han 100 poun,b at I 111111' " '11 h ],fling or carry_ 1111 01 obt«\... .-.ghllllt up 10 50 ~

...

/""1"""'

S, Very Ib,-y I\'or-k - Wor-II .. lIoch .n,'oI,'s],fI •.,.objocu

"'.,lW.......,

,iuon 100 pound~ II • II .... ,,-nil IreQutfll 11/11". or- cam'''1l[ <:I obi«:11 "~lh'nl50 poundo or-.......,

The adtnmist rat,,'e law ju~, afte'!" ronsidcring all rek"'ant e"idence, at · tcmt>\s to place I he diem's ability into one or more of these classifications. T his finding Ih~n will be compared with jobs performed by the claimant o"er the last 15 years to see if he reta'"s the capacily to rtturn to any of them, If itlSfound hecan return loany clthe$t pm-ious job$ theclaim will be

d,sm;s!K'd "'111>001 lurtlle.- considera. ,~.

Once a claImant IS abk to "''''i''e tins fourth Rep, a prinll'/lKi<: case 01 d'$Ibo ht y Ii I'Slabl.shl'd. and 1he burden cI proof shifts to tM Soclal Secunly At\m'",St"'lIon to shov.'. despit~ lhe pre;l'nct of the dffined impairment, jobs do exist which thc claimant can perform. This proof i, oIferl'd in the fifth and last step of the $«Juential analysis. T he Social Secu rity Administration is requirl'd to determine wh~ther the client is able, despite an inability to perfornl prior work. to perform other lub!itantlal ga.nful :octi"lIy considering h,sag<'.('ducallOl1. workexpenence and residU31 fUncliooal capacity. TM

ATMVT WE DO ONLY ONE THINGAND WE DO IT WELL. At MissisSippi Valley Tit le we admit we're singlemlnded. That's because the only th ing we deal in is title insurance. And since tha t's the only ki nd of insurance we sell. we're the best in the south at meeting yo ur title insurance needs. In fact, we're the industry leader in tit le insurance, We've got a staff of professiona ls with years of experience and are fully compute rized to serve you fast and efficiently. Come to Mississi ppi Valley litle. Eve n though we only do one th ing- we do it better th an any~ one else. MIaIuIppI YalIe'(1ItIe lmuronc. COmpanv

~ ~

",m""'''" lackson. MS 39205

Social ~rity Administration, to as· sist in this deI~mination. lias establish«! a Iystem of tables OT "grids:' Interrei3tmg the lactors of residual lu ncl ional c:;I pacit Y,age. edUc:il t ion and work expe-rienct. TIlls grid system ;s dts~ to ser,'e as the basis 101" the Social ~rity Administralioo"s rebuttal of the cliem'l prima /«it case.

work must bedetermined 00 a case-by· case baSIS in tllat it i~ improper to groupall indi"idual! w,thin theso! thret bn:ad sulxlassiflCltions.

Th e G rid s

The regu lations allow t he presenta· tion of evidtnce the dient ', effective education may be less than his numer· ical gmle level; however, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. the numerical grade le"el will be used. TMref~. IIw attorney should always inquire as to the claimant's present ability to rtad, write. periorm sim ple math s kills, communicate effectively ..'ith OIIIerUnd enaa&ein general rea· MIlling ability.

The grid system requires the admi· nistrative I~w jud~ to determine four vocational l(!,Cters before a conclusion can be reachO)d concerning disability. T hc$e laa.:n art aF. education. skill level and reidual functional capacity. Each factor isdivided funtwr into,·ar· ious broad sulxlasses. When the finding¥olfacl as toeach sub-o.;lau eoincKle wilh all emeria of a particular classification within thegrid system,thegrid diT«t 1 a conclusion as 10 whether lhe claimant is or is not disab!ro. (20 CFR §404. Subpt P. App Z)

The administrative law judge pas. widediscrction in making find· inp of fact u to the$e $ub-o.;lasscs. This gray area of broad discretion al· lows the TtSOUrcelul attorney an 0pportunity to InMn the ad,·erse effect the grid system may have upon lhe dien!"' claim for bentfilS. A summary of th~ vocational factors and the amtSof diso=lion associated wilheach is gi"<'n below:

SCSse$

l. Agc(20C t"tl: f4O-I.I56l1 A. 18-(9 yurs: ~ouni't'" irodividu.ol.

( . tIOIll~nlroconl ) K. 5().5.1 )'tIIrs:a~lnaadvant:O!d ~. (age II~nilicanl II combined

Wilk ocher ~levanl faclO!"$) C. SS ~Urt and up: advarad age. (age a OIgn,focon, factor) This delineation oJ. ~ represents vocatIOnal expectano;ie ooly and is not intendfti to be applied mathematically in bJrdmine situations. UnfonulUtely. lhe regulations do not set any guidelinel"s to what is a borderline sima· tlOrl. R<'«IItly. the mun in B .... ~. II/diu. 721 F.2d 1297,Olth Cir. 1983) found the lit c1anification oJ. 1M grid system invaltd as the secretary cur· rently is applying them. The COlIn found in disability hea rin&S the effeet of age on an individual's ability to

U. Eduatt.., (20 J.II)I.l564) A. Ilhtmlle - no formal !!CI><tojine Il. Mal"i'nal - 6111 rrW .... 1ess

l~mltcd-7,h(lradelhmughlhh

n. Hoglt ICttooIand abo\..,

III. Skm (20 CFR1.t04.15165)

A. Unlkilltd-oolOQuirtd ortran .. lenNe Ikill. R. 5cmi·,k,lt"d - hlTll,«f K<luinod "kIlls C. Skilltd - ;nd.-... ~n' judgmtnl Ttquirtd

Where prior work required "cry specialized skiU. nOl readily usable in OIher job$. thecl.aimant may be oonsi· dered unskilled. The use at '(I)C;Itional expert testImony ,hould beoonsXle«d where t".nsferabilit y ofskms is malerill. and claimant's $kliled or semi· skilltd "'OI'k functions are not readily recogniubie IS t".nsferable. IV. N..iduII FU...:ltOl'llll C'POOC;ly l)etermtnation of the dient 's resid · ual functional capacity. as either sed· entary. light. medium. heavy or vcry heavy. was made in step lour of the sequential analysis. Be r o nd the G rid s If 1\ appC:aT$ lhe grids will direct a delerminallon alh'erv to lhe cbi· mant tlltn It becomfS ~ry to a~ why tlwy should 001 control in certain cases. E,·<'n where IIw dient appeal"$tOffied liJeassumptionsatthe grids. there are many factors which. if developed praperly. may remQ\"e him from within the scope of the grid. The grid system is based upon two intertwined administrative notices:

first. jobs are available in the national economy, and second. there are specific eurtoonal factors requi ...... to per. I"",, lhe!e jobt. The jobs adminislr..· t"'ely ""uad are classifotd strictly ac· oording to their uertional requirements. Consequently. wllfn a client has roon-exeniooal impairments. the Social Security Administration mUSI consider the addillOflal d"fect these noo-exertional impairments will have upon his ability to perform the noticed jobs. Circumvention of the conclusive nalure of tile grid system is available to the claimant who shows his im· pairment is a non-exertional impair· ment or a combimuion of exertional and non-exertional impairments. If the claimant can show non-exer· tional impairments. the administrati"e law judge must detemtine if thc$e lim· itat ions sign irlC3.nly narrow t he ""nge at"'ork for which he i. qualirotd. based 00 exertional impairments alone. (20 CFR 540-1. 5ubpt P. App. 2. §200.00(e)t JUS! what il a non-exertional im· pairment? Theoriginal Social Security Regulations rKOl!nized their existence. but did lill Ie tQ provide a lest or mea· sure of what COnStilUttd a non-exer' tional as oompa~ to exenional im· pairment. lridividual C(IIJrts generally have approached thisdellnitional probIernon a case-by-ca5e basis. Impairm<'nIS such as pain./Nwio~. IItdlu, 721 F.2d 726 (I lih Cir. 1983): impai ...... dexterity and low in telli&enoe. GJ'fJ.1 ~. Sc"":~iMr. 699 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1983): ",,)'Chiat· ric problenu. M({;qy ~. ScbotiMr, 683 F.ld 1138 (8th Cir. 1982); aimholism. Ft'1l"sotl v. Sclr"otilm-. 641 F.2d 243 (5t h Cir. 1981): medication sidedfeelS. (;Q~'a TI u. Schuotiku, 662 F 2d 731 (1 1th Cir. 1982); and en"irQllmental rest ric· tionl. ROOt.11 ~, Scb:eiff,. fL,7 F.2d 1143(4th Cir. 1981}.lIave been treated as non-extrtional impairments. The Social Security Administration recently issued SSR 83- 13. which al · temptl 10 proI'ide more guidanct in this area . It lists fi"e ~eral3reas of non-exertional impairmenlS: men(;tll im po irmentS. pottlera I·m ani pula t i"e impairments. hearing impairments. visual impairments arid environmen · tal restrictions. T his ruling should be compared tQ an rulier ruling. SSR 83· 10. which defines exertional activity as

one of the prim~ry strength activities such as s itting, st~nding. walking. lift· ing. carrying. pushing and pulling. In cases with only non·e ~ertional impairments. such as mental impair_ ments. the grids ~re nOl applicable. and the C3"" will be determi ned without reference to them. In cases of com· bined exertional and non-<!xertional impairments the grids do not control the outcome, but the administrati"e law judge still must use them in relation to the exertional portion of the claimant's impairment and then de. termine if the non-exertional impair· ments further restrict or narrow working ability.[20 CFR §0104, subpt. I'. App 2 §200.00 (e) (2)) Regardless of the exact definition given these impairments. it is clear most cases will have some form of non' exeniO!l<lI impairments associated with them and thereby prevent a condu· si<lnary ~pplication of the grid system.

fee then will be paid directly to the attorney by the Social Security Administration. and any remaining funds will be paid to the client. In Title XVI cases (Supplemental Security Income) the Social Security Administration does not withhold past due benefits. and the ~ttorncy muSt look directly 10 hisclil."t for payment of approved fees. Upon receipt of a favorable decision from the administrati"e law judge. the attorney should subm it form SSA1560, which is the Social Security Ad· ministration's standa rd lee petition.

A tto rne ys' Fees The Social Security Act requires an al10rney obtain approval from the S0cial Security Administration for any fee the attorney charges his client for representation in a Social Security proceeding. Cont rary to general opinion the fee is not ~utomatically ZS% of past due bellefits. The n'gUlations state theamount of the fee approved by the Social Security Administration will be the sma llest of: 25'111 of IOtal past due benefits: or the amount as set by the Social Security Administration: or the amount agreed upon beN'een the at· torney and the client. (20 CFR §404.1730j The Social Security Admini stration in Title IJ disability cases withholds 25'111 of any past due benefils awarded the client ~nding eva luation and approval of the fee petition, The approved

•

Concl us io n rhe handling of social SCl:urity dis· abilit y claims is a fast growing source of income for an attorney with an understanding of the n'gUlatory disability process. 0

NOTICE ALL ADS AND ARTICLES FOR THE M A Y ISSU E OF THE ALABAMA LA WYEN MUST BE SUBMITT ED BY MARCH 29 , 1985

BE A BUDDY

J ud icia l Re v iew lftheattomey is unsua;es>;ful at the administrative hearing level then he may r<!<juest the Ap~als Council in Washington. D.C .. review the admi· nistrative law judge's decision. An adverse ruhng by the ApJlC3ls Council can be ap~aled to Ihe federal district court where the claimant resides.

within 60 da)'s of receipt of the fa,'or· able decision. This form may be 0btained at any Social Security district office and should include as much de. {ailed information as possible concerning the attomey's representation.

With the number 01 new a1torneys increasing and the number of jobs decreasing. more and more at1or~ are going into practice on their own and miss the benefit 0/ the counseling of more experienced practitioners. The A~b"ma State Bar Committee on Local Bar Activities and Services is sponsoring" "Buddy Program" to provide newer bar members a ferlow· lawyer they may consult ~ they confront II problem. need to ask a queStion. or simply want directions to the courthouse. If you are a lawjer who has recently b<!gun a proclice and .....,...., like to 1YI<!<!t a iawy<!1 in your ar~ to call on occasionally for a hand. or if you are the more experienced proctitioner with valuable information and <><!vice you're willing to share, please complete and return the form below. Your partic· ipation in this program wiD certainly bene~t the bar as a whole.

Local Bar Activities and Services Buddy Program Application

N... _______________________________________________ Firm Name (if applicable) __________________________________ Adw~

______________________________________________

City ______________ S tate _____________ Zip __________ Te lephone ___________________________________________

o New Lawyer

o Experienced La"'1ier

PI .... se return to: Alabama S tate Bar. P.O . Bo~ 4156, Montgomery, Alabama36 10l.

CoJijding the Circuits Birmingha m Ba r Associati on The Birmingham Bar Association held its 99th Annual Meeting of the Membership in mid -December 1984_ 110nored at the meeting were members lic<!nS<:d to practic<! for 50 years. They were Charles W. Bates. D.II. Markstein, Winston B. McCall,Sr .. and Walterl.. Mims. The president ofthe Al abama State Bar, Walter Byars. was prescnt at the meeting and addressed the assembly. Elected as officers and new ex<'CUti,'c cornmillee members for 1985 were: President' Vice President: SecretaryiT reasurer: Ex<'CUti,'c Commillee:

The Birmingham Bar iscompriS<:d of 1.860 members and serves the Binningham·Jefferson -Shelby County areas.

Mo n tgome ry Cou nt y Bar Assoc iation The Montgomery Cnunty Bar Association held its annual meeling at theCapital City ClubJanuary 16 with more than 140 Montgomery County lawyers attending. Speakers included William W. Falsgraf. president -elect of the American Bar Association, and Walter Byars. state bar president.

J- Mason Davis Roderick Beddow Stephen D. Heninger Jackson M.l'ayne Da"id P. Rogers. Jr. John B. Tally,Jr. Fals~J"3r

Davis T he membership appro"ed a recom mendation of the ex· ecutive <:OlIlmit lee 10 have the IOthJudicial Circuit's representati"e on the Slate bars board of bar commissioners serve on the executive commillee. The Birmingham Bar served over 2.500 lawyers during 1984lhrough its CLE programs: a tota l ofll seminars was provided . The association holds a luncheon seminar each month providing 1.0 hours of MCl.t: credit (plus lunch) for SlOand holds an afternoon seminar on the fourth Fridayof each month providing 3.2 hours of MCl.E credit .

Certificat"" were presented to Claude and Rand\'e Rosser lor their contributions to the MeBA O\'er Ihe past few ye~rs_ The Rossers are leaving ~Iontgomery to return to Randye's horne in 51. Louis, Missouri. The resolutions committee rcad resolutions lor the six active and retired members who died in 1984: Charles E_ Porter; T.8. lI ill. Jr_: Judge Leon j. Ilopper; John Randolph Matthews; L.H. Walden; and Senator Lister Hill. These resolutions will be part nf the minutes 01 the annual meeting. and copies will be sent to the families of lhe dcceaS<:d_ Officers and directors elected for 1985 were; President: Vice President: SecrctaryiT rcasurer:

David B. Byrne,Jr. James R. Seale Edwin K, U"ingston

Di~tors'

Wanda D, De,'ereaux tloyd Minor Charles M. Crook

•

The Moolgomery Counly Bar AS:;OCial100 I'ro Bono 1'1"0kcl iloilO! <'d those lawyers who} haH' controbutl'd mlJtit to the bucoetiS fi thl> proft<clal an 3,,-ards balHjuC! I~mbo:r 6 at thoe Sheraton lI:ivt"rlroru.

Associates:

Koo".,.t Childers Jeffrey I.ong Launt Crum

The Montgomery County Young Lawyers is open for membrrship to all attorneys under 37 years 01" agl\'. Gcnernl ml.'f'lings all' hl"ld on the S«Ond Tuesday of each month in the tnost department ronfc.'Tl'1lCe room. !iC'COnd floor of First Alab;lma Bank 01 Montl/Olfltl')'. 8 Comrnen:e Street. All altClmej"!l aremnllally on~itfd loattend. Gunt bpeaker and prnenler of lhe 3"'ards was lhe lion·

onoble John C. Godbold.. chief judge of the U.S. Court of

.\Iarsha ll Colln t, lJar /\ "soc;a lion

Appeals for thl> IlIh Cin;ull. The I'ro 11000 I'rojfCI ;s a ;oint ,'(1Itu", of the IA'glI.I Services Corporation" Alabama (I.seA) and the Montgomer)' County Ibr Auocialion. Coordinated by Kobert Key · no!ds. the projfC\ refers indigent dicnl$ to private'II"~~l ice lawyers who handle the cases - usuaUy a domestic rela· tions mallet - for no f<-'f'. The project is funded entirety by LSCA 85 part of its prj"ate bar in,-oh'cment J>I'O![rnm.I .•ut year, about 300 cases were closed by lawyers partlctpattl1Jj

Tilt Marshall County Bar Associalion held a regular m«ting ;n Gunters~ille Janu.ary 9; 5e\'eral items fi bus;· ne$ were discussed. and oommllt('CI ""ere appoim<'d for slJ('Ciallocal projects. January 14 the bar association honored retired Judge Melvin E. Gr.ISS by prC$en\ing him .... ith a pOrtrait of himself to be hung in the Guntersville Courthouse. Grass was Marshall County's first district judgl\' and SeT\'ed from

'"the~.

1971-1983.

Judge Godbold emphasized the profe5llional obllgationl and personalsatisfaclions of lawyers "'ho} Icpoes.:n\lndl· gent partits in both civil and crimmal C3SC5. and he C$peciaUy encouraged members of tilt bar 10 undertake tilt duJIcnge fi Iej.. acnl ing dients who are appealing a oolh sentence. About IIOprnons allended the banquet. Including 1oc31 law)'«S. officialsof I.sCA and the Mootgomery County Bar Associa\ iOfI. Alabama State Bar president Walter K. Bj'ars and judges fi various state and federal couru. The dinner ended with Judge Godbold's presentation of awards to the following individuals and firms for their so:rvict' In supporti ng the efforts of the projfCI: indi"idual .... onner - W. Clark Campbell. Jr_. 01 A~ar. Campbell nnd A~ar: large firm winner - Rushtoo. Stakely. Johnston & Garrett; mod·aile firm winner- - Copeland. Fra nco. S<:rew~ and Gill; smaillirm co-w;noers -Coopt!" and Cooper. and I're$t",,(I()d and

Koo.er.

The Montgomery County Young Lawj'ff5announad at I!sJ~nu.ar)' 8 meeting Ihe elec1:ion 01 oIf~ for 1985. Allor· l'It)·s ~tfd are: PraKlcnI: Viet' Presldem: SecretarylTreasurer:

James Anderson JO&eph P. IIorg TerryChllders

The ~$iIOCiatlon .Iso announced the election (If the attor· neys to !IeT"C on it~ board. They arc as lollows:

•

APPUCATlONS SOOOTEO FOR LEGAl SERVICES CORPORATlON BOARD OF DIRECTORS A,pplicaOOns are now baing accapI8d lor flight seats on the Legal SeMcas Corporation 01 Alabamas Board of Directors 10 be appointed by tha board of bat commissioners. New board mambefs will be seated In July 1985. Theta Os no compensation lor board members. but lr3vel

axpenses will be paid. Applicants must be mem~ In good Sland ing oIlha Alabama Slate Bar. must hava • genuine de$ire to serva on the board or dir&CIo,-, and mUlt IIQreeto anend quarterly board meelingsln Montgomery. The bar <;(Im~_ ara seeking 10 appoint members from a wide v... iety 01.1 backgrounds and from alt pat1S of the stal$. All interesled lawyers, rega<dlass of IyPe 01 practic<J. and "peeo oily women and mino.-iIies. ara invilad to apply. To apply. interested Lawyers shotAd subrnillO Mary Lyn Pike a letter detailing thair quali~ inclt.tding a brief statement or their leasont lor Wishing 10 serve on the board. aod thair past axperience. " any. witt1 the delivery of legat services 10 \tie poor. Appl ications must be submitted by May 31. 1985.

GHar GHriefs Just ic e Mad d ox h onored by fumIe r d er ks Also Ilonom:I recentl) was Alabama Suprt'ffie Court Ju stice Hugh Ma<\do}x . (Xlober I. ]98-1. marked Ihe fifleffil h anni'"er.;ary of Justice Maddox's appointment to lIN: su·

1"'-"""'" court . and se\'eral days bfo.

f~, 3 J{TOI.III of law clerks who >;er,-cd under hm! g<1thl'1"cd in Mont)lOn1Cry to honor him. Former Gowrr10r Alt)crl Brewer aPP(lImed M~ddo~ to fill a newly created position in the court in 1969: prior to his app::>intment, the supreme

court W3~ compnsed of $i~ a!;1jOciat~

juStice! and the chief justice.

As part of the e"emng' ~ le;!i,·i· tlei.JuStl« Maddox w~s presented with a multi·,oIume Iiet 01 his rna· jont) opnions. Ludgood d cct ed pres ident

of LSCA Molllic lawyer Merceria Ludgood was elected pre$ident of the Legal Serv,m CorpOratIon of Alabama board of directors at its December 15 meet mg. Ludgood, named to the board in April 1982 by the Alabama l.awyeT$ A'>SOCiation. sen'ed as board vice p=ident and Chair of the board's personnel committee last l'UT

• il

i\l cM iII:lIl l a k(' s o ath o f o ffice FamIly and friends gathered in ",id-Janu~r)' (0

honor flenry Ward

"Bucky"" Mc.\I,lIan as II.. was

sw/)/'n

as the new,ost judge of

the AlaooTn 3 Cour! of Criminal ApllO'als. McMIllan a;;,;um<:<l office and beg;ln h,. "~-l"''ar lerm lanu· arl' 14.

a nan,-e of jasP"". rean unlkrgr.wluate degree from L....' \ 'nl\'en;'ly of Alabama and law degrt'(" from Cumberland School of La... 111.''' as admmed to the Alabama Slale liar in 1980; Mc~I,lIan allendt'd Nor! h"estern l 'ni\'cn.1tl School for Prosecul mg r.k~hllan.

C('I\-<:<l

AUOTn(')'S.

I'rior 10 this election. Mc.\1,lIan ,ened as ("xecul we assistant at· tomc)' gcncrnland as a Slate pro«.'(ulorlron,I98().8.1,

•

were Rill L president;

i of Florence. Alvin Ha·

New me mbe rs a p poin te d to boa rd of bar e xam in e rs Newly appointed members of board of bar examiners o/the Alabama State I~r include Rich· ard T. Dorman of Mobile: .\1ark Daniel Maloney of Decatur: and laurence D. Vinson.Jr.. of Bir· mingham. Tilt' new examiners began tllt';r four·year terms in February. Dorman. a nati,e of Mobile. recei\'t'll undergraduate and law de-grees from the Un;"ersily of Ala· bama.He also attended Oxford University in England and gradu· ated with a degree in international law in 197'l. Prior to becoming a partner in 19;6 with the Mobile lirm of John· stone. Adams , Howard. Bailey & Gordon. Dorman was th~ recipient of an Office 01 Economic Opportunity Reginald Heber Smith th~

Community lawyer Fellowship and ",orked with the Legal Aid Suciety of Madison County. Maloney I"<lcei"ed his BA from Harvard Uni'·ersity.J.D. from Vanderbilt University and !.L. ~L in taxation from r-:ew York University. He has been with the Decatur firm of Blackburn and Maloney since 1980. Maloney has served as president and SKrelary of lhe Morgan COUnl}' Bar Association. Vinson joined the Birmingham

law linn 01 Bradley. Arant, KQ!>(> & While in August 1m after graduating from the Uni"ersity of Ala· bama School of Law. He also reo ce"'ed h,s undergraduate degree from t\labama. Vinson was a contributor and a member of the advisory committee for lhe pamphlet. "'The How. When & Where 01 Filing Under Article9. Alabama Uniform Com· mucial Code." publish~'<l in 1982 by the SKretary of s(ate and the Alabama Bar Institute for CLE. He is a nati"e of Gadsden.

UNI VERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW (BOALT HALL)

SUMMER PROGRAM FOR LAWYERS JUNE 17_21 and 24_28. 1985 The Summer I'rosram off~ .. a mix 01 con"~n".,ed Sludy in v"rious prac,i"e ~pttial'ie< and ",.i.-w 01 r«en, developnlCn', in selm.d a",.S of the law. Mombe" 0/ 'he Boal, laculLy will olb morning course< which m"", r." , ime' per ",""k .nd "I'.moon seminars whi"h m""t ,hr"" time< p<'r w""k. Rrgi'tralll' m.y enroll in ei,h.. or both w«ks 01 'hc Program. COU RSES Antitrust Law Uordc I Sull,van) Economics a"d l.w (Coo'er I Rubinleld) E,,",c PI.nning .nd Tax.tion (Halbach ) Real ProperLY Sctured Tr>n,,,oion. (Hetland )

SEMINARS Admini,""ivo bw Devclnpmonl$ (Sh,plro) Con"i,u,ional Law D,velnpm.n" (Chnper I Mishkin ) ESI"" Pl anning and Oro/'ing Workshop (Halbach) togal Re..,arch I Comput~r '«·ork.hop (lI<'rrillg) Negotiation Workshop (H«h,)

For f""h .. infurm.,;"n pl •• se c.1I o r wri,.:

SUMMER PROG RAM FOR LAWYERS School of L.w (Bo.h Hall ), Univ.rslty of California, lI<'rkdcy. CA 94710 Telephone: (415) 641·588(}

,1/.,..10 1985

CLE"News b y Mary L yn Pike

Ass is ,a"l Executive Di rector

The Mandatory elE Commission and the Board of Commissionersof the Alabama Slale Bar have designated the foli()Wing organizations appro,'ed sponsors of C(lntinuing legal education

activities for 1985. As required. approval of their activit ies is contingent

upon continued adherence to the

standards forcourse approval, Regulalions 4.Ll through 4,1.13, Rules and Regulations for Mandatory Continuo ing Legal Education in Alabama. Ac.;rediled law ""booIs (ABA. AALS) Administ ••!h'. Office of Court. - AI. " bamaJudidal CoIlrgc Alabama Bar In Ol il"'" fOO" COI'tinuing u.gal Education Alabama Consortium'" Legal Servicn

_m,

Al.bom. Criminal Ddcnse Lawyers Ass<>

cia,ion Alaooma [>efen~ I... wy"'" A~l;o" Alabama District Al\Qrneys AS$(ICialion Alabama Lawyers AWJcialion Alabama Stale Bar and Bar SKtioos Alabama Trial Lawyen; Association American A<;adem~ of Judicial Education Americll n Bar Asmat ion and Ba r St.:tions A~ic.n CoII"II" of Trial Lawyers American Law Instilut .. Amt1ican Bar Associ.tion Commin.., on Cont inuing Prof"",ional Education As.=iation 01 Trial Law~.~ of America Binningham liar As.=iation Comm...-cial Law Le.gu. Fund for Public F.dUCAtion Cumt..rland Institute for Continuing legal Education DefenS<' Re$earch Institute F..:Ieral Bar Association, M on t gomer~ Ch.",.. Foderal liar As.=iation, North Alabama eha",.r

lIu nlS,i Iie-Madi5Ofl Coo nt y liar A....o..tion International Association of Insurance Counsel Jefferson Cou nty Triall..awyersAsoociation Ubrary d ClIt"Igre$s-Corw'es.siona1Research

""'"

Maritime Law Association Mobile liar As.sociation MontgOmery County Bar A>soci.tion Montgom..-y County Tri.1 [..awyeT'S Association Nation.\ A>5OCiation of Bond Lawyer!l National Rar As.socialion National College of Ih'tnct Anomey. Na,ional College of Ju,.. nil. Justice N.tional Diotrict Allor",,)', A""""iation

(.I)rcsidcllfs (.J!ade I">

(Umlin..ru/rom fi<JW IiOI Lawyers are nOi like plumbers: law· j'en! are profcssionals. Yet we are in danger of becoming JUSt an ordinary tr~de. mcasuringoursuccesssolcly by profits. Some lawyers ha"e employed the tools of big business, i.e_ad,'ertis· ing. While the United States Supreme Courl has upheld the oonstitutional right of lawyers to engage in ad"ertis. ingwhith is not false or misleading , no one has e"er said advertising by law· yer~ is professional orethica1. [submit to you. it is neither. ?rofessionalism is synonymou~ with independence_ This profes~ionalism and independence of lawyers can and. unless weact now. will incurtheinter· ferenceof and becompromised by gov. ernmenl regu lation and restructur·

N.tionallle.alth Lawyers As.=i.l1oo N.tionallnSlitute for- Trial Ad,ocacy NationaUudicial College National Organi.atioo of Social Security Claimant$' Rernsentatives Nati"",.1 Rural Eloctric Coo""",tive Association,lqal Divis"," Patent Resources Group, Inc. I'ractisin~ Law Institute Soothweslern lqal Foondation Transportation LaWYHS As.=i.tion Trial Lawyers Associat;"n m Madi""" Countl' Tuscaloooa County Ba r A$5OCiation Tuscaloosa Trial Lawyer$ A>5OCiation

ing.lf t he trend towards profit lead~ to lawyers excluding serv;tes to the public,government regulation and restruc· turing are inevitable. If we drift more from a learned profession , away from public ~e",,"ice, into the realm of a profit-oriented trade or bu~iness. l awj'ers are in danger olIos· ing their monopoly On providing legal expertise. Not only will lawyers lose, the right of the public to competent legal representation li kewise will be

"",.Theodore Roose"elt said: ·'F."ery man

owes some of hi~ time to the upbuild ing of the profession to which he belongs." I urge each member of the Alabama Sta,e Bar to pay you r professional dues - devote your best dforts to the Up" building 01 our leJC<ll profession aJ a

Pro/CSS;0I1.

0 - Walter R. Byars

Withholding Orders for Child Support: A Substantial Improvement b, J . N"",h T he ooIledion 01 delinqlll'nl a s " 'ell as fU1U~ child SUPP(r\ paymtntS al· ways has Iwn ~ difficult problem boIh for tile parent emilled to rece1"C support and the law yer who represents the parent. This problem mulr s in pan from the la<::k of an effect"'e legal rnechanismffiSuringchild su pport will be paid tirutly and ;n fulL T he Ala· bama legi slature recently a rmed law~'ers with a mdhod that. though not perfect, greatly increases lhechance of

roI Lecting the maximum amount on a regular baSIs.. On May 29, 1984, Act St-445.lhe Withholding~forChild Support Act, became effective. T his

act is codified a1 S«;\ions 3(1.3<60 1(1·71 of the Alaooma Code. (Suw. 1984). Courts may now 1I.$1II' 3n Ino;(II11(' With· hoIdingOrder. similar in ~inlion to a gamishmem. ~ui ri ngemplO)'tT$IQ dMuct chIld $uJ'iXlrt paymtnt$ from the sa lary due an employee to plis!y

any ~linquel1 1 amou nt and to collect futllre payments :a5 11iey rau due. Huw

Fu nd~ rh\l rg

banle hasjust begun. While a number 01 parents faithfully pay their coun· ordcRd support, many do 1\(1(. A Ia~ pen:entage of these parent~ pay titlltr or not a t all. AnOllltr aspect 01 tilt problem in OJIlecting ch ild support iscouns hi"e lacked the po·. ..er to ensure fucure child support payment~ are made; the couns ....t'rt limiti'd to taking action only after a parent became delinquent in support payments. Generally, the arsfflal I\'ailable to collect child support a rrearages in' duded a (Qnlempt 01 coun action,levy a nd execution on re~ 1 and personal propert)· a na garnishment 8, Each me' thod h.as problems limni nlj: thelr use. fulntli$ in OJIlec\ing the am:arageS. and none JIfO"'idts a method lorOJlIec\ ing luture child support payments. i ncon~i~tent l y

n ow Wil hholdingOrdcl:S Work IV i \ h holdi ng orders I'OrlI;.'eptua Ily a re

akin loprnishmenti. Thg require an

employer to di'duct sums from tltt earnll1~ olin employ.-e and piIIy this money ()\'('f 10 the cou n for dlst ribulion to the person ent itled 10 the su pport. Wi thhold lllg orders do not reo plare garnishments. GarnishlTl('nt s still can be usi'd to collect child support arrearage!! sub;eC\ 10 certaIn e~em p" lions. Til<! rnaj.or diff~ between withholdi ng orde,.., a nd garnishments are Ihe amounts Iha l can be collecli'd and the abi lity to<:Ol le<;1 future support pilymffit5 on. a continuous basis..

A discussion 01 lhe OP/'ralion of wilhhoklingQfWrs requires In under· stand ing of Ihe definition of term. used in theact. T he person obl iilated to make chi ld support pa j'ments is known as lhe "obligor." The '°obligff" is any petwn ent iIled 10 rl'Ctive t hild .u pport and speorlCll!ly includes lhe: Depan· )TIent of Pens1Ol\s aod Securi ty .... hen that agency is ent itled 10 rluive s upport ow~ to a parent. Since pcrsons 01 her than parell t s are gi"en custody 01

the need for t he lICI a rose. the optr.I.

lion of the act and some of the ques· tions theact ~aves unanswered will be di!iCussed in th IS article,

'\ced fo r Ch ans;e Whydid ""f n«danolheT method for collecting child support payments? Judges.law~ and persons t'Iltitled to receive su pport long ha"e realized tile cxisting remedies for ooIlec\ing delill' quent su pport oftcn ....t'rt indfectivt. Once a deertt ordering support payn1(!lItS isenteri'd, most clients f~l thel' are home fr~. Lawyers know the &ad truth is, at least in man~' Olliei , the

rJ.

Nooll "-MI/tkro.rg PrtSfllliy SoI'na al ~It dir(r11lT1J/ 11M UllilYrtily IJ/AkllIa ,1UJ St:hoql 11/Law Cli~;rat I'rogmm, 1I~ i, II 1977 grodlial~ of 110. Ulli!~fSily 0/ Alalla ma & hOlJl O/ IAW ami U"S ad· milld 10 IlIl btlr thai ... year.

m,.

ehildren and are entitled to re<;ei"e ~uppOr1. the term obligee include. th ..'Se perrons , Withholding orders arc authonZl:<l either as part of any decr~'" meluding an order for the paym~nl of child support or as an independent action for UlllCClion of past due and future child support paymentS , The independent aelion can be used on ly if a Ulurt order requiring child support payments pre· viously has been issued. All court decrees in any way involv' ing an order for Ihe payment of child supporl must include a withholding order. The aCl spt'Cifically Slates, (.) Any "",,',";00 of """II"" 8·5·~1 to the 00<11 rar)' not wi Ih" a <>;ling. any o<igma1 decree. judgment. 0< O«!er ;s'ued by • COOrt 01 Ihis ~Iale lor the paymenl 01 SUl>PO"t. any de<ree '" Judgmenl en· lOre<! """uanlto a pettli"" 10 mQdify an o<;gma\ decree ()r awanl of ~UVpOrt. an)' d""ree 0< judgmenl 0/ contempt of court lor failure 10 pay SU])p(J<1 as pre,;"".Iy orden:d by • COUrt <I. Ih ... Ial" or any de<r.., 0< judgment Ill< cnminal or civ;1 nonSUP\X>l'I .hall include as 3 ...... "'I.secli(>n. "'llhhcld;ng<>rder .. , §JO.3,6\ Cod. of AI.hama (l97~) (I-mph..;, adOO:i).

NOie the languag<! of the act is man· datory. Ob"iously the legislature in· tcnded withholding orders be applied Ulnsistently. remm'ing the judg<!'s dis· cretion from the decision of "'hen to apply this remedy. The withholding order sets the amount 01 child support due the obligee. and the emph;I)'cr of t hcobtigor thcn is required to with hold this amount from the obligor's salary or wages. The act states the employer shall pay the amount to t hederk of the Ulurt or to 1)1'5. The best praclice probably wou ld be to ha"e the sums paid to the clerk of the Ulun for distribution eiLh..'1' 10 the obligee or to DPS , This ensures accurate records 01 pay. menu are kept and cent raitzes the I.,. cation of payment records in theclcrk -s ofru.:e. One obvious drawback to the wilh· holding order is the burden on employ· erli 10 make deductions. Jt also places obligor,; willing to make thei r pay. ments "o1untarily in the same situa· tion as obligor,; unwitting. To avoid th= problems. section 3O-3·61(c) pr.,. ,-idt'S the withholding order included as part ofadecreewill nOi beservedon

tht emplo}'er and witt not take effect unti l an obligor berome. delinquent in child support payments in an amount equal to one month's support obliga. tion. This should pro"idc an incenti,·c to obligors to make support payments voluntarily to ""<lid the lorc«:l deduc· tions, It a lso removes the burden on employers in hoeping records and making the deduclions for those obligors who krep their paymentscurrent. The act provides the obligor may requesl the withholding order take effe<t at an earlier date. and thc court may in its discretion order it take effect at an earlier date_ A withholding order asan independenl aClion may be inslituted by the obl igee or the district attorney (for nonsupport cases)or DPS (in cases in which it ;s entitled to receive the support paym~nts). This use of a withholding Ordl1' is a"ail"ble in cases in which a pre"ious order of support has been cntered and th~ obligor is delin· Quent in support payments. The obli· gor is served with a summons and a copy 01 the petition and t hen is entitled to a hearing before the entry 01 the withholding order, One "ariance from the proc<.'Ilures a"ailable under t he Alabama Ruk'S of Civil Procedure has been added by this section. Sen'ice of the summons and petition on the obligor may be obtained by first..,lass mail in add ition to the other methods of ser· "i<:\! pro"ided by the rules_This statute is silent on the Question whet her a responsi"e pleading is required to the petition. Unt il this issue is resol"ed, the beller practice is to file an answer to avoid the possibility of default, Since the statute states the obligor musl "ha"e an opportunity to be heard at a hearing set for this purpo!le." a default apparently should nol be taken wilh· out the set1ing 01 a hearing, If it finds pre"iously ordered payments are delinquent, the COUrt then issues a wilh· holding order. The withhold ing order allocates theamount withheld bet ween the eontinuing ~upport obligation and theactumulated alTCar~. Theeffeel of this uS(' of withholding wi\1 be to ensure both future support pa}'ments are madc on a r'1.'Ular basis and the arrearage is p;. id thrO\lJ:lh an additional increment above the future support. As with the withholding order as pari

of a deen-e. this withholding order requires the employcr to withhold the Ulurt.ardered amounts on a regular basi. lrom the obligor's sal~ry or wages and to pay this amount monthly to the clerk of the wurt '" 10 01'5.

Lim itat ion on the Amoun t Collectible One substantial feature of the act is found in section 3().J·67. adopting the federal limitation on garnishments issued to enforce support obligations by 15 U.S.C. 1673(b) (2). Unlike the Ala b.lma gar~ishment limilations, the fcderallimitat ion is nOi a fixt'll amount. If the obligor is ~upporting a ,;econd fam ill'. the amount collt'Clible is 5O%0f weeklydisposablc earnings: if not. trn-n 60'~ of the perron's w(,ekly disposable earnings may be coIlecled. Whcn the garnishment is for support more than 12 weeks past due. the above percent· ages increase t05~-,'.t and 65'~, Lawl'ers cannot expectloobtain the maxi mum percentage in every car;" because the court has discretion 10 order oolk't:tKm at k'Ss than the maximum rate, The real advamag<! of this increase in limitations is to allow Ihe collection of more substantial alTCaragt'S. Pre. viously, an obligor whoov.'ed as much as 4~ of dispo:;;able earnings in current support ",as exempt from paying arrea rages because of the .11)'.1. maxi. mum set by Ihe Continuing Garnish ment Act. Obviously. subject ing an abnormall}' large amount of net cam· ings to garnishment mal' prove selfdefeating if il results in the obligor Quit! ing w",k to escape the withhold· ing order. The temptation to col lect as much as po:;;sible in the shortest period of time may Pf()'.'C more harmful than helpful , The J)S}'chological valuegained by the increase in limitations is if an obligor knov.'s a lawyer has the ability to collect the majority of every paycheck. then the likelihood 0/ compliance by the obligor should be enhanced.

Good New s Ye s, Bad Ne ws Ma ybe As with all ""w l!'gislation , the With· holdingOrder Act has some good news and some bad news. Let us look at some oIthc good newS first. Withholding orders apparently will

OPl'n u~one ne" area for the collection of child suppOrt dclmquencies, T he ""I· arll'S of public officials and emplo)'ees ha"e oc-en SUbjtcl 10 garnishmenlS bilsed only on judg"",nlS rz conll'll<'lu by ,'in"" of S«lIon Ei-6482 Ilia. Codt 1m. The Alabam~ Supreme Court rukod a judgmenl for ddinqucm child support In ex ddir/u rat her! han (,«01/lrorlu. In II /lig/II I'. II'";ghl. 4()(J So. ld 432 (Ala. Civ. AW. 1982], the CCilJn Mid public olTlClals and employees "~exempl from ~uppOrt·ba5ed gar· nishmem onier'1. The murt In IInighl adno".. ltodgtod marriage was a ci"il contraCI. bUI also found paymentS (}f mainlenance or ~Uj>p(}l't al'Ofie from a duty to SUj>p(}l'l .mpooed by tM mar· ~ronlracl. A f~llun' to pay alimony or child support was thus ~ bmoch of dut y asoppO!l('d loa breach of promi~. This makes ajudgmcnt for ddinquent child support a judgment in lori, prr"enllllg 1M u~ of garnishrtl('11t to aJI· II'ct child suppOr1 from publIC officials or=ployees. The \egtslature did MI addr<"SS di· r{'Ctly t he (IUl.'StiOn whether t he Wit hholding Ord", Act would supercede _tion &&482. One argument for al· lowmg wuhholdmg ~ aga.nsl publtc offICIals and =pIo)'ee is a ",thhoklmg ~r is not a garnishment and thrrefore,;cct ion &6-liI:.! d<>es nOi apply. A more compelling argu· n'ltni IS found In the 1an~of the act Itself. Emplo)'Cf is defined as '·any person, busineM, "" cnallon. pannenh.p, company. firm or unu of munICipal. COUnt)· , staleor federal gu,·ernment." § 30-3-60(5} Ala. Code 1975. All wuhhokl· ing ortIen. "hether lnc(>rpor;Ued In a decrffol suppOrt or resulung from an Independomt IICHon. will order ·'any emplo)'cr 10 ,,'uhhokl and pay 10 the clerk thc amoont ",t oul tn the onler." T he withholding order in both situations also .s birl(hng "upon any em· ployCf upon ... hom it is ..en'td,'. The dear language of the Statute Indicates all municIpal. CCilJnty and Si ale go'I" ernmcnl5 a re IIlCluded in the co... crng~ of the act ~ ('Sistance to indu<ion by these entltll'S from a poIic) standpolllt ,,'OU1d be unwi~. The coIl«tion of child support ha5 btcome a hot Issue. and acceptance 01 Wllhholdtng orders IOco11C(t ch Ild support from public of· fK:ial~ a nd cmplo)'l'CS pro:.... idt.~ a con·

"enoenl me1hod 10 rorT«t what ha' bten an unfortunale dl!iCrcpancr III the law. Another piece of good news is With· holdIng ()fM.,. take l»'ettdence o-...,r anyother notioeof garn.shmrot ..en·eII on the obligor's emplo)·er. This pnor. 11)' eltmmates the problem of Standlrl8 in Ii lie wil II other credilors 10 col lect a SUpporl a rrearage, In ~n opinion dal,od <Xtobo:r 2. 198.1. lhe ailorfie)' gt'rlCral stated a "'Ithhold.ng order ",ould tlke poonly 00...... {JII, notICe of garnis h· ment "issu..! at any liIM prl«to. con· tcmporanoous with. or subsequent 10 the "'II hholding order." This interpretal ion is consistent "' II h the clear Ian· guage of lhe stalute ~nd puts ...·,th· hoId.ng ordeni fiTSt In Itroe. This same S«IIOII also mnta,"s a bit of bad news for atlorn~ys represenllrlJjthe obltgt-e. When an allornel' rl'C(';"C'S a murl· ,,",arded fee. one QiIM mor" efftcti"c means 01 co11eettOr\ hu ~n b}' gar· IIIshmcnl. The act don not ~ffecl 1M g;t. rn.sh"",nt limil for t~ collection of ot her MiltS. such as al torney's fees. $0 lhe 2:;'l:. li mit alion im(106t'd by section

to an imnltodlal~I)' rifOCl,,'e wllhhold· Ingorder and Ihe amounl wIthheld ex caods 25'M, of Ihe obltgor'~ Income. Ihe 3110rncy seeking pal'ment of the fee cannot ha"e redrns b)' g;t.rnishmenl. If child support pa)''''''niS ronsu"", at least 25'1 of the obIigor·s Income and the wilhhokhng order r~-mams In ef· fl'Ct unt il the youngest chi ld reaches majorit)'. the at lorney m~l' be waiting a long lin'lt to reooup tMfee. Thisalso TlIISf:S Ihe IS$~ of defens,,·r use 01 wlthholdingordeni.lf the oblIgor hasa sUb>tamial numlJc,.ot un!iO)CUreddebts. agreeing to have a ...:nhholding order placro inlOeffl'Cl immediatdy will pre"ent unsecured creditors from ob!alll' Ing paymenl by g;t.mlshmem. bul ""111 not affl'Ct lhelr ability 10 Oblaln judgment. The bad news arisrng from the With· holding Order Act IS the qUe<\tion it Lea"e5 unanswered, The s.eriou'nes5 of these problems w.ll depend upon the ronStruc'l ion g,,~n lhe Slat ute ~'1oca1 judges and e"cn(ual interpretallOll by the appellate couns. The creation of the new and indO'6-10-751111 applrC'S, ff theobhgor agrees

Imagine,

You ' re about to erect a spectacular new office tower. There 's just one small hitch, The Site for the monume ntall'lfW offICe buildlllg seemed perfect, El<ce~t for one thmg. The company ~referred not to have a t ra m runni ng t hrough t he lobby . But a railroad he ld a right of w ay across the prope rty. a nd train track$ were sca tte red over part of a n otherwise picturesque scene. A number of ot her problems threatened 10 shatte r everything. They didn't, Be<:a use commonwealth worked wi t h counsel and represen tati ves from the railroa d. t ne ci ty and the com pany to keep t hmgs on t he t rack . SO t he bul ldlrlg-inst ead of t he 5 o'clOCk upress-arrlved right on !iChedule. Whether your project is an offICe building that 's stretching s kywanl. or a single·famlly home that's $Ittmg Pfetty. call commonw ealt h. Our service Tl!a IlY.an.make a difference. W. turn obstaclts Into o pportu n ities.

Ii6 COMI'-KlNWEALTH lAND' IOU

IN9JN«:l CDHr.......

A_,,-_C-

164 St . Francis St ree t . P.O. Box 2265 MObile . AL 3665.2 • (20 5) 4 33·2534

1/'O ....

/9tI,j

ptndenl rmledy in section 30-3-62 apptars ~lpiul in providing "ttornt)'1 " 'illl" sepano.te method 10 seek coI\(c. lion of supporl withool using a con· tempt of coort action. Sincuection 303-61 provides all orders htnctfort h issued in contempt cases must include a witllholding ordcr. why do wt need a sepanHt n:medy? Law)'ff$ are not prone 10 scoff al additional ~an5 of ~tine into court. but wllal doeslitC· lion 30-3-62 provide tllal !l«lion JO.361 does not? T~ ~ns"'er may be n(lIlI· ing. but .. question lurks tllal may great ly .ff«1 withholding~r prac. I~. 5«tion 30-3-62 specifically S1ates wlltn a witllholding order is SOUghl as an indeptndent remedy. theordcr wilt state the amount to be collected to pay continuing support and may require an amount be applied loward the ar· rear.lgle. SectionJ0.3.61 requiresa "';111· holding order in all conlempl ci coon cases, bul il does not say whether lhe willlllolding order can be used to col· 1«1 amarages as well as fulure $UPport . Not allowing a withhoidingonSeT to have this effect in contempt of court actions seems impractical. especially in light of the provisiOfls oflitClion 3Q. J.62 penniuing collection of amar· ;Igt$ u well as continuous support. The second and major ditlinction between the t,,"Osections 01 t~ act is the provision in seclion 3O-3-61(c) gen· erally requiring the withholding onkr rIOt be ~rvfd on the employer untillhe obligor becomes delinquent the equi· valent of one month's suppOrt. Section JO.3-62 dots rIOt conlain a simi lar pre> vision. Arguably. the withllolding order obcained through an i!ldtpend · ent action could be plaad into dfect immfdiltely. I.a~ may be able to choose bet "'~n the withholding order II paT! ci .. rontempt action and II an independent action in trying to obcain immfdiate coliectiOfl for the obligee. When a withholdingOl"der is issued as part 01 a contempt of court action. the coort shoold be agr«able to ordering the d«r~ to take effect immediately si~ the obligor has already shown by past conduct an unwillingness to vol· untarily paychild SUJlllOr\. A final res0lution may be reached by reading.!eCo lion JO.3-62 jlt pari I'III1lena wilh Iil'Ction JO.3·61 to allow both S«Iiona to 8<:t similarly in arrearage collections.

The act also creatH an ambiguity that may be d«mfd bad news in the collection ci alimony. The oollection of alimony payments has hoen ouh;ect!<) the sam~ problems as IlIat of colltcting chik!support. Theambiguityoccurred whcn the legislature defined obligor as '"any person ordered by the COUrt to make periodic payments for the benefit and support of alto/lin' /NffOIt &r ",jN"" cllild" (eI'Ilphasis addfd). Upon stJeing the language SUpport ci another per. the thought immediately occurs alimony may also becol1«:ted by with· holding orders. A closer reading of the act dispels that possibility. The term '"support"' is limited to '"!iupport of a minor child.'" and t he I itlc of the act is Withholding Order for Child Support. Since the act makes no further men· lion of alimony or support of another prrson. wlla\ the legislature inttndtd by the language "'support of another person"' isuncleir. Thill may make for some interesting litigation in the fu· ture, but appan:ntly alimony cannot be included in withholding ordeT1i. A last bit of bad news isnOlthefault of the act. but is the fault of human natUTe_ WithhoidillJj ordersannot prevent an obligor from changing job!! to avoid paying child support in this manner. To that utent. "'ithholding orders an: not more df«live tllan pr· nislllllellts 1Ia"e boen in the past. The obligor will be requirfd to notify the coort of any changes in emp1oy~nt a nd provide th e court wilh the address of the new cm ployer. The failure of the obligor to notify the coort of this change willlubtect him torontempt of coort. 50 additional firepo·...er will be added to the arwna1. Emploo)·tJ$ may advise the coon of the change in em· pIoyment and thilshoold occasionally assist in keep11lJj up with the obligor's. Once the clerk of the court receives notice of a change in employment, a new withholding order will be issuoo. which the new employer must ac· knowledge "';Ihin 14 dayt of receipt. This will help reduce the burden on the obligl!'e in filinr; repttitive pa~ with the court to ensure continOI'd retrip! of support. Certain PPli in pay. ments obviously will occur when the obligor changes jobs. First. Ihe clerk will have to receive noticeof thechange of employment and then issue the

lOll:'

withholdinaorder tothe newemployer.

The withholding order becomes bind· iogon the newemployrr 14 days .fter aervice on the employer. creatillJj I two-week ppin payments. The act is silent on collecting t he p.ayme nts missed during this period. The act also il Silent on how the obligee can collect the arrearage accrued before a witll· holding onkr initially went into effect. The stat ule provides the withholding order IIII'nenllly " 'ill rIOt be aerv'ed on.n employer until theobligor becomesdelinquent in an amount equal to one month'l support obligation. If the obIi. gor does fa;l to make pay~nt$. a sim· pie affidavit filed with the court requesting the wit hholding order be served immediately on the obligor'A employer should suffice. The act does not. ho>o.'t'Ier. 3mhoriu the collection oillle amange lICCT\Ied durin&: Ihis _montll period. The remedies of ronlemp! of coon or a willlholding onIeT as an independent action Ire available and may be the only solu· tions to this problem_ This gap in pay. mcnlli and other problems raised here need legislati"e attention.

Conclus ion Tht Withholding Order Act il not I panaoea for all problems existing in the collection of child s upport . It is. ho>o.'C'o·er, a substantial imprOVCfl'lent OVt;f former ~thods for coIlec1ion. T ht act anrlOt OVCTCOllle the skill of some p.arents in 3voidillJj the obliga. tions. but itdotS make avoidance more difficult . Mosl importantly. it s llills the burden of collection away from the parent entitled !<) support and plactt it on the parent obligated to pay. A ftw wrinklt:l rtftd to be smoothed out to ensure clear and consistent applica· lion ci tile provisions dthe act. but these wrinkles are far outweighed by the advantages this act provides. a FOOTNOTES 'Ma, Coile 16·111·2. I'rior '0 1980 , ..... mpO"", _12.000, 'Ala. CocIo 16t" !'rio< ... t980 '''"_"'''

_11.000.

'''",1IoriMd b!' 42 U.S£. m3 .... __ .... in

/oIaIIo_ b!' ,he D<p.t ....... d ~ Tho _ , .... "Itd ,."" __ ...... """""" ,II< .... aa\ _ , numb« d tbr 0III ...'ot!_ f... lot .... oi 'ho ..... ia!.. The obU· p,ot! pia« oi <mplojomont io Olal' .. ,,...,;!"oj' ,rocl", the .."'.",....-p:wUd to lhe Sociat s.c.ril, ..... mln"' .. ' ion.

.... c-,. pO.-'.

&\.hout ~Iemhers, &\.mong Firms About M embers J ohn C . Bookout was named ll1"eSidem of Woodmen of the World Life tnsurar.ce Society January 5 at a lpocial mooing of its boord of dir«' tors. A nali,'em Birmingham and reident 01 Moo~ for 22 )'tars. Bookout lTIO"ed toOmaha. Nebruka. Ihl'fC ~rs ago loassurne the dl,llies of director. vice president and 8('I'IfflIJ coun5el of the Woodmen.

lie urr~ hi s undergraduate and law degrees from lht Uni"crsily of Alabama and fonnerly served as de·

puty allOfney gene"'l. insurance COOlmissione!" and judgeoilM Alabama Coun of Criminal Appt'als befen rttiring from Siale service in

rarly 1982.

J o hn B. Gi" han is among live new Sam ford Univcuily board of Ir\lst~ members elected by rl!«111 ac· lion of tile Alabama Bapl;SI Siale Convention. A partner in the Andalu· sia La ... firm of Albriuons and Giv. han. Givhan is II 1972 graduate of Samford's Cumberland School 01 law. lie holds II bachelor 01 ~ degree from Auburn Uniwr sily.

Dltvid C. lI owla nd has )ained the Itgal department cl United Slatts Pipe & Foundry CQlTlpanylJim Wal· ItI' Re$ources. Inc. as staff au()l"l1e)'. lIisolTa is located all300 First A"enue North. Birmingham. Abo· txlma 35202. Prior to his nsocianon with U.S. Pi~im Waller Rt$(IUrt:eS. lIowland has been in lhe parlnership of Da vis & l10wland in Birmingham.

lIarold O. Ri~. formerly in pri. "ale pr;octice in lhe eaSlern area cA Birmingham. hu joined the legal departmenl of Jim Waher Resources. Inc. as slaff attorney for ils mining division in Brookwood. Alatxlma.

Among Firms The bow firm of lIare. Wy nn, Newell & Ne wtun i5 pleased toano nounce II. Tho mas lI e Din. Jr.• and S. Greg Burge have become associated wit h the firm. Offices are l0cated al 700 City Federal8uilding. Birmingham. Alatxlma 35203. Phont

"."'" Robert G. Robison and An· Ihony R. U"inllSt on are pleased to announce the formation of a firm for the ge""",1 pQctioe of law under the name of Robison und U"ings ton. with l>ffices located al 475 College Strttt. P.O. Box 86. NeWlon. Ala· txlma 36352. Michael J . Ue llam y and Man . I)'n C. Newhouse of Phtnix Cily. Alabama. Innounce the formation d a par1nership for the general practice 01 law. Ms. Newhouse has been aSSG' cialed wilh Mr.l:Iellamy's office at 1403 Broad Street .inet! 1982 and is a for"",r LSCA specialist attorney. John W . Gibson and V. Lee Pe lfrey, J r., are pleased to announce the formation d their partnership for the praClKroilaw undeY the firm mme Gibson lin d I'ellre )'. Offices are 10caled at 309 West Madison Streel. P.O. Box 488. Troy. Alabolma 36081.

WiI ....... Pumro)' &. Bryan, al ' torneys al law. are pleased toarl' nounce Bruce Adam ... , formerly an associale. has become a partner. The firm will COIItinue in the general ~~oflawunderlhe name Wil· lI(lIl, l'umroy. Bryan & Ad am", with offlCelllocated al 1431 l.eightQr. Avenue, P.O. Box 2333. Anniston. Ala· txlma 36202. Phone 236-4222. The law firm of Brown. lIud . Uie h a nl sou. I'.C., is pleased to annO\lnet! Benjamin 11 . Brook s . 111; Mllrk E. Spear, R. Alun AIel<' ander and Da"id A. lIamby hi>,. btcome associaled ""ilh the firm.;OO Ro bert I' . DenniSlon hal btcome 01 CXlU.nstl to the firm. The firm al50 l;kt!I areal pleasure in announcing the relocation of lheir dfooes 10 1495 Uni"miity Boolevard, P.O . Box 16818, Mobile. Alatxlma 36616. gen~,

The la"" firm of Smit h & T ay lor i5 pltased 10 announce ThonlaB S. Spir... has btcome an associaled the firm. Offices are Iocaled al Suite 1212. Brown·Marx Tov.'en. 8ir· mingham. Alabama 35203. Phone

251·2555. The law firm of Spai n. Gillon. Rile y. Tate & Etheredge takes plea' sure in announcing J . Birch n owdre, Ann Mc Mllhan I'crry. J ohn Mark lI an and G lcnn E. Etit .... s. Jr .. h~~ btoome lMIll~of the firm. and [)cborah A. Pickc n s has become ISsocialed wilh t~ firm. Of· fica Ire Iocaled at 1700 John A. lIand Building, Birmingham. Alatxlma

35203.

The law firm of Lyons .!'il"''' a n d Cook takes plea sure in an· nQUncins Ch arles L Miller. J r .. and W. Da v id J ohn son, J r .. have become associated with the firm. Of· fices are located at Two North Royal Street. Mobi le. Alabama 36652. Band. Are nd,dl . Bedsole. Gre',,"es & Johns ton. :JOth Floor. First National Bank Building. Mobile. Alabama. takes pleasure in announcing Jack Edward s . Davis Carr and R. "res ton Bo lt .J r .. ha"e become members of the firm. The law firm of J oh ns tone. Adam s . 1I0WMd. Baile }' a nd Gordon takes pleasure in announc· ing Alan C. Chris tian has become a member of the firm. and Bruce 1'. Ely. Oa"id R. P e eler and Peter S. ~Iacke r ha" e joined the firm as associates. Uenunn Wat son. J r .. Robert e. G"rnmon s and Mic hael L. Fees have joined logether in the pract~ of law under the firm name of 'Val son , Gmumons & Fees, P.e. Active lawyers are lI e mmn Wat son. J r .• Robert C. Ga ", n",n s . i\lic h" e l L Fees and Douglas J. Fee s. Offices are located at 107 North Side Square. P.O. Box 46, lIuntsville. Alabama 3500<. R""s m"n",nd , III, Fra ncis E.

I..e<.In. J r.; and James F. B"ner. Jr •• arC pleased to announC(! the continuation of their pmct~of law as Oian",nd, Leon & ()arter. Offices are located al 62 Nonh Royal Street. Mobile. Alabama 36602. Phone

"'"""

James W. Ma y and S haron R. IIoiles are pleased to announce their association for the general practice of law. Offices are located in E Building Professional Coun. 224 West Nineteenth Avenue. P.O. Dra""~r 2326. Gulf Shores. Alabama 36542. Phone 968-4757. Pe n nington. McCle ave & Pa t . terson. allorneys at la"'·. take plea·

su~

come a panner of lhe firm and the firm name is now i\l c PhiJli]IS. Dc Ba rdclaben & I-I awl ho r ne . The firm o!fices are located at 516 Soulh Perry Street. Montgomery 36104. Phone (205) 262-1911.

in announcing Ihe n:location of thcir offices to 113 South ~rborn Street. Mobile. Alabama 36602. Phone 432·1656.

The law firm of Watt s . Salmon. Roberts . Manning & Nooj in is pleased toannoonce Fred erick L. Fohre ll and Senll 1-:. I. u dwig have become associated with the firm . Offices are located at 102 West Clinton. Suile 200. P_O_ BoK 287. Huntsville. Alabama 358(11. Phone 5J3.3500.

The firm of O tt s & Moore an nounces Michael O. Godwin has become a parmer in Ihe finn. and the firm name has been changed to Ott s . Moore & Godwin . Offices are at 401 E"crgrccn Avenue. Brewton. 3&lZ6.

Sale m N. f.lcs h a. J r .• attorney at law. announces the removal of his of· fices 10 2205 Morris A"enue. Bir· mingham. Alabama 35203_Phone 25Hi666.

David 8 . Caut hen is pleased 10 annoonce his SOIl. Uritt Cauthen , is now associated with him in th~ practice of law. The firm offices are located at 217 East Moulton Street. P.O. Box 1702. Decatur. Alabama 3560'l. Phone

The law firm of Mci'hilli l'S & [)e ()",d e labe l1 announces that Frank II . I la ","thu n'e. Jr. has ])e.

353-1691.

WE WANT YOU TO JOIN OUR SPEA K ERS BU REAU!

, ,

community or ge .... ral area from wtu<:h a n:q...e.t r..ooved . All requeSIS will be handled through the Alabama Stale Bar H...>dquarters. If you are interested in serving as a member of the speaker's bureau please fill OUllhe following form and return ;t to the Alabama State Bar. P.O. Box 4156. Montgomery. Alabama 36lOL

SPEAKER'S BUREAU APPLICATION ""m< _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ __

Finn Name (if applicable) _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ Add"'''' _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Cily _ _ _ _ __ _ _ S l ate~_ _ _____ L , _ _ __ Telephone ______ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ ___ Please list s ubjects on whic h you a", willing 10 speak:

" 3)

Co peland. "r~ n co. Screws & Gill. P .A.• is plcased to annourn;e E. Terry Brown and J a m es ~1. Ed· wa rds. fonneT associates. hav~ tJe. COm~ members of the firm. and Le~ II. Copela nd and Truman M. Ho bbs. Jr .. have become associales of Ihe firm. They announce the tern· IJOrary move of their offices to 804 South Perry Street. Montgomery. AI· abama36IQ.t.

Boule,·a rd . North. Tuscaloosa. Ala· bama 35403. Phone 345--5440.

.., .. U" .. UK '.' S. 'T UT ~ mR C" ~"I '

su, ~c I . I~; U .

>l""'"

T l OS

U,h A NNUAt TAX S€MINAIf

law firm of Cu lp & J o hnson is pkased to ann""fIOe Millard L. J o ne s has becom~ a m.ombcr of Ilk! firm. Offices are in the Rhodes Professional Building. 29'.>6 Rhodes Cir· cle. Birmingham. Alabama 35205. Phone 9:\3-8.183. Th~

MOl II.". ''''

.". ...... ,·.c.. .. "..d. .... l ..... ' . .., . ..... f .,

I."... I.,.,.."..., P.O • .."

u.. ""~,, ... L

WI ....' ..!)"

George E. Traw ic k and Ra y T. Ke nni ngton . of T rawick and Kennington. All o me ys. P .C.. take pleasure in announcing Ge o r ge lI oward Trawic k is nOW a shareholder of the firm _Offices arc located at Clio Road. North. Ariton. Alabama 36.:1I 1. Phone Ariton 762·2356 or Ozark 774-3175.

326-0591.

The law firm of Rose n . liar. wood . Cook & S ledge. P .A .. is plcased to announce II . ~:dwa rd I'ersons and \ \' . I'e rry \Veb b ha"e become associates of the firm. Offices are located at 102Q Lurleen Wallace

M ich ael G. G raffeo . formerly with the firm of Mc Mill a n & 5 1''''\ ' lin g. annount..-s the oJll"'ning of his office for the general practice of law at 301 Tille Building. Binningham. Ala· bama 35203.l'hone 252-1146.

Oa "id Chi p Sc h wartz. altorney at law. announces the association of Mark A. O " "can in the practice of law under Ihe firm nam.o of U \w Of· fices of David Chip Sch wart~. Of. fices are located in The Bradford Building. 2025 Second A,enue North. Birmingham. Alabama 35203. Phone

Richard Wilson & Associates Registe red Profess io nal Court Reporters 132 Ad am5 Avenue

Momgomery, AIJ bama 36104

264-6433

Where there's a will... Now there's an easier way. AmSouth Bank'S Trfffl W. and Trusl Form Book provides a o::mplele and up-todate ~ of wiI and trust torms to make your Pb 8aSI!!I and lastef. ln add~ion. extensive ccmrneotaries are helpIU in !he design and mplementation of various estate plans. These Iorms renect ERTA. TEFRA and lecenI revisions ... the Alabama Probate Code all(! wiI be updated pefooCaiy 10 insure c:ontinuing accuraoC)( To order your SEll 01 Wil and'rusl Form Books. send your check lor $95.00 payable to AmSouth Bank NA 10 the Trusl Division at any 01 the addre&-l!lS bekm. or contacIthe AmSouth Estate and Trusl f>laMjng Representative in your area. ArnSoo.rI:h 6<W< NA AmSouth Bank NA P. O. Bo. 1128 P. O. Box 389 Anniston. AL 35201 Gadsden. AL 35902 ,,~ 236-8241

AmSouth Bank NA P. O. Bo. 507 ~.AL35202 Hootsvile. AL 35004 AmSouth Bank NA AmSouth Sarl< NA P. O. Box 1628 P. O. Box 14118 Mot»e. AL 36629 Oecan.o-. AL 35601 694·1575 AmSouth Bank NA AmSou1h Bank NA P. O. Drawer 431 p_ 0_ Box 1150 ~AL36101 ",,,", . AmSouth Sarl< NA P. 0_ Box 11426

""""

"""'" " """ 793-2121

%ung G[.awy:ers'

Section b y Hobert T. Meadows III YI.5 Preside n t

rnacy. law and medicine "'ere represented. Each indIVidual participated in

Much has been accomplished thu ~ far: lhe YLS ha s been extremely busy con· ducting projects 01 benefit 10 the YLS

u• • •

y lhe lime Ihis "rlidt' iOH 10 tilt: ]984-85 rear 0( the Alabama Young l.awyers' 5«. tion will be three-quartcrs completed. prt5$

eral rep~ntali"es tothe Young l.aw· yers' Division 01 the American liar As·

Ihe slale YLS slands ready, willing aud able 10 assist allY local YOllng Lawyers' Sections who have a need."

sociat ion'l Midyear Meding held in Doelroot. Ron Davis of Tusca\OO6a and Bent ()v,'('OJd Birmingllilm .epescmed the young law)'ers there. alon" ,,·ilh

a seminar desillned to update him or her on new legal requirtrMnls in specifoc areas of practice and to promote

of lhe Ilate bar. 10 the \"arious profes· sions throughoulthestaltof Alabama. 10 the )'011111 and 10 the Slalt bar itstlf. Snell)', ~ me being you ulllodatton I~

particular activities.

In February 1985.

t"" YLS sent sev·

Edmon McKin~ whoanffldtd in hil caJX!OCity as district .epo£smlalive for Alabama and Georgia. Ron, Bent and Edmon allcllded numcrou~ metlings de$igned UI ;tCquaim them with activi· ties being conducted by ol her Young

Lawyers' Sections aCr061 Ihe nation. Each brought back txpo!rli", used \0 ~I ion and iocrease it5 ac' tivities in the future. In Man:h 1985. k3ndy Rea"H of Montgomery . ..ith the assistance ol the Y!.S. sponsored the Annu~l Con· ferenceon the Professions. Thi$ ~'~r'l con(en:oce was hdd in Gulf Shorel ~nd. as usual. was a lremendou~ sue· ceu. I'rofessions such as nUl"!ling. ph aro

better the

the relationship ~t,,·etn lhe la ..·yers olllle Slale of Alabama and various OIhe1" professlOf15. AJJ<)Im p~t s ponsored wilh lhe assislaoce of lhe YloS occurred al lhe Annual Midyear Metlin\( of the Ala· bama Bar Association held in Monl ' gomery March I and 2. The firsl an· nual Midyear lnleTVltwingConference WIS oo-sponwrl'd by the Un"'ersity ol Alabama School of La .... , the Cumber' land Universily School of La .... and the Alabatrul Y!.S. This p3rticular confer· enoe ,,'as designed to brtng IOKelher .al a mUluallyoo.wenient placeand time. pwspecti,'e !leCOnd· and third·year law st udents and law firms who were in

the marktl for such s tudenlS. This years JlMl&T3m was a huge SUCCHI. I hope t hi s conference bocomes a per. manent part of the midyear mettinll' Crl'lli, 1I0Cli to Penn)' Parker. plru:ement d,,·«tor at the Universit y of Ala · bama School of Law. and 10 JcaneUe Rader and Sylvia Hollowell ol the }>Iaament Off.cut Cumberland Univetllhy. The Annual Sandesl:in Stm Inar SJIOIl' sored by the Y!.S will he held in mid· May In Sandestin. This seminar has become one oIlhe best auended and belt recti,'ed 01 any sponsortd in Ala· bama. This year's seminar promises 10 he no el(ception. A large turllO\lt 01 YOll"lllaw yers and other lawyen: il eX(le(ted. Caine O'Rear and Charlie M.xon of Mobile. who Inm up to put on Ihi, semi"" •• should heencou~ and ("O(lifllt U!ated by all " 'ho plan 10 attend. Those 01" you who ha"e not made plans to a\lel>Cl should do so as soon as possible. 'rhe YloS" 1984·8S year is fas l draw . inll to a dOlie. II will be cu lmi lIaled by the annual meeti"ll hdd in Ilu nt sville inJuly. AU of you s hould make plans 10 a\lend this particular colwention as it prorTl'5e$ toheOMoI"thebe!i1 , " _ I "..~

Fi""Uy. the s tate \'1.5 stands ready. " 'Ilhng and able to a~IS' any local Young l.aw}·ers" Sections who ha"e a n<!ed. Contact me or Ikrnie n","nan in Montl/OTlleTY for assista~. CI

l!EG~SlAf~V!E

WRAP"UP 1.0)'

IW' CouncIl of 1M Alabam~ Law Institute aPJll"O''ed tlW' draftingcommittte's propoosed revision of Alabama's Eminent Domain

Rol>crt L

sionsof emment domain Statutes h.a,~ not bef,n enacted for various reasons.

of Ihe committee from 1978 umil his

~rhaVl because sufficient consideration was not JIi"en t(lthc multiple in· IcreslS invoked a nd aff""t"". The pTl:scnl commillee. through many ron· Icrencn and extended debates. has S()ught to inj«t and res(live all

death in June 1982. This revision reo

intc~t$."

rtecl! lIis insight and scholarly guid·

The present Emment Domain La ... ...as enacted piOCemealO"er the paSI 100 )'ears by the Alabama l~sla!Ure and is found in Sections l8-I·lthroogh ]8-1.J2 Alabama C(Ide. Thl$ ~ La ... follo\l.·$ the draft of the Umform Eminent Domain Code as drafted 1»' the National Conference (If Commissiunel'S 01 UnIform State Laws and takes into accQOnl prior revisions s ug· geSted in Alabama. including th<lse of an earlier code commitlee (If the Ala· bama flar.and recommendations from attorneys.judges. appraisersand pr0perty O'NneTS ha"~ been inrorporaled In((l the rode ~mended by the committee. Thepropo&edcodeiscomposedof 15 anides and Includes definitions. proCftdmiS bd<n oondemnation. com· rrlCOCt'tnenl of the action by 1M ron· demnor. thedei'endant"s ~ponse.IM prooedure for determming just com· ~n$3lion including oom~nsalion standards. evidence, judgment and pOSt·judgment pI'OCl'dure. Virtually all of our present ]a... remains in effee! and has been repositioned to include

Code ahcr first making ~\'eral amend· mCn13.

Maurice Bishop served as chairman

,~ .

.... r. Bishop, in his intrOOuaory remarks 10 tilt Emi....." Domain Code. $.aid: "II is t$hmalM IJlIWllXimaleiy 100,000 land parcdsare beingacquirtd annually for public purposes in this counuy involving a cost in excess of SI.5 bIllion and th.:ll this volume will increase in t hi s new decade otlhc '80s.

One of the reasons is tooay Ihere are O"CT 200 million Americans. and approxim~lely 75 million tlew Americans will be added befort the turn of the CHlluf)'. In 40 years, there will be 400 million Americans. They will require public works and community focilitits <J. all kinds, in.vI"ina IIW' acquisition of private properly for public u~. Confronlfd wilh l he$e facts. it appears timely and in the pubiicinlere5t that to tM ~t of our ability w( mako! OI'rIam th( pnJCtdures for acquisition keep pool' with thi s (xp!oding oie<.'elopment. Should the II1(mbers of any pr(Ifession fail to de"~lop. improve and expand. their destiny is atrophy and defeat. "l'rior studies and suggested revi·

~1L-Cu rl cy. J I·.

IMm In thiS rode. There has been 00 change as to the authority tooondemn. In adej'lIon \(I Mauri<;" E. BisOOp. the drafting commillee consisted 0(: Gerald D. CoIvll1. Jr .. Birmingham: FA...ud S, All en. lIirmingham; Michael F. Ford. Tuscumbia: Andre", j. Gen· try. Jr .. Auburn: Henry Graham. Birmingham; Professor Tom lones. Uni· "eTlI;ty 0( Alabama School 0( L:a ... : HJ Lewis. Clanton: Ikrt N~!IIes. Mobile; G. Willlllm NQble. Binningllam:l~ J'*Jlh 1>. J>heI\l$. Montgomery: Ra. man'll' S. Scott. Jr .• Binningllam; AJ. Cok1nan. 1>«a1Ur: and Samuel L Stockman. MobIif,. 0

" .II..... 1!/fl5

PINKERTON'S INVESTIGATIVE TEAM • •

_..... J. M<:GoiR

0._'_'"

_f. ~

--_......... --

0...-.. Oitf ~ rI>o Q(/I<Io"

....

F-..rly _ /Ww y",* CIq "PUll<rtoo lo,.iII ..

,,......w;o,, ill •

' ~_,I."'d.. N<oi

Ooy_~._

,hio -.. Ho ""'" ,........ '""' of "'"

....... _ali" ......... _ ._"' .... -...

flo _ __

ar,-. _

- " 1 0 's

""" .... .........

_0IIII ..... _

......

boob _ _ _ ..... n. kOod of - " " ' " ..... _ " - _ ....... booo pOI

.......sr. ....... ' ......

r........... ........

.. _Itt.

y "",

-"" --,,.p--

W. . . " -

JI'1Iio<. W<:' ..

.. __ QUMIIo:I to< ....

_01~ _"'"

....

...... ~ . T""",,".....;,.0

, _ . . . . .. - .....

I ",

' - . ,.,. y",* 0)-

"No _

V..k in

........ 0;"._ ... -...

V. PO,~. t~

_ " , or

''lI''oncI

• •

. .

_r...d,-'_ M, ",.,.

.... -"1 01 _ _ dIio> ' .

_."

_.~

l it . . *'dorod .......... "" • N.V.c. o.oe..;..

-... r...... IliI:I. I'.. 1_

JoootIo J. c -.

... --_ .. ,...-,.... AI.. MS., fL

..... ,.... ........ '"'"' of ...,..;-. .. "'" of ..... """' •• ~ ..... ...

" " -.h U _ , ...... ""'" in "" """'"' ........."" irWM". ""0 _

......"'" ill ""

... _

_ . ""a.Iio _____.

-_ __ . . . . io._

• ..... <0>'..

.- """.... "".-

.... ... - . . .... ""'" of ... ..-.,.;.. ~~

....

•• 7 o.i

Found«l i" 18JO. Pifl1cfflOlt:S

... ",-...

IOQI"

.....,.,1000., Vid<v

.... _ " ' ·. ·.. ~ •• ~

_"' .. .-.-<11 .... _. "-,"

...

_ _ _ _ .. Leal .... Ell-

s....u. . _ .,..

......... ~of1bt '_ .......... .,., Hio_ Oopor_ .... _ ... 01 _.

t>:noInl ................... ,• .-,

. . . . . . n ' tt'hll _

..._ .

A'II. " ' -, " ' -...... u

DifIn=t . " , , -

llot fUfJ prilVW Ml«tiw ~ Of! llot NOflh A mtria>1I <'tHlliMIII. rod<!y. as 1M Iture<I

is ff2 11/arly f(>/Iftl /)If ~, (J1l(}I7Wys 10 <mist In <l "Ilrlrly Q/ _ ys: no, j oJlo"'iJtg bt'kf oullint rq our sn\'~ might SU&te<t an al'f/l I~ ~"'kh ..... miAh. ~ oj htV> /Q you or to OM oj your ditnlJ. pn",,~

iltW$ litDtiw f um. 01<' c;pmu.

VI DEO Dl!POSITIOSS· w< ~'ill di ... or """"',...... I", MOt • •, ••

rond",(

SU ~VEl lLMolCE· I.... poo .. ,,, .... 1<1, of"'<>III'"<'''. "''' .... ""' •• 1.... ,,_ ~; 'h pMl ..,.pho< «(" Ipm • • ', rond",,( ,","; 1",11« or 1"",.I<I.,h, ptOpct'1 ' '''' ,.,....,.1 .. ",.;"""n,.

,nd <d '('Od«I """,.

"a<. """,d. of (<>(Imo.y,

l OC"'Tl NO w rTNESSES OR T H(R D p", nlf.5 · w • ..,i.<I)o

PERSOSNR PROT ECTION • "', tlto "".... or ''''''''''l'' .... "'"""iJ "'_ "'......;.", too ",,111'1<1.... and t _ 'Pi'" ,II< ..... 101_"" bodily hum . ..,"" .... oo 'Of_.

Mol "'" ... ,1'1<1 ....... ob<oi ........ ;n., and d<pooi'iooK ~I'h_ ·

........ .-.... ............... boI •• ,iaI period. of ,,,.. .......... oIo!Md ,;... ,Ito otI&I"'1ooo of ,II< daioro. JAaO~OUNI)

ISYESTlOATIONS . "', ... _

UNI)£ . CO\"E ~

of ."

......,., ... otI ... _ I-.,..h _ ...................1oM of 1IoIioid.... 10...... 10 buoioono.. r _ oo ....... ''-'l000i..

" " " " " ' " Of

INVESTIG"'TIOSS • W"", 1_

. - ..

<>«on 0... pio;_ .... I....... ' .......... ,",'" of

_,« __

• " " ... hdp ...... '1' ,Ito Itod or """ ...... 00 .., ,..... ~ ...., . . . . - , .. _ ' " " ito --. 100 of , _ .. >nO .... .....

.. '_,...._.~ _ _ M d _• ...a.~ N·... _ , . . . . .........., ....... Jo .......... ,.... "'~~I _ _ , 10

"'i#Wd ... ,..... _ _

""ifJl ,...., rn.-" •• ,ii ,.... .,.. "".,_. C.t, Ric* H.<t/ .. C.t"',..,,~, """ M .M, off/<-< .f1()J) JlJ./ou

'Of

.ao "'''''''"'I,b, A _ a Oo-tlo .., _ M~Io.

cle opportunities 17-ZZ

- -

ADVANCfll TRIAL AI:NOCN:;Y

......8 friday PREVENTlH(;

l£GAI. MA1i'RACT1CE

Sjou .... ecllly ~ 811 Imtlt\Ile lor C\.£ QUa: 3.9 Cost: None For InfonnotIan: (Z(5) .3....."""""

HoIIIncI Uw Cent .... c..ntsv\Io institute lor Tna!

Sponso::nd Ily _

ereo:- 440

Cost: 5950 For InfmNtIort (61Z) 644<023

zO-ZZ

"--

5 friday sotmlEASrotN TRIAl. INSTITUTE 1IIo"'ogIl.rrhllellmon 0vIc Center Sp:w .... eel toy. ilIiO«nI SIr Inmtute ~

So\SIC ESTATE AND GIFT TAXATION

For

SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW fO"St - . . . 9ri..llumIogNm Spoo .... tel Ily BIIIIUIQIwn BIIr A!Iodmon ~1.0 Cost:$IO For Inkmmiort {2(5)25HIOO6

SPOll900ecllly AU·ABA Creaots: 21.6 Cost: S395 For loformItlcn: (21 51 l43·\600

11-1Z

LABOR LAW FOA TliE GENERAL

IHCOMETAXATION Of ESTATES

~"""

fqaI SaIraMah 1M. SMnnaM

5ponsored Ily ICLE 0( IAofVi.l

CredotS: 7.2 Cost: 555 F(J' Informalkn (404) 542·1 121

-.....

"'0£ (205)3486230

"""''' """"" """"

W....... Spoo .... ea by. A.ssodiItlcn of TrioI

Z1-ZZ

For lofonNtIon: HIOO·424·2725

AND TRUSTS Th! FiWTTIOI1l. Hew 001eans

Spon5Olecllly Prao:tising l.3w [nSliMe

11 -13

Cre<liu: 12.6 Cost: 5300 For InfOf'lT\3Ikn (l 12) 765-5700

SOIJTH£AST1::AN CORPORATE lAW

"""""

Gr3II(I Hotel. F\:;IIm: 0Hr ~!ljtAla~6¥lnstlMeforCl.£

14-15

ZZ friday

HEALTll LAW

WORKME/fSCOMPENSAnON AND

Spoo .... ell Ily .o\merbn 811 Assoaanon For Inforrn.JtlIII' (312) 968-5000

Fm - . . . B.lnk, BIITTlUrjllfl\ Spa .... ecllly I!inronghom Bar ~ ~ 3.2 Cost: S2(l/mtrN:le<'5;;

fa InfIrnIotIor> (20513'8 6230

REt..ATED LIT1C.P.noN

""-

For ~ (ZOS) 251-«106

ZZ-Z3

....... ,,-

PAOOtJC1'S UA£\lI,1N lAW

Spoo .... id Ily _ F'r1Irtn IMtItIM CN<I!:!< 1 2.6 Cost: 5 175

For IrIonnotIDn: (612) 338-1971

Z7 wednesday

19 friday

6ANKlNC LAW

REPRESEHllHG SMALl. 9USI NESS£S

~~OvicCenler

EIIrTrongtIom-.JoIfenon CMc Center

Spoo .... 1Id IlyAI3tWN 8¥ll"6tiMe fornE For InforrNtlc:rt (205) 348 6:l3O

Sp::o ....... tIyo AIaI:I¥nI Instrtute for a.E for Information: (20513'8 6230

15 friday

Z9-30

IABO!I LAW F1)R TllECENERAL

PERSONAL INJURY: Pllt:PARATION ANOTAIAL ~~. NewOrlwls 5poI .... ecI tJy: ~ Cou"ses

~'"

,~.

5ponsored Ily ICLE 0( Georgia

Credots: 7.2 Cost: 555 f or In/oImiItion: (4041542-\ 121

CredItS: 12.0 Cost: 5355 For Infon'TIation: (4 15133 \·5374

ZZ-Z3 LECAL MAI.PRAC11CE INSTITUTE The M«1dIO'n. _ 0IIean5 Sponsored by. ~n Silr ADXIIItkto

Fa In~ (3 12l 988-5000

24-26

9-10

10-11

5ECURInES ftEGUlAn Otl

WORKER"S COMPEH~TlON MUIlICipal iWdotorilJrn. Mom ... Sponsored I)y: Alabama ~ of IrldI.t'lU\al RelatIons

GrMcI Hotel. Poirrt Oear Sponsored I)y: AIaOMo3 BarlnstituteforCl.E

The Fairrocm. Dallas ~1)y:~LegaI

""""M

FQ' InIt:rnIat\of> (214)690-2377

Credits: 1 1.1

9fllOCE THE CAP, A SEM INAR fOR NEW lAwYEAS Civi<: Center, 8Q"mIog~ ~ tJy: Alal:l.lma State Bar

Fa Irlfnrmaliort (lOS) 348{;230

~ $55 until Airil 25:

575 aft... /ItlIiI 25 For Inf0rm3tk:tt (lOS) 261·295e

26 friday

ANN UAL TAXS£MINAR

INSTITUTE ON WIU.5 AND PROBATE The RegIstJy. Canas Spoo 00 eo I)y: Soutnwemm logaI ,~

For InformatIM: (214) 690-2377

13-17 lAOOR lAW ANO l.A8OR ARBITRATION The Registry. DallaS Sponsored tJy; SoutI'Iwestem Legal

'..-M

For IrIf<lrmation: (l I 4)69().2377

16-17

.. '"

VOU'q l.a~'

Sectioo ...., AIallarna 8ar lrIst:ltIIte

CRI MINAL TRIAL ADVOCACY

SpoosorecI by. ASscdatlon 0( rna!

FQ" loforman(l(lo (lOS) 34&6230

""'"'"

Fer IrIf<lrmation: l .aoo.42,H127

17 friday

26-27

ANN UAL SEM INAA ON TllECiULF

5ar<Iesdn. Destin SpoosorecI try: Alabama Stille 8i!r YOIrI\\

ANN UAL SPRING SEMINAR S!IerJtoo Rbietfroot. MoIltgomeo:y 5pc>oso ecltIy: MOOtgOmery Count)' Tnal

Lav.y=' SectIon and

Al3Wm.1Bar lostitllte for

"-"""'''''''

f or InI(If'IYI3t\o<1: (lOS) 262·27 15

Fer IrIformation:

(~,

34&6Z3O

24 friday OIL. CiASAND MI NERAL lAW Law ~tI'r , l\t5caIoO$:I SpoosorecI by. Alabama BarlostiM eforCl£ For IrIf<lrmation: (205) 34&6Z3O

2-3 LITlGAnON IN AIIIATlON Hyatt Regi'ncy. w.... ngton Sponsoo>d by. AtneOcan Bar A<5odation For Informatlm (312) 006-5(l(XI

SECURmES LAW fOR NONSECURmES ~~

Tho MarIe Kopki .... San Frnnruco SpOnSored by: AlI·ABA

9-19 SOI!THEASTREGIONAL TRIALADVOCACY

''''''>m

UNe School of I..Iw. 0\ap0I HIli Sp::>l$OIecll)y: National Institute for Trial ~ Cred~84_5

Co5t Sl250

FlO" Informatlort (6 12)644.om

for Inlorm.tion (21 5 )243-1600

7-17

10 friday

~LA N D GAS 'oAW AND TAXATION

BUSI NESS TORTS AND AN1TTRUST

Sheraton Pal!< CentTal. Dallas Sponsoo"ed by: Southwestem Leq;ol

ShffiItm Moo.w1t3n1lfOO1<. Binnlngnam 5ponsorea by: CIImbfrIand I _tute foretE

F« Ink:<'rrmlof> (214) 690-2377

For InformiItIon: (205) 670-2865

,-"" •

Cost: S7S

30-June 1 APl'EUATE ADVOCACI Hyatt cambridge, Bast"" 5poclsored by: Amer'an Bar AssocIation Fer Information: (3\ 2) 988-5000

ARCP 15(c): Relation Back of Amendments Adding, Changing or Substituting Parties or Names of Parties

b y Jerome 1\. Il offman " Kelalion bKk" is a Itg:al fICtion

unokr ...·hich a pleading. usually an amfndmem or • counterclaim. is tn:ated as if it had been filed at ~ s~ified

time earlier Ih,n il was actu· I lly filed. As is true of amendments kt!nerally, the question wht1her an amendment adding. challglng or sub-

slhul ing a panyor the named a party relates bad. typically b«romes crucial only if t .... 5ulUleof limitation has run when lheam~ndmem is offered. If the statute has not yet run when the amendment is offend. IlM're is noother commonly r~rring need III treat the amendment as if it had been offell'<l at an earlier time. Where relation back med noI ~ imvitOO. of course, the requirements for relation back need not be satisfied

Civil Procedure. lIult t5(c) pruvides: (e)

"'_...t_.,..

R,J., ... 1J.c1t 'll the c"im or deftnst u·

W"'~

..,ted in lhea~ pleading ..... O<I[

of the con,hoc!. IranloaCliorl Of "".

CU'~"'"

f(Wth Of alltml'lod [0 be fonh in IMona;!\I1 p..Jing,IM al!lf1l<lmen, reLat .. bKk 10 lho d'l!. ~

of ,ho (lngI ... t pleadl" exapl as may ho oo.horwitIe pr<w1dcd In Ru" t3(c~ An amtnclmem c .... nging lho .. ny agalnSI "'hom • cbim is . .

... nod ,..,lalH bac:~ if lhe fo<'lP"B pro.is"", i. Qli,fit<! Ind. "'nhin tho, ptrlod p!'O'o'lded b~ law fo< rom.mnc. I"B tilt action lIpinst hIm. lhe party 10 be brou&hl in by anwndmenl (I) ..... ~,...ssuch noI.Woflhe Inst~ lull"" of l,,"act1Ofl lhal "" ..-ill not

(hI r"'lit ..... r.'I.... lI'hma .. ny II ....,...nl of I,," n.nwof anowoaIna .. nylnd ...IIqu,n his plnd· Ing. lh. _'ng !IOny may be ..... SIgn.lt<! by any nlme, and when hr• Irue na"", i. di$('Q\'.rod. lhe ~. and all plndinpand procN'dines in lhe action may lit amtrodod by lUI> , "lUling I.... INt ........ Rule 9(h) ""as dra""n from and undl-r

lhe aUlhorily of title 7, section 136. '

making it unnecessary 10 consider whether;1 would .lso have been auth.,. rized by the Rules Enabling Act.~ ,

Il. Tactical Contex ts in w h ich Relation Ilnck Ma y S,,'·C t he Day

lit projudiM:I,n malnlalning h" defen .. on 1,," menlS. and (2) k.-. or lhoold ha". kllOWn Ihll, but fO<' I nll.l l kt COIICf<rnln~ lhe identilY of lhe proptI" parly, lhe ICII(IR ",wid tftn brought aplnSl hIm. An Inwndmenl pun\Ollnt 10 Itu" 9(h). Ht:liliMrs r.rnn.. i. not In amtncl· .... nl cha""ng lhe .. ny lIpil\5l ".. hom I cIa,m if .uenod and .""h mc-ndmenll"l'bl" back \D.~4a

ha,-.

A. Controlling Rulcs

Ri 1'-bi-liiiiill~lnr. 9(h) provldes~

I. H esh-and-B loodWrungd""rs Hidinl( Behind Fietitioo.,s Ent it ies Roll, v. Scruggs.> the granddaddy of Alab."lma·s fictitious party cases. illuStrates a recurring litigation context for which some kind of rdation back is sorely n<'«led ~nd quite plainly justified. II perhaps also illust rates Ihe context in which Alabama's [)Qe practice originally was intended toapply. Roth, injured in an elevator accident. sued two Scrugg>;Cl; individually. as owners of th~ building in which h~ was in· jured. only todiscover at trial. after the statute of limitation had run. the Scruggses were hiding behind acorporation. the Scruggs Im·cstment Com· p.1ny. hen though the Scruggses as owners of the stock of the corporation, were. in practical effect. the owners of the building (a nd probably wwld have told you so. if the subject had come up over cocktai ls rather than in court). the court held. as courts still do. the Scruggs corporation was an entirely new and distinct party. ROIh could not rec.wer against Ihe Scruggses individually because they were not liable individuallj' - only the Scruggs corporation was liable. He could nOi recover againSI the Scruggs corporation because he was barred by the statute of limitalion. which had run out while his lawyer was k'(lrning about his case. He could nol avail himself of Ihe brand new Doe practice statute' because his lawyer lailed to lollow the proper procedure. a had example to which some lawj'CfS continue to be attracted even in 1985. A recent case. Columbia Eugineering /nlrrllaliun"i o. Espey. ' demonstrates the problem has nOi abated wilh time. In fact. under modern techniques of protectivc business organization. hcti· tiousentities now may beMrayed two or more layers deep. as was done by the manufacturcr-defendant in Columbia Eu.<!i".u;'V(. [n a society o,,"'ned and operated. as the law pretends. largely by fictitious business entitics. it docs nOI seem unfair to COUnter the fiction of corporate persona lity with the fiction of relation back. 2. Ol>scn'cd but Anon ymou s Wro ngdoer In our increasingly impersonal society. an injured person may ha"e seen the wrongdoer face·toface. b"t may ha"e lacked the oppor-

tunity or the foresight to ascertain his name. A very rfl.'ent case. /)en",,), ". Scriu.' demonstrates thc point. There the pl~ ; Tl1iff was. she a\\eged. negligently treated by an emergency room physician whOl>C name she did not know. The appli<'able relation back provision ga,'e her attorney some additiooal time in which to disco"cr the physician's name. Thereareothcr fac· tual contexts in whiCh such additional time may be welcomed and sometimes even justified. Examples might irn;lude hit·and-run motor vehicle accidents. 3. Obscn'cd Wronl(d~ r Possibl y a n Al/crll fo r Ano thc r Res pon8iblc P er son or Entit y Often, a plaintiff will or should know immedi~tely the person who all egedly in· jured him was acting for another iden· tified person or entity. When this is so. there arguably may be no reason, as lIi>lloll u. lIobbs' illustrates, to afford additional time in which to discover and name respondent superior defend· ants . In a society increasingly charac· terized by complex and masking rela· tionships. however. COurtS often may deem it justified to afford additional time to identify those potential defend· ants without whose initiative the al· leged injurious activity would not have been undertaken . 4. Wronl(docr Known Only by Function or Pos ition Until a plain· tiff has been afforded time for in'·esti· gation and discovery. he often may be able to designate his wrongdoer only as. for example. whoever was respon' sible for maintaining the\injuriou~ streo:t' or whoxvcr manufactured or should have inspected the injurious product.' Under some circumstances. it may be thought justified to apply ~ dOClrine of relation back to information at-Jut identity discovered after the statut't of limitation nominally has

m" 5. Potential U"kno"'n Wrong_ doer in a COllI pIc " T rllnS3ct ion [n our modern era of subcontractors and sub-s ubcontractors. a ycar measured from the commencement of disco,'ery. much less from the commencement of the action Or the accrual of Iheclaim, often is scarcely long enough to un· ravel the complex interrelationships among numerous lJOIemial defendams

who are determined to reveal as lilile as possible just as slowly and ex pen' si"ely as possible."' Most ~tatutes of limitation. being of ancient derivation. do nOl take this modern reality into account. Although one might have ex· pected courts steeped in the nexible common law tradition to apply tech· niques of relation b."\Ck to allcviate the mischief of outdated statutes. oneoften finds relation back applied less will· ingly to this category of cases than to others.

C. T wo K ind s of Relati un Bac k of Amc ndme nt s a s 10 Parties Unlike most jurisdictions (including the federal jurisdiction). Alabama has two ahernali"e kinds of relation back of amendments as to partit$. One is the ord inary. unpredicated kind of relation back familiar to the allorneys of perhaps every olher ju risdiction. The ot her is, from the national point of view. a relatively rare and unusual kindof relation back. Known as "fictitious party practice" or "Doe prac· lice." it is predicated upon the allega· tion (If fictitious parties in the pre-bar pleading" to be amended. Both are embodied in Rule 15(c). I. Ord inar)' Re la tio n Back and DoePracticeCompareci Although they o"erlap substantially. the two kinds of relation back are not identical. Each can serve the allorney besl in somewhat different procedural con · texts . Each imposes somewhat differ' ent demands. Although someof its provisions mus~ be qualified. the thumbnail table on page 86 may be helpful.

2. Do Not Ovcrlook Ordin ar y Relation B"ck [)Qe praClicegets all the attention in Alabama. Every Ala· bama attorney knows about it and many o"erwork it. The Alabama Supreme Court cont inu"" to wrestle with it. Three important cases area year old Or less. Nine others are less than four years old. Ordinary relation hack has pretty much gotten lost in the shuffle and excitement. Alabama attorneys ha'·e. it seems. virtually ignored i1. often to their cost. In several of thc important recent cases. amendments lost under the Doe practice pro"isions mighl have been sa,'ed had the amend· ing attorney in"oked the ordinary rela·

tlOn back provisions. a. /li1lIOl/ ~. /lobbs" The Ala· ""'ma Su~ Court Mid the statute 0( limitation barr(d I1mton's amend· ment substituting the First State Bank forfictilious ""rly .. A" because flinton had nOl been ignorant of the name. idenlily or involvement of. the bank when I!.! filed his prt-bar complainl. TIM. prooedural facts sahsrll'd lhe fir$! t wo requirements for ord inary Ttla t ion back willwut much room for a rgu· ment. T he claim aS5ert(d againsl the bank arQSe from the same I ransaclion or (JO;Urrt~ as thaI I S$e1"IOO againsl tIM. f1tsh·and·bIood ddendants. who;> .... ere tIM. bank's president and princi· PIli s tockholder. Under princiJlles 0( agency law. lilt: bank ronivoo nOl~o( Hinton's lawsuit when its president was ~rvoo .... ilh protel5. As to the third requirement. the~.>e is a lillie closer. Was II mton mislaken "<:"Qnttrning tIM. identity ulhe proptT party:' as required by Rule l5(c)(2)? I~use Hinton dId not invoke ordi· nary relation back. the court did not see (or at least did not tl!oo!ie to take) i" opportunily to decIde this novel de·

finitional question. I 1Ilt'"e. as yet.found no case 5Quarely In poont. The ....ords

"ml$ta kf ~ning the identity"' could. 0( course. beconstrued to func· tion prcci1iely like the words "ignorant 0( Ihe name" in Rule 9(h). barring amendments wIM.never lhe Doe prac. ta would do 50} and. thu s. crippling ordinary relatlOl1 back as an alt~· ti'<e toflC1ilious pany relation back. Or the words COUld. as arguably they shou ld. beconstrued in harmony WIth t he basic projXl5itiotllhat "1 bleing ablc 10 lake advantage of plainliffs plead· ing mistakes is not or>e of Ilhe] proto:.:· tions" proptT"ly aff~ bl' either 11M. $latute 0( limitatlOIls or our modern system of d"il procedure." This lallef" construction would T('C(l(I:mZ<' also Ihe provision emphasizes t hc belated pa r· ty"s timely knowledge of his potential ,"voh~nl (a requirement certainly satisrlf'd in lIi"I",,) and not the nature or quality 0( the ammdlng pan {s proCfdural mistake. The court mIght ha~ I/:I'ln" either way on thi~ issu~, had it been brought to the oour!"s attention. and Ihus. Hin · ton might still have failed to save his

Qrdi""f")' Nelatlon ""'~,

s"nl<nres I and 2 of Rul. l5(c)

1)00 I' .......;.:e s..nl<1lOI: 3 of Rult 15(C). iOO"lfj):"lraling Rute 9(h) by rtf""""",,

Fic.i.iou8 pari )'

Pre-bar pleadmg t>«d IlOI

I'ro--bar pludl"ll ",,,,/ have

(~ hokI"r)

. Ue p . ion8

s....e ....""".,. ion

"'"'

ha~"~alltplions.

adtquate~

a11eg:monl.

I'any-d\ang.ng ammdmMlI must assert a r/D.i ... arisIng from tlv: $.Om" Il"ltn&aCtloo or occu rreooe as the ptt-bar pleadlllg.

Namt-lu bt.llt ut I"lI amend· monl n,ull u~" a l/ottny .lrrady .11<gtd and "'ailing in the pu-bar pltading.

NOIiee oI ........w1

~IM ..,,,y mU5t ha'"e rt«I.ved pre-bar nola of tlv: Ia,,'suil OlmmellSunle .."h d"" pnlCII:5S of law.

Ko- .... ed parl y'8 kno ... ledge 01 hi ~ In "oh'eme nl

Betaltd pany must ...... bar. have k""",'n or had ,",as"" 10 know lhat he "'as an Inlended party fn)m 1Iv: beginning.

1a... 1lOI clear ... hether btbtM pany must Ita,·" ..,m,-.d any a.ct ....1pre-bar llOIioI' of tlv: '""'"Uil. c.~ 1a ... 1lOI clear as 10 ... hat e>Clent. If any, belattd ..,ny must have known he .... s or nught Ita,·" been an Intended party from the beginD"".

requi...,me n'

Amendina PlIn y's .,....·boor knowk-d,., 01 belated PlIn y'. 'rue identi. y

requlre<nMlllha,

amtndtng J>IIrty ha>-e been

ili;non.nl of belaled party', t"", identlty.t any time.

Ca~

lilt,·"..

AmendIng I*rtl' mu.t been """"",nl of the name of the beialM party alIt.. lime 1Iv: lIf"C·bor pltadllljj ..... filed.

amendment. but 1M. mIght h3\'e sue· ~ed. Thf, poont is he forfei.oo all opponunit)· to do so by hmillng h,s argument 10 the general and appar, ent ly fairly typical Ohsl'liSion with fie· titious ""rly .... ctict. b. Thrtadgill v. I/i,mi"gn"", 1/o(Ir-i/ 9/ fAlII((JIiOft " In Threadgil1"s ~togen<:1' action agamSlthe Binning· ham Boon:! 01 Education.t~ Alabama SupremeCoun htfdtltt Statuleof lim· Itation barred her amendment substi· tuting the superintendenl 0( Ihe boan:! for a fictitious tkf~ndant. because she had not been ignontnt of the s upenn· tendent's identity ... IM.n liM filed IM.r prt-bar complaml. Once again. tIM. fi~t requirement for ordinary I"l'lation back was satisfied beyond pread\'~n· lure. The claim asserted against tIM: superintendent aroose from the same transaction or occurrence as Ihal asRTted against the Ix:on:!. In Tllmulgil/, ho·.,.t"\~. 1M SI'CXlI1d requirement was not.., clearly e!itallh$hed as il "'as in 1/;/1/011. NOIict to tltt boan:! was 001 notict to the sujleTin· tendcnt as a mallCT of legal doctrine. but it is "ery likely the s uperintendent did ha" e notice as a mailer 01 fact, whICh is what CQUnts under Ru~ l5(c~ Under thaI provision. Threadgill had at leaSt tIM. opportunity {aJlllal"l'nlly not seized) 10show tltt su jleTintendent had had notice of her lawsuit before the sta tute of limitation ran out. The third requirement, on IheOlher hand. would stem w have llrt-ri a Ie$s difrocuh hun:!Ir in TIt_dg;lIthan m 11;"/0". Tht-eadgtll knew. of. courw. the boon:! had a superintendent and. apparently. even knew his name. but shc could not. as the court seems to ha"c TeCOI!nized. identify him wi,h confidence as an actual defendant un· tiltl!.! board respOnded to her inlef" ....· atorirs with o:rtain ",formation. Thus. 5he could ha"e sustained II1Of"e easily the argument the superintendent "'knew or slwuld ha"e kl>Own Ihat. but for a nliSlake concerning Ihis] identity lIS al proper party. the action would been brought against him. "I f the s uperintendent and 11M. boon:! ...f"rt' communicating " 'il h or>e another as the!' should. it is most likely the su per' intendent had timtly k"""'iedge of h" potential in,·o1,.ement with T hreadgill's

lilt,..,

gritva~.

We cannot be certain from the case report whether Threadgill aClUa\l~ could ha"e establi shed notice and knowkdge as rC<juired by Rule 15(c). Once again, the JX>int is, Qn its face. the case looks like one in which she had a fairopportunit~ todoso, an opportunity which, for ought that appears in the report, she failed to r<=gnize because it stood in the Shadow of her Doe prac· tie<! argument. c, Minion v. II'hiSl'''o,,' '' The Alabama Supreme Court held the stalUte of limitation barred Minton's amendmems substituting several fel· low emploYee!! for "fictilious party No. 20" and Whisenam. the manufacturer of an allegedl~' injurious component of allegedly faull ~ machinery. for "fieli· tious party No. I." The amendments ",ere not allowed to relate back, beClIUse they asserted thrones of liability not alleged and waiting in the body of Minton's pre-bar complaint. Theclaims asserted against fellow tmployees and Whi senam all arose from the same transaction or occurrence as asserted in Mimon 's pre-bar complaint. Minion may well ha,'c been able 10 show that his fellow employees had pre·bar notice of his lawsuit. Whisenant mayor may not have had such notice. As_suming a reasonably hospitable definition of "mistake concerning the idemity:' Minton may also ha,'e been able to show both his lellow employees and Whisenant had the rC<juisite pre-bar knowledge 01 their potential in"olvemem with Minton 's grievance. Yet again, the point is, on its face. the case looks like one in which the amending pany should have in"oked on:Iinary relation back as an alternati"e argument to sa,'e his amendments.

D , T he Case

Law E \'(>luti o n

Alabama Doc Prac tice Fictitious pany rdation back came alive less than eight years ago and con· tinues to be one of our more active ju· risprudential ,'olcanos. The Alabama Supreme Court has decidro 18 cases sin~ 1977, There WCI"<! three in 1983 and four more in I9&!. In addition. the local federal courts have, in 5e\'cra i decisions, wrestled with problems of removal procedure aggravated by Ala· bama'sDoe practice. Wehave probably

not seen the end of it. This section first identifies the essential elements of Doe practi~. as they have so far emerged, and then examines the recent Alabama cases_ I. E len'e llts of Doc Pra c ti ce T he Alabama Supreme Court has following lormulation: t ca use of action

•• no knowledge at the time of the filing that the later named parly was in fact the party intended to be sued ..... The formulation in OJ/u",bia. plus the hold· ings of OJ/u",bia and other im!Mtant recent cases, can be rolled into a nut· shell somewhat as follows: One must allege pl<;cehoJder "a"'". in the sum mons and in the caption and bo::Iy of the complaint: one must allege p/aCilhoider Ihrun',," of liability in the bo::Iy 01 the complaint. a. Piaceholde""""1';< '11'Paintiff muSt Ihave beenl ignorant of the Itrue] identity of the ... pany liden tified by a fictitious name)" and must ha"e soal· I'l:t-.J in his pre-bar complaint. This is a moderate restatement of the language of Q,iumbia which, I belie'·e. captures faithfully what the coun wants one to understand. It represents the judicial evolution of the "ignorant of the name" Te<\uirement of Rule 9(h) and its predecessor statut e. 1) Fictilious "am.. I'laces in the summons and in the caption of the

complaint can be held by the insertion of "any name." Lawyers typical1y choose obviously fictitious names as a clear and early s ignal they intend \0 invoke the provisions of Rule 9(h). "John Doe:' being legal history's most famous fictitious name, frequently is (though not always)cilosen. Thus, the term "Doe practice." 2) AI/egalio"s 0/ ig'lloro"c£ of I....e identily Rule 9(h) rC<ju;res not only a party must actually be ignornnt of the true identity of a party for whom a placeholder is used. but the pleader must allege his ignorance "in his plead· ing." Read strictly, this would require the allegation of ignorance to appear in the bodyof the pleading. but (lor ought that appears in the case reports) law· yers ha'·e. without disaster, typically placW their allegations of ignorance only in the caption of the complaint. " I'evertheless, Rule 9(h) says "in his pleading:' and very cautious allorne\'S are putting allegations of ignoranC(' in the caption of the summons, the body of the summons. the caption of the com· plaint and the bo::Iy of the complaint. Given the general uncenaint y about what actually is required, this boiler' plating is understandable, but it is hor· ribl~ wasteful, even in this era of won:l processors. and one hopes the supreme court will soon tell us clearl~ it is not necessary. 3) Drscriptiw ol/el{lJtions i" sum · mOllsond (oplif)~ fJ/complaint Parties of unknown identity may be provision' ally identifiro by fictitious names, but allegations in the summons and in the caption of the complaint must describe them as ful1y as is then possible, for example, the physician who treated the plaintiff in the emergency room at a ,main place and time," or the person or entity res\Xlnsible for maintaining the injury-causing street," or the per· son or entity who manufactured or should have inspected the injury-caus· ing prod oct.'" The party I at er to be su l). stituted for a pla~holder must lit one of the descriptions pre"iously alleged in the summons and caption of the com· plain\. If not, one's amendment will mOSt likely fail." 4) Dtscripti"..olkgations i" body 0/ complaint According to two very re~nt cases," the word "defendants" (NOTE: plural) is a sufficiem allegation

•

01 placeholder names and identities in the body 01 the complaint. Ihroria 0/ liBbiljly body II/'~'", bt" UI...plQj",. the theol'y(l) 01 liability IUPl'?"ing rtCX'l\'ery 3jf<Iinst rlClitiously named de/~ndants." II the invocation 01 Rule9(h) illogive perie;:t proIe;:tion. ""'" will h,a''e to anticipate perl«tly ~'ery noIationship and every theory 01 liabilit)·that ",iglrl arise from the con· duct, transaction or (lCI;urrence upon which the client's claim r<'Sts.ln otller words.one will have to kl1O'N the substantive law inside out. I'I(ll only what tile law is bul what it soon may become, This waiting·theory requi~ment i. more d<!manding than tile comparable provision for ordinary relation back, under which the theory applicable to the belaled party may be allcgl!d for the first time in I he amendmenl.lO long al it aristS from the same transaction or occurffnceasserted in the ~barcorn· plaint. AltOOugh the Alabama Supreme Court has said allegations against Doe defendantS need be no more sptCilic than allegations against truly idenli. fied defcodants." this .N('ftion must be doubted since the I'I1(ldmI pleading philoaophy embodied in Alabama Rule 01 Civil I'rocedu~ 8(3) and (I) does not contemplate a plaintiff must (although he may)al~ his Ilwwinol recovery al all. When the theory apphcable to a belatedly substituted defendant is the same as a theory al~ady a1\rged against a truly identified delendant, the "'ail ing,t heory requi~ment is ....t isfoed, and no repetitious allegation 01 the same Ihtory need ha"e been made to hold the belated defendant's place," Not even the unwary will be trapped in such cases. Wlltn, hov.'e-'er, a Doe deImdant could be held hable only on a thtory applicable to noneol tlltoriginal and truly identified defcndants, the Imp i. $d. and only the Iaw)'ff with peT1'«t fOftSight will safely avoid spring. ing il.ln f'o • .,/tn D. UiIII'rly Mu/ual /" , SMrana for eumple, the plaintiff named real and Doe defend· ants, alleging I~ wt!'f "resp0n5ible ICO' lhe manulac:tu~, ule or malnttnana' of the ('quipment, fixtures and premisn where Fowlkes was em · ployed. "" 1.iberty Mutunl. howc"e.-,

l'llJc(lrold~r

~ must allf8'l'. j" Iht

CAI",,,,,,.y,-

"''3S 001 responsible lor manufactu~. sale, or maintenance, but could be held. if at alt, only for failing to provide safety inspeceioos and programs, (:CIl'ICffiling .... hich the complaint contallled 110 allegations. T hus. when Fowlkeuoughllo substitute Liberty Mutual lor one 01 the Does, the~ was no theory waiting and the ammdment lailed.'"' Very thin allegations may lOO1eIimes til" forgiven. As itlrdd III ,,"Ips P. SoItIIr Aloballlll £1«1ril: (A·~,"' the Alabama Suprcme Coun may irl(Ql'porale by reference allegations from the caplion in.,ro..,r 10 eke out "ague, general. in· oomplete or boilerPlaled allegations III the body 01 the complainl, bul dictum in U!/umbitl £ngin«ring"'cautions not yet to rely upon forgivent:lSS. 11 is still best to be specific, thorough and ex' MUSli"e. atnS!. unlil "",,,'tcertain the su~ court is going to stand by I>t.dps, (. ~m,,/ 5MiJsljlMljOlf <>ncr one ha!; 1ea~ the true identity 0( a Doe defendant. file an a~ndment making the substitution wilhout delay. If not, the amendment may not ~Iate back, even if one has proceeded flawlessly otherwise. In lI'oftk.. ~. Mi>t(ral Eqllj,. _", 01""", MY." for example, a delay 01 34 monthl "'as Irddfatal. and in Shirlty ". Grl/y Oil (AmfXItlJ.- 16]12 months .... ere too long, In DeNNey V. StrW, '" on theother hand, an amendment filed in fi,'e months .... as MId uonel)', bu t do I'I(ll my tOO literally on that holding. Under other procedural circum~t3nces, five months might be ruled a fatal delay.

d. Ikloltd ""Tty 'sJtrt-/Jar ""'ia"Nd h_1td,tr: Bdatedly subsututed par. lies prObably rwd 001 h,a''e had «IM"I prt-bar notice the amending jliIrty's lawsuit was pending or (Jf:/ual pr~bar knowledget~ ""ereintended parties. Rut.. 9(h) and ils statutory PI ecIi:a:uor express no requirement 01 r>OIice or knowledge, and the fictitious pany cases have not (until recently) spoilen 01 noticeor knowledgl'. Theabsenceol those rrquimnenls woukl. indeed, seem 10 give Doe pr2Ctice its SptC\l] charm. as .... ell as ils greatest ad"amage O\'er ordinary relation back, which requires pre-bar nota and knowledge. In mid·I983, 00..'.,...«, the Alabama Supre~ Court inj«ted pre-bar note and koowledge into the ...1culus 01 ()oe practice. The case w351'hclps v. Soulh

AlDbd ..." /:.'1«lric (A .Q/I." Holding Phelps' complaint contained suffidem 31kgalion$0I' a theory oI liabilny agains! tilt belatedly substituted defendant. thecourtdi$tmguishtd a preYious~ "'hef'ejn the cootplaint had contained no such alltgations, As il5 policy jus,,· fica!icm for the distinction, the court rea".;.ned as folkM's: Thus.lm 1I101ftol •. Mj..",'I-:q,.i~ _., Go.] t~ ".,.s >111u.ally no way for tllo de/n'dlnt to be ""' on not"", by tllooriginllt e<:>mptaintlhat;t might be a pany to that IUlt. In tbe c..e bri<n ,"" '-'....n, ;t it clear tha' drimdant Sou,h Alabama Elc<:lnc C"""II ...-at put on _..,. It t,,"ou~ thaI" !I"aht be liablt 101' rItll~ in the mllntel1ance of tbe right-ol'·

,,"'y."

It is 100 early to tell what the court may ma ke oIt his newfound CCIfICt'm lor a Doe defmdant's pre-bar r>OIice and knowledge. Requi~menl S oi actual n0tice and kflO\liledge similar or identical to t~ loron:linary relation bade may, in time, evoI'·e. This would, 01 course, eff«tively wrilt Doe prac1ice out oIthe rules. since il ""ould eliminate Ihe benefits for which allorr>eyS ha"e been wil ' ling to bear lilt considerable pleadmg burdens imposed by the ]nctice. MOI"'e likely, perhaps, the coun will e\'enIU· ally hold constructive 110Iiccand knowl· tdgesufrltt torelie-.'e illconcern for the Doe defendant , a nd t he required allega· tions oItl\eory in the body 01 the prebar complaint suffice to establish ron· structh'e notiee and knowledge.

2. Tile R c c e n t 001.' Prac t ice

Cases T htS 5OC!ion contains S)'flOIlIi'l'$ 01 the Doe prac1ice ...ses decided since the adoption 01' Rules 15(c) and 9(h). a. /IiNIQ" v. /loIJbi" 1I~1d, 1he statute 01 limitation barMI Hinton', amendment substitutilll! the First State Bank for fictitious party "A," because lI inton had not been ignorant of the nanle, id(:ntity or in"oIvement of the bank when he filed his pre-bar corn' plaint. Embry. Bloodworth. Jones. AI.

mono Shores,lI. b, }Jro",,,jllg t>. Cjly '" Cadsdr,,>1

T he cast is almQSI identical to Moo,.", below, exctpt Browning did not kTlO'W she "did not kooo.' whowas rt'SJIJIlsibie lor the maintenance 01 the stll'el." /leM, "Browning ""as 'ignorant 01 the nanleo( the opposing party' within the

meaning of Rule 9(h) at the time 01 the filing 01 the original complaint because Browning lach-d knowledge of fact s giving rise to a cause Qf action against the City of Gadsden." Browning had originally sued Baptist ~lemorial Hospital and only sought to amend in G~dsden when she learned via ans",'ers to interrogatories Gadsden, not the hospital. W35 responsible for maintaining the dri"cway on which she was injured . It seemed for a while thecourt might ha"eabandor.ed Brou'"ill/{$ broad "involvement" definition 01 "ignorant 01 the name," but it seems, in ColumMo HlRetric, below, to have reaffirmed that definition, Torbert. CJ" Maddox, Jones. Shores. JJ lkally, J.. concurred in the result.

c_ Shirlty v. Getty Oil Q,m/JOnj>' IIrld. Shirley waited too long (16 1/2 months)after learning Smith's identity and in"ol\'ement before she moved to amend him in . Held aloo the scope 01 relation back would not becxpanded to accommodate intervening changes in the substantive law. Shores. J.. Tor· bert, CJ. Maddox,Jones. &atty.JJ.

d. fDu-l1les v. UlNrty /II"luoII1l5U ' ranee Com/JOI'Y'" The first landmark in the F()u'IM·/IIintoll-l'helps lill(' 01 authority. Fowlkes named real and Doe defendants. alleging they were "respon· sible for the manufacture, sale or main· tenance of the e<juipment, fi xtures and premises ""here Fowlkes was em· ployed."l.iberty ~Iutual. however. was not resrxlnsib~ for manufacture. sale or maintenance. but could be held. if at all. only for failing to provide safety inspec!ions and programs. concerning which the p.-e-bar complaint contained no allegations. Thus. when Fowlkes sought to substitute Liberty Mutual for oneof the Does. there was no applicable theory wailing in the pre-bar complaint and the amendment failed . Unless one reads "in the complaint" to mean "in the OOdy Qf the complaint." the opinion does not say precisely where in the complaint the theory must be waiting. It was not necessary to the decision to do so. since neither the OOdy nor the rofJfion of Fowlkes' pre-bar complaint contained the necessary allegations. Per Curiam, Torbert. CJ. Maddox. Faulkner.Jones. Almon, Shores. Embry, 1/. Beatty. J.. did not sit.

e. HlJs,m v. Middlet~II " Eason named Middldon as a defendant in her original complaint, dropped her from the suit and then SOUJ!ht to substitute her for a Poe defen<!ant. field, affirm· ing the mal coort. Middleton could not be amended back in under Poe practice. because Eason had not been ignorantof hcrnamealthe timeshefiled herorigi nal tomplaint.lkaUy.l. Torbert. CJ, Maddox. Shores,JJ.Jones. J .. concurroo in the result.

f. Minton v. Whisenant"

The

second landmark in the Fou'lkes·,\/inlon· I'help.line of authority. Minton alleged theories of liability against her Doe defendants in the ct/fJlion of her pre-bar con,plaint in the course of dcsc;ribing the Does. Thecourt saw no allegations of theories against Does in the OOdyof that complaint. howe"cr, and held her amendments did not rdate back because Ihere wa~ no applicable theory awaiting the belaioo Does in the OOdyQf the pre-bar complaint. Per Curiam: Torbert. CJ, Maddox, Faulkner,Jones. Almon. Shores, Embry. Beally. Adams.

D. g. lV~tdell v. Mineral equipment Comj>imy" As 10 defendant Mineral EquipmentCompany, Waklend~nds from the 1-Du'lkts·Minlon line of au· thority. but it breaks no new ground. Although Walden's pre-bar complaint alleged at least fiYe theories of liability (for each of ""hich she identified al leaSt one known defendant). it did not allege the Iheory (extended manufacturer's liability) under which Mineral Equipment later would ha''e to be held. Thus, there WaS no theory 01 liability waiting in the OOdy of (or anywhere in) the prebar complaint for Mineral Equipment when Walden sought toamend it in.As to the other belated defendants. held Walden had waited too long (34 months) after learning tm:ir identities before she mm'ed to amend them in . Per Cu riam: Torbert. CJ" ~laddox, Jones. Shores. Beally.1/. h. 1'hrrodgill v_ Hinning/l(lIn BOtJrtI 0/ Edurotion '" field, the superintend· ent of the Birmingham Board 01 Educa· tion could not be substituted for a fieti· tiousdefendant after the statuteof lim· itation had run out. because "the iden· tit y Qf defendant Cody Ithe superinten' dent I WaS known to plaint iff in advance

of the statute of limitation~ having run." Thus. ARCP 9(h),s ";gnorant of the name" reQuirement was not satis· fied. This is thedecision that temporar. ily encrooched upon IIrou·nings broad "in,'olvement" definition of "ignorant Qf the name." Note the court did not say Threadgill was not ignorant 01 Cody's identity or involvement at the time sm: filed her pre-bar complaint. Adams. J.. Torbert. CJ. Faulkner. Almon. Embry . i. Homily v. my,., CorporoliOiI" Including Doe defendants delay removal from state court to federal court until it is determined there ~re no real defendants - or no real defendants 01 non-divcrse citizenship - to be substi· tuted. Plaintiffs declaration Qf readi· ness lor trial without having substi· tuted for Does amounts to the requisite determination. and a defendant can. at that time, remove to federal COUrt. Pointer, Hanoxk. Guin, Haltom. Propst. Clemon. Lynne.JJ. j. Kuhlman v. Keith " Kuhlman waited o,'cr two years after she ~arned 01 Hilda Tant's "identity and actions li.e" involvement?]" before she sought to substitute Tant lor fictitious party "X." Held. "appellant's action against Tant is barred by the statute of limita· tions." The court said. "ft makes no difference to the disposition 01 this cas<: whether the appellant tried tOam~nd to add Tant pursuant to the fictitious party rule ... or pursuant to Rules \5(a) and \5(c)." And. indeed. the belatoo amendment might have ~n de· nied under the "when justice so requires" clauseol ARCP 15(a). Kulllman probably should nOi be read as endors· inS an "ignorant of the name" re<ju iremen! 101' ordinary relation back_ Shores, J.. Torbert. CJ .. Maddox.Jones. Beatty.

D. k_ Wuh v. Alabomu Elutric Co·op" Fault y pre-bar description 01 Doe defendant defeated post·bar substitution_Fictitious party 'X ' was des· cribed in tm: pre-bar complaint as lhe owner or controller of the premises on which Weeks was injured. Weeks'post· bar amendmmt described Bums & McDonald (to besubstitutoo for" X')as the "alter ego letc.1" of Alabama Elect· ric. the OWner and control ler of the premises. lIeld. affirming summary judgment for Burns & McDonald. that

Bums & McDonald was not properly subslilutoo for "X:' Torbrrt. CJ_ "All Justices ooncur."

I. Ex JItI.u Smith" In ~ ~. Smilh (the underlying actJOO). tho: ~ dtfeatoo Smlth's motion 10 chaOJ!e vt'Iltle by substituting in 11 noo· Alabama defendant lor fictitious party "H," The suprtfl'ltcoun denied Smith's petition for a writ 01 mandam us aglIinst the t ri~1 coun's dcni~1 of his motion. thus holding in elf,oct the l)re;es' amend· ment cured the assened defect in ',<!nue nunc pro wlIC. l.ike lIumby. aboYe. this case illuSlfate$ the UK of Doe practice for a purpctlle ocher than amelior.ating the effto.:t of a short 51at ute of limlta· tion. Bealty.J., Torbert . CJ .. Maddox. Jones. Almon. Shorts. Embry . Adams. 1/. filulkner. J .• did no! sit. m. UN,,,.rbioE:qi1Wri"(fI.. /nJIo· Iw,",1 ,.~. UN...,,/Ji4 E..giIOlff· itogdesoends from tho: Foodllu·A(ilflo'l lillf' of authorit y but It breaks r>O new ground. Espey', complaint did not e"en meet the Fo~lkts requirement (thtQry w~iting in the complaint). much le-ss the MiMloN requirement (t heory wait· ing in the /Jqdy of the romplainl). First, the only descriplion of Doe defendants appe~rtd in lhes,,,,.mON5. T he pre.bar complaint did not ~n ha~ ~ ctlplio ... Furt~. the descriplions of the Doe ddendantll cootaitll'd no allega· tions ~rding the theon~s)upon "'hich the I.loes mIght be liable. llt1d. revers· ing and rtmanding. Espey's amend· momt subslitut,"g Columbia Electric for ficlitious dc1endatll "No. I" did not I'(!late back. Jones, J.. Torbert. CJ.. Maddox. Almon, Shores, Beatty. Adams. Jj. Faulkllf'l' and Embry, 1/" concurnd specially.

n. I'hd(J<f D. !Wltlh Alabo",,, E:I«t· ricw·op" The third landmark in the Fo",,/tn·MiNlo,,·/'f!tI(J<f line of author· ity is important because it alMliorates the Mi"/o" rtquirnnenl ~n applicabloe theory of tiabilily lit wlIiling for lhe bel.:ttted defendant in lhe body of the pre-bar complaint. tlen>. lhe IMory aglIinSl South Alabama WitS actually al1eged in the ctlptilfff of Phelps' pre.bar complaint in the COUI'$I': of describing fICt itious defendant "No. 13." This "descri pi ion of I hei r "arious f u net ions" was hdd to have beell itlOOrpornted by reference "into the body of the rom·

plamt" by the most general kind of boiLcrpla te allegal ions in lhe body of t he pre-bar romplaint. [ think it defensible to cooclude 1'IIl//Jf triv.a11HS the Mi'l10'1 rtqul~menl . Those who thought the Mi'llo'l Tfquirement a pointless one from the bcginlling will not be sorry 10 sec it rtductd to a mere boilt.-· plate formality. Torbert.CJ.. Maddox. Jones. Almon. Shores. !:Ie;tuy. Adams. ,dissented. Faulkner and

•• ~

0. Moorr~

o. DosI~' Q",.lruclion Landmark case tstabhsh· ing the standard for alleging placeholder names in the body of the romplainl . /ll/d, "the complaint satisfIeS the rule by alleging the Ikfffidants. plural. nfgltgently maintained the SlreetS. etc." Unti] the City 01 BiT' mlngham (the named defendant) supphed lhe informatlOl1 in ils answerlO 10 mt~tories. Mt:IInT" "'as ignorant d the w"tityof the entity responsible for maIntaining the S«1ion of sireet that injured het'. Si""" lheone lheory of liability allSl'rted in Moorer's pre-bar cmnptai 11l (negligent maintenance of a public Street) a pplioo to all defenda11ls. known and unknown. a thtQry of liabil· ity WII waiting fOl' J)oster when it "'as amtnded in. The calie al$(! illustrate-s atteplablf identification of I:Ioe defendants in the rop/io>< oIlhe pre-bar complalnl , "Not knowi,.[whowasresp::trlsible for maIntaining the streetL she properly Included lhem by[IJrwn· ing them flCllliously and [2J~ribi"8 litem &y 1M , . ",OOIt INy ~(}nJUd." lIelti. rt'VerlOing and rtmanding. Moor· er's jXlSt·bar amendment subslituting DotIttr for "X" rela ted back. The decision would also setm to restore Brolt'ning'lliberal " in>-oIvemem" interpt'<!la- ' eo"'/NJni~

tion of the phrase ·'ignorant of the name." S~.J .. Torbert, CJ .. Adams. Jonts. Faulkner . Embry. Maddox. &i\ly.1/. Almon.L did not sit. p, IIIII'I'rl/~. l.tI",,,, Eklric WMJItI"Y" Thed«lsion reinf(ln:n "100__ in bYlIlg 10 rei-! any lingering uncer· tainty regarding the specificity with whICh Doe dtlendants must lit idenli· fi«! in the body of the pre-bar com· plaint.If~/d, rcverlling and remanding. "the use of the phrase 'the defendants' ;Il each pa~raph of plaintiff's com· plaint is sufficiml to ir.cOlpot ate by reference all the n~med defendants and all the fictiliou. defendants dtoscribed in t~ caplion 01 the complaint." Har· veil's prr-bar mmpiaint sllCUSSfully identifi«l.1l theorie!! of liability which were or mtght bfo:tme relevant to the transaction or orxurrence out of which hisdallll a,,-. Thus, a theorydliability wu wailing for Irtland Eleo:tric when it ",as amended in. Until a named defendant $uppli«! the information in his answers to interrogatories. Uar\'ell was ignorant of the general electrical cont ractor' s idt'llily. Faulkner. J" T orbert. CJ, Almon, Shore-s. Adams.

q. lk~~ty D. &riIP This is a tutl!ook application to eally facts. Denney "'IS lruly igooranl 01 the _"" of Dr, smo when she filed her pre-bar romplaint, Even in het' first post·bar amtnded complaint, $~ identified him only as "a certain Cullman County tlm'rgt'ncy doctor ":ho5e na~ ""as IInk!1OYl·n." IIt1d, revft'Singand remand· ing. Denney"amendment substituting Dr. Serio for John Doe related back to t he iii ing of [knney'5 pre- bar rom plai m. "~::"ch of the defendants" was suffi· cient identification of fictitious defend · anti in the body of the romplaim. BecauJoe Denney'. theory of "lIt'gligct'lt and/or wanton failure to di.agnc.se" applied to all defendants. k!1OYl'n and unknown, a lheory of liability ,.-as " 'a;l;ng fot Dr. smo when he was amended in. Almon. J" Torbert. CJ" Faulkner, Em bry. Adams.1/.

r. Iwk u. M,ril Machi""", eo",· JItINy" The tkcilion breaks no new ground. T he Ala bama SUprf:rne Coun I1'\(!I'('ly appl~ the teachings of FOk·I/tn· rIIi nton· f'lttl(J<f {appropria Ie IhtQry must await belated defendant in body of

complamll. ,1/wrd/aTf'f'1/ ("defend· antl' is ~ufficient alleg;nion atl~ace holder nam~'S In bllll,.o( complalnl). ami :;"';0 (belalt"<l ddendalll mU~1 ~how prejudice to ddeat amemlmenl on ground 01 unducdda)' ) to lhe facu before,t and n"a('~ the proper and ~ dlClabie re.ult. IIda. Pedo;'. po!ilbar atnl'ndmcnt ~ubl,li1Ullt1l: Mtril in heu of defendanl "X" rdah."<l back Ullhc dalt at " eek's ]lI"t'bar complainl, whICh (:'Olltattloo su/6cil'fll alicgauonsol placrhoId~ names and a placrhokler 1""'01')'. ... kobiw",n r, (;roru-" The deCI,l(lIt b.-eaks no new ground. Ilere. lhe plattlliffs amendment was doubly doomed under established cnteria. .,.~ ,',as no allegalion of a pI_ holder namt ttl t ..... bod)' of lhe com· plattll. furthmllOfl'. no al'plicabk liltocy awaited Ihe belated defendanl in lhe bod)' of the complaint.

E. TheJ usti licm io n a nd Fut u re of Doe I'mct>ce T~ qUC:SUOO$

desene ~ care-

ful study than tlte)· Citn be gi"~n here and now, but sc"crnl prclimitlary propo!>llions stand out. A~ the Alaooma Supreme Coon !!:IHi ttl Co/MlNbw li'IgI" _ril«. ·1 ...ll;In)' of lheargun'O.'flb made allo 1he proper Int~.,.pretatlon of our fictitious pany prll(uce are addressed to the 'unrcasona()leoess' of lhe OOl~ )'ear stalule of limitations for JlCl'$OIla\ injury negllgl!nct act"'" ....·· In Ih15~ of nmple" 1,1.galton.compounded as II '$ by mtenlionally dlsgu'sed ..,lallOl'l· sh IIlIi and reo. ponsiboh t y• man)' I hou,i;h I· lui persons ,,",II con"n u~ to deem on .... )'car 'latutl'!i of hmil alion ulltl'ahsl;' cally and unfairly shan. Until the 1I>jp>lIollure acts. t ....... htful coons ,,',11 cont onue 10 ameborale I he prrcet"ed .ojlxh· ciousness of shorl blatutes h)' app1)" 1lJl doctnlles of relali(~' hack. M,...t juris· dicltons an' saId 10 make do wilh one "ariet)'; Alabama ha" 1"0. Wh<.~hcr Ih,s procedural pk'flIY ~ uS mort' abundanll) h d~ Ihan ,I C'Unil'S U' ,,"IIh confusion ..,mains an opf'l'l

"'I

qUI"$IKIIl.

,-.ria".. ","0 ,t.. <UfTftII tu6< ''''', ...,..........,.... II>

I, ....."""... f IH·7(1t

A~ tOI ..;

U!fi~',

y:;:;,o;oooWo.I~I,

I~ 11!rt;h

WA LOPI;f\l>t:;,I!ej,. U!I ~ Old 1l""'Aia. IlIKI>. .~'" ~ Old 11Ab. I\II!.I' J.I9 ~ iId Dl '.o\la. Im~ ·-"" .....~,,\I ........ , 1J,"" ... t ..... !fI (Ab, I~'~ B"",·n ,,,,, ,.

3'>9;"":o!d:l6I,o\I> 11f.'ll.I.

".~

l"-.Ht~iId

;jill lAb. 1971!1

I... Co..l'Iot So. 211 iIOOlA\II. 1 _ ~Sto>. '-II traotl ,.

I· ... '" ,;, ..... ~13 f2d lGI (9t~ tor. 1\tP' .. I .... if w"""",, M, ..... I I;"u,_, lb-. 100 k>. lid 311.1 ,Ala. I!JIII~ t·...... Ik .. ,. I.'t,o-n, .I1u' In" t,,-, m Soo.to 0(1:,

("b, 19I1ll -",,"Ioo,~" ..............' .. f,t..d .... ...... , ........... <1 b_ ..............""J.l'I "'- 211 N!AIa. 19Ti', '':I~ Nt~ tl:J)f.RI<I. f'II/oCTlCE 1:;'1911198.1> "W1 s., :Id 1:1':1 'Alo. 1!t!I, , .Itt So. :Id \111 ,Ab. !9!!I< "(:ofumboo 1: _ _ "" In,'" bl")·, 12')!io>.:o!d ~1(~I""'.I!ltnJ.

'.s.."-II Il<ftoq' ;;.no.~16""-loII1IAb

I~<M<...... ' 1J....... ~.l"-.UZSo.OId !fi ,Ala, 1')81, I'Ioois>o ,. !;ou,h ","100""" t:1K ~""P- 0.1 :<0. <M :n.t lAb. 1\l1l:I, lotumbio t: tnt' I ,. I;,,,.~'. ~:I':I "'- :Id oc.:; (Ab,

">I'''''''''fIlI

W.1o:Itn o. M,..",l !4",pmrn< Co. • .1Q6 So. :b;I 31\:, lAb. I!I!!I t ,\10", ... , In" ......... Ill! s.. 2101911 ,~ l')8t' ·1Jrmn.y ' .............. s..loII ; ,Ab 1!1t1-1J. ")1"""" , 1I... ,... t""", t .... Ill"" :!d91v\Io. 191!J~

,~,

" \\'.IOC>o, M""-,,.. I ~~",lIfI\O-'nl l". 100 So. lid :l>G (Ab 19!!1, 1-",,·1'" ,. I.,t;.,ny Mo, 10...

C".l':fl "" :b;I;tOO lAb. 19I'l)l w.......·.AIabo... F.IK.l_~19S<>. ,.~

l'llrll l...... ncI F.Itc.Co.. "' '>O.tol!:.2tAta. 19i>lr.."""-' ""..... C... " to-.4USu.:o!d !fIIAta. 1{o!:1, "PIodI'"" S<>\I,h Mollo"" 1:1n:. t - . l l l Su.to 23-1IAta. 'Y!'J< Mon',.., ,. WIn ..... n'. lUI Soo. :o!d 911 tAb. I\IIIH

",,,,,,1,.

s.m,

~:et~2dI!WWo.I!ltlh

l",' 01 (,.0,01<"'. 's.-..'.j/.. \I'oIcIrn <.•'''.....1[quo_' Co..~ So. iId Jl61A\11. 1')81t r ... l.... ,. l.ibtnr MuL :~"-'- ~I

l2')'>O.lId

,~.. 1..... ....,., 116 So. loll 1 'Ab. 1\It!-l ~ M........ ,. 11ooo"~ l·""" . C.... 11</ .... :b;I 91 ~U•. 1!Mj;J, 8...,.. n,"II' (lly '" ~,

.......

'll , ,\I.,. j;!, 100 So,

'!;n-.'-II <!d 13111

"''''-'.:..0_1",', t:."",

• hi II !lI6. ~"'l""",bo> I:"C'.......... I... , , 1:,1")'. 1:1':1 s...:/.II !G'i lAb. I~~ M,n'.., v Wh,,.,,,,n', «12 !o.:o. <M 911 IAlo. 19t! II '1'btIpo,. !;OU, h A........ t:1tc. , _ 4:U So. <!d 23-11Ab. I~' , ll') Soo. 2d !kM. \6Il Wo. 1983) "-"""'~1. , ..

_1,·canctuoIr,,,,,, ,""'''''-........ ,,, 011 d<I..-od>n, .. 0IId ,"""'" d,...... ,"'-' ..... p-

,.." oIf"","..... lIOn,' So. I ,.. hd ___ «<I in ,to.- .um"""'..... "'" I lor """'pla'n'.. ""1 100 >io.l1I :I,l";jA", 1')8l).

"'JiiJ >io.:o!d I:II!I! (Ala. 19i'91. 116 ""- 2101 l1Ab. 19!!-I ''-Ul Soo.1ld 13I 'Ab. 1\l1l:I, hi... U; ··:1·19 .... <M:II! (Alo. Iyn,, :1:/.1 •.,., loII:lG1 lAb. 1m,

-:£1 ",,-:Id IJI!II IAb. 1919). ~.N,/ .... :o!d iWWo. 1 _ ~J9tI So. <!d Zl:i(l\1a. 1\1\1\ IU,I So.:b;I 911 lAta, 1')81). 0·101; .... 201 JI{; lAta. 1!JIIl). • 107!o.:o. <!d 1:1':1 IAIo. 1!IIIl). '-:HI r Soopp. 1761).' I) Ala. 19trl). tOO So. loll IlOl tAb. t9!fl, , 119 So. Old tJ8IIAIa. IlIIt2). , 1ZI .... :!d SIHAb. IWI, .C/ll ""-:/.II 1(" (Ab 1!Mj;J). "-lJ 1 ",-loII:/:>1 (Ata, IYI'J~ -~,~ So.:o!d !fI ,Ab. 1!IIn,

1« $o.lld IG! IA\II. 19111). . 116 So. Zdl"IAb. 19S11 I.j6 Soo. 1.d 1086IAb, I~l. '1:.6 Soo. 1.d l"ID lAta. I')8" Ii!! Soo. U \63, 9.:I.I(Alo, I~).

"romr A. lIo1fmall U " ,ro/nsoT 01 ID~' al Ih~ L"llit'('O'Sily qf A/aM"''' Sc/wol of 14,.,. /If Joold< B.A. an,1 J./l. drl!ffl'$ fro'" Ihr UQ;,'('O'S;ly of ,,",. bros"" ,,,,,I ;s a ",,,,!Ix, of Ihe IlIaoom" allil Cali·

fornia 11(llt bar "ss«i(lI;QI'"

FOOTNon ;s

......

Nruod,.. ,,, ,t.. Tow. d t.,.......,,~ , - . ~ lUllf. ot' ,,1.AtLHlA Dl tlm~ ,ult 1, _"'" lJo) .. ~, .... ao.....t ... ~ '0 ..... ""

...... tu6<

-n., ~"I.-~I,' '''It "'" 0\1 • . ,w,.U-IJ. t.I6O.

f'u "- Act ,-.;". 1:11 I. !U1i

'1'1". Act u, "'" """,,<I

~cent

GOecisions

by Joh" M. Milling. J~. lind Dnvid n. IJy rn..,. Jr.

Recent Decis io ns of the Alabama Cou rt of Criminal Appeals h liliropc r impc llchme n t . . .

lirior con victions NfJllry~. $lQlt.

6th Diy. 443(January

8, 1985). Neary was indicted and ron· victtd under a three<ollnl indictment charging trafficking in marijuana and

cocaine in violation of

Alabama

ControlLed Sublillr'lCtS Law. Theoourt 01 criminal appeals reversed the con· viC'lIons bKause tile lrial jud~~ ously charged lhe judgt Stary had a

prior conviction for a crim( involving morallUrp;lUde. AIITia1. on croas·tUminalion by 11'1(, pr()$t!C\Jlion. the defendant Itsliflfd. .... ilhoulobi«tion.ln 1976inN~"" York he pled guilty 10 a misdemeanor for poII~ion of marijuana and was sent· enced 10 three years' probation and received a 53.000 filii':. During the lrial cOtm's onl cllarge, thejudgle charged the jury they could consider the con· viction in tile s tale of New York for

poIisession of marijuana as being a crime involving moral turpitude and could be ronsidertd by lhoe jury as go. '11/110 \..., cr~bi1iIY of the witness. Presiding judgll 6ow~ ~Id: "In CfOIII..,nm,n,n~.

"'''nest lor

lhe purpO$C 01 ;mpoaching him by ahawing lilt commission 01. crime invohoina l'IW)l"al Lurpilud • . care JO as no! 10 ill' l houkl boo d ....... noff..,.., lhaldots 1'<11 ;lIvd.-e morallurpol ....... •• Kt.""", p. Ss.I~. 37 ] S<>.2d46(.468(A1I.Cr.Aw. ]91'9)

.,,,.reiwd

The misdemeanor and felonyo/fenses of ~ion of marijuana are not crimts im'Olving moral turpitOOt. ~ Ex /'tITU M"~losJr. 443 50.2<1 1283 (AIa. 1983). Conseql.U!nlly. IIle det'mdall1 should not have bten cross-4'~amined about his prior convicl ions for po$ses·

sjon 01 marijuana. and the jury should

N:e

00l ~ inslT'ucttd such oxwic:tions invoh'ed moral turpitude and af· fected the defendant's credibility.

Act (ADEAj. 29 U.s.C. §621, d 11'/1•• in tWO " 'ays: first. by rtducing them to

""""e

T h.., 1980 ve hi culnr homicid e stalll tC hdd unconsti tutional II'lIi,ky~. S"'I~. 3rt! Diy. 25(January 8. 1985). Whirley was indicted foc

murder pursuant to § 13A'&2(aX2). AI". Codt 1975, in Ihat he recklessly engaged in condUCt which manifested exlreme indiffermce to human lifeand created a grave risk of death to a per· son . . • and did. thereby, cause tile death of Charles Lockett and Michael Lockeu. On appeal. Whirley claimed the yehieular homicide s tatute under which he "'as OOTlvicted "'as unconsti· tutional . In declaring the statute unconSlitu · tionalthe court noted Alabama courts have long held a statute establishing an offense. punishablt both a s a felony aoo .II a misdemeanor. is unconstitu· tional. M, /)arid v. 514lt. 43950.2<1 750. 751 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). The "ehicular homicide s tatule. in effecl allhf: time of the collision. in this case. constitu· tionally is infinn becallse it provided both fdon y and misdemeanor punish· ments for the named offense. IThe sta· § tUle has since been ameooed. 32·5A· I92. Alo. COOt 1975.1

s.e

Recent Decis io ns of the S up rcme Court of

Alaba ma-Ci\lil

Ag.., discrimination ... e lemc nt s of primu facie e nsc stated &.1'J'OI(gIts~. Tht Crtrli AIIo"lic ,,1Ul

c....

PluifIC TtrI lite.• 19 ABR 534 (Deamber 28. 19I!4j. The plaintiffs filed suit oomplaining that A & I'discrim i· nated ~gain st Ihem in violation of the

Discrimination in Emplo)'lllCfIt

part 'Iime Sl atu s due to their age; and second. by discharging them because Ihey filed ADF..A aClions. In «der to prnt'I'Ve an ADEA action. a plaintiff mUSI file ooministrati,'e chargeS wilh the EEOC within 180 days after tile alleged unlawful practice. The plain' tiffs. howcyer. waited more than 200 days after i,,;lilIlly being reduced 10 pan·time status. Consequently. the threshold issue is whether adminis · trath'e chargeS were timely filfd. The plaintiffs conttnded. aoo the supreme rou rl agreed the redllction to part·time s tatus constit uted a continuing yiola· tion foc purpc:eesof tolling the ItKklay period. Thecoun fI(lIed Title VII cases ha"e been recognized as precedenl foc A])F.A ca5C.'!! . and Tilil' VII eXpre$Sly recogni2e5 the concept of a COnt inuing yiolalion. The weekly assignmml of varying hours cons li\\IIed continuous maintenana oIalle:eedly illrgal pract i· ces extending lhe 18O-<Iay period . Considering thf: merits. theoourl set out the elemenls 01 proof necessary 10 make oot a prima facie casto

" Facts sulfoatll! for a rellsonabi.10 Inl~ lhal discriminal>On h.. oocurml (cili lOOll omilll!d~ Such an inference ...... rally II HIIbh. """ II)' pnwing th.1 the plainliff (I ) beLongt to IIlt .Ial II lonly protKtl!d ..,. FOIl IT. (2) ,,'u quahlitd lor the job; (3) .. at JUry

di$C~ ; a"" (4) " ·M...,pboeoI

porsM

0111 ..... lhe

protecIl!d

11)'.

III"

,.-oup."

Ona a prima facie case hu been eStablished. the l>urden of producing eyidence s hift s to the employer who mllst s how the emp!oyff'S reason for discharge is !tgit;mate and non..!;!' criminatory. If the emplo;>yer meets his l>urden. t~n theempioyee must show Ihe reason for discharge is merely pre·

•

te~tual. Therourt foundA& Pdid nOl discnmmate agamst tile plaintiffs o;m

the basis 01 age because A & P elim,· nated all full' lIIl"le check .... position!! in order to ,ncreaset"lTIciency and red~ <:O$t $. The court. hIwo·e~er. did find then: ...·as e\',deroce the plaintiffs "'ere fired ,Ilegally 8'roce the plaintiffs "'ere the only rmplO)'f('S fired foo- violating a Slated A & P rule. Ikspite the fact many cmployees violated the same rule and .... ert nQI fired. Civ il IJrocc durc . . . ru le 23 AnCp. rcs judicata

effec t cons ide red Taylor~.

I.ilNrly Naliolllli

Li/~

10...

(4.. 19ABR 116 (Novembrr21.19S4~

[n this case:, lhe SUprt'f1le court deler· mined the ~iudlC3ta rift!C1 01 ajudg· IlM'Ilt mtered in a ftderal class action on a subsequmt stateOOUl1 action ~ tween "members" oIlhe federal class action by oonsidtring whether lhe "noIice ,. required by the federal court oomplied with duc~. The pla;n· tiffs in this action wert' policyholders of Liberty National Life ins uraf'lCl) Company. They contended they were denied due process in the federal class action case because they had no notice of the clan action and were noI af· forded an opportl,mity to be heard. The federal class action wasCfflified under Rule 23(bX21 which does noI rt'quill' "notice:' The plaintiffs thus had re~\"ed I1I'Ither actual nor COrlstructi"e nola of the federal dass action. T he f<.'de"d courl, hov.·e~er. upressly de-termined the "best practical nolice" had been g"·en. and tl-.e requiremmu of due process were satisfied. In considerillj! the issue. the supreme court held the fedcral case should ha,·c been certified u a Rule 23(b) (3) class which is the only claSli where nOlice is mandatory. Rule 23(b) (3) suits invol.-e tile adjudicatlOl1 01 property rights and the reid requested i. I""edominaleiy ~Iary . The coun also considered the type or ROI~ which salisfleS due pr"I)Ct:$S In a Rulf: 23(b) (3) suit. The plaintiff. argued they " ..~mtitled to aclu~lnoIice. T llecoul1 heklthe plain· \lffs w~ C1ltitied to at least construc· t, ve nOt ice by pu blica t ion. According to the court. routi,...., ntwSp;ilper and leJe. "ision "media C(lverage" doe!!. nol con· slitute C(lnstructi\"c nOlice. Construe·

•

I"'CnOlICt .equ'~ some sort of formal attempt of nOtIa ,n ortIer to Ita"e the "best notICe practical under therirwm· s tances. H

Ci\'ilil roccd ure. , . \\"a i,'c d affirnl:l ti"e defe nse lIm y 1101 be r e \, h ' c d in s ummlt r)" judgment memorandum lI"alla", ~. AI"bo",,, AS$odalio~ of CklS$ificd School EmpJayus. 19 ABR 160 (No"~mbcr 30. 1984). In thi~ casc. thc supreme court held a defendant may nQI raise the statutc of limitalions defensc in his motion for summary judgment when he previously has filed an answer without pleading the defCllsc. T he coon noled since the sta· tute or hm;tallons def~n~ is an affir· math'e defl'!l!il' ... hich IS wai"ed if nol pled. the defendant cannot re"j"e t hat affirmall\'c dt:fmse ,n his mo(ion for summary j1l!lgrMnt. Of coo,.".;:, if a defC1ldant R1O,'es for a summary judg· ment befor~ hc files an answ ..... the C(>Im nlay I"«'OIiInlZfc thc affirmative defense argued in sUPl'O'"t of the motion for summary judgment.

Ins urance, .. un ins ured mOloris t co\'era~e inures to th e IlCrson, not to a ve hicle

Co. F. }«bq". 19 ABR 413 (Oeoember ZI. SI(l~

Flu,.. MOIIOIa/ AOIlo

{IU.

1984). In the cer\,fo!:d qut:Stion from the t:1e>-enth Cirw;t Coon of Appeals. the supreme court " 'as asked 10 de-term ....e ...·hether UM roverageexisted as to Kennel h I,·ey. a p;ilssenger in an uninsured vehicle owned by a relati"e member of the same househGld. State Farm had issued !ie,'(n automobile lia· bility policies. Kenneth h'ey was th~

named Ins ured In only lour or lhe poIi· cies. II,s mo(her was lhe named in· s um! in the other three policies and the court had to determine whether Siale Fa.", A"lu ...ohi/e '''SOlr(l~U (4 ...""", r. Nt"(l'~. 292 Ala. ZIS. 292 So.2d 95 (197:;). ex tended OO\'crage t 0 a passenger in an uninsured vehicle. The COUrt answered the question m the affinnat,,·e. The COlIn noted unin.un'li motorist co"crage inures to a pe=1I. not 10 a '·chiclc. The co"eragc is not dependent on Ihe insured pcrson'$ beillj! injun'li in connection with a vehiclf: which is co"e-red by t Ile liability insurer against whom ll'COVCI)" is iOUght. While tM pc1"S011 s«klllg CO\'erage must ha"e some liabibty (O"I'~. he n.eed nol ha"e liability OO\.~ for all PUrpose:!!. Consequently, 1\ is noI necessary to find tM automoblf: in which Kenneth h'ey was p;ilSSoI'I1#' "'as OO\'ered by Ii· abolit y pnr.-isionl 01 all se-'en poIicie$ in order for h-ey to have been OO\'ered under the uninsured motorist provi . sions. Ve nu e. , . a tmtiolllli b link d o m ic i[l'd in A llt\)ltmll is not l\ forl'ign c orporl1t io n lor ven u c

Ex (ItIrlt: Firsl Aloba"", Bad

MOIf/go""ry ({" Nt: &rrJay (lfltnul·

Fin! A"'ba"", &d of [9 ARR 349 (December ZI, 198-1 ). In a case of first ,mpression 'n Alabama. the supremecourt held a bank orjj:ani~ed under Ihe national banking law$ "'Ilh i!s prineip;ill place of business in Alabama is a domestic corporation for the purpose of deter· minins venue. Thecourt noted thereis no statutory dojinition of "domeslic" /i01lal. 1M.

Mo"i80~'7).

CO~lfrs IIff.

sigmjjca1l1 <"tU1I1 dl'Cisions.

or "foreign" ~pcntir,nfo' Ihl PII~ of .,.NIII. MOI'f(I'o·er. the 1975 Alabama COik provides in onecontext a niuional bank is a fort'lgn corporation and in ano!hercontnl II is no! a forcign cor· pontion. Conlleq...en!ly. the COO" ex· am;~ lhe Alabama law prior 10 the adopI1Ot1 of Ihe 1975 code and deter' mined it was the ~ltled ",Ie that a "corporation c~aled by Congress in the exerc;1!t of no powers as the legis· lalU rt for lhe Uniled Slatt"S ... is no! to be reg;.rdcd a. a foreign corporation . bul as a doml'Slic corporation. in any slate in which it may do business ... " Therefore. a nalional bank with its p"lIlcipal ~of buslIless in Alabama is no! a forelJln cotpotalion for JlUT' poses of venue and the appropriate venue '$ d~ermined by §6-3-7. Ahr.

Call 1975.

COU ... cI,Maca>SlOI;on IS a pr<'TeQui.II~ 10 fuNdic"on 01 ,he oIf~. IrTeKUlanl .... In abu,n,,'11 Junsd,,;n...., 01 Itt. ,......., may be ..... ,~td. bul a formal K\'UUloon by ,ndW:"''ItIIl. 0.• ul hon.otod inr-t oon. 0.- rompia,nl MlpponN by oll1h. is tss...uiaj 10 complol. fuNd...,oon and connot be ,,-,;"N .~

The court T1'3soned lunher that: "WIo<'f\ ttt. ,nlilal affid"-Il in • n"~'I!ltll1lOT eli<: 1f noI T1>«<ly iT' '''kular. but VOId. II WIll not , uppOr!

lhe lil,,'lf cI a sullic;'n l informalion or oompiatnl by lloedlStric1 IllorTlt'}' lor. Inal d, ""''''In Circuil COLIn."

Se n lence c llnnOl be increased after IIPI)Cal

p>W'SSion 011 hree dillerenl cont rof led subsl 3llCH. lie ""as convicted and senlenced 10 serve Ihn>e conseculive len.year term$ of Imprisonment. one lerm for each particular posstSSKln . Thereaflrr. lhe defendanl filed a peti· lion lor ""fil of habe3s corpus with lhe ElmoreCounl y Circuli Court. Relying on I'"",I~. 5/u/f. 426 So.:td 863 (Ala. Cr.App. 1980). Tict: argued his >en. lrnce wa s iml"'lIPI"T. Thecourt in V(jj(I'I. SIIpra. held mul· liple senlCTl«S cannot be based on pos. session of stvcral Iypes 01 controf led s ubslances. where lhe l>JSsession oc· cursat lhesa~ lime and in lhesame place. T he Circuil Court 01 Elmore Counly gnnled lhe petition and I'e'mandftllhecase 10 IheCircu;t COUrt cI Monlgomery Counly lor proper sen· lencill.ll. Tiot was senlenced 10 a lerm

Recc llt Decisio n s of t he

SUIJrCIIlC Court of

A Iil bitt11 :t-Cri III i nal Policc officcr's t"wcrificd t ickct doc s not vest juris diction in t he distr ic t

court f j port' /)iWH III. 19 AB R 87 (November 16. I~). In an opinion. ",·ilh fa r ·r~hlllJll m plot ions. I he supreme court held an uns",'orn OUilicket and complaInt by a police ofrocer does not ,·est junsdlCl1Ot1 In either the dislnct or Circuli COOrt. Di5O!l was I ned for OUi before the diw>CI coort of Jefferson County. Ala· bama. T he tickel was signed bj' the oIficer. bul il !)e"er had been ,·trifled under oath bcfo~ the district or mu· nicipa l court. nor had a I!tparale war· 'llnl bt:-en issued by a judge. magistrale or warranl clerk. Alter conviclion in Ihe dislnct court. Dison appealed 10 the circuil rourl where lhe districl a t· lornt'Y filed a sep;ll11lccomplaim. Dison lnO\'ed 10d.sm lS$ for wanl of jurisdic·

1£llll creative

-,.

leasing

' . +t ....

""'" "'"""

25HI1J7

,~.

The supreme court. throughJustiot Ileany.locu!ied lhe issue as follo",s: -Junol(h,cliort cllM clf~ and cI Itt. prHOI'I mUSI OOO>l!1>r 10aulbori~ a coun 01 compelefll jurisdiction 10 prt>COoed 10 tinal jlld"me-nt in a cnmi· n.1 prOSKUliQn. Thi. to ttt. ond.• formal KC\I>IIliort .ulric;'nl 10 • .,. prise lhe~f.IId'"1 0I1tt. n.lure and

•

0115 ~rs' impri!lOl1r1l('tlt. and the Ala· bama Court of Cnminal Appeals af·

firm.-d. The supreme murt !"e\-~rsed and n:manded. Justice Adams. writing for the court. relioo on the language in Rict r. Sim/>Slm. 274 F.Supp. I 16(M.ll. AI.o. 1967):

"In Alaha ..... ,I\tn ean be 110 In· _Iton ,n ~ cnml",,1 co.., afl ... I"" ..,nl~nce i. ,mp<llSfd. Thi. i. a prol~IOfI lhal ISIC"''"'' to all convicted criminal1 in thi. slat~. Todeny such proltctlOl1lo00nvictod (Tlm .....I. who~ltcl 'o~ • ..m.., llItir pJO,-wnvictiOll ""m.,Ii.sand whodo 10 ,,,,,,,,,,,",ully is unla .. dIKnm,,,,,I_and does IIOlb,rcnapt ........, to 01 po&l-oon,·ictiOll proCfe<\'n&$ In I"" Aillbama Sla'."""n. by pr,~. h d~n"" ,he pro..,.,... lhe proltc1ion of hi. original sen· lence as a condiliOllto right 01 Iwralina: h.. conviction. or e~. 'na: hIS poit-wn,ictlOfl n!mi'd;.... ..

caa.., In ~

10m"."" u'"

I""

Applying tM rta!lOl1ing of RUt. the muimum sentmce Ticemuld root1l·t ""U 10 years. The lrial court was bound al the reselllencing hearing to il8 initial determination 10 years' im · prisonment was the appropriate pun· ishment foc lhe crilTM'. To hold other· ...·ise. and allow a harsher sentefa 10 tit impo&edagainsl Ticewilhoul some justificalion in lhe rtoord roc the 'ncrease. would bt a violation oilhe pet i· tioner's rights under the Equal Protec· tion Clause of the Fourte<.!nth Amend· ITM'nl 10 1110. Constitution of the Unitoo Slates.

" ' itness fifth !Ulle ndmc nt pri vilege .. . nece ssit y of a n offer of proof Ex paTte Nn •.,.. 19 ABI'! 266 ([)e. cember 7.1964). RetvelI was indictoo foc the shooting murdtr 01 Mdvin "rice. At trial. the jury found tM defendam guillY of criminally neglJaent hom~ the coun 01 criminal appeal s

affirm.-d . At trial, the defendant allempt<'<lto call Ernest Tn:hern as a witrteSll. Trtllo.m wa$ preSent at the scene of lhe sltootingand aiM) had Iwn indlCtoo on chaTX'!'i arising from that 5h00ting. Upon the adv,ce of his allomey. TTl'" hern mformed tllo. tnal mun. outsKlt Ihe presence of the jury. he wish<'<l to invoke his privilege not tOlestify. under

the Fifth Amtndment 10 the Unittd SUtes ConSlilullOrl . t'oI .......·;ng a brief ,nquiry by lhe lrial judge. 1M .... it.-s· request not to lelIlify was granted. even though he had not been askoo a single QUelltion by the defendant. T hcde/cndant argued this was trTOC. and the rourt of crimmal appeals cor· rectly held Trthcrn should have been r<:qmn:d to lake the $tand in the pres. mce of the jury and invoke his pOvi· lege in response to any Question askoo by the defendant which would have elie'tL'Il incriminating cv~ if an· . ""froo. H......'evrr. after rorrtctly SIal· ong the law. the court of crimil13l apo pnls held lhe ~fendanl did not suffi· citntly prest ....., the error for rt"o·itw. In reversing. Justice Shores criti· cally noted: "h is apparent from til<: record ,hat t h.defcndant" I oou.-l dod """'Y' th"'1I: JlO"$iblc to pou..-w """Of. 1~cJ.ar1y~~ tOIh. tnaljud.&<"·' rul '''II and da,,""" t he nebl to put on ~~ lo""t~bll$h tUt T ............ ·• t.. timany "'ould have Iftn mat ...... l

I""

tothedef~n..,."

JuSt'et: Shorts ....ent on to note the court of criminal appeals' relianct upon GIt;~ D. SlIl/~. 425 So.2d500(Ala.Crim. App. 1982)....·as mispiacm. G,.,;~ cor· ~Jy states the la .... concerning the nec:nsily a n offer of proof bt made 10 show Ihe expecttd t\'Sumon)' of a wil' ness would nOi be incriminating in order 10 predicate error upon a tr'al court's rtfusallocompclltJt witness 10 testify. In this case. ho\I.·t:\·er. the defendanl ma~ tvtfY allempt to make such an offer of proal. but repeatedly ....as CUt off by lhe trial judge.

Fnilure to I,rovide IIn"/)' mal erial

Ex "11Th Kimlxrl,. 19 ABR 247 (Iltcember 7 .1984~ Kimberly ...·as indicted f«fi«Ond ~ robbt-ry. Thernfter. he filed a pretrial motion fordiscovery. prtduction and ;Mpection requesting. ill/u alia: "any and all evidence tend· ing 10 exculpate Ihis defendant." Subsequent lothe \rial courl'sorder g",nting thed,so:wery. bul prior 10 the day of trial. Lt. Roy 01 lhe Mobile Polooe [),jopartl1'\ent inlervie .... oo Kimberly's co-defendant. Sandra Whatley. who was incarcerat('d in Tennessee. AI·

thou.llh Whalle)' p"e stveral connict· 'IlK statements. She,ndicaled K,mberly had not been on tht Mobile area al the

time Ihe robbery occurred. This onformation was passed along to Ihe Mobile County Dist rict Allorney's Offkr. The assist~nt district al\orney 'n chargt' of the pros«utlOl1 of Kimberly's case. even thouah 3,,'an of the t rial coo rt .5 0I"d« concerni ng excu Ipa. tory evidence. did nOi furnish Ihe onformatiQfl to Kimberly'$ defense colin· ~I.

After defense couns('\ learnoo of the exculpalory evidence. he immediately mQ\'~ for new trl<ll on the bas," 01 Urad, P. Maryland. 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The trial court ~Id an e"identUlry heaTIng at whICh tune l.t. Roy 1",,1 ,fioo u towhat Wh atley had told him. Add,· tionally. the district allomey teslifil<d prior 10 trial he knew 01 Whalley'S sl~tement. but "mistaktnl{' failoo to dtsc~ tllm! on compl13oct ...·ith the

coon ·UlTdet". JUSI~ Maddox. speak, ng for a un· alllmous supreme court. re"e~ and remandoo the case, Relying upon /-;x /l6TI~ 1I'1I1,oin5. 450 So.2d 16,J at 16-1 (Ala. 1984). lhe court held tllo. SUpprCli' sion b)' lhe proseeullOll of C"ic!eoct fa· "onbit' toan a«used upon request ,'jo. latesdue process .... here tMC"idence IS material tithe!" to guIlt or to punish· men!. irrespective of 1110. good faith or b.1d faith 01 the prosecution. I'!egardless 01 itf !"(:liability. there can be I>Odoubt the evidence pro"oded by Whal!ty. if he\oe\'oo b)' 1M jury. could ha"c had an effect on I hl' trial 11)' exculp;'I\ing Kimberly.

of the Supreme Court of the U nit ed Slates

R ecent Decis io ns

Defendant mus t tes tify in order to l)rese rve llllllC llate iss ue I./ia ... Uniled Sio/"". No. 8:1·912 (0..ct'mber 10. 1984). Luce was indktcd and t ned in federal court forconspirlloC)' to violate 1M drug la ...·1 and posses5lO11 01 ooca",e ...·ith intent 10 distribute. During the lrial.l.uct mQ\'oo in limilf(' to pm:lude the JIO"ernment from introducing a 1974 state conviclion in the f"ent that he should take lhe sland.

During the ill fendant madt

limi,~

hearing, the deno prnIfer ()Ir rommit· mentto t ~hfy in t~I'\'ent his I00I;00 ,,~to be granlfd. T~ dislncl court ~Id I~ pOorODll' "iclion might ()Ir mlghl 001 be permi,.,.. iblc Iml'CaChment depend1l'i UJIO'lthe !ICOpe of t~ defendant'~ tl':Stimooy 0( 1n..1. S1IICC t ~ ddendant did 001 take the s tand In hts own dcftnS<'. the trial court flC\'!'T addrcucd whether Lucc's prior COfwietKln could be u$ed . The SUI~me COUrt gramed certiQto resoh'c t he ron lliet betw~n the circuits 00 the issue. T he court held:

ran

"I(oqmnng that.drf.ndantt .. tilj· Inordrr to~ Rulr~claims ..·ill ....bIr tl'lr ~';""''''''II Cour! to dcIC'm1ine tl'lr inlPk"l d any trTUntOUl 1mpracll_ In ,he I,.... d ,he rr<XII1I as a ..'holt. M

As an

CllIng Kalz

U"ilcd Sial... 389 U.S.

3:>7 (l96n The court held searches conducted oulslde t~ judicial process. without prior lIppn:Nal by a judge or magistntte are Jttr se unl"l'"OlSOllabie under the Founh Amendment - .... 1>jKt only to a fl'\O' specifocally fSlabhshed and ..'ell-del,,~ated exeeptions. The coon I'1'lIsoned there was ample time for t~ shenffs in"fStigators to obtain a search wa1T3nt and certainly ample information to constit ut e proba· ble cause, The court I'1'jected any purported "murder !ICeII(' exCl:plion" based Ul"" the Louisiana Supreme Coun's r~ing at Minuy P. ArilOlt/1, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), The COUrt OOIed Mi"",, stood For the pt'QpOIiI,tion pola may make warranlless mtnl'S " ' here tiw.'y rei· sonably belie,~ a penon within is in

need of immediate aid. T he court. in this case. held t~ petiliootr's attempt 10 ~ve medical aumtion did 001 const\lutellW)iver nordid II ODIlstitute CllI"I!ie1It wuhln the meamll£ at Mi"",,.

LAW .LABOR . . . . t-.._ . . . . . _, ,........... .

__ .. . __ U·tI, I HI

........ '"

' ....,.

... " ............. NlR .... ""'VI~ ...

~.~..:..-:,= :~ ,

~!;~~

as~. t~

court OOIed this Tl' would al$O tend todlS/XlUr· age making l uch motions solely to "planl" w,'trStbie error in the case 0( conviclion, qui~m

Warnmtless m urd e r scene se;,rch held me gul Th(Jm~>I v. l.olllsil111I1, No. 8J..6ns (NO\'embcr 28, 1984). l.ooisiana sher· iff's deputttS were called to a house by the daughter 01 t ~ petitioner, "'ho apo J)IIl'1'nt ly had killed her husband and then allernpted to oommil suicide by takIng si«plll8 pills. S~ had a change d Mart and called her daughter who summoned t~ poIa. Inilially, the p0lice found lhe body d her husband and the pttlllQlltr; they made a cursory search dlhe PI'1'mises. The body wa s taken to the morgue and the petitioner to the hOSpital. Approximately 45 minutes later, two investigaton from the s heriffs office conducted a thorou,gh SC'~rch d the prem ises where they found the murder "'>:apotl , a suicide OOIt and another nott which was incriminating. T~ origInal dfiar. had !tit the!lCeTl"'!ItCUI'1'. T~ Sherifrl in"fStigatOl"S proCftdM WIthout II "'~1T3n1. without 0DIl5ellt. under ~~ XU''Il' d a "mu rder

soeneexCl:pllon" based upon MillCt7~. Ari........ 437 U,S. 3a5(1978). On appeal. the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled all of the e"idence sci~ed 3t the scene .... asadmissible. The Supre= Court of the Unit ed Slates reversed,

Intensive Programs in

TRIAL ADVOCACY SEVENTH ANNUAL SOUTHERN REGIONAL June

ELEVENTH ANNUAL SOUTHEAST REGIONAL

12-22, 1985

May9·19,19 85

SoutMm Methodill Uniwrsily

Uniwrsily of North Carolina

School 01 UW 0.11., Texas

Chapel Hill. NOI1h Carolina

School oIuw

"TheM intensiw programs are dnignrd for altol'M)'$ with 1_ than fiw yurs 01 experience_ n... NITA ..... thod 01 turni", trial advocacy incorporate< tum tnchi"" vi~ tl!Chnology, faculty Ikmonotration. and lIutienl participation, For an informational brochun. .OO SOUTHERN REC10NAL Prof.....,r Fr~derick Mo.. Program Oi""'lor SoUlhrm M~thodi" Uniwrsity School 01 Law Oallu. TX 7.5275 (2U)692·27~ 2

ill

.pplkation. CQnlOct:

SOUTHEAST RECIONAL Prof.....,r I_ph Kalo Program Oi"",IO' Un,,,,, ... ity 01 North Carolina School of Law Chapel Hill. NC 215 14 (919)962.8.511

NITA"

Opinions of the General Counsel Willian. II. MOI'TOw . Jr.

Disciplinary Jl:ule 1· 1000A) (l) and (2) provides:

QUESTION: "MI,)' un UII OnlC ), et hical ly ma il ICHers u,",~r Ih" auurne)" ~ " i,l/.rUllure 10 a lleged dc blor~ " I .. client d"",oml;"11 I'''y",,,,m withou t h a"i n g in \"est ij/l. \cd t he n,aller lind ,,-ilhou( having made II good faill! profC5~jonat judg,., enl l hal l he d emand is t ..... . val id and ~u lt..iMi ng claim ?"

"[n

(1) Fill: a JU". al«r't • POSition. condoct a doI.ay a mil. or ta~ OIhtr loCI.,., on brhaIf .. hosd ..... t whtn ht k,-", or ",11M it is .....ious lhat _h loCI.,., w<l\lld _ ~y to harus or maliciously in)u", .notlwr. (2) K """,n,Jiy 1d,'3not a cla,m or dofftIR t hat is unwamonled u ............. ,.. bw.uapt thaI hemayld ...""" IUdocla'mordd'..... il U an be supponcd by"", fllthl""merll forln ... ,en· sian. modifoaotion. or _ _ t ot ex;s.' .... law.dd'~.

ANSWER: An attorney may I'lOl. ethically mail letters ~ the 11101'debtonof adient wlIlIO\Il havina i",-eslla:illl!d lhe mailer and without having made a good faith professional judgment thai the demand 15 for II valid and subtiilli ng claim. ney'llignlIlu~ loal~

D ISCUSSION: Disciplinary Rule .-I02(A)(4) provides: ",. Ia")'ft"wllnot: (4) Ill>&"&'" in tandlloCt ,n,oI.ing

d~y.

frJud.dtutl,or m~tJ.tion. nor ","guill, 01 "';llful mLXOndun_

hi. ",prnorntation d I tl~nt .• law)'<'1' .hal l

Theconclusion Ihat we ha"ereached herein issupporled

by opinions of the American B.a r Association Cornmit1ee on Ethics and Professional Jl:es~sibility and by a number of opiniOlls of stateand local bar a~iation ethicscommi ltre5. In Forma l Opinion 68 (1932) the American Bar Association Cornmitt.e on Ethics and Prolessional Jl:esponsibility held that it is ethically imprOper for an altorMy to furnish his letterhead to a client who ...·ould use the lett ...head for the PUI'p(II!e of wriling collection letters to dIolinqUol'flt debtors /)\·... theat1omey·5.ignalU~. lntheopinion therommillee

!\tiled:

EthICal Cons*r.llion J.6 in p:ln pw.ides:

I 1a"'Y<'" hat boen 1"'ftI oer1lln priviltues by tile lIate. Beaouse 01 thtK privi• . lI:u ...... ot

H •••

",. lawyer all ... ddtp,u laYs tomks. 1«* lanes. and OIlier lay pen.:.ns. Swlr~';"" ;, II ''''' "",j .Iori .... diTfl(l ,.",~jp .,11r ~ <kIqu/<JIJ _1<4

"*'It" diI."10.,.... •• Iwt (I}"'J*Ii

I""...,.,fISi/lili"-*. 1M

""'' prod_I,.. (emp/lasis

Di sch~inary

added)

Jl:ule J.101(A) pro" ides:

"A lawy ... t hall <>01 a'd a oon·lawyer ,n ,lie u,,"ulloori<ed pr1ICIice d law."

Ethical Consider.ltion 6-4 in part pt'O\'idcs: " In oddil.,., to boone qualifood to handll: a par. tocub. malter. his obiQI'""" 10 hos dim! reqU'rei h,m to _ ' " . . . .toly lor and rri~ .JlIIIlIPriat~ all...U.,., to his Io:pL .........Ethical Consideration 1-<4 inl"'lrt provides: '·Ih. conduct is ...·"h'n tht boond, d tht law. and Iherdort pcrmi.. ible,il tile posIlIon lakm IS aupponeod II)' the bwori. 5upponablo lI)'"gOOd fa"h "i'U,,.nt lor an rxtension. modifoau""'. or revffSIIl ot the I.w. H""......... ~ ",,..,.,i, 'fill j •• lijiNi I~ a....'li"l{a """Iia~ i~ U/;gr,lio~ lhal;' In'·"")...... (tmphasi. add<-d)

•

thtdlanocter-lIalfd in thUI_"'" purporting 10 bewnll .... by altorneyl vra,.......t than I",,", ...·rillen by !aymtrl. Ilut _ h privi . ]egos a", !In<:lly ~1. ,,-anted only 10 I",,", who.", found Ihrouah Iltf'*lIllIl .... minaloon 10 measu", up to ttl< I'fquired lI.ndards. ""No'< fJoli<] IhclT/qyt "'lui"" lhol "'hol~I"" COff""'M' dill« 1""'/1Ot'I'IHIJIfItI",,,, a '" "'YO' in his oflk;;,/ copacit, '" MlllluliNsl I'Iutd . iN>" Q lUi aptMnwi '" hi",. H.co.""Id./tw>I.,h ... d.t,ofQ~1 ~ ........"" Itt>.> .- bro~ lIN rV'1I ...MITise lIN fo,1Oln",u of. "'..,....... kmphasos added)

""'e'

wi".

In Formal Opinion 253 (19-13) lhe Amffican Bar Assc:ria. lion Committee on Ethics and ProlfSSional Responsibility di!iCUS5ed several varialion. eI. collection Jetter " 'rillen by an allorMy. The rommiuee hdd that it is ur>ethical for an attorney to pennil a client 10 $tnd coI1«tion letters on hi$ st ationery when t~ acoounl has not been referred 10 the allorMy for collection. The cunmhlee obioerved I hat in the use 01 such letlcrs it was lhe evident purpose to makc the debtor beliel'e that the account had been placed in the attor' ney's hands for col leclion. In the opinion the committee obser..ed:

however. ,be nature.nd tex1 01 the !ellers. ~ qUIre more 'direcl >upen'isioo' by tn. lawyers over whetber one or theOlher lellers should be "nl in a particular case Ihan appears to be conlcmpiat«l.

''Would it be ~hinl for an anorney , emM.... OIl a waIner or OIherwi .... to permit adient 10 send roIl<'Ction Ie1teu OIl tbe OIaliooery 0/ tbe attorney and awarently 0'",,, his signature. to CUstomer. wllose accounts had berorne <!din· quem?

Although each \ellerstates thot the;\CCOlJnl has been 'turned OVer for collection' and in· struct. lhe debtor nOt 10 oonlacl lhe \awyu because lhe lawyer ha. 00 record. 0/ lbe ac· rount , each $lil1 implies that lhe lawy~r;. at lea .. familiar wilh lhe account. is following lhe dtblor', acti" ity. and has professionally evalu· ated it. In ou r ,'itw it i. nO! enough thalthe lawyer rely Uj)XIlhe ditnt's entification oIlhe '".tidi,y' '" the account. The I.wy.... musl l3ke res[«lsibiti1y lor the ffilsonabie accuracy of taCh lellor and must extrd .. due car. that no leiter mis· slales. lact with rrspect to tbe OCCQunt '" ,he dtblor, Thecontinuing admonition in Ihe leller nOt even to c"",act the Illor""y·. off~ abool themallerunder ........... IIIe ~ilY thal lhe lawy,-,,·. communication. 10 the debtor be as a<rur.ue OS re."""ablt proctdures bet"'...., lhe lawyer and the credilor ca n make tbem.

(a) Would it be pe<mis..ible if tbe dient ""nl only a leuer whi<h had been ~iou"youtlin«l and prepored b;' tbe anomey wilh lbe under· s,anding such !eurr ""as to be u5td in tbe di«:re!ion o/,be dient?

nOI

,ha,

(b) Would it be <"thinl if tbe .uorney was oonsulted in each ca.. before such leuer was ou' by ,be elirnt? (e) Would it be "waved if ,bedi.enl ~q>ared the t..lters"nd sent them to ,be ,"ornry's olfia: for his .ignature' (d) If il was agr£'ed by tbe client thai such account would actually be ... nt to tbe .lIorney for WIOClion if not satisfaclorily arranged U)lOrt .. nding tbe first lettrr, "'oold such agreement rna •• 1he plan ethical? In none oItbe .itu3lions set fonh in the Inquiry has the dtlinquen, accou n, been referred 10 1he auom<y for coIlec1ion. V.t,n each in<1ance ,be ""'ident purpose i. to m.ke tbe dob!or beli,,'. Ihal the aocount i. in tile auornry 's h.nd" It i. obviously unelhical for a la,,'~ .. to be 0 party 10 such <k:cqMion: '

Sffi'

The opinionsof the American Bar AssocialKm Commiuee on ElhiC5 and Professional Responsibili ty hereinabo"e ciled were rendered under Ihe O ld Canons of Professional Responsibi lity of the American Bar Associalion. Howe'·er. in im...-preling Ihe Code of Professional Responsibility of IhI! American Bar Associalion upon which Ihe present Code of Professional Responsibihtyof IheAlabama State Bar is mod· eled. the American Bar Association Commiure adhered 10 Ihe general principles set forth in Formal Opinion 68 and Formal Opinion 253_ In Inlonna\ Opinion 1368 (1976) the ABA Commillee refused 10 approve a series of <:Ol lection letters ",rillen by an allorney on behalf of a creditor. Each lett...-carcfu ll y stated Ihal the accounl had not been "tur ned O'''cr for collection" and funhcr advised Ihe address« nOl 10 contact the attorney because the attorney did not maimain document s supporling Iheclaim.ln Iheopin ion the commit 1et'Slatl.'d: Opinion G8{l932) held lhat it ,,·os un· ethical for a lawyu to furnish his k1t~rhtad $lalio,..,1')' to a dient so Ihat lhe dient rould write coIleclion \ell ..... to dtlinqucnt dcblors 0"'" lhe ~rpor(<<I signature 01 the lawyer. Formal Opiniozl Z53 (1943) held that a number 0/ varia'ion. oIlhat ""heme were al$O u"",hi. col. including on< where lhe attorney actualt;· . ign«llhe \ener, and Ihat ,be basis on which the attorney WOS eompen$.Oted was immat'-"ial because the len..-" ~pliv.. ly implied to the .... btor thal the a<"<:QUnl was in ,he lawy .... ·• hands for roIlection. The large number of kllero oontempla1ed and Ih. fac1 lhal Ihey will be prepAred using au'OmOll.: typewriters Go I\Ol in and '" tbemseh',"" render lhe proposal improper. In oor opinion. "~ormal

Although the proposed dtmond \elter project i. nOt per so u,..,thkal. "iola'ioo~ 01 the Code 01 Prof.... ional Responsibility mold freql>Cntl~ and easily ooct>r unltss lhe lawy .. pet$Oll3 lt ~ ex..· eises lhe care and independent judgment ~ quired 10 ..... Iha, each leu..- sen, 1$ aCCUrate and appropriate as to the aro>unt o/thc debtor wben il is .. nt .

Four Alabama and Fadera l Trial P ra ctice Form Books Available lor Immed ia te Sh ipment . ..

o ALABAMA AND FEDERAL PLAINTIFF DISCOVERY FORMS

ALABAMA AND FEDERAL MOTION FORMS

ALABAMA AND FEDERAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT FORMS

o ALABAMA AND FEDERAL COMPLAINT FORMS Part o f a s e rie s 01 Irial practice lorm books by Robert StlII. r. Smith and Jo.n Mclnl)t,... The p rice 0 1 e ach ollhese books Is $59.95 p lu, pos tage a nd handling .

MADISON PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. 223 EAST SIDE SQUARE HUNTSVilLE, ALABAMA 35801 (205) 533-50(0

•

In l~ .toomc.o of l~ u"m .. of lhal a~. juod(Jl1lt'nland ..... _b1II1~ _ .... no ... bst.n· till d,ff",,1IOI' from l~ poaClice condemned on Formal O.. nion Nos. 6S and 253." As herl'inabove noted. nUtnCrW5 Opinions olltate and Ioal bar associallon! support the roroclusions reached in lhe abo>-e--oled opmions of the Amman Bar AMOciation Commitl~on Ethicsand Professional l'Iespon sibllity. The Et hics Commiuee of Ike New York City Bar Associalion (1927) held that an allOrnty for a COTl)Oratc client which has its own legal department and many small claims against debtors throoghoullhe United Slatrs may not ~mit the UJO JXlIalion 10 sign 1M auorney·. name 10 a loon toIlKlion leiter sent by il. The Elhics Commill~ of tM New York City Bar Associal ion (l9.l4) htld thaI it is unel hoi for an attorney for a chain Slore 10 fumish tke SlOTt with form collection leIters on his lelterkcad to which the client signs the attorney', name. The Elhics Commiltee 01 the Virginia State Bar (1948) held that an auomey ,,'110 collects lIdin· quem acooums for a dimt may not allow lhedimt to use his name in form lett<"TS informing debtors Ihat if the ac· counl is nOi paid, Ihe attomey will be. inslrucled to com· mence action 10 collect it. The Ethics Commiltee of the Texas Bar (1957) held Ihal an attorney may not supply a diml wilh signed form collection leuen or signed letler· heads on which lhe dimt ClIn write collection Irtlers. He may not sign ooI1K1ion leUtr'1 prl'pared by hi. dimt if he has &i"en no altenlion to the file and has no knowledge of the circumslancesof t he debt . The EthiC!! Commilt~ of the Soulh Carolina St ale Bar (1962) held that counsel for a

(..ro,1 bureau m~y I'IOl permit II tosend todebtorscolk>ctoon letten signed by him. usi ng his til ie a$legal rounst!. M"'ising thaI the accou nt should hi!; paid 10 avoid suit , courl COIit, attorney's fen. and OIher upenses and embarrassments of liligalion. The Elhics Cornmitl~ oj the Allegheny COUnty Bar AMOcialion (1962)held tllat a 1a""y~ may per· mIt his client. ooIl«tion agency, 10 prinl form IetleT'!l to delinquenl debtors on the law)'ff', lenerhead and send tMm daily to lhe lawyer" s office for signature and mailing if the lawyer will only sign such leIters as m~t his approval and will salisfy himself Ihal he has sufficient information to juslify his signing and sending oi the letters. The Ethin eommiu~ oi lhe Allegheny Cwnty Bar Association (1963) held Ihat a lawyer may I'IOl furnish form collection letten 10 his client if he has not investigated 1he merits of the claim before maltingdcmlnd for paymenl . The Et hies Commilt~ of II>e Kentucky Har (1974) held tMt an 3Uomey may not: represtnt on a rl'tainer a corporation ~ in lhe busi· I'ItS$ oi selling a pilCk<ogoe of oomputt'l'lzed collectIOn letters ",hich includes t....., ktt= from the attorney with his preprinled signature. The Ethics Commill~of the North Da· kOl~ Bar (1976) held thaI a counscl for an instilution who permils the instill/tion 10 send OUt. on lhe inSlhution's letterhead and under his name, collection letters lhal ~re ,ignelwith ~heOO\ln~'s name by a se;:relary oi ~ht institu· lion was guilty oi I gross violalion oi tilt Code of Profes· sional Responsibility. rn conclusion. we are of I he opinion a lawyer cannOi send out colleclion leiters unless the Lawyer has sufficient in· form~tion and M S in"rstigaled lhe mall~ and reached a good faith prOfessional judgment tMt demand .s being mad<': 10 coIk>ct I legally ,'alid and IUbsisting debt. 0

AI,AHAMA HAlt INSTITtrrE }'O lt eO,' lTINU ING LEGAL EI>UeATIO/'oi

ALABAMA LAWYERS RESEARCH SERVICE

l1nd Annual Corpol'(Jf~ i"Q'" Sf'minQr

"Tht Uninni.y of AloINmo School of Law O;n;,;at P"'Va",

~hrri ul1 '~

April 11 . 12. 13. 19M G",,,d 1I 01 t l. r ulnl elMor , Alabama

An o "I ~I .ndlnj( fanlll )' Inel l/dlnK' T"", c.I""

r..atri<t G. Il<Im ....

C_iOO.IOMr r _oITrMo<C_ _ ....

Cool<. 1kI....... L _ __

...•.......... D.O::'

_.-"'-

lim,y L..... Gibsoo. !)uoo.OId C,."h<r to< "'.1<1 ... CoI;f_;"

Go"", C".;..,,,,,.,,,, a.,II..

$0._...,

ROI'l,. ........ - of\,ow

............... _u. u.........,

Th<odo<. L,

1';.,_

P D·K,;'"

"',,"tpo .... 1Io'~n

......... .OOI.D.C.

.Il_. . . .

UNIXR ATTQR.'TI' SlJP[RVISION.

. T.,,,,, . r.-.

......... a...... f..,. 11<"'10)"........ __ ond

(~)J.6I.<IOOO

....,,,,

SMITH-ALSOBROOK & ASSOC . EXPERT WITNESS SERVICES

-.-. 'T,-"'"

110 .............1 . _

~ ~

'f u _

Rolon, P. Pill .... ". Modi .... ond

.....",O!t...

$an

P.O. BaxeL UnivenilY. AL 3!486

oConIIr...::lO'i

.....,..011

",.. a_.

CoIof.....

&terr_ ....................

.'0< fu.t ...... informll '''. ' 20'/)48·62)0

T""'....... Al»«Ol

W.,hi"""". D.C.

1.<."", ... VWI_ ~ ",'

l[CAl MEMORANDA CONmXN1lALt '{ PREl'ARID AT R£ASQNABl[ RAm BY SElECTID LAW STlJD[I'\o'TS

a08av D. SIoIlTH, a.s., J,D., _ P.O. t!<>.lQt.I

0,..0;"". Aol )610'

' UOS) u •• ,....

Prh'lIc e

l~cllrir11an d s

• {\ Cawy~r was privately reprimandtd for having "io!aled DR 7·1 (\4 (A) (I), b)', during hi$ rCprcSenta tlOl1 of a chem who was sui ng a rorporauon, having rom mumcatelioo tt>esubject of the $uit with an ufCUlive off1m' of the deftndant rorpor.uion, though he knew lhe COipooauon was rt>prl'Soenled b)' a bwyer In the maner, and though hedid fl(J( ha"c Ihe priorwnsent of that bwyer 10 soch communication.

• On Fnday, No',ember 30, 1984, an Alabama law, yer "'U r(']lrimanded for a ,'ioIauoo of o.soplinary Rules ~ 1000A) and ~ I 05( B) arising from his handlina oJ. Ihe closmg of a real estate transaction. The lawyer learned that the ielltrs, who were taking back a5OO)nd mOrtga"e OIlt ll edcmised premise>;, were in d,,'c need of cash funds and further, thai they had been unabit to locale a pur<:haser for the second mortgage, Arranl(fments were then made for the attornty's mother 10 purchase the morl~, at a substantial discounl, and the Ia"'yer prepared an endorsement whft'eby lhe sec· ond mortg:3gj' ,,'as transferred at the closing. Shortly t~fter the mortgagors "'ent inlO dd'ault. and the law)'er'l mother made a demand for payment on lhe selieT'S under lhe tenni of the cndarsemenl. II "'as deternnoed that the bw)'cr fai~ to proper!)' c~plam to Ihe selitrs Ihat they remained liable pur .... anl 10 lhe cndor~nt,lhatlheall0meyacluallytngaged In TeP' resenting differing interesls at the closing. and furth~'f. thaI hIS independent professional judgment was af· feeted by t he part icipation of his mOl her in I he transac· tion. cont rary to the rules mentioned he-reinaoo..·e. • On Friday. No>'emller 30, 1984, a law yer ,,'as pri. ,'acely reprImanded for ,'iolation of Oisciplinary Rule'S f>. IOI(A}and 7·I01(A)(l). for willfully nq;ltclinll a legal malter enlrusled 10 him and for failing tocarry OUI a conlracl of emplopncnt entered "'ilh a client for professional.;en·ictL The b"',)'eragreed,lnjanu3ry 1979, 10 file a Ia"'sun for his client. an insuran« company. TI\c, 1a,,'Y~ tool< 110 action in tl\c,ca.., for()1.'er I "'0 )·tart and only f'i~ SUit III March of 1981 after hi~ &/:'1Ior pal'1 III'f had Iwn apprtsed of the sit ualion by llIe IIlsur· an« company. The Oisciplmary Commission deter· mined thIS conduct to be conlTary 10 the aoo..'e<lled r\ll('5 and further detennined that the atlorney should receive a pri"ate reprimand.

• On N()1.'cmber 3(), 1984, a lawyer was privately reprimanded for having violatl'<l J)R 2·III(A). by having iniliated a divo"e proceeding for a client and. then. when the client failed to pay Ihe full fet promplly. by having failed to appear in court a t a &tilIng oJ. the ca..,. withoul having moved 10 withdraw in the case and without notifying the client of an mtenl 10 withdraw. • A lawyer was privately ~manded for ha"ing "ioIated J)R 2·I05(A} b)' h"'inggiven unsolicited adva loa layman that she should obtaIn counsel or take legal action in ronnection "';Ih the MlCidental death of her 100 and then ha,·ing. sub!lequtntly. acctpted employ· ment from her to "'preSenl her in fihng a wrongful death action in conneclion with her son', dealh. • On No,-embcr3(), 1984.3 lawyerw3sreprim anded for ha"ing been guilt y of WIll ful negk'Ct, in violat ion of DR f>.101(A). by having failro 10 notify an iOC8"eratro chent. either "erbally or by mail. thaI thecliem '$ crimi· nal conviction had Iwn affi rmed by IIIe COUl'1 of crimi· nal appeals, thereby denying lhe client tile opportunity IOT«jue!ltlhal his ca.., he pu n;ued by motion by ",heaT'Ili and petition for the wril 01 cerlioran.

• On January IS. HISS, a lawyer was Plwately reprimanded for ha'-;ng viobted DR 2·1] I(A} b)' hal'ing iniliated an appeal 10 the Alabama COUrt 01 Cnminal Appeals on behalf of a chent and then ha"ina aban· doned tile appeal wl\c,n tl\c, client faIled 10 pay the full fet agreed upon. without Clther filing a brid or a motion 10 withdraw, • On January IS. 1985. a lawl'er was privately",· primand,-'<I for ha"ing violated DR 7-l0I(A)(t) and DR 2,lll(A)(2) by having agTeed and promised to file a cerlain s uit for a client. but lhen having failro todo so. • On January 18. 1985. a lawl'er "'as pri"ately reprimanded for having engaged In conduct Ihal IS prejudicialto tile adminislration 01 jU$tooe and that adver· sely reflectson his fitntSltoprac:ta law. in violationof OR I·HI2(AX5}and DR 1·I02(AX6)of lheCodeofl'rofes· sional Responsibilllyof lhe AI,bama Slale Bar, by ha>" ina 5ell~ a civil SUII after hl$ (lI(11t dl<'ll and having SlJI:ned as a ",.,ilness" 10 lhe ''lIna1u", 01 the deceased cli(11t on a ~I Rclea5l' fonn, lhough the lawyer knew al the time thaI the chenl was dfad, that tl\c, client had not signed the form and that the client's purponro signatu re had actually ~n inscrilx'<l by the deceased client's wife.

'"'

P rivat e RC I)rimands • On January 18. 19l:l5. a lawyer rea:iH-d 11 pm'ate reprimand f()f ,'ooIation 0( 1)1!;(ipllnary Rule!; 1·I02(AX-l) and 6-I02(A). T he Disciplinary Commission ~tl'fmlned Ihal Ih~ lawYff m qUC'!ltion !\ad misrepn!!I<!med 10 a eliem the status 0( a legal mat t.... I hat he "'a~ handling for Ihe client and that. subsl'(juent to the filing of a grievance n:gart!ing that mattcr . the allorl\('y attempted to limit hisliabililY to the client for his per5Ol1al malpl"3cuc~ by making a PilymenllO I hecloenl canting· em upon ...·,1hdr.a ...' al of the lCfle'-anoe that, he chenl had filed . T he commission determined , hat I lie alt()fney's aclion. "ioIated the above Rules ,,'hieh pro~"bi t a lawyer from Clll(1lgi ng in CQndU(:t inmh'ing dis honesty, fmud, d~«it. or mlSreJITelienlalion. or willful mi!;CQl1' duel and whICh further jlI'Ohlbot a law)"ff from at· temptIng to exonttate h,mself from, or hmLung his liability 10. his climl for hI S ptT"SOI13l malpracllCI'. • On Janu ary 18. 1985. a lawyer was privmely rc· for havi l\l! intentionally failed to _k Ihe lal,;ful obj~li,"t$ of his clienl and having inlentlonally failed loarry oot a contracl of employmCllt, In "ooIa' lion of OR 7· IO I(A), by hal' mg accepted a $.160 fff: for prepa"l\l! a ""111 for lheclicnl and for inil iatlng adopIion proceedings for Ihe Ihree children of the diem's wife and then having failed 10 perform lh~ strv~ lor O\'er IWO years. despite a number of inqulM from tile primand~-d

The follOWIng aplX'ared in the January 1985 ,s.ue of IAU')'I'f. The r~port s ha"e been mnc"d~od to include specifIC reasons for 5u~ pcnsion and n:IIlSlate1"h~ Alaooma

~,.

S u s pe n s io n S J llmie li e "nl/"" Mc Dowell. a Montgomery law· yer , was s uspended fronl the practIce of law in I h~ stal~ 01. Alabama. elltel"'e October 30. 1984. by ord,.. oithe [),scil'iinary Comnlission. The 1i\l~IX'''''ion W3$ based llpon 'ailu~ toromply Wllh mandilltory continuing legal mucatlOO mtu,remenls for 1983. Doth an law)'cr I)(L n icl l~, n obisoLl was suspended from the pmct;ce of law ;n Ihe stalc of Alabama . df\.'CILI'e OI:lober 30, 19&1. by orde-r of Ihe DiSCiplinary CommisslOO. T he $uspension " '35 based upon fallun: III comply wilh mandatory continuIng legal edUOIlOOO ~ QUil'l'll1ff1lS for 1983. I~ c in s tat c menl D~bo",h Fn rrinl/l o n Cue Sllw ye r of MonlgOOltry was reinslatm 10 lhe pmdice 0( law in lhe Sl ate 01. Aiabama ,erIKI,,'" September 30, 1911-1. by onIeroilhe Il ,scipllnary Commission. Ms. Saw~ "'as n:inst atm after having met mandalory 0)/1\ inulng legal education TI.'quiremcn\ s f<)T 1983.

client.

P ublic Cens ures • A5h"llle law)'e-r La rT)' W. Oobbins wa$ publicly unsu red for having willfully neglected a legal malle-r emrusled to him. In violation of OR 6-101(A). by having aca:pled a fff: to probate Ihe WIll of a <kuased Indi"id· ual. and thtn having faillod for approximately eighl and a half month, to file the WIll lor probate. alte-r having been pn:wi(kd wnh all of the informat ion anddocumen · tation n«essary to file the "'iII for probatt.

• B;rmingham lawyer JllmesG. S,e\"e n ~ was pub liely censured for "m;S~prt!Ie';l ation" and ""illful m;5COndUCI," III violat ion 0( [)R H02(AK4), Code 0( ProIe;soonal RfSponsibohty of the Alabama State Har. as well as for "willful IH1II('Ct:' in "ioIalion of DR 6-1 OI(A), for having misrcprC'Oented to the purchaserol cerla;n rtal propcny that lhe properly was free and unencu mberM, though ht knew il \0 til' subjtel to a prior "",sting mort.gag1'. and. further. 1« having failed 10 record the purchaser', deed 10 lhe property lrom lhe date of the claoing, on lunt 17. 1982. unlll Augu SI 30.

1983.

Often Firs t Inve stigations Don't Do Your Case Justice

r.",n ~ "/W" """,slghlln ,,,"1;01 _

,,, '~po<" "''''

mat.e • deckilng dilk..,,,,,c '" 1"'" uoe. r .,.. ~",."1'1> IroYoOltIoIton on<! _ . , . _ ~ bJ • "",I

' _ - .«IftUCL

A LBERT MEDINA lW(."""""~"","""" .... Cooort ,_1_ A<~ kk. l tn_lg;o tl

~1;00_'"

"«id<nl ~_ L "'"

L-.~_"" CoI ........ .. . .'I»'-

-~-

r.o.lIo.

1 7:U2 . ~. _.!I6' L 7 (W~ll77·7919

...... CAMBRIDGE

SUMMER SESSION

Efl'eatJvo Deoember3, L984, DIIIcIpLInary Rule (l..10l ( A ) olt.he Code ofProf89.1On&! ~lI!tyolt.heAlaboun&Bl.aUlIlu tlMboenamended.byGrderofu... SUp",me Co\rt or AlaI:Ie.me. In U\e rDllmnng manner.loO-W1t:

The 11M; of (l1l<lUOns In ("""""'" one ( I ) of!Wd nm w amand!w:Iu:> lnaIudo r.ho CltatlOn'~ v Alabama Bar. 447 So. Ed 675 ( AI&. 1984)'. .., t.IW. !I8J~ fOO\.nOte shllll I'Md all folJQW>I

sw..

-"n.... /.tpI 0<1_.;.... _A _ ... _ ., ,,,. _ ,u',

,.n..

'Por dennlt!on of 'wlilfull negl-.' _ ~ Co _""iI'._ , _

.. " ,. ; .. ~ , . .. I ~• ••• <1... 1<

..,,1• • • , , ... _ ,..",,1

"'<od,,..

• •- . eI. &1..,

L.~ 1 62A1L 44 9 .

6350. lB9 (1913). _,_",L.&$t;y. a.... ... ~ln, 180 AJa 4 58, 61 So. 4 9 1 (19 13), aq.,. Y. Iltb,,,• • _ ....,447 So. 2<1 6 75 (Ala. 1964).

;. , ••_

July 20· 31 . , 985

...

In .odIuon. U'Ie Allb&rna RuI.... of DtaclpllnUy tnfol"Clmen~ &re, e1f8Ctl"" Deoember 3, 1964.lUfIended In !.he foUo_ 1nC I"I!I8J)OC\&

I R.ule 19( b), ofUle Rul_ ofDl8clp11D&l7 I':nfomemen08 &meJ\de(\ I() 1NbIItI· WI"l 'Ovtl ( 6 r for 'T,hree' ~een Ule !.e."", '61. !easI.' UId 'yeus: ao thalo Rule 19(b)ahall...:l ... fol.knr8; (b)

TIme for I'Mnal.&"Unenl.

A pe...,n who hall _n I1U8j)ended for more Ulan 111_

monUIB 1M3 n"" &ppl,yfor relnStatementWlul Ulepel10d of I1U8j)ellSlon hal! !.8rmlr\&te(L A pe1'9On w llO !WI _ n dl8ba.rred &ltar h8&r1ng or by oon8ent 1M3 nO!. appl,y for relnst6t8,...,nt until ""plnUion of 61. least !'Ive (6) yeaN /Tom 1.he effective d8te of the dl8ba.rment or 6Ul' .... n<ler of ,~~

ENGLAND

"'.1.1._

So<> .... .. , ... uMYI" ...... 00

...... sc_

_ --_ _ .__ -_-_ _-_ _ - -.. C............. liN"' . . ... '"

.. -. ...... . -.. _.... ..... __ .-.. ......... _ .OI ........ .. ..........-.,'..... .... .... -........•....... ...-.-.-...-. ..... _. .- ..... ..... "" .,..~s--_

. __ ... _ _ 1:000""

_ ... _

' ~'.

.. r..........., __

_ _ , ... _

'''-

0-. "

.1,".-

COfmM.IIIOG I.(C.U. (ruCO TIOf< '011/ . ..... . : _ _ '"

"';H'"

11(1)IIHUO

Introduce Your Clients to a Valuable Service . Ill:!cr them

Businl$ Val uatio n Services fUr nl'c:n deler-

millJoon of &iT martel value of businl:$SCS, and financial anlIysis :md consul r..tion in cascs of: o Estate planning

o Estatu cttlcmmt o Marital dissolu tions o Rcupitaliutions o Employcc stock

o 8onkru1~"Y procccdinp o Mcrgcnor acquisitKlIls

o Bu)'-sdl agrttlt'lenlS o

~dcnt

stockholder

OI'o'no:rshi p plans

Cont:ltt Dr. John H , Davis 60 Commcn:c: St ., Suite 1018, P.O. Box 2310, M ontgomery. A L 36103 (205) 262-675 1.

2. Rule 18 Of the Rules of OUoclpl~ I'!nrOl'OOffi(!n~ 111 amended by <leleung In ~he C&p\!<m the pl\ra.ge ·(<nhe. UlIon to.tmporarU,y suspended attornllYB)"' by ~ In IlUbIWU (a) (b) the phrase. ·other UlIonan attorney 1oempol"6l"lly suspended under Rule :3(0): ,*wMn !.he words ·attorney' and ·ahalL tuId by <IfIleI.Ing In 8Ubpar\ {e) !.he 8ento.tnoe roadlng·NOUOI!I ora """penslOn under Rule

ana

3(g) for nonoomplla.nCe wtl.h !.he Rules (or lI&rJ4McryContlnUlng l.<tgaI ~ Uon ab.tJJ not be publl8l\ec1·, "" !.hat. Rule 18 shall rM<I till foUows;

~""-"-AnB

-'.

00,..'_ . .

(al •

..unc.uoo."'~laft_lA""""'_1J:IaD ~ Pi '1_&1

"<IJSbvred or _pended at.\(>TIitJ'. owr \.han an attorney 1oempol"6l"lly """pended urodoJ" Rule31 ol. shall promptly no\I.I)' or 0IW9!I1O be noutIed. by ~ oroerW!ed mAll. return 1"8OI'!!pt. request.&Il. all 01 ienUl beln4 "'P __ ll1oO(] !n pendlng mat.1<': .... ot.rnor \.han U\.IgI.I.Icn or admlrulIu·••uve p~ ngB. or h18 ~nt Or IlUllpenalon and hili coneequen~ lnablllt,y 10 act as an at.\(>r ney aJWr !.he etreoUve d&ttI or hIS dlBbarment or suapenslon and sh.aJllodvl8e III.1d ol1em... 10 _k legal Iodvtoe or the c:llllnt·s own 0I"I01O!l el_IUI .... (b)

.~ '" 0"-- lA .... lncI. lA UU(at.1O:a ......

~",.

C . , ' ....

" dlBb&rrOO or suapentl6d a.tWmey. other !.han an a.tWmey to.tmporarUy suapenOOd UIld$r Iloule 3(c). Shall promptJ,y nowy or OIIuse to be nOl.Illed.. by reS11itllre<1 cr oertlll"'" mall. NIt.UI"!l r«>elpt l'eQueElloed. eaIlh of tlI8 ol1ent.a w 1'10 18 inVOlved m pending l1\.1g1.1.1on or admlnlBl.rMlve p~. an~ !.he attorney or attorney>! for each adverse p&rt"y In \IU<lh m&ttllrll or p!"OOti'8d. Ings. or his dl.6b6.fment Or IlUllpenalOn and consequent lnabU!t,y lOact BB anattorney&Mrtheetr"cl.lve<llWlofhls ~ntor SUS penalon. The nOUOI!I to be gl ven to ~he ollen~ 81\&1 1a.dv1Se the client of U!e deslrabU II,y ef U!e prompt 8ub8tIl.UtlOn Of &notI\er tWorney or Mtorney>! Of the c:lLllnt'S own ehoto!Im h1$ p\.oce.

AIIORNEY COLLECTION System:

Uses 111.\ \ S}"SlCnI 360r 1Il~1 Ollllnl:lSkr. sends ~ diffe rent coIk(;tion kl1el'$. Files sm~n cI~inls . drcult. di!;trkt 00\111 s uilS. multiple 511ill;;and b:mkrupt<y. Toa.l

fec$ imt.-roJ ~nd moOn:. We ctilor 1O,;u1t )"our nc«Is. Incxpen si\"C and easy 10 openlc . COlllllct Ikth Smitherman at Smith ,

Bu non and Associat<$ . 1800 Ibckbcl1)· I.lme:. Suite A. Tusc:tloos:l. AL ~S401 .

(20S)7S2.1}2S.

ml~SMITH .

I':ITr,"I aURTON -

.-.I!U ._ _ "~'&Tw. ........ ,.. a. . & ••

~ ..,~ ""' .

In ~he event \he "Jlllnt _ not obI.aln sub6lJ.t.ute OOWUIel befo.... the etroctlve <IIWI or !.he dlaMmLIIru. or 8USpens!On. It shall be !.he ..... porllllbUll,y Of the cI18b&rrecI or 8USpellded.8W)l' ney 10 move In the OOW'I.or agency In wh..!ch the p!"OOti'8d1ng UI pell<l!nM for lMve to lIrIU>dl'f,.w The notIoe 10 be gIVen to the attorney or tWoM>8YII for an adverse party shall .uI.e the p\.oce or ... ldanoe or\.ILII cllentor !.he <1I8bIuTecl or suspended 8W)~ «(I)

[NechMgeJ

(d) [ NO c:I1.ange J

The D1aclpl1n.o.ry Soucl Shall _ a not1O!lofthe """pen· SlOn or d18bou"men~ to be publWl6d In !.he cmclAl B&r pubhca.· uon tuId In B newspaper of g&neral cll"Cl.ilal.lon In eachjudlclal clrCult or the 8I.B!tI of Alabe.ma In whlch the dlBclplined tWo" ney malIlWllOd an otnoe fer the jll"6CUoe or law (f)

[ N cch.o.ng~J

(6)

( Nochangej

-... .. ...__L" ::::= -__'.-...- '-"'._ .........·_T._. L . """ ..... _.~_

.... _

COICI

.:::::~ Lr.

c-.oo_ _ _ ro'" L C ~ .. ~d_

C""t..,t

,_ ...J"'..... _ E.""", ,»>,ob~""

1111 ..._'--.

.._... c _ -...., _ _..

I"""~

...............

'"' " ... ,., CO_ . . TN . . .. . . -...

'-' "I'

In Memoriam apJllk~!I"" and ~"~II. I belie,'~ the proIcs'K>n aU<>rd. a ..... n·

gem

did <>WO<'\u"ny lor

otn'"'"

10 lht

$lale and III ptOpIt

Thal llal('mtnl . Jlj'nntd ~5:l )'faf5 ago on a charactl'T and filness afrodavil. bears 1",," nO'A' famlhar sIgnature of

J. O. Sentell, Jr.

J.O. Senten. Trt:allnti: Mr. Senldl'. reaSl.X1 Sfor d'lOOllllnll: Ia,,' as OO\"cnams for futu~ ~ormana .• \ an beslaled empt\3l1caily he d;5Cha~ his promiSC!l funy. Thl'OUghoul his Career he kept his interest

lilt> law keen and

A\ 22 years of aQe, an applicant for admission 10 the Alabama Slate Bar

alo."ays ""as its aVId slUdent. The profession was honorable when he chose

was asked why he wished 10 pursue

it. and his conducl only added 10 ils lustre. He look full advantage of the " splcrl(hd opportunity for ser,'a 10 the Siale and its poopIe."

law as a profession, lie responded:

,.Ii-

I am ,mnol<'CI ,n Law and n. "'" pII;o ••ulO:l m~ ill'lud,. I roo~n ....... olIMm"'l honorablt proi'fSS.O." and ont wonhy <II dili·

James Oscar Sen\ell,Jr.. was oo..n at Lu,·~.Alabama.JulyJ.I909.

$en,dt. Ja",u o...:. r. J •. MonLIrO<'\tI")· - A/!mI11ed: 19J2 IMd:JanUllry 19. 19&'"i Si ,," ,,~.

19Z6

IMd :Janu.:lry 17.!985

1)",,,,1<1 Il n""d!. Jr. Ilunl s,·ill. _ A/!milLtd: 1980 1>i«I: l:knn,tw :10. 19t!-l

I' a ,·re . Willi;.." Hu.h4ph. J r. Mobolt _ A/!miutd: t$6 IMd: Iloa-rntw25. 19S4

St., .... . I. Hoi",,, Ilr" wdcr MOI1~ _ A/!m'lltd: 19-10 IMd:hn ..... rytl.l9i!5

lI arri ...... (""""lIe Mon ime r. J r. I)alhon - A/!mllltd: 1965 IMd, I~tw 30. 19S4

Alab - A/!mllltd: 1967 IMd: Dt<-tmtw 14. 198-1

Cr~ ,,~h "w. JM k MoroLllorl\""T~ _ Admiuet!:

11'lIi l ;" 1I.- lt arrinK' '''' Il i d ",.

ThesetlOllces are published im~ialely after rtpOi1sol <iNth are rtttl,'«l. ffiograp/lic:al information not apptaringin this i$sut wiU be published at a later date if information is lOC05Sibie. We ask you IJI"Offiplly rtpOr1 the death 0( an Alabama attorney 10 the Alabama State Bar. and we ""O\lld appreciate your assistance in prIlI'iding biqp;lphical information for TIt~ Akl!>mna/,nu'y('"

10J.0.

Sentell. Sr .. a lawye.-. and Ida S. Sen. td!. Upon tarninll undergraduate and law degrres from the Uni"ersity of Al a· bama heentercd t he plwate practia' 0( law in LU"eme from 1932·19-t1. He s.m"cd as a member 01 the board <J bar comm,ssiorw& lrom 1941-19-t6 while he was priceattorney lor theOfr~oI J>nce Adm1M'SU;lIIOn in Monlgomery. Mr. Sentell ~u~ 10 LU"erne and pri"ate PQCtia' 1M 19-t6. Montgomery ClalrrH.'d h,m permanently in 195\ when he assumtd the pos!. unt,1 1953. 01 coonsel for the Office oIl'rice Stab;!i· zalion. Thereafte.- he commenced pri· vate pracllce '" Montgomery. In 1962 he became first assiSlanl Uniled Slates allorncy for the middle diSl ricl 01 Ala· bama. a poIit he held until his CareET as a clerk began 'n 1967 when hf was named depulY clerk 01 the SUPQnte Court at Alabama.lnJanuary 1968. he beo.:ame clerk 01 the SUPR111t court. Upon Crtauoo of the coort 01 civil appeals in 1969. Mr. Senlell assumed the i\dd'lIonal responsibihty 01 stn;ng as il~ firlil clerk. a JlOfS' 1101I he held until 1975. Mr. &nlell alsowas«li !orol1"lt~ Akllxm'l1 /,aH'1't' from 1967·\982 and tS ""icia secretary 01 the Alabama Court of the Judiciary from ils inception until 1976. Al!lOin 1976 Mr .Sentdl roni\"cd the Alabama Stale \iar"~ Award 0( Merit al the bar. annual mt'eling. held that y~r m Ilunls,·,l\('. At lhe 1982 annual !MetIng. he "'as named first recip.e11l 01 the WaltCl'" P. Gewin A"'ard by the Alaba~ Ba. Illst11ute lor Contin· umg ~l Educatoon; m addl1ton. the b;!r presented h,m and his "'ile "'il h a lra"d ctrt,focale n a ret iT"",",1 gifl. Mr. Sentell WlS one 01 the founders and lhe first pte$iden l cAthe National Coolerence 01 Appellale Coun CIeT-k$: he also was the first recipient 01 its l)islingui~h..>d Scrvice Award in 1979.

en:

Mr. &ntdl .curl!d as c lerk of thl> supremecourt in 198Z. l lewasonly the fifth clerk to serve thc Alabam~ Suo premeCourt si~ IBSO.butduring hIs tenu~, thll.'l' chief justocrs and 18 a~· sociate juslocrs ser\"l!d In the Supremc Court 0( Alabama. Mr. Sellteiliong willlJe ",membered for his loyal friends hip. his keen intcl· 1ecI. his Improca.bie Intcgr;t y. his elegant cha rm and h,s gemle wit . Ihl presence and bearing was so dignifi('d his very appearance had an upliftin~ effect upon tile plocttdings. Practi · tionen before the SUpr\'Il"Ie court ..·ill nrnll ..·,th a . hlMlder the solemnity with which hecould 5(lUnd thed«ktl to a ttnse assemblage of advoc~11'!i waiting for their precious minutes at tllel«te m . Wealsorec:all iIowremark· ably acoeuible lIe ....as when ..-e ncOOcd quick and IIO\lnd advioe on prcudural ni~"eti('!l. Hi . competence was univer· sally recogniud by all. Ht was saId to ~ a phoIograph ic IIM'mory. Asa fmjuent practitioner in the suo "",me coun and as board member 0( The A/aMma /.J1wyer. I s hared many expc-ricl\CCll with him. Through this proximit y I cal1M' to a[llll"«;att a keen senseo( hulnOI'". and I rtCOUntlleresim· plyone s..eh in"laott. At a barcoMen· tion in lIunl svilie se-·ernl yearsago. M r. Sentell and I we~ visiting with a size. able aroup of fellov.· lawyers. In the oonmiahtyof the moment. I kidded Mr. Sentell by making tile wholly ground · less charge thai when tile court an · noun<:l!d il s decisions. he claimed tile prj,·ilege of telephoning only the PI"e" vailing allor~ to announce the f"eo s ult. Thu5 the deput y clerks were lefl wil h Ihe d i. lasle! u I chore 0( IeIephon Ing Ihe 10000r~. A hearty laugh foilov.·1.'d during which Mr. Sentell protestl.'d his innocence in a good·nalu~ way. Tilt: following Friday al pr«isely 10 a.m .. when bolhthe pendency 0( an appeal In Montgomery and the joke I had told on him the pr«eding weo:'k wert boIh "ery far from my mind . my pItooM rang and Mr. Sentell annou~ in his best ceremonial tone. ··Champ. I regret I must so quickly disaoose you OJ! your theory as to my practict of callingonly prC'o·alhnarounsel bul it IS nontthtlesa my unpleasant duty tOadvise you_ ..." Tilt: resl 0( his remarks Wert los! in ou r laughter as the s ting of defeat wa$ ,~

sumc .... nl \0 s uppress my admira· tion IOf this cle\·1!T rebuttal to my ear· lier joke on him. I WIll miss him. Our bar lost one of it s pillars .... hen 1.0. Sentell died ~ul1y in his sleep on I"'" mghl of January 19. 1985. illS picturt: hangs as a permanent memo.. rial at Alabama State liar headquar· ters.and hlsocrasiooal visits IOlhe bar buikhng wllh his younggrandchildrtn will be missed by tilt: lIaff. A member of ! he First Unill.'d Methodist Church, he is s urvived by his widow. Or. Jane Jooes Sentell 0( ~Iontgomtry. Alabama: t ....v sons. James C. Sentell 0( I1Unl Sville. Alabama. and Charle! Edgar Sentell 0( Jackson. Mississippi. a third generation member of the Alabama Statt Bar: one daughter. Jane Sentell (10.1 .... George. 111) PMSI of l Illie Rock. Arkansas: and SC\"tf31 grandchildrtn. 00\

Finis Ewing St. John, III '"Fini s was a good trial lawyer and he was a good ·book·law)·er. Hcrould whip you in tilt: courtroom. and ...., could abo whIp you ,,·,th tilt: books. That .la lemenl. by a Birmingham plainllff lawyer. is an accurate d('!l· criplion of Finis Ewing St. John. 111. who dll.'d on his farm in Cullman Count y Oct~r25. 1984.atthe.o( M

Fini$ was also an outslanding memo ber and If,ader in the Alabama Legi sla· tu~. strving one lerm in the house 0( lepiCSlntatl\"e!. 1<J11·75, and t ..vterms in the senale. 1975-83_ Ite was un· animous ly elected as president pro ICIIl 0( the senate in 1979. Oneof his fcllow senatorsdtscribed Finis· reputalion In tile Sl'nate in I~ ....ords: ··He would ·stay hitched· ..• Fin is often said f!llks in Cullman County would tell him he was nQl a good poIilician. bul Ihat he

" ·as a good senalOf. llt(":Orlsidered that a compliment. Fini s was carrying on a family tradi. tion in the k1!islaturt. following in the fOOlSl~ of his great-grandfat her, Wil· liam P.St .John. whoserved in 1853-54: his grandfalher. Fini s E. St. John. Sr .. who servl.'d in 19"23035; and his fat her. Finis E. St. John.Jr .. who!lC:T'led in Ihe senate in 1939-47. Finisgradualed from McCall ~ School in Challal"lOOf!1l. Tennessee. and Ihe University of Alabama in 1956 wllh B.S.L.. LL. B. and 1.1>. degrees.. lie also altended Auburn Univer-sity for twO )'t'3TS bIofore going to Alabama. lie jok. ingly said he ··allcnded Auburn. but lie was educatl.'d at Alabama:· 51. John ser,,1.'d as president of the Slooent Bar A~tion al tile Uni· "ersity of Alabama: president 0( the Young l.aw)·crs· St.::tion of the Alabama Stllte s"r in 196.'>: presid~nt of tile Cullman County B.ar Association in 1968: chaner member and presidenl of the Alabama law InslltuteCounci l: direclor of Leeth NatlOllal B.ank: and president of First Fl.'dcral Sa,·ings and Loan AS$OCiation from 1980 until h;, death. In 1962 he " ·as the youngt$t person C'o'er to be elecled as a mtmber of the Alabama Board 0( Bar CommI ssioners. lie wa s a member of Grace Episcopal Church in Cullman. SUl'lli,"OI'S indude his wife. t he !«mer luliet Gi ,= of Birrmngham: 1",·Osons, Fini s E. SI.John. IV. and William G . St. John: his mOlher. Mrs. Mary 1. 51. John: one brother. Wart"tn 1. St . John: and one daughter-in·law. tilt: former Alioe Rogtrs of Eula"'. Alabama. lI i~ son.lllll. married Elizabeth Genlry of Wins ton ·Salem. North Carolina. in December 1984. Fini$ ,,·as a man ... ilh many Inter<'SIS. lie was a strong family man. practicing law with hIS falher. wife and one of his $Ons. A !lC:rious bout with cancer in 1969 made him cherish his family ties mOfe than ever the 1a51 15 )-ears of his life. In adt!;tioo to being.n outstanding pract icing lawyer . bar leader and legi s· lalor, he was also an avid hunter and sportsman and a dedw:atl.'d '·Crimson Tide·· fan. His family has s uffen'(] a greallou and soh,,·e the s tale of Ala · bama. Cul lman Count)· ~nd the kgal profession. Hc will be missed g",ally.

~Iassified

~otices ,

Cily.Alaboma.

tour!

FOR S,\ I.E: l.I .... Itbrary (dOtHuI lajj,t Sou1horn lIeportt< Vol . 1-200: Soul horn Report .... 2d Series Vol. 1.J3.1; Alabama lIeport .... Vol. 334·398; C~'" Al,homa 1975; AI.R 3d Vol. 1100: ALII4 1h Vol . 1· 23; ALR 2d l.Il .... CaR s.r.~; QUICk In· ~x lor ALII lSI thlUllllh 4t h; Am 1m I'roof 01 Facll lSI and 2d w'lh Qu,d In· dex: Am JUT I'ltading and 1'1"K1~ Forml Vol. 1·25 with Index; Aml ur Tnalli Vol •.

E.am'"..,.... Membtr. Arntric;on Sccio:ty '" ~lionM l)rxumtnl ExamillM5.l11t In· ItrnIIll(l<\lll AiIOCI<Ition f... Ident,flClltion. tilt Hrot, Sk F....,n. 1C 5<......,. S<>::>et~ and lilt Nal"",.1 ASl(lCiltion 01 Criminal lA-len.., Lawyttf. !!etiTed Chief [)ocu"",nt f:xaminet". USA Cl l..lor3t ... ~. Hans Ml yer Gidion. 2lS Met"rymont Dri~e. Au· gu!l •. G«qIa 30907. (404) 86(1.4267.

1·28 with Index; Am Jur lAg:Il Forms 2d

FON ENS IC ENGINEER ING Ser:i.ces - A<:cidtnl r«Olllilruct""' ....1brlts.".... channl failu ...... . l,p & fall . lame< D. AncItr3on .lr .. P.E. lleaiSlet"cd ",..,hankal tnjlintt<let">·ing Alaboma. MiSSl .. ipp; . Gtorx>a and Florida. Rat .. and r('!et"et"ICeI on I"flIUOSI. Cha"t< rnembrr - Nalional

TilE AlABAMA lA WYER CLASSIFIEOS

I, '

An requests for classified ad

Vol. 1·20 with Index: Nicholl Cyclopedia 0I!.eg>1 Form, Vol. 1· 11l". La",~ C_ B.anhul'lcr s.r.~ Law)'fl"', Edition Vol. 1· 10. Contact ). W. I!'nlon. P.O. 1kuI 681. Gad.... Alabooma 3Ii902 ... all .... 4 p.m. coil (200) 442·9042. f'ON &\1.10.: Complcle lei 01 lilt Ala· homa Codr ..nIh pxi<tl ""n l and I"f"

pI;toamcnl vdumos thrqh 1964. SIanie)' w. f'twy. P.O. BolI.1OO. While SpringS. Flonda l2096. pbone (904) :m-86I 3.

Academy 01

~·orensoc

.:l1li""'<5. 9663 HoI·

Members: Nodl..rge

Rt::A1. F.sTATE EX I' ERT wU nossIlId·

$.5(l pel" addillOr\:ll ...wd

, ...... ......... ",liabolity 01 ....1est;!u~ . . ., &. """'pee 1eto:Ien. do5inc altor· lUjj, In. uranee cun""nla. (h.t< 10 yn ... ""pen.nQ'. ~ all......,. .....1 es ll ~ brolt< and publiVlcd author. Slocon IW ./ulI5ky . SUH 100. 6 Off~ Park Cir. (jj,. IIInn"..pam. AlahoJI\;ll l5Z2l. (205) 8704U4.

• • • • • •

USED LAW BOOKS • W"1 • lawyetl COOl) • H.,,;1IOfI

• ~ a.- . c.a.gr..,., .

0IIws

WE BUV _ SELL _ TRADE

L.'lW Book Exchllnge P. O. Box 17073 Jnck.,,,,,,,inc . FI. 322 16 1·800-325·60 12

RATES:

iowbnd Cirdr. pmoacoIa .•1onda 32514. 1"IIoM (9CH) 478-8:!O1l.

ntyi.

SAVE 30·60%

jJlocemen\ mUSl be submin«l typewrinen and ar~ subj«:t 10 approval. Alabama State Bar members are nOl (:hltrged for classified nOlice1l up 10 t"'o inserlions per calendar ytar. ex· cept for "position wanled'· or "position offcred" listings. which 3rt' at the regu lar ralC. Nonmember ad"crlisers must pay in advance and w,1I receh'e a comjJIimentary copy of Tiu AIilbtfma lA ~" in which their ad,·ertisemenl '$ published. Additional copies are $3.00 JII us poslage.

IA MAN MILLEN. Exanullet" 01 Ques. toontd llocumtn'" Qualified in moot Ala· booma eo.."l. Americ:ln Socitty '" Quostoontd Documenl Examinet"S. Americ:ln Academy cI For<n$ic ~. anifled by Americ:ln Board cI FOWtsic 1"""'",..,,1 J;JI.lminers. l1and"·';ling. forgery. lyPf'" ..-nlma. alleral"'" "' ....... ical.M other rr<:Ordl.. ,\\ ,..,.11."""". doctlm~' au,hen· Iirat "'" problem s. P.O. Box 2250. Au · bIlrn. Alabama 36831·22,.0. (205) 88Hi609.

Noomemben: S3S per insertion of. fifty (50) ....wds or less

DEADLINES: Classified copy and payment must be rftJei,-ed no Ialer lhan the lint day cillle monlh prior 10 publication dalt. WIth no ~~.

MAILING: Send classified ad'·ertismg copy and your check, made OUt 10 Tiu AIilbo" .. IAM<yU. 10: Alabama Lawyer Class,fieds do Margaret Dubberley

P.O. Box 4156 Montgomery. AI. 36101

".i..,.U.""",," LA W BOO " I)OSATlOSS .-sed!

_una: ""''''JP''tolt In

Jono;i I,.t.". School •• Alabo"", Chnsl""

teb,_

and em~ act"·,, ..... Membrr of Moch..... """ AlaI»."", I!.a<. !'nor H~ ...·IIh C~ Realty ~"nI<'IIl a..r 201 ~llt ,,'uk Ford M<> 'or C"",panr .n I..rUSlN) ""'n·

CoI",, ' n Mon~.-b Iopl bo<D. iwrnllL ftC. I'otkup a m boo amlnged. Con.act " 1)1 Nt,•.-"",,,. 53G Allan,.

HoV>"lty. ~.~. Alabo_36I9301601 or ",II (;!05) 2/'2·5820. nl. 147

teb""".

agMIml IXIO""""" Con'acI Ed Jea klc al 383.213..1or 76&7706 11,<1' 6 p.m.

(1-8»82014527 In ~I will be

powble.

..ildfo•.-l habolil . 4.000 oqu.r~ I.... . 1.500 "lUI,.., f.... alilt. By""·.....

SI99.ooo. 'rw:loo.. Idtct"" mgtna] lu<" ..hin", and ""...... r.nancing. Add iuonal larod up 10 901hcrel "',llable In .~,.-.... I lra.cl oombinalW 001 lor hu nllng, cal · Ilc or jus. l he good hl~. R.E, Monell. ct05)8JO.2961. nyt ll!le.

AfFORDABLE TERM LIFE INSURANCE _ FROM COOK It ASSOCIATES

_.- -=..• -

eo..-. "- ____ .......... ,... --. '11'1'-"'-"

235.00

••• 'K. ) T7.5O

] lU ll ' , ZJS.OO

2. ' 111.00

115.00

"'UI.oo .011 105.00 1,OU.00

' ".00 12S.00 1,)U.oo

,--

lOO. _

__ _ _ ..., _ . poe

... ~ __ by" " ,_ eo. f o< • w ft _ 01 _

lor __

,,-

. ,5.00 UO,OO '25.00 SOS.GO

1,1175.00 2,IIU.00 3..... 5.00

z,!IOS.oo

1 · _ . · . " . . . . . . . . . . _. . to .

""'" _

U1U'0 1)

" ..... _ _ ....... lOur

II\' coo

"1M

" ' ' ' ' ' _ ..... P<*q- ~"" _

.....

omouno

01 _

_ _ ' " " 10

COOK & ASSOCIATES 2970 COTTAGE HIll ROAD' SUITE 201 MOBILE . ALABA"'A 36606 (2O!i)476-1737

Jes5lon.l15t:Mcn,

uncltSiUrbiOd Inltbrilum m.lltCI<1'. 110m.

NOTICE

•

Ihlelr

oulbuiJcli .... lrod Lake 1en·,.,.,nn...1

ALL ADS A:-JO ARTICLES FOR TH E M A Y ISSUE OF 1'I1f: A1.AJJj\'\IA fA U'}'£H M UST BE SU BM1Tn:O BY M A He li 2H, 1985

..•

~II~ ~r.d

'_"orr coLum""" Greek ~',,'al man·

Vickon. 500 ~:U.dalc Nood. Aponmenl F·

• "• •• •

6enelLWng

d entS with the loIlowIng pro-

• ..... pracdully illOlal"" on 50 ao;:"", do an· ";""1 ""k•• prcan rrovn-. roIlt"l; ~".• lrod ...wdlanoh.. f.lopnl dra~and c handclocn, .....1 ('OlIntry kllchm. formal docor,lIIOdto'to heal l..r DOIII'",,""""'" j'e!

4, Mon.~, Alabo ...... 36117. Calldor or ""'" Z7 1.s106 or 347.(1912. ~ "",.

~t'JlOOft.

FOR SA LE, N' 1!ISh'nod h.. l""" "PIPPEN" pLanl~1 1OI1 "". r Eu'aw. Grl"'n Counly. lIu ullfu ll y ..... 'orto:I llI.'i3 da ..ic

f..idence Jrd I!dU;"" by rarl.... """ion •.

IacI . . 100II ...

"'abo"",~ Ad,,,,,,,·~

mack lor lax

00, 6o>.l1H . ~ . AL366S l 4}8·4 S81

LEGAL PRINTING Legal and Financial Printers Since 1910 Experienced, Dependable, Responsible, Confidential

Prospectuses, Proxy Statements, Official Statements, Tender Offers, Indentures and Briefs

BIRMINGHAM PUBLISHING COMPANY 130 South 19th Street Birmingham , Alabama 35233 Telephone: 205/251 -5113 Contact: Harold Fulton, Vice President

The Master's Tools Fine took In tho.' hands of.l rndS!!'r ther c.ln sh.lpe d qU,llity

inslrum('nl. bring

liff' to ,\ ~1.Jb of

stone or (O.IX.l new rose from h,mdful of e.lrth.

You find mJ~ter, In every profession. ThE'}.'re thl' one, at the top or on their WJy, Thl;'Y"-c

mastered their cr.• f! amllhe tool, they use. For .In ;lttornry,

tho~('

tool, Jrc

on the she! V('s of his library. Th.lt's whf're you'll Ii nd Carp", Juri< Sflulloium. I'he bst word in

leg,11encyc10pl·th,ls. The flr" pl'ltt'

to look. C"rpu, /uri< Sf. undum nm I,\in~ all t he law. "II th(' C)(U'ptions. A II

tht'lime. (orr",}un s,.,,,,,,/um masters.

furth",

You can" m<lst('r your (r,lft until you 11l.15ier

L'AVI' P KM, I~ lOO ~ L 4.HI.F'IICE ST ",O'trc.tJ/o',e V Al

3(' 1 ~ ',

---------

the tool

VIi .., I'ubli.hinll Comp.n~

P.O. 80~ ..,:0, Soj", rout M'n..-" "lI.• -<l.!lo