VOL.34_NO.4_FALL 1999 by Arkansas Bar Association

organ, or the e. â&#x20AC;˘ for operating a typewriter. typeSetting machine. compu er terminal, or the like. - Key/board/ls~'"

Key-Cite (kefslt)

v. 1. To determine the subsequent history

of a case by using the online citator of the same name, often known informally as establishing that a case is still "good law"; _ n. 2. the act of locating those documents which cite a Âˇven case. statute or other document. - KeyCiting. which each member has

page 1 of 2

arkansasfindalawyer.com Attorney Registration Form (Registration Effective Through December 31, 2000)

Please Print

Supreme Court #

Name Firm Name: Address: City:

State

Telephone: (

)

Zip:

Fax: (

)

E-Mail Address:

(optional)

URL (Website) Address: (Only required if linking to your firm's website)

This registration must be mailed to the address below and contain the following: 1. 2. 3.

This two (2) page registration form, fully completed. A copy of the Declaration page of your current Professional Liability Insurance Policy which shows compliance with your certification below. Payment of the registration fee as follows: a. Membership Fees through December 31, 2000 (includes 5 areas of practice)

$ 25.00

b. Additional Areas of Practice @ $10.00 each

c. Link to your Law Firm's website at $25.00 per attorney or $100.00 for all firm members who register for arkansasfindalawyer.com

Total Amount Enclosed Method of Payment:

Check

Visa

Mastercard

$ $

AMEX

Exp. Date

Card # Signature

Make Check payable to: Arkansas Bar Association, 400 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201

For the $100 Link Fee, payment for your firm must be received before any individual attorney's listing is linked to the firm.

CERTIFICATION I am currently an attorney licensed in Arkansas. I am a current member of the Arkansas Bar Association. I will maintain malpractice insurance in the amount of $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 annual coverage as long as I am a participant in the arkansasfindalawyer.com directory. I agree that I will comply with lawyer advertising requirements as contained in the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Date:

Signed: www.arkbar.com

5/99

arkansasfindalawyer.com Attorney Registration Form

page 2 of 2

AREAS OF PRACTICE Name

Supreme Court #

Check each area under which you want to be listed in the arkansasfindalawyer.com Directory. You receive five (5) areas of practice listings as part of the $25 registration fee. For each additional area of practice above five (5), the cost is $10.00.

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Administrative Law Admiralty and Maritime Law Adoption Agricultural Law Antitrust and Trade Regulation Appellate Practice Arbitration/Mediation Asbestos Bankruptcy Banks and Banking Business Law Child Abuse Civil Rights Collections Commercial Law Computer Law

Constitutional Law

o o o o o o o o o o o

Construction Law Contracts Copyrights/Patents Corporate Law Criminal Law Debtor and Creditor Disability Law Discrimination Education Law Elder Law

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Environmental Law Family Law General Practice Health Law Immigration and Naturalization Insurance Intellectual Property International Law Juvenile Law Landlord/Tenant Litigation - Civil Malpractice Medicare and Medicaid Natural Resources Pensions and Profit Sharing Personal Injury Privacy Law Probate and Estate Planning Products Liability Real Estate Securities Law Social Security State and Local Government Tax Law Torts Veterans Law Workers' Compensation

Employment Law Number of Areas of Practice over five (5) Additional Areas of Practice @ $10 each This amount to be entered on line 3.b on page 1 of 1

www.arkbar.com

5/99

VOLUME 34, NUMBER 4 PUBLISHER

ArkRnsos Bar Association Phone: (SOl) 375-4606

on en s

Fax: (SOl) 375-4901 Homcpage: www.arkbar.rom E路Mail: cunderwood@arkbar.oom

ARKA\SAS BAR ASSOCIATIO\ 400 \\ \larkham Little Rock, -\rkansas iUOI GUEST EDITOR

Christophn L. Travis ASSOClATE EDITOR,.

GRAPHIC DESIG SDrIJ LAndis EDITORIAL BOARD David H. WiWams, Chair Wiley A. Brnnton

Thomas M. Carpenter Jacqueline J. Cravens Morton Gitelman James c. Graves Lucinda McDaniel

Employer Compliance wim me Immigracion & Conuol Act: A Primer by Daniel L. Herrington

Bartered Tool Box, Missing Tools and [he One-Armed Mechanic - Adequately Representing the CriminaJ AJien by Milton A. Dejesus

The H-I B Visa Program: A Band-Aid Remedy by Donna S. Galchn,

Thomas H. McGowan Jacqueline S. Wright OFFICERS President Louis B. (Ducky) jones, Jr. President-Elect Ron D. Harrison Immediate Past President Robert M. Cearley, Jr. Secretary -Treasurer H. Murray Claycomb Executive Council Chair Christopher Barrier Parliamentarian Marie-Bemarde Miller Young Lawyers Section Chair Baxter Sharp Executive Director Don Hollingsworth Associate Executive Director Judith Gray

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL William M. Clark. Jr. E Thomas Curry Thomas A. Daily Kay West Forrest Lance B. Garner Ron D. Harrison Dave Wisdom Harrod Knox B. Kinney

On the Cover: 'Unzipping National Flags" by Warren Gebert.

U.s. NationaJirr Through

Naturaliz.ation

by !Vlthy W. Go"

My First lime as a Juror by Maggie Bush

A special thanks goes to Chris Travis at Gill, Elrod, Ragon, Owen, Calhoun, Skinner & Sherman, P.A. for serving once again as a guest ednor for The Ar1<ansas Lawyer.

Proposed Revisions in Association's Constitution

by Harry Tn/man Moore

Four Given Highest Honors at 1999 AnnuaJ Meeting

Edwin N. McClure Lance R. Miller Michael W. Mitchell

Charles C. Owen Brian H. Ratcliff James D. Sprott Danny Thrailkill R. Scott Zuerker EXEamVE COUNOL LWSON MEMBERS Alice Holcomb

Bradley D. Jesson Harry Truman Moore Judge Bentley F. Story Carolyn B. Witherspoon The Arb1lSllS lAwyn (USPS 546-{).W) is published quarterly by the Arkansas Bar As8odation. Periodicals pne;tage paid at Utile Rock. Arkansas. POSTMASTER; send address changes 10 The Ark.e/fSlls lAwyer, 400 West Markham,. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. Subscription price to non-members of the Arkansas Bar Association $25,00 per year. Anyopinion expressed herein is that of the author, and not necessarily thai of the Arkansas Bar Association or The Ark.ens.es lAwyer. Contributions to 111拢 A,kIlnsas LfllV!ler are welrome and should be eml in two copies to EDITOR, The Arkansas L.elU'!Jer, 400 Wesl Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas

reserved.

PRESIDENT'S REPORT,

by LOllis B. "BlId.y" Jones. J,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT,

by Don Hollingsworth

MEMBER BENEFITS

LAW OFFICE TECHNOLOGY

CLE CALENDAR

YOUNG LAWYERS SECTION REPORT

JUDICIAL ADVISORY OPINIONS

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

LAWYER DISCIPLfNARY ACTIONS

IN MEMORIAM

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING/INOEX TO ADVERTISERS

1II.I.sidl.ul.s IIl'plll'l

Preparing for the Future by Louis B. "Bucky" Jones, Jr.

"we work hard at being represmtative, responsive, and relevant, and, for the most part, 1 think we have bem successfitl. we simply want to keep our Association on the leading edge ofthis trend and maintain our position as a leader among voluntary state bar associations. "

A s our nation and scate approach the ..l'\.new cemury and millennium and as we prepare for the decennial census and legislative re-disrricring which follows, your Arkansas Bar Associalion is preparing for the future in terms of its internal governance structure as well as the role and mission of the Executive Council and House of Delegates. Under the reorganization plan. the Executive Council WQuJd become a Board of Governors much like a typical corporate or business management structure and would attend to the "business" of the Association (i.e., budgets. commi[(ees and section rcpons, etc.)

The Board of

Governors would be elected by voce of the membership from the respective Bar Districts rather than at an early morning caucus at the Annual Meeting preceding the House of Delegates meeting, as is the currem practice.

He ,Irkmasl,aw)/r

1'01.11 So. 路lff'11I1999

The House of Delegates would continue being eleCted by rhe membership but would concern itself more with broader issues facing the Association and profession and would meet two times per year. Under the current system with 4300 members, numerous committees and sections, a $1.1 million budget, and issues like MultiDisciplinary Practice, Lawyer Admission and Discipline, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Lawyer Assistance Program, Proposed Amendment 3, and Professionalism and the Image of the Profession all coming at us at "warp speed", we need, and our membership expects and deserves, a governance structure that is representative, responsive. and effective. The proposed change in governance will give us an organizational srrucrure in which these goals can be more easiIyattained. Our Reorganizarion and Redistricting Committee led by Harry Truman Moore spent many hours reviewing other needed changes in the 1972 Constitution of OUf Association. An important change which the Committee recommended and which the Execurive Council and House of Delegates have approved unanimously is to reduce the current system of five state bar districts to three state bar districts. This will allow those seeking the office of President to do so every three years instead of every five years. as is the current practice in the four bar districts ourside of Pulaski County. The Central Bar District (Pulaski County) will still have rhe President-Elecr every third year as it does now. We work hard at being representarive, responsive, and relevant, and, for the most part, I think we have been successful. We

simply want to keep our Association on the leading edge of this trend and maimain our position as a leader among voluntary state bar associations. We feel the proposed changes accomplish these goals, but we will need your posirive VOTE and SUPPORT when you receive your mail-in ballot in November. If you have questions or would like to have additional information, you may refer to the article by Harry Truman Moore in this magazine or call me or Don Hollingsworth at the Bar Center. Together we can restructure, refocus, and refine the governance of our association to make it even more effective and relevant for our members. Former NC\v York Mayor Ed Koch was famous for asking his constiruems "How am J doin'?" Since New Yorkers are famous for speaking their minds, they would rell Mayor Koch how he was doin'! I encourage you as members of the Arkansas Bar Association (Q tell us, your elected leaders and staff, how you think we are doing. We want to hear from you. Only by staying in touch with our members can we truly represent your views and work to meet your needs as we do our best to lead and manage your association. Personally, I want (Q visit as many local bar associations as possible during this bar year and yes, I want to hear from you about the issues and challenges facing our association and profession. My address is: Louis B. Jones, Jr., Webster University, 3448 N. College Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72703, Phone: 501-5711511, Fax: 501-571-3511, Email: bjones@Webster.edu Let us hear from you. Tell us "How we are doin'!"t-

[Wfllli\l' lIil'l'ftlll''s III'plll'l

Often Overlooked But Beneficial by Don Hollingsworth e-mail: dhollingsworlh@arkbar.com

T was

he credit for this column rests with one of our good volunteers with whom I

discussing

the

upcoming

2000

Membership Directory. When I learned that he was nOt aware of the fold out

divider tabs used in our 1999 Directory. I

knew we needed

to improve communica-

tions with members on such maners.

2000 Membership Directory. [t will again have the fold out divider tabs as well as O[her special benefits such as email addresses. We are proud of the user-friendly spacing of the member listings and the accuracy of the information in the directo-

ry.

Conference Room Facilities. The Rose/Wright Conference Room at the Arkansas Bar Center is available to mem-

bers for depositions. mediation or other meetings with clients or opposing counsel,

subject to availability. Call the office to reserve it. Association committees and sections are utilizing the conference room on a regular

basis. Additionally, the larger ones often will use the adjoining reception area where rabies and chairs can be arranged for up to 30 persons. This is where the Executive Council holds its Little Rock meetings. Senior Members. This is a well deserved and free, annual membership in our Association. A member must have attained the age of 75 years and must have been a member for 10 continuous years

mines the local bar district in which a mem-

ber is placed. Professional Liability Insurance. Association members get a 5% premium discount. Bur some members forget that there is an additional discount when they

attend the CNA Loss Control Seminar. Liaison with the Arkansas Judicial Council. We have a five person Judicial Council Liaison Committee whose members attend the spring and fall meetings of the Council each year. The committee's purpose is to maintain good bench-bar relations and good communications on matters of common interest. The President路Elect of the Judicial Council serves as a liaison Member of our House of Delegates and Executive Council. Annual Meeting Attendance. We are averaging a fantastic 20% to 250/0 of our instate members as registered attendees each June. One reason for this attendance is the many members who tell new attorneys that the Annual Meeting is the place to be every

June. Mark your caleodar for June 14-17, 2000. Annual Meeting Registration Fee. The fee covers morc than the ClE presentations. The success of the Annual Meeting is largely due to the variety and integration of all activities, including the networking, family and social events. Law Links. If you have not visited www.arkbar.com and explored the new law

immediately before attaining the age 005.

links, you should. The links were developed

There were 78 senior members during the

by our Website Oversite Committee, and

1998-99 bar year. Your mailing address, email address, and phone & fax numbers. The ones you

they will be expanded periodically. Loading Speed of Our Website. Your computer may have a 56k modem, but ulti-

give us when renewing annual dues each

mately your Internet provider will determine the speed at which the Association's Website as well as other Websites will

year is what is included in the Membership Directory. This mailing address also deter-

"load" on your computer. By the way, we have made some changes on the Website which has reduced the waiting time, and more will be made later this year. Tenured Delegates. These arc Association members who have served at least six years as an elected member of our House of Delegates. They are an invaluable resource to the Association. There are cur路 rently 57 tenured delegates.

Speakers for Bar Meetings.

One of

your officers or myself wiIJ be glad to speak at meetings of bar associations throughout the state, whether local or speciality bars. Just give us a call. Advisory Ethics Opinions. Members can request such opinions from the Association's Professional Ethics and Grievances Committee. The guidelines which govern this member service can be secured from the office.

CLE Hours.

Members can contact

Virginia Hardgrave at the office for their current hours from Association elE seminars. Mailing Labels. Members can contact Barbara TarkingtOn at the office to order Association mailing labels. The Association will sell to members, at a discount, a set of labels for many law-related purposes. The set can be customized geographically. By the way, some firms are now running an ad in The Arkansas Lawyer to announce new associates or partners, instead of mailIllg an announcement to attorneys statewide. Our experience is that the ad is more effective and less expensive. arkansasfrndalawyer. A member does not have to have email or a Website to participate in and benefit from this new online attorney djrectory.~ www.arkhar.com

fll.11 NI. l/Falllll!

TIe IrkllSlJ I,awrrr

ARKANSASFINDALAWYER

BOOKLETS AND GUIDES AVAILABLE AS A SERVICE TO YOUR CLIENTS

Over 300 Association members have registered for "arkansasfi ndalawyer" Gives Association members a cost effective, new source of clients with an accurate up-eo-date listing, in over 50 areas of practice. Introductory fee of $25 is good through December 31, 2000. Link ro a firm's website available at a nominal fee. Does nor require an auorney ro have e-mail or a website ro benefit from the on-line direcrory. To request a registration form, call the AJ-kansas Bar Association ar (501) 375-4606 Ot roll free (800) 609-5668 or e-mail pzimmerman@arkbarcom

nl Irkmll Li~}/r

III. j I. II. Ilfall1911

7ilke advantage ofn series offtu pubLicntiom offirtd by tht Association. Ytmr clients will be imprtsud with their quality and grnufid to you for providing them. designed to anS\ver basic questions about Social Security, Medicaid. Wills and Estate Planning. Guardianship, etc. ARKANSAS CAREGIVERS HANDBOOK written to help your clients as mer undertake the roll of caregiver for parents or other loved ones. ARKANSAS CONSUMER LAw HANDBOOK is an aid to help lay-people better understand consumer issues. SMALL CLAIMS COURT BOOKLET shows your client. whose dispute and damages are less than $5,000, how to take necessary steps to file a claim. ARKANSAS VETERANS HANDBOOK provides information abour VA entitlements and services available. ARKANSAS SENIOR CITIZENS HANDBOOK

To order, call (501) 375-4606 or (800) 609-5668 or e-mail dgerald@arkbarcom. Visit our website to view or download some of these publications.

•

• arkansasfindalawyer

Online legal research from Lex.is-Nex.is is discounted for members. Call 800-356-6548 ext. 1178.

New online anomey direccory for Association members only. Review me directory by going

•

to www,arkbaLcom.

CLE SEMINARS AT REDUCED COST

•

It's not alwaY' black and white. In me practice oflaw, mere's a

date information and skills. The Arkansas Bar Association

lot of gray. Your Association's Professional Ethics and Grievance Committee can help. Within specific guidelines. the Committee will issue an opinion on the member's proposed conduct.. There is an administrative charge of $50.

and members pay reduced tuition! LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

You are well represented on legislative issues affecting the

•

profession and me legal sysrem.

•

INSURANCE DISCOUNTS

Professional Liability, Accident, Term Life, Hospiral Indemnity Prorection, Overhead Expense, Disability Income, and twO NEW products-Long Term are and

•

secure adequate funding of the court system,

DELIVERY SERVICE

Trial Program. the Young Lawyers Section's projects, and special Slurues.

•

HANDBOOKS

•

RETIREMENT PLAN

ABA Members Retirement Program - Call 800-826-8901 or visit the website at http://abra.ris.ssga.com.

CAR RENTAL

Avis - For discounts call 800-331-1212 (give mem this number B-314500).

wim me Arkansas Bar Association logo, no annual fee, miles

Members Receive a Special Discoum. Ten practice handbooks on CD-ROM from LOIS and in print and disk from the Arkansas Bar Association. The 1998 version of the Arkansas Form Book is now available. To order, call Diane at me Association at 501-375-4606 for print or disk versions or call LOIS at 1-800-364-2512 for the CORaM version.

Out-

program, Sections and Committees, the Association's Mock

The MBNA Platinum Plus MasterCard includes a card

•

revise

public. Association members do this through the legislative

quick response time. Call 800-325-7000 and identifY yourself as a member of the Arkansas Bar Association, or use account #CP290001685.

plus option, a low APR, and crave! services. Call 800-8477378 for an application.

dared laws, and to provide needed legal information to the

UPS gives Arkansas Bar Association members discounts and

CREDIT CARD PROGRAM

IMPROVING THE LEGAL SYSTEM

The Arkansas Bar Association has historically worked to

Critical Illness.

•

PUBLICATIONS FREE TO MEMBERS

The Newsbulktin, Tht Arkamas LnrllJer. L~is/ative Summary From the Hili. Guide to Arkansas Statuu ofLimitations, Annual Membership Directory. 77)( A,klltlSas Law Review, The UALR Law Review. Brochures on law-related wpies are available for members to share with clients or civic groups.

Call Rebsamen Insurance ar 501-664-8791 for the following insurance products (5% discount for members);

•

ADVISORY ETHICS OPINIONS

The cornerstone of an anomer's professionalism is up co provides the most comprehensive statewide CLE program,

•

LEXIS-NEXIS

•

PROFESSIONAL NETWORKING

The Arkansas Bar Association is the best opportunity in Arkansas for attorney interaction duough the Association's public service projects, sections. and comminees. The Annual Meeting of the Association each June is attended by 1,000 Arkansas attorneys and hundreds of family members.

tiln II Hii'll Tlll'hnolog)

Web Appeal: Utilizing the Internet by Alisa Thorne Corke

"\VJhar can the Internet do for my law

office? This is probably [he single most frequently asked question I hear when discussing the lmernct among attorneys.

To a ccnain degree. the usefulness of the Internet depends on the eype practice you Web can be maimain. Benefits from achieved for personal injury attorneys, defense counsel, Family lawyers. research and writing specialises, and virtually every other type of practice. Although legal research can be performed over the 'Net. it is important [Q remember that unlike such products as Casebase or Lois, the Internet was not designed solely as a legal research rool. The principal goal was to provide free information co the general public. not onc particular segment of the population. The sheer size of the Internet is mind boggling. Presendy, [here are 56,218,000 domain names registered with the Domain Name Service.! This is an increase of approximately 13,000,000 sites in only six momhs. 2 It is this volume of information which many 3((Orneys find intimidating, since searching the Web is not as exacting as using specific legal research products. Before surfin' the Web, knowledge of certain terms is helpful. To access the Internet, an office first must use the services of an Internet Service Provider (ISP), a company which provides modem dial-up or direct telephone line access to the Internet. The products that allow a computer to utilize the Internet are called browsers. The [\vo primary browsers are Netscape Communicator and Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Once online, information can be retrieved by either knowing the site's Universal Resource Locator (URL) or using a search engine. The URL is [he address ofa Web page, such as www.law.comell.edu. A search engine is the product that canvasses the Internet to retrieve requested data. Some popular

search engines are Altavista, GoTo, Lycos, Excite, and Yahoo. Many sites have such a tremendous amount of data available that they offer their own search engine or gopher. One such example is the Muscat search engine used to retrieve data from the U.S. Code. Hypertex[ links are [he connections between one Web site and another. These are usually underlined or appear in blue on a Web page. Once the cursor is placed on a link, the mouse icon will generally rum into a hand. Individual state governments furnish a wide variety of useful information. There has been some uniformity brought to the Web in recent years. All state home pages now have a Universal Resource Locator of www.state.postalzipcodeabbreviation.us. i.e., www.state.(X.us. The Arkansas home page3 has an incredible amount of useful data, all available for free. It is now possible to search for an Arkansas corporation's name, registered agent, and status over the 'Net. Also available is information on home builders, banks, home inspectors, and trademarks. Rules and regulations from many state agencies can be downloaded and printed directly from the Web. Some of the agencies with home pages are: securities department; contractor licensing board; department of health; finance and administration; employment security; and, countless other agencies. 4 If you are currently purchasing the Arkansas advance sheets, it is my recommendation that you save this money for other research tools. Every Thursday the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals download their decisions. There is now a keyword search engine available to search all opinions since September, 1994 to the present. S Also posted to the Internet on a weekly basis is a list of cases submitted to the appellate courts for review, per curi-

am opinions, a list of cases denied review, and mose motions pending before the Court granted or denied. Arkansas statutory sources are also available online. The Arkansas Code is now completely searchable with a keyword search engine. 6 Information from the last legislative session is also on the Web.? Many federal resources are available on the 'Net. The U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations. and every Circuit Court of Appeals all have keyword gopher search engines to assist in the retrieval of informa[ion.' Eighth Citeui[ Coun of Appeals opinions are available online from October 30, 1995 to [he present, and may be searched by keyword. 9 Of benefit to many attorneys is the ability to locate individuals and businesses. lo This can be used to find an out-of-state process server, a missing witness, a judgment debtOr, or an expert witness. Also useful to many practices is data regarding injuries, diagnoses, or other medical conditions. This information can be found by searching for the particular medical ailment or utilizing the Medscape service.! I Due to the plethora of information now available online, the usefulness of the Internet to a law practice is limited more by an anorney's creativity than a lack of data. The important thing is to not be intimidated and be willing to experiment. 1.

3. 4.

July, 1999, Internet Domain Survey performed by the Internet Software Consortium, www.isc.org (acruaJ survey found at: hnp:llwww.isc.org/dsview.cgi?domainsurveyrwww-9907/reporr.hrml). Id. www.srarc.ar.us. A list of Arkansas state agencies currently Law Office Technology Continued on Page 52

The Intelligent New Hire Save Money on Expensive Individual Firm Announcements. Place Your Announcement in The Arkansas Lawyer.

nce upon a time. there WaS a very busy low oi'i'ice. "Deary me. we are so

overworked." cried the weary associates. "II'

Fortunately ror the weary. overworked low oi'i'ice. the most intelli&lent new hire knew just what to do! A Firm Announcement in

only we hod more associates to

The Arkansas Lower would cer-

assist us in our tasks!"

tainly be the most cost errective

Alas. their cries were heard. "I know."

way to reach the majority or the

eEl A

thou&lht the ever-on-top-or-

le&lal community (much less expensive than

things mana&ler type. "I'll hire a

mailin&l individual announcements)! And that is how it come to be that a

new associate to assist the weary. overworked associates we

snappy-dressin&l. erricient assistant WaS

alreooy have!"

&liven the task to purchase an announcement

And so it WaS done.

But how to &let the word out to

in The Arkansas Law)'er inrormin&l the le&lal

their peers about this most intelli&lent new

community or the weary. overworked

hire lert the low oi'i'ice in quite a quandary and

law oi'i'ice's very rorward thinkin&l

led to many hi&lh-powered

business acumen that resulted in the

meetings to discuss just

acquisition or the intelli&lent new hire. thus

which course or action to

makin&l the majority or the legal community

rollow.

&lreen with envy!

It's easy to place your Firm Announcement

501-375-4606 or 800-609-5668. and Sora

new associate. a new portner. a change 01

will send you all you need to make your

address. etc.) in The Arkansas Law er. Call

colleagues green with envy!

Home Sweet Home

Who says you can't go home again? And again ...and again. Because every time you visit the Arkansas Bar Association's homepage at www.arkbar.com. you're getting jusr what you need to prepare for whatever is outside that familiar front door in the "real world." Irs the place to find resources for your law practice, links to other legal sites, an on-line bar directory, information on member benefits and discounts, and informative brochures for your clients. And it's a way to reach the helpful bar staff who can answer your queStIOns. In a time when rapid responses and cuning-edge communications are a must, isn't it nice to know that all the comforts of home are at your fingertips?

Trial &.Appellate PracticeThe Magie tnul the Science

Money &. Goods Lending, Selling, Collecting: Developments ill the vee tnul Btmkruptey

Irrdluli1rf

"Movie Magic: How the Masters Try Cases"

Jwmtrittf:

David Epstein

by Steven O. Rosen

on "Recent Case Developments in Consumer Bankruptcy"

Anomey and fOrmer adjunct profasor of law, s....n O. Roocn ....... IIlOYie dips and law into a r<6ahina -rung tool you won'r want to miss!

Noted Bankruptty and CommerriaI Law Trmtise AMthor and

Shown II ow.:!' 30 bar Ie jario_t! and bw scbooIs rwionwid<-6·"'" tti ...EnaPl,,;..iJts.... Grart Mm!-

furmrr Dean, Universi!Y ttf ArkaIlSilS Sdrool ttf Law

Phis Ieam from an afternoon of Appellate Justices, Practitioners, Educators •

also including outstanding faculty presentations on: • The New Bankruptcy Code • The New Article 9 • Fair Debt Collection Practices: Fedetal and Slate • Payment Systems: N<gotiabIe Insmune:ttl. and Funds Tr:urskr

• Ethics in Lending, Sdling & Collecting

Pa/sgrtz/ mock oral argument • Analyze when and how to use oral argument • On AbsmJeting: doing it wdlIshouid M: be doing it at aU? • Get up to date on the r=nt changes in faIc:ral and state ruIc:r affi:cting

6.0 CLE Houn (including ethics)

• Hear and help judge a live

apptaIs

Point. Click. You're Home.

Ihc -\rk.lll\.t\ B.lf \\\ol.i.nion and rhl' l ni\l'r\it\ nf'\rh.'ln .... , S<..huol of 1.1\\

Co-Spon'llrnl In

IpR.

\tuRI

1'\ I

.\I~I\\'\\\'

1\1()f{\1\11I1'\ ( \ I I

\lIn! \ 1 I

(l' \

1)1\ 1\111' ':;01- ,-.:;

I ' () [ II! H

,! ['\ \ II". \

~~~.~~ r1.jJjl,I.,.---'.. 0 III

nr ,lrkmlJ LIMW

I'll. II SI. lIFllIl9l!

Bu{

:\""Ill 1\lIU"

eLF

59-;I" [I

I It 1

C I I· P \t, 1 \ 1

from LEXIS Publishing, the nation's leading publisher of state codes

If you are 1Il0st co research, you will find LE Publishing's famous editorial quali built into every page of the Arkansal. Code of 1987 Annotated. LEXIS Publishing's editors are not only lawyers, they are specialists in preparing meaningful annotations, insightful notes, and the most comprehensive indexes

you 've ever seen. If you prefer computer-assisted research, you will find this same editorial expertise built into the criticall acclaimed LEXIS@ Law Publi Arkansas Law on Disc'; now a pan of the LEXIS Publishing family of products and services. This easy-tolearn CD-ROM research system, powered by the industry standard FOLIO' search engine, puts a complete Arkansas law library literally at your fingertips-including case law, coun rules, and more!

PLUS!

An Online Connection'" to a

special state case law update library on the LEXIS@service...alllo extra charge! EXAMINE UPDATES

FOR

ISSUED

WITHIN

LEXIS Publishing" LEXIS'·NEXIS·· MARTINDALE-HUBBELL' MATIHEW BENDER'· MICHIE"· SHEPARD'S'

To Pick the Right Option, call

888/217-1730:;~.;~~::~a~~:~I::~~:;~I~n~~ Please use code 2DW when ordering.

DAYS WITHOUT RISK OR 90 DAYS OF PURCHASE WILL BE

OBLIGATION! FREE

CHARGE.

LEXIS. NEX1S and M:l.rtlllwie-Hubbdl art" regmered track'uwks, LEXIS Pubh~hmg and MICHIE :trc~ Ir.ldt·m2rk~ of Reed ElseVIer Propcrll~ Inc.. us('d under hcense. SHEPARD'S is a registered tndcl1l:l.rk of$I-IEPARD'$ Comp:my. M:;mh~w Bender i~ a Tt'gislcred rradcll1:lrk ofClS, Inc. 199t) LEXIS L1w Publlshlllg,a diyi~ion of Rt:l:d EIsc:.YI~ Inc. All ri' cr~d

EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE WITH THE IMMIGRATION REFORM A

In 1986, Congress passed [he Immigration Reform and Conuol Act ("I RCA"), which requires employers to verify that all employees are authorized to work in the United States and prohibits employers from discriminadng on the basis of narional origin or citizenship stams. The purpose of this legislation was [Q monico( 1110re closely the number of immigrant workers and discourage illegal immigration. The theory behind the legislation is that if an immigrant knows he cannOt obtain work without going through the proper legal channels, he will comply with law. In the process of becoming a legal alien, the immigrant's family will be able to qualify for government benefits in the areas of medicine and education, thereby promOting a more productive role for immigrant families in U.S. sociel)'. IRCA contains dual prohibitions with a singular purpose: To promote the employment of those authorized [0 work in the United States. The legislation is designed to protect and aid I~gal immigrants, but not i"~gnl immigrants. Therefore, an employer may refuse to hire an applicant who cannot produce documents indicating he is authorized CO work, without being subject co prosecution for discrimination against the applicant on the basis of national origin or citiunship stams. An employer, however, cannot refuse to hire a !tgal aJien who presents documentation of his identity and authoriudon (Q work simply because the applicant is not a U.S. citizen or has not been naturalized as of the date of application for

HI ,lr~lI111I,IWW

111.ll XI. 1/1'111 1119

CONTROL ACT:

PRIMER

employment. This article will more fully explain these distinctions and give an overview of how an employer can comply wirh IRCA in its hiring process. The portions of IRCA covered in this article are codified in 8 U.s.c. ยง 1324a and ยง 1324b l IRCA Prohibits Employing

"Unauthorized" Aliens: The Necessity for Proper Documentation Section 1324a of IRCA is divided into major portions. The first provision makes it illegal co "knowingly hire, recruit, or refer an unauthoriud alien"2 for employment in the United States. An unauthoriud alien is someone not admitted for permanent residence or otherwise authoriud to be employed under [he Act.' The employer's knowledge may be either "actual" or "con_ structive" knowledge. "Constructive" knowledge has been construed rather conservatively. Generally, an employer is deemed [0 have conStructive knowledge that an employee is an unauthorized alien after the I S has given the employer information indicating the employer has an unauthorized employee. An employer then has constructive knowledge that an employee is an unauthorized alien and has a duty to reverify (hat employee's documentation when the I S relays information to the employer stating its belief that the employee is not authorized for U.S. employmenr. 4 The second portion of ยง 1324a requires employers to examine documentation of the employee's identity and authorization ro work in the U.S. in order to confirm that (\.1/0

BY DANIEL

the employee is not an "unauthorized a1ien."5 The employer should examine these documents before the employee begins work, although the employer does nor have to examine the documents before the employee is "hired."6 The Act liSts documents the employee may present in order ro confirm his identity and his employment eligibility. If an employee presents a documenr on the list (or proper combination thereof) the employer must accept those documents as satisfactory as long as the documents presented appear on their face to be genuine. Section 1324a(b) gives three lists of documents. Documents on the first list show the employee's identity and authorization to work, i.e. a U.S. passport, a certificate of U.S. citizenship or naturalization, or an alien residence registration (green card). If the employee chooses not to present a documenr on (he first list, he or she must present one document from each of the second and third lists: one verifying identity and one evidencing authorization for U.S. employment. A valid state-issued driver's license or other identification card containing a photograph of [he employee is sufficient to identify the employee. A social security card or a state binh certificate will verify the employee is authorized for U.S. employment. IRCA does not require that employers be experts on the validity of the documents listed, but only that the document appears to be genuine on its face) Employers must not be roo criticaJ in examining the documents presented by an employee. The

HERRINGTON

employer must accept any documentation on the relevant lists mat does indeed appear to be genuine. If an employer refuses to accept documentation listed in § 1324a(b) that appears to be genuine, and subsequently asks the employee for additional documentation, this request could be considered an unfajr immigration-related employment practice in violation of § 1324b. The employer mwt sign an 1-9 Form for each employee hired after ovember 6, 1986, indicating the employer has examined the necessary documentation and that the employee (I) is who he says he is and (2) is authorized to be employed in the United States. s The employer mwt retain a copy of this 1-9 Form for the longer of three years from me date of hiring or one year after the date of termination of the individual's employment. 9 Employers mwt view the original document, nor a copy. The stature allows, but does not require, employers to retain copies of the documents presented by the employee. 1O Employers are advised to do so. An oft-repeated phrase in human resource practice is, "Document, document, document." The copies of the documentation should not be used for any other purpose and should be stored with the 1-9 Form signed by the employer. Some documents show a future expiration date of the alien's employment authorization. Employers cannot refuse to hire an employee simply because of the future expiration date, as this could also be considered an unlawful immigration-related practice. Employers must, however, reverify employment e1igibiliry on the expiration date. An employer who learns that an employee is an unamhorized alien must terminate that employee. I I The United Stares Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a two week delay between the time the [ S notified the employer ofan intent to fine for employing an unauthorized alien and the time he terminated the employee was a violation of this prohibition against the continued employment of unauthorized aliens. 12 This provision is designed to discourage an employee from providing fraudulent documentation in order to obtain employment and to discourage employers from "looking the other way" when they find our that an employee may have provided insufficient documentation when hired. In the event an employer (or one who recruits or refers for employment) violates the documentation portion of the IRCA, he may be subject to prosecurion.1 3 In prose-

cutions for a § 1324a violation, the alleged violator is entitled to a hearing before an administrative law judge CAL)"). For charges relating to either portion of § 1324a, the statute permits an alleged violator to assert the affirmative defense of good faith compliance. In order to use this defense, however, the alleged violaror musr at least have completed the 1-9 Form indicating an examination of the alien's documentarion.l~ Should the ALJ find an I RCA violation, he may issue a cease and desist order against the violator and impose civil penalties for employing unauthorized aliens and for paperwork violations. These are twO separare violations, and the civil penalties which may be imposed for paperwork/documentation violations are much less than those that may be imposed for hiring, recruiting, or referring an unauthorized alien. The person or entity employing an unauthorized alien may be required to pay a penalty ranging from $250 per unauthorized employee for the first violation to $10,000 per unauthorized employee for a third or subsequent violation. 15 An employer's failure to properly document the employee's identity and eligibility is also a violation that may subject the employer to a fine of $100 to $1000 for each employee with respect to whom a violation occurred. 16

has fifteen (15) or more employees, that employer would be covered by Title VII. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), charged with enforcement of Tide VII, takes me position that an employee or applicant who is denied employment, a promotion, or similar opportunity or benefits, because of her accent, establishes a prima facia case of national origin discriminarion.!9 English fluency is al 0 highly scrutinized and "English only" rules are viewed by the EEOC as per se invalid. 20 That is not to say that employers cannot make decisions based on an employee's inability to communicate effectively with customers and fellow employees. In Fraganu v. City and County of HOllo/u/u 2! the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer could deny an employee a promotion because of "the deleterious effect his Filipino accent had on his ability to communicate orally, nor merely because he had an accent." There are four exceptions to the application of IRCA's anti-discrimination provision. First, an employer with three or fewer employees is not covered. Second, a private plaintiff or prosecutor cannot file an IRCA

IRCA Prohibits Discrimination Based on National Origin or Citizenship Statw Because employers faced with the potential penalties for non-compliance with § 1324a's documentation requirements might simply refuse to hire "foreigners", § 1324b prohibits discrimination based on a "protected individual's" national origin or citizenship status. A "protected individual" is defined as (I) a citizen or national of the U.S.; or (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. temporary residence, as a refugee, or under a grant of asylum. The definition of "protected individual" does not include an illegal alien or an alien who fails to apply for naturalization within six months of the date the alien first becomes eligible to apply for naturalization, or an alien who has applied on a timely basis bur has not been naturalized within two years from the date of the application, unless that alien is actively pursuing naturalization. 17 National origin discrimination is also prohibited by Title VlI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VlI").18 If an employer

Timely Response

MEDICAL EXPERTS

Professional Matching All professional specialities-

OB/GY ,ORTHO, NEURO, PEDS, SURG,O COL, NUR HOME, RADIOL.

Your success is our goal. Let our 16-year experience provide you credible, board-certified, practicing physicians who we will match your case. We don't just provide a name, we work for a match!

1-888-336-5127

I'll. It ,II. ,I/I""llll

T~e

lrkmlJ LI"W

III. Ilf III. Ilf 11.1 III I If III. IU 11.1: IIJ 111 IIJ Ilf III. Ilf III. 111 Ilf I If 111 III 111 III Ilf III III II f Ilf Ilf III I If

Arkansas Bar Association CLE Calendar

Ocrober 22, 1999

December 3. 1999 CREATIVE

CoMMUTER CoMPUTER SCHOOL

Sherwood, Arkansas ew Horiwns Computer Learning Crr. 2.5 Hrs. ClE (all day class)

FsrA:rE PLANNING:

BEYOND THE BASICS

Fayetreville. Arkansas 3.0 Hrs. CLE

December 2-4, 1999 BRIDG! G THE GAP little Rock. Arkansas 15.25 Hrs. ClE (3 hrs. ethies)

October 29, 1999 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE REsOumON

little Rock, Arkansas 6.0 Hrs. ClE' ovember 12, 1999 FALL LEGAL INSTITUTE

December 9-10. 1999 TAX INSTITUTE little Rock, Arkansas Co-sponsored wich the Arkansas Society of CPAs 13.5 Hrs. ClE'

MARK THESE DATES January 20, 2000 CNA - Risk Management for Attorneys: Steering a Safer Path Memphis. Tennessee 3.0 ClE hours (includes 2.0 ethies hours) January 20-22, 2000 Mid-Year Meeting Memphis. Tennessee Peabody Hotel

FEDERAL

Fayetteville. Arkansas Co-sponsored by the University of Arkansas School of Law Concurrenr Sessions, 6.0 Hrs. CLE each Mooey & Goods - Lending, Selling, Collecting: Developments in the UCC and Bankruptcy 6.0 Hrs. ClE' Trial and Appellate Slcills - The Magic and the Science 6.0 H rs. ClE'

November 18, 1999 CNA, Loss CoNTROL Fe. Smith, Arkansas 3.0 H rs. ClE (2 hrs «hies)

December 10. 1999 HEALTH LAw lirtle Rock. Arkansas 6.0 Hrs. CLEO

• March 3. 2000 A Day With James McElhaney: "The New Keys to Effective Trial Advocacy" little Rock

• includes one hour of ethics As a IJOluntilry fl.SSfKiIltion, wt drprnd on JOu. our mtm· bm, 10 JUpport our CLE programs. Your fi",:mcitll support btnrfifJ tvt1'J ArkJln.ulS &lr AJJ«Uttion mrmbtr with mbanrtd mrmbmhip bmrfifJ JIM diKounfJ as wtU as tlx hit-hat qlUllif] eLE progrJlTnS in tlx Stl1tt,

See our Website for more program listings at www.arkbar.com

• June 14-17.2000 Annual Meeting Hot Springs. Arkansas Arlington Horel

• June 26-30. 2000 Best ofCLE linle Rock, Arkattsas UALR School of Law

....

Registered I)rofcssional Engineer in 3 Slates.

....

9 )'cars of experience as Pn:sident of large distribmor specializing in all rypes of s.1fely l-quipmem, major emphasis on metal forming and stamping.

....

II }'C"Jrs of experience as Preside.nl of company im'oh'cd in repair and t'C\\'inding of electric motor~ and nmnufacturc, sales, insmllalion and sen'icing of electrical COnl.ml p:mels for industry.

....

14 ycant of experience with Gener-II Electric Co. in engineering :lnd industri:ll s:llcs.

....

Earned US· EleCtric:ll Engineering in 1947,

....

Complete curriculum vitae ,iOd references on request.

John E. McAllister' 3 Palisandro Drive· Hot Springs Village, AR 71909-4613 Phone: (501)922-1709 Fax: (501)922-4177

Ur ,lrklRlll LllIJrr

Itt 11 ,II. 1/1'111

claim when a Title VII claim containing the same allegations has been filed or may be filed with the EEOC. Third, discrimination based on citizenship status may be required in order to comply with a law, regulation or executive order, especially in the area of government contracrs,22 i.e. defense contracts requiring all employees to be U.S. citizens in order to protect national security. Finally, an employer always has the right to prefer an equally qualified citizen over a non-citizen. 23 The key to defending such a choice, however, is that the cwo applicants must be equally qualified for the position except that one is a citizen, and the other is not. Practically speaking, no cwo applicants are ever "equally qualified." IRCA Prohibits Document Abuse In addition to its prohibition on discrimination, IRCA prohibits an employer from demanding more or different documentation than that listed in § 1324a(b) or socalled "document abuse. "24 As noted earlier, employers must honor all documents that comply with that section, as long as such documents reasonably appear on their face to be genuine. 2S Any violation of this documentation provision is considered an unf.lir immigration-related labor practice. It is not unlawful for an employer to specifically request cwo documents (Le. a driver's license and social security card) when one document (i.e. a passport) will satisfy § 1324a's documentation requirement, if the employer uses that policy because most employees can readily provide the cwo documents requested 26 Should the employee offer a passport, however, in lieu of the driver's license and social securiry card, the employer must accept the passport in full satisfaction of his request, as long as such documents appear to be genuine. IRCA Procedures AJleged violations of IRCA's anti-discrimination provision are subject to prosecution by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices ("OSC). Since 1987, the OSC has handled more than 6,000 complaints and has recovered more than $3,000,000 in back pay and civil money penalties. The largest civil penalty against a single employer has been a $120,000 fine in 1993 against a California company. Charges must be filed with the OSC within 180 days of the alleged violation. The OSC must jnvestigare any charge with-

in 120 days of receiving the allegation and decide whether or not to file a complaint before an ALJ. If the OSC does not file a complaint with an ALJ within the 120 day period, the OSC must notify the complainant of the decision, and the complainant may file a complaint directly with an AL] within ninery days of receiving the notice. After a hearing, if the ALJ finds by a preponderance of the evidence that an employer has violated IRCA, he will issue a cease and desist order. The order may require the employer to do one or more of the following: (I) comply with paperwork/documentation requirements of § 1324a(b): (2) retain for three years the name and address of each person who applies, in person or in writing, for an existing position; (3) hire individuals directly and adversely affected (the complainant) with or without back pay; (4) pay a civil penalty for each individual discriminated against; (5) pay a civil penalry for document abuse; (6) post notice to employees about their rights and the employer's obligations under IRCA: and (7) educate all hiring personnel regarding the laws in this area. The civil penalties for discrimination can range from $250 - $2,000 per victim for the first offense; $2,000 $5,000 per victim for the second offense; and $3,000 to $10,000 per victim for more than cwo violations. Each physically andlor corporatively distinct entiry may be held Ijable for any given violation oflRCA's antidiscrimination section, meaning that both a subsidiary and the parent company may be held liable for violations committed by the subsidiary. Employers may be ordered to pay up to two years back pay for terminating an employee because of his national origin or citizenship status. The Ai] cannot, however, order hiring of the complainant or order back pay where the individual was refused employment for any reason other than discrimination on the basis of his national origin or citizenship status. The prevailing party in a private suit may be awarded attorneys' fees if the losing parry's argument is "without a reasonable foundation in law and fact." Sovereign immunity, however, prohibirs attorneys' fees against the United States, and the sratute prohibits awards of attorneys' fees to the United States. 2?

provision requiring authorization for U.S. employment and yet prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin or citizenship status by simply (I) examining a document or a proper combination of documents listed in the IRCA verifying the applicant's identiry and autllorization for U.S. employment; (2) not demanding more; and (3) hiring the person best qualified for the job regardless of the applicant's national origin or citizenship status. Endnotes I. The Immigration and Naturalization Servicc ("INS") has issllcd regulations concerning empJoymem of aliens. Su 8 C.ER. § 274(a)(1999). 2. 8 U.s.c. § 1324a(a)(1994): throughour chis article, a prohibition againsl referral of unamhorized aliens means referral for a fee. 3. S" 8 U.S.c. § 1324a(h)(3)(J994). 4. S~~ N~w E/ Rq Sausag~ Co. Inc. v. U.S. I.N.S., 925 E2d 1153 (9th Cir. 199 I). 5. 8 U.S.c. § 1324,(b)(J994). 6. Su Collins Foods bl/~matiol1al v. U.S. 1.N.s., 948 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1991). 7. S" 8 U.S.c. § 1324a(b)(I)(A)(1994). 8. S" 8 C.ER. § 274,(2)(1999). 9. S" 8 U.S.c. § I324a(b)(3)(B)(J 994). 10. S,,8 U.S.c. § 1324a(b)(4)(J994). I I. S" 8 U.S.c. § 1324.(a)(2)(J994) 12. Su Mesur Mnllujflcmring Co. v. U.S. I.N.S., 879 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1989). 13. S<,8 U.s.C. § 1324,(e)(1994). 14. Maka v. u.s. I.N.S., 904 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1990), nmmded on oth" grounds, 932 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1991). IS. S<,8 U.S.C. § 1324a(e)(4)(A)(J994). 16. S,,8 US.c. § 1324,(e)(5)(l994). 17. S" 8 U.S.c. § I324b(a)(3)(J 994). 18. S,,42 U.s.c. § 2000e (1994). 19. S" 29 C.F.R. § 1606.1: 29 C.F.R. § 1606.6(b)(I)(1999). 20. S" 29 c.F.R. § 1606.7(a): 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7(b)(J999). 21. 888 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1989), urt. dmj,d, 494 u.s. 1081 (1990). 22. S" 8 U.s.C. § 1324b(a)(2)(J994). 23. S" 8 US.C. § I324b(a)(4)(J 994). 24. S" 8 U.S.c. § 1324b(A)(6)(J 994), m ammded by Immigration Act of 1990. 25. Id. 26. Su Robinson Fruit Ranch, Inc. v. U"iud Staw, 147 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 1998). 27. Gmera/ Dynamics Corp. v. Uniud Star~s, 49

F.3d 1384 (9th Cir. 1995). Daniel L. Herrington practices with the

Conclusion Employers can comply with IRCA's dual

Little Rock IAIV firm of FriMY, Eldredge 6ClArk.

1'81.l1 ~,. ·1/1'3111999

The lrkmll LIWW

BATTERED TOOL Box, MISSING TOOLS AND THE ONE-ARMED MECHANIC

Adequately Representing the Criminal Alien I. BAlTERED TOOL BOX At the 1991 conference of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Charles Cordon,! one of the pillars of immigration jurisprudence remarked that recem immigration enactmems nullified all of his knowledge of immigration law, a sentiment shared by the seasoned praClirjoners in the Amending the Immigration Acr 2 during the last" nvelve years has been popular, fust. tumultuous. rorrurcd, and frightening, leaving behind the specter of a batcered tool box: dcnccd, scarred, burned, gouged. welded 011, thrown about and generally abused, yet expected [0 remain fit for the purpose rOOI11.

inrencled. Through the varied amcndmcms, drugs, terrorism and other social ills wete 3nacked, resulting in an inhospitable cnvironmenr for the alien involved in criminal activity. Generally, society is pleased with the efron: fighting crime is good. However many of the criminal aliens affected by the relevant legislation have wives and children, parents and siblings, employers and activists who feel that the application is misplaced as it relates to the particular case. Additionally, many aliens involved in criminal prosecutions are firmly resettled in the United States, having attained the status as Permanent Residents, which is so difficult to obtain and for which so many aliens literally risk their lives. The Immigration Act in its current amended form provides little shelter to the criminal alien. Those who are illegally in the United States and have nothing to defend except their temporary liberty generally seek to be deported (now "removed") in lieu of incarceration, but the permanenr resident has a secure life and future to defend and therefore seeks whatever means are available

to protect his Status and remain in the U S. This evolution of the Immigration Act, from the magnet to a one way ticket out for the criminal alien has its modern roots in the Immigration and ationality Act of 1952 which adopted a definition of "aggravated felony" to include: murdet, illicit trafficking in comrolled substances, illicit trafficking in firearms and destructive devices, laundering of money, crimes of violence for which the term of imprisonmem is at least 5 years or any anempt or conspiracy to commit such acts} ertainly, the Immigration Act of 1952 did nOt coddle aggravated felons, bur it nevertheless provided substantial opponunity for judicial discretion and equity. In 1988, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988,4 created the specific category of "aggravated felonies" as a separate and exclusive basis for deportation and with the passage of IMMACT 90, (the Immigracion Act of 1990)5 this categoty became rubbery and much more inclusive. A5 a result, the noose tightened around the neck of criminal aliens. For purposes of removal proceedings. the list of substantive crimes comprising aggravated felonies increased. For instance the definition of crimes of violence was expanded to include the actual, auempted or threatened use of physical force against the paso" or prop~rty of another, or any offense that is a felony which involves a substamial risk that physical force against the p~rsOfl or prop~rty of another may be used in committing that felony (italics added for emphasis). A crime of violence is thus an "aggravated felony" for deportation purposes, and in December of 1998, rhe Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled rhat an arson conviction (which involved damage to

BY MILTON

UI ,lrkuSllIJw",

1'81. II SI. Ilfall 1m

DEJESUS

property) was a crime of violence and therefore an aggravated felony mat served as a basis for removal. 6 The standard for inclu~ sion is increasingly liberalized, therefore an aggravated driving while under the influence (DUI) conviction was deemed to be a "crime of violence" in Matter of MagallanesGarcia, Int. Dec 3341 (BIA 1998), resulting in removal as well. Additionally, with very few exceptions, upon completion of the sentence for the underlying crime, aggravated felons ate subject to mandarory incarceration by the INS with no bond while they await their removal proceedings. IMMACT 90 also made multiple criminal convictions for general crimes involving moral turpitude? not arising out of a single scheme subject to incarceration in INS detention centers, with either no bond potential or discretionary bonds. and ultimate removal. Throughout this process there is little check and balance because the procedure for judicial review of deportation proceedings was e1iminated 8 . In essence, IMMACT 90 limited in substantial ways the rights of aliens convicted of aggravated felonies and multiple misdemeanors. In 1994, IMMACT 90 was amended by the immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (I TCA) (Pub. L No. I03-416) making an alien excludable if he "anempts or conspires ro commit" a crime involving moral turpitude, and applies to convictions occurring before, on or after the date of its enactment. Congress was concerned, however, that the medicine in IMMACf 90 was nor strong enough, thus it enacted within the Ami-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). (Pub L. No. 104132, effective April 24, 1996) certain provi-

..The mostfar reaching anticriminal legislation is contained in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of1996 (lIRA/RAJ which crushed any remaining hope for aliens convicted offelonious activity. This law may summed up as one of Summary Exclusion/Expedited Removal"

REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM "The Nation's Most Widely Used"

Now Available For Windows and DOS v' HUD 1 Automatic Calculations v' Checks & Escrow Accounting v' Word Processor - Spell Check v' Data Base Reporting v' 1099S Reporting v' Regulation Z APR's v' Aggregate Escrow

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

FOR LASER OR MATRIX PRINTERS

(800) 937-2938 http:www.landtechdata.com

LANDTECH DATA CORPORATION sions related

criminal aliens, specifically

1402 Royal Palm Beach Blvd.. Building 200 Royal Palm Beach, Fl 33411

the expanded penalcy of deportation for conviction of a crime involving moral turpirude, for which a selHence of one year or

longer COULD BE IMPOSED (emphasis mine), such as 3rtcmpting or conspiring to purchase. sell, offer for sale, exchange. use, own, possess or carry a firearm, and generally "3ncmpring" to violate a whole hose of criminal natures.

I PAUL D. MIXON, Ph.D, P.E.

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT

The most Far reaching anti-criminal legislation is contained in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (JIRAIRA),9 which crushed any remaining hope for aliens convicted of felonious aceivicy. This law may summed up as one of Summary

Exdusion/Expedited Removal 10. Those sub-

ject to exclusion at the entry point will be denied both an evidentiary hearing and administrative review of the decision by the gatekeeper, who soldy will decide if the person merits entry. Those already in the country whether illegally present or those legally presenr under a visa or a grant of permanent residence will be granted a removal proceeding, which will be summary if an aggravated felony is involved. As srared earlier, there is NO judicial review of the removal proceeding. Currently, there are vicious and bloody dog fights occuring in many Circuit Courts of Appeal over the propriety of limiting

ELECTRICAL ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION • Reconstruction and Analysis • Property and Equipment Damage • Personal Injury or Death

PAUL D. MIXON, Ph.D., P.E. o Doctorate in Engineering o Over 13 Years Engineering Experience o Experienced Expert Witness

Contact:

Dr. Paul Mixon P.O. Box 3338 State University, AR 72467 (870)-972-2088 E-mail: pmixon@navajo.aslate.edu

I'll.ll,l'o.I/I'ali 1999

Tie ,Irkmas LaKIer

judicial review of removal Orders, and aliens are not winning these fights. As of this writing, significam decisions, including one from the U.S. upreme Court, recendy ruled that a provision of the Immigra<ion Act. INA 242(g). strips fedetal courts of jurisdiction over certain constitutional claims at issue. I I The Supreme Court also remanded one of three major judicial

review cases in which petitions for certiorari were pending, which will also limit the scope of judicial review, and the Court let stand twO cases upholding challenges to the judicial review amendments of the immigration act. It is paramount that effective assistance of counsel at the pre-immigration stage of criminal proceedings take inro account the

INC ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE REsOLUTION MEDIATION ARBITRATION MINI-TRIALS SUMMARY TRIALS EVALUATIONS

Sid McCollum Jack Davis

Frank Hamlin Bob Hornberger

For more information or scheduling, call any of our offices. Little Rock 501-376-2121

TIt ,Irkllllll,a~!rr

Bentonville 501-271-2237

1'01. 41 II. I/Falll!!!

Fort Smith 501-783-1776

immigration consequence of plea or conviction. There is little to no hope of an Outcome beneficial [0 the alien in removal proceeding unless the criminal defense attorney is knowledgeable of the relevant immigration law.

II. MISSING TOOLS During the period that this [001 box received the "battering", many useful and familiar tools were lost. including a number of "waivers" of ineligibility, which allowed equity and discretion to cancel the expulsion. Prior to lIRAJRA, a person convicted of a felony. which might even include an aggravated felony, could rely on his StafUS as a permanent resident, with family and ties to the United States for the requisite period of time as a basis for requesting a "waiver" from the required deportation. and these waivers were gramed on a case by case basis. This was an exceptional tool, which was nOt los, ftOm the tool box. but "tipped off". This tool was absolutely necessary because at a deportation hearing (now a removal hearing) the INS trial attorney need only illtroduce the certified copy of the judgment of conviction showing the saliellt elements. i.e. the underlying crime (or crimes), the classification (felony or misdemeanor). the time imposed or served. Since this is a civil proceeding hearsay evidence is admissible, and freely so, resulting in the Otder of Removal. The waiver was akin to "post-conviction" telief which can only be applied for after rhe alien was found deportable. Since the waiver for aggravated felons is no longer available, the only remedy is an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, with the aggravated felon generally ineligible for bond, and thus incarcerated. ll After an indeterminate amount of time, the administldtive appeal will uphold the removal, and this is the end of the line. llRAlRA eliminated the next useful rool. appeal to the Circuit Courts of Appeals. 13 The head-on attack of the Order of Removal is not possible. therefore immigration practitioners are challenging at the flanks thtough habeas corpus proceedings in the Federal District Courts. which unfortunately can only order that the successful habeas petitioner be provided a removal heating under INA 240 and may not order any further remedy or relief Richard L. Prinz. a noted immigration attorney. writes that as a result of IlRAlRA, aliens involved in crimes and their immigration attorneys may find the window of

opponunicy to avoid deponation Shut l4 as formerly important concepts such as the actual time served for the crime, probation or suspension of sentence, family ties and length of residence in the US no longer counr. It is apparent once again that the battle has to be fought effectively before the municipal, circuit and federal COUrts. Removal proceedings are a lost cause for aggravated felons, as noted by a recem announcement from the Immigration Service that it removed 56,0 II criminal aliens in fiscal year 1998.

Ill. ONE ARMED MECHANICS A recent issue of the Lawyers Weekly (Issue 99·6. 99LWUSA 249. Match 22. 1999) ran rhe headline "Alien Deported for 'Erased' Conviction, Criminal Defense Lawyers Face Malpractice Trap" which highlights that even if a conviction was not a deportable offense when it was committed, the retroactive provisions of IIRAlRA can make it so now. As a consequence, nor only after expungement, but the commission of a second offense, even 20 years later than the first offense, is a basis for a removal action. For immigration purposes convictions, cannOt be made to go away, whether by expungement or the passage of time. IS Of course this is only relevant to those defendants who are aliens, which highlights that the criminal defense attorney may be wholly effective in representing Joe Citizen, but "one armed" when he employs those very same skills to the defense of criminal aliens. Couple the handicap with the battered tool box and missing tools and multiple parties are hurt: the alien and his U.S. citizen spouse, and the lawyer when he faces a malpractice action, which is just over the horizon. Indeed, many attorneys who limit their practice to immigration law or are board certified, are frankly tired of the damaged cases which they mUSt handle through the INS process. and are looking to hold the "one armed" lawyer responsible. At a very recent conference of attorneys who either practice or want to practice immigration law, an Immigration Judge remarked, "have you gOt it by now, that this stuff is not easy". Attorneys who are serious about immigration law and belong to the American Immigration L'lwyers Association spend a great deal of time consulting one another about obscure and confusing provisions of the immigration code, whether rhey

represent businesses, families or criminal aliens. This stuff is not easy. Currently, the challenge in deportation cases via Habeas Corpus proceedings are increasingly asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.

Iv. CONCLUSION Distilling all of this information down to its bare essence, representation of the criminal alien is a mine field, and increasingly very good attorneys see aliens as a natural extension of their criminal defenses practice without appreciating what they are stepping on. There are at least two resolutions, get educated and get help or become the "one armed mechanic" and increase the malpractice coverage.

9. Endnotes 1. Charles Gordon, one of the giants in the

field of immigration law died on April 28, 1999, at the age of 93. He was known for his tenure as General Counsel of the INS and as the author of fmm;gration Law and Proudure, the leading immigration law treatise now published in 20 volumes. He founded the law firm of Gordon & Bryan in Washington D.C. and continued to argue immigration cases in federal courr. He also taught immigration law at Georgetown University. 2.8 U.S.c. §§ 1101-1524 (1994); INA § 101. el5e<J. 3. 8 U.s.c. §§ 1101-1524. Pub L.. 82·414, 66 Stat. 163; INA 101(a)43. 8 U.s.c. 1101(a)(43); Jonathan E. Avirom et al. Aggr(waud Felom. in Immigration & Nationality Law Handbook, 1993~94, at 502, R. Patrick Murphy, NLA, Vol II; Ira Kurz.ban, fmmigradon Law Sourcebook F3 (31d ed. 1992) Third Edition. AILA. 4. Pub. L. 100-690, effective November 18, 1988; Helen A. Sklar with Stuart J. Folinski, Cr;m;nal AHms, Chapter Twelve. in Thc Immigration Act of 1990 Handbook. The Complete Practice Guide to the 1990 Act, Clark Boardman, 1991. 5. Pub. L. 101·649 (104 S[a[.4978); Immigration Act of 1990, 8 U.S.c. § 1101; INA § 10 I, effective November 29, 1990. 6. 8 U.s.c. § I 101 (a)(43)(F). INA § 10I(a)(43)(F); 18 U.s.c. § 16(b);Mattero! Palacios-Ph/era, 1m. Dec. ~~73 (BIA 1998); 76 Interpreter Releases 156 Uanuary 25, 1999). 7. Matter ofP-. 6 I&N Dec. 795 (BlA 1955).

10.

11.

12.

13. 14.

defines moral turpitude as conduct morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, malum per se. 8 U.S.c. § 1105(.) of UMMACf 90; 8 U.s.c. § 1252(a)(2)(c). Orders Against Criminal Aliens. "'Notwithstanding any othcr provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction ro review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in 1182(a)(2) [Criminal and related grounds] or 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii)B. C. or D. [Criminal offenses] of this title or any offense covered by section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) [Multiple climinal con· victions] of this title for which both predi~ cate offenses are, without regard to their date of commission, otherwise covered by section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) [Crimes of mOlal turpitude] of this title." Id. Omnibus Appropriations Bill, Pub. L. No. 104·208. 110 Stat. 3009 (September 30. 1996). Daniel C. Horne, Summary Excllts"on/Exp~dhedRemoval in Introducing the 1996 Immigration Reform Act, (Amy R. Novik. Ed. 1997). Rtno v. Am~rican-Arab Ami Discr;minat;on Committ". N. 97-1252. 199 WL 88922 (U.S. Feb 24.1999); 761nterpleter Releases 365 (March 8. 1999). The INS, in response (Q a surge of litigation. has recently announced that it will allow bond for cerrain aliens who have significant ties to the US and do not pose a threat to the community, but the INS Commissioner has stated that very few will be allowed bond. 8 U.s.c. § 1252(a)(2)(c); see also fn 7. Richard L. Prinz, Cr;m;naIAHens Undtrth~ /996

Immigration

Reftrm

Act

111

Illlroducing the 1996 Immigration Reform Act. AILA's New Handbook, (Amy R. Novik. Ed. 1997). 15. 8 U.s.c. § 1226(c). 1 A § 236(c). Detention of Criminal Aliens (even to long term permanent residents who appeared before the INS for a citizenship interview and has a criminal conviction which occurred many years ago, the INS would issue a notice to appear and take that person into custody)]; 76 Interpreter Releases 1982 Vuly 19.1999).

Milton A. Dejesus practices low in Little Rock and focuses on immigration reloted issues.

l'ol.l,1 No. Iffall U99

The ,Irkaosasl,all'!er

THE

H- I B

VISA PROGRAM

BAND-AID REMEDY?

A California-blUed company, UniversaL Dynamics, needed 300 pages ofcustom software to produce its i1111oVl1live Line of i"dustrial dryers for the plastics industry. Universal plAnned to go to market ill june, but it could not find quaLified high-tech computer employees to hire to create the software. The dryers were not shipped ulltil /998, alld Ulliversal lost 5% of its a11111lal sales. /

As the high-tech industry in the United States is in its prime. many American employers are having problems finding employees with the education and experience to work in this field. The United States Departmem of Commerce found that there was a shortage of over 190.000 technology workers in 1997.2 Alrhough the Unired States requires an estimated 95.000 new computer programming employees each year, only 25,000 American srudems earned bachelor's degrees in computer related fields) This adds up ro a deficit of American labor to meet the growing needs of employers. Fortunately, Congress recognized the need of American employers and enacted immigration laws [Q allow employers to import skilled workers [Q supplement the current American labor force. As temporary workers, rhey are issued nonimmigrant

visas:' These nonimmigrant employees provide their employers with the technical skills and knowledge necessary for companies experiencing labor shortages. In doing so, however. Congress set a numerical cap on the number of temporary workers admitted annually to the United States. This number is insufficient to meet the essential demands of businesses. With a lack of American workers to fill the job slots and severe restrictions on temporary foreign workers. companies dependent on the H-I B program have been forced to scrap plans and delay product lines. This article discusses the H-l B visa program. the method used ro allow foreign skilled workers temporarily to enter the United Scales work force. The article focuses on the problems caused by the numerical cap on the issuance of H-I B visas and addresses the current legislation before the House of Representatives and the Senate which purports to increase the numerical cap. Finally, this article examines the debate surrounding the pending legislation and the H-I B visa program in its entirety. History of the Law: The Immigration Act of 1990 In 1990, Congress amended the immigration statutes to increase the admissions of temporary skilled foreign workers to the United States.' These amendments provided for 65.000 H-I B visas to be issued annually to individuals in a "specialty occupa-

DONNA

tion." The 1990 Act defines specialty occupation as one that requires "'theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and arrainmenr of a bachelor's or higher degree in rhe specific specialry."6 An alien must "have full stare licensure to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required" or have "experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of [a bachelor's or higher degreel. or recognition ofexperrise in the specialty .... "7 The potential employer must initiate the process with the Immigration and Naruralizarion Service (INS). It is the duty of the employer of the foreign worker to file the request for the H-l B visa. As part of me petition, the employer must also provide the I 5 with the requisite information concerning the employee's qualifications. work experience. and education. The employer must certify that the nonimmigrant employee will actually perform work in the specialty occupation. The 1990 ACI also provided for the protection of American workers by requiring that the potential employer notify its domestic employees that it is submitting a Labor Condition Applicarion for an H-l B visa. s Any employer hiring an nonimmigrant worker under this program must attest that rhe employee will be paid at least the The United States prevailing wage. 9 employer mUSt certify that hiring the nonimmigrant worker will not adversely affect the employment or working conditions of

GALCHUS

with acknowledgment to: Melissa Mcjunkins Duke and Frances Young Stuettgen

Til Irhlsa! I,aw!er

fol. 11,11. 4/I'aIl1999

American workers in similar positions. lO The law also required mat employees hired under rhe H- I B program may not be used to break a strike in a labor dispute. 1I The law allows nonimmigrant workers who are issued H-I B visas ro stay in the United States for three years. However the visa may be extended for an additional three years, allowing the employee ro stay in the United States for a maximum of six years. Congress included provisions relating ro enforcement of the requirements of the HI B program. The Department of Labor (the "Depanmem") was given me power to investigate complaims and take appropriate action against alleged violators. The Department may issue punishment to American employers such as monetary fines or requirements to pay back pay if me employee has not been paid at the prevailing wage rate. 12 American employers that failed ro comply with the 1990 Act were subject to being restricted from applying for certain nonimmigrant visas for the period of one year. 13

A Ctisis for Employers: The Numerical Cap of 65.000 Visa Approvals Proves Insufficient In recent years, American employers' need for more high-tech employees has increased. The economy is booming, and the United States is the leader in innovative computer technology. However, the supply of skilled domestic employees has not kept up with the labor demand. In 1997, one month prior to end of the fiscal year. the 65.000 annual limit on H-I B visa approvals was reached. This created a dilemma for employers. On May 6. 1998, four months before the end or the fiscal year, the INS issued a notice that the 65,000 cap had already been reached for 1998 14 The INS announced that it could not issue additional H-IB visas until October I, 1998. 15

("ACWIA").16 ACWIA was ini'ially introduced by Senaror Spencer Abraham (RMich.) in response to the inadequate number of H-I B visas available for specialized workers. ACWIA contained several significant changes in the law. First, the number of HI B visas were temporarily increased. For fiscal years 1999 and 2000. the increase was 65.000 ro 115.000. '7 In fiscal year 2001. 107.500 visas will be available. IS Beginning October I, 200 I, the number of visas will revert back ro 65.000. 19 Second, beginning December I, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for one initial H-I B petition and for the first exrcnsion. 2o These fees are to be lIsed to support training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers. Pursuant to regulations promulgated by INS, this fee must be paid by the employer. Institutions of higher education, nonprofit or governmemaJ research organizations are exempt from this paymenr. 21 Third. U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or morc foreign nationals in the H-l B caragory, are considered H-I B dependent employers and must make certain attesta,ions. If they employ 26-50 full time employees and have more than rwelve (12) H- J B employees or if they employ 7-25 employees and have more than seven (7) H1B employees they will also be considered H-I B dependent. 22 The dependent employer must arrest that it has nOt and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days befote and 90 days after filing the visa application. In addition, the H-I B dependent employer must arrest that it has made good faith efforts to recrujt U.S. workers using industry standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or

better qualified for the job. H-I B employees with a master's degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are nor included in this a.rtesration and for the first six months following implementation will not be included in the depcndenr employer calculations. Finally. ACWIA also provides for electroniC filing of Labor Condition Applications; increased fines of $1,000$35,000 per violation including preclusion from participation in the H-l B process, for up to three years; and, payment of the prevailing wage stated on the H-I B petition to the foreign employee even if the employee is in a nonproductive status due to work-related factors, i.e., layoff. 23 The Continuing Debate: The Numetical Cap of 115,000 Visa Approvals Proved lnsufficient. Even with the increased numbers of HI B visas, the numerical cap of 115,000 was reached during June 1999. The continuing debate over the necessity of the H-I B program has also reemerged. Critics of raising the cap argue that there is not sufficient evidellee of an American labor shortage. It has also been asserted that expanding the H-l B visa program will deter U.S. students from entering high-tech fields. Opponents of the program claim that American employers exploit the H-l B program in hopes of getting cheap labor, not as a necessity to fill much-needed positions. Others fed the HI B program's qualifications should be raised to permit only truly high-tech workers to obtain these visas. Some argue that less funds should be spent on expanding the HI B program and that additional money should be spent on training and education to give American workers the skills needed to fill the vacant positions. Proponents of the H-I B program d.is-

MORGANTHAU, O'TOOLE & CO. INC. Valuation Specialties

Congress Responds: American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 Immobilized by the scarcity of H-I B visas, American companies began lobbying Congress to amend the immigration laws. In response to the shortage of H-I B visas, both the Senate and the House of Representatives took action to raise the numerical cap of visas. On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed, the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998

• • • • • VICTOR

PAULOS

Certified Business Appraiser Business Consultant

ESOPs Family Limited Partnerships Limited Liability Companies Merger & Acquisitions Buy/Sell Agreements 12 Gaza Lane Hot Springs Village, AR 71909 Phone: 501-922-5405 Fax: 501-922-5405

1'01.11 So. '11fa1l1999

The '\rkaolal La\\}rr

agree with rhese claims. Many in the indusrry claim rhar the program generates jobs for American workers, rather than displaces them. 24 Federal Reserve economist Richard E. Kraglic noted that the lack of workers at

rhe present rime results in fewer jobs for Americans in years to come. 25 A likely consequence of a shortage of H-I B visas may be thar companies are forced to move from the United States in order to have an adequate

NEED ASSISTANCE WITH APPEALS?

u.s.

.:.

State and Federal Appeals

.:.

Former Arkansas Supreme Court Law Clerk

.:.

Writing Sample and References Available

L. WINNINGHAM Brazil, Adlong & Osment, PLC 913 Oak Street Conway, AR 72032 (501) 327-4457 CAROLINE

PATERNITY CASE? GET HH J{ U\\ SEIHlfE J{IGHT HEJ{E I\\I{K\\S\S

The surest way to establish paternity is through analysis of a delicate chain of DNA. And UAMS Medical Center is the only place in Arkansas that has an on-site paternity testing laboratory that uses DNA analysis. When you call us, you can be

assured of timely results and expert, personal service - right here in Arkansas. No referral is necessary, and there is no age limit on the child. Expert witness available. • Call for an appointment: 686-7668 or 1-888-233-0317.

11'I t

supply of labor. This will also result in lost jobs for Americans and lost dollars for the United States economy. A report issued by the American Electronics Association (AEA) found that almost half the students graduating from American universities with upper-level rechnical degrees are foreign natiollals. 26 The report stated thar "'given this heavy investment in education, supported by dollars. it is in the national interest to retain this talem .... "'27 The AEA acknowledged the importance of continued training for American workers. however, it stressed rhat a short-term solution to the H-l B problem is needed now. 28 Many believe that the H-l B visa cap of 115,000 was chosen arbitrarily and should be eliminated alrogether. 29 "Basic economics tells us that market forces will keep the number of needed H-l B workers at a level consistent with U.S. hiring needs."3o Proponents of this solution assert that still more jobs will be created for Americans and that eliminating the cap will not result in drastic IIlcreases but rather modest growth.3 1 On July 27, 1999, Senator Gramm (RTexas) introduced proposed legislation that would increase the number of H-l B visas for fiscal years 2000, 200 I, and 2002 to 200,000 with the number returning to 65,000 for each succeeding fisc.11 year. This legislation would exempt from the numerical cap any non-immigrant alien with a master's degree or higher degree who is paid at least $60,000 annually or has at least a bachelor's degree or higher and is employed by an institution of higher educarion.3 2

Wafd Class (Are

ApollO DNA Services Laboratory,Slot 516·4301 West Markham Little Rock,AR 72205 • www.apoUodna.com

Conclusions

REDPOINT systems

INC

• Custom Software Applications • Network Planning and Integrations • Printing Cost Recovery Software Solutions • Amicus® Attorney III Reseller (800) 541-9430 • (501) 663-7736 • 2314 Durwood Road· Little Rock, AR 72207 www.redpointsystems.com

Thr Arkansas I,;l\v!rr

\'nl.ll ,In. III'a1l1999

While this debate will no doubt last indefinitely, all can agree that it is imperative that the Americ.1n economy continue to prosper. A lack of skilled workers stifles growth and abundance. While long-term solutions to this issue may be debated, the only shorr-term option is to import talent from other countries under the H-I B program. This "band-aid remedy" is essential to cover the wounds of companies injured by American labor shortages. Endnotes I. Jeanne A. Burrerfield, H-IB Campaign Takes Off, AlLA MONTHLY MAILING, March 1988. at 5-6. 2. Ann Pinchak, High 7t:ch 7it.len! Shllt 011I of u.s., LEGAL TIMES, January 26, 1998, at

50.

3. !d. 4. United States immigration laws provide for permanent workers

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. I I. 12. 13.

be admincd as immi-

grants. INA § 203(b). Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101649. 104 Smt. 4978 (1990). INA § 214 (1)(1). INA § 214(1)(2). INA § 212(n)(I)(C). INA § 212(n)(I)(A). Id. INA § 212(n)(I)(B). INA § 212(n)(2). INA § 212(n)(2)(C)(ii).

14. Fiscal Year 1998 Numerical Limitation Reached for H-I B onimmigrants.63 Fed. Reg. 90 (1998). 15. !d. 16. Pub. l. No. 105-277. 17. !d. 18. !d. 19. Id. 20. /d.; 64 Red. Reg. 628 Uan. 5. 1999). 2 I. Pub. l. No. 105-277; 64 Red. Reg. 628 U,n. 5. 1999). 22. Pub. l. No. 105-277; 64 Red. Reg. 628 Uan. 5. 1999). 23. Pub. l. No. 105-277; 64 Red. Reg. 628 U,n. 5. 1999). 24. Judirh Golub, er al.. Advocnry UpdAte. AILA MOI'm-lLY MAILING, April 1998, at 327. 25. S. Rep. No. 105-186 (1998). 26. Elutronics Croup Says H-I B Visa Rtcn,imttnt Advtrsely Affecting High- uch Recmitmmt, Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No.69. at A-7 (April 10. 1998). 27. !d. 28. /d. 29. A/LA ISSIU Papas. AlLA MONTHLY

ARMSTRONG ALLEN PREWITT GENTRY JOHNSTON & HOLMES, PLLC

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT

MAILING, February 1998, at 168.

30. /d. 3 I. !d.

MARTIN W. BOWEN

32. S. 1440 "New Workers for Economic AND

Growth Act."

Donlin

Smith

PAUL H. WOOD

Galchus is It Director

in tbe finn of Cross,

Gunter, Witherspoon & GaidJUs, Re. Ms. Gnlchus works primarily ill tbe oreas of employment discrimination litigariou, affinllalive /lctiou compliance /lud immigrlltiou law.

HAVE BECOME ASSOCIATED WITH OUR FIRM. RESIDENT IN THE UTILE ROCK. ARKANSAS OFFICE

MEMPHIS. TENNESSEE JACKSON. MISSISSIPPI

UTILE ROCK. ARKANSAS

JACKSON, TENNESSEE

rot. II ·10. I/Fall 1999

Tbe Jlrkmas Lal\)er

The Official Directory Of The Arkansas Bar Association

Nearly 500 pages of information not readily available anywhere else. Contains all the information to make it the number one reference tool for the Arkansas legal profession. Order extra copies for your:

V office manager V receptionist V paralegal V secretary V librarian

Copies are just $38.00 plus P&H and state sales tax. Place your order today Arkansas Legal Directory P.O.Box 189000 Dallas TX 75218 (800) 447-5375

www.legaldirectories.com

u/ ,Irlmll LIIIJ/r

IDl.ll II. 11f11l1199

UPS and your Association now have an

agreement. All your urgent packages will be

delivered on time,

guaranteed, ....... as long as you're willing to pay less.

The success of your business depends on seizing the right opportunity at the right time. Often, that involves meeting some pretty ridiculous deadlines. Which is why the ARKANSAS BAR ASSOCIATION recently signed a deal with UPS. Now you can choose from a range of air express options that meet your needs at crunch time, every time: Simply call to enroll in this new program, and you'll receive a substantial Association discount on every letter and package you ship using UPS Next Oay Air路 and UPS Worldwide Express:" You'll also get immediate tracking and delivery confirmation around the clock. So the next time you have to deliver ASAP without blowing your budget, why not try UPS? It's one opportunity you shouldn't miss.

Call 1-800-325-7000 to CllIoll tocIay

8l'E3

~ MOVING at the SPEED of BUSINESS~

'Call l-aoo-PICK-UPS' forguarantte and Ilme'ln-lranSlt details. "Discounts only apply to publis~d transportatIon raitson UPS Next Day Airand UPS WorldINlde bpmsshlpments sent from the U.S Discounts do not apply to additIonal charg~. Oller cannot be combined With any other UPS discount. ~lqq8 UnlIed Parcel StrvlCe of Amenca, Inc

u.s

NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION

Under United S[3res immigration laws, there are many categories under which foreign nationals may legally enter the United Stares. Included in those categories are nonimmigrants. refugees. and permanent residents. Ie is only when an individual

becomes a permanent resident of the U. S. that he or she may apply ro become a naturalized U.S. citizen. Lawful permanent residents of rhe United States are persons who have immigrated fO this cOllmry and who have the right to remain in the U.S. permanently. As evidence of their resident status, they are issued "green cards", which are actually light pink in color. With a few exceptions, such as rhe right to yore, the rights of a permanent resident are basically rhe same as those of a U.S. citizen. Permanenr residents cannot become U.S. citizens unless they take affirmative steps to acquire such status and meet the eligibility requirements. Permanenr residents who decide to apply for U.S. citizenship do so for a variety of reasons. Some want ro break their ties to their former counrries and governments. Others desire to vote and to participate fully in a democratic form of government. Many permanenr residents become U.S. citizens in order to file immigrant visa petitions to sponsor their relatives in other countries who want to immigrate to the U.S. Permanent residenrs who want to become U.S. citizens apply for that StatuS through the naturalization process. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."1 Those rules are set forth in the Immigration and NationaJity Act 2 and are administered by the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS). The general requirements for naturali1..1.tion include the following: Admission as a lawful permanenr resident3 Five years of continuous residence in the

U.S. since admission as a lawful permanent resident (only three years of continuous residence for the spouse of a U.S. citizen) Physical presence in the U.S. for at least two and one-half years during the five years before applying for naturalization (one and one-half years for the spouse of a U.S. citizen) Residence within the State or within the district of the INS office having jurisdiction over the applicant's residence for at least three monrhs Age 18 or older â&#x20AC;˘ Basic knowledge and understanding of the history and of the principles and form of governmem of the U.S. Good moral character for the past five years (past three years for the spouse of a U.S. citizen) Arrachmenr to the principles of the U.S. Constitution â&#x20AC;˘ Oath of renunciation and allegiance. In addition, the applicanr must be able to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language. Exceptions are made for applicants who arc over fifty years of age and who have been living in the U.S. as permanenr residems for at least twenty years and for persons over fifty-five years of age who have been living in the U.S. as permanent residents for at least fifteen years. Those persons can be tested in their native language. Applicants age sixty-five or older who have been permanent residents for t\venry years or more receive special consideration on the civics exam. AJso, an applicant who is unable to comply with the requirements because of a physical or developmental disability or menral impairment is exempted from the English requirements and the history and governmem requiremenrs. Such applicam, however, is not exempted from the oath caking requirement. An applicanr for naturalization completes

By ~6

Thr "r~aom I,all)rr

\'01, II Xo, 1/1',1111999

KATHY

W. Goss

INS form -400 (Application for Namralization) and files it by mail with the INS Service Center which has jurisdiction over his or her place of residence. The applicant submits a $225.00 filing fee, a $25.00 fingerprinting fee, a copy of his or her permanent resident card, and two photographs taken pursuant to INS guidelines. The application and supporting documents can be filed up to ninery days before rhe applicanr meets the residency requirements. Applicants residing in Arkansas must file form N-400 with the INS Texas Service Center. That office schedules the applicant for fingerpriming at an INS Application Support Center, processes the application for namralization, and then forwards the case to the INS office in Memphis, Tennessee or Fort Smith, Arkansas for scheduling of the interview. 4 At the interview, the INS examiner reviews the application for naturalization. evaJuates the applicant's eligibility, and tests the applicam on his or her knowledge of U.S. history and government. The examiner tests the applicant's knowledge of history and government by asking several questions which generally come from a list which can be obtained from the INS office. The applicant will be asked to read and write a few simple sentences to demonstrate his or her ability to read and write in English. If unsuccessful, the applicant is given another opportunity to pass these tests within ninety days of the first examination. The examiner must make a decision on the application within one hundred and twenty days of the interview. The successful applicant is subsequently notified by mail of the date and place of the final hearing for his or her case. This hearing is a ceremonial proceeding where the oath of allegiance is administered and the certificate of naturalization is presented. Traditionally, immigrants have been encouraged to apply foe U.S. citizenship in

.... oun atloFl 1998-1999 Annual Report

PROFILE OF THE ARKANSAS BAR FOUNDATION Committee. The Officers of the Foundation are

THE ARKANSAS BAR

the Presidcnt. Vice President. and Secretary-

FOU~DATIO~

was established in 1958 to support efforts at improving the administration of justice. The

Treasurer, who are elected by the Board for oneyear terms. Members of the Board are elected at

Arkansas Bar roundarion, which is classified

the annual Foundation membership meeting.

as a [ax exempt organiz.ation under Section 50 I (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, is a charitable organization with a mission (0 promotc educational, literary. sciemific and charitable purposes which arc mort' specifically described as follows:

TRUST COMMlTTEE The seventeen-member Trust Committee is composed of experienced lawyers who serve six-year terms. Two are appointed by each President and

I) To imprO\"e and facilitate the administration of justice.

confirmed by the Board. Other members arc the

2) To promote legal smdy and research. diffusion of knowleclg{' of the law and cominuing education of la\.\'}'crs.

Arkansas law schools. The Trust Committee

Foundation Officers and the Deans of the twO

3) 1() publish and distribute addresses. rcpons. treatises and other literary works on legal subjects and to acquire, preserve and exhibit rare books and documents. objects of an and items of hiswrical imerellOt having legal significance or bearing on administration of justice.

manages the Trust Fund to generate income for the good works of the Foundation. Only interest earned on the Trust Account is used. A separate operating account pays the COSt of running the Foundation.

THE ARKANSAS BAR CENTER The Arkansas Bar Foundation funded the building of the Arkansas Bar Center, located at 400 West Markham. Little Rock, Arkansas, which has been the location of the Foundation and the

Association since 1974. The building is wholly owned by the Foundarion. but space is rent d by UALR and other offices. The Bar Cencer has a formal conference room which is frequently used by lawyers from around the statc for depositions

ARKANSAS BAR FOU DATION

and meetings. The open lobby area is a perfect

400 WEST MARKHAM

site for receptions and larger meetings.

LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 375-4606

BOARD OF DIRECTORS The Arkansas Bar Foundation is governed by an eighteen member Board of Directors. The Board

is composed of three lawyers elected by the Foundatjon members from each of the five bar districts plus the Arkansas Bar Association Pres idem, the Immediate Past President of the Foundation and the Chair of the Trust

pag~ four

(800) 609-5668

FOUNDATION FUNDING For fiscal year 1998-99, the Atkansas Bar Foundation approved g....lnts, scholarships and program allO[mems of benefit ro the profes-

sion and the public. Scholarships and projects of the Arkansas Bar Foundation are financed through investment income from the trust fund which has been built by comriburions and Fellows pledges and is used solely for the good works of the Foundation. This illustration reflects allocations for the 1998-99 year.•

• • • • • •

Awanh/Recognition

Law-Related Education Programs

12%

Foundation Merit Scholarships and Foundation Professorships

20%

Special Projects Grants

30%

Endowed Scholarships

35%

The AJ-kansas Bar Foundation's fiscal year begins on July I of each year and ends on June 30.

COMMITMENT TO EDUCATION

designation. The criteria for selection is excel-

The Arkansas Bar Foundation contributes support

lence in teaching; excellence in scholarship in

to the two AJ-kansas law schools. In addition to

Arkansas Law; and. significant contributions

me many enclowed named law school scholarships

serving the Bench and Bar of AJ-kansas.

and the Arkanas Bar Foundation Merit Scholarships awarded to deserving students at

ARKANSAS BAR FOUNDATION PROFESSORS OF LAW

each school, the Foundation also approved fund-

•

Professor W. Dent Gitchel, UALR School of Law Professot Carol Goforth, University of AJ-kansas School of Law

ing in the total amount of $21,350 in the 1998•

99 trust budget for the following: AJ-kansas Bar

Foundation Professorships; Law Srudenr Moot

Coun Competitionj and, Law Review Writing

Other program allocations include funding appro-

Awards.

priated for the Arkansas Bar Association and Arkansas Bar Foundation Annual Awards. The

Arkansas Bar Founclacion Trust Comminee. which administers an endowment fund for the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Department, approved funding in the amount of $8,425 to be

utilized

ofT-set costs for

twO

programs spon-

soral by the Arkansas Bar Association Continuing

Legal Education (CLE) Depanmem -

the

Bridging the Gap The Arkansas Bar Foundation has established an Arkansas Bar Foundation Professorship at

eminar and the Fall Legal Institute.

University of AJ-kansas School of Law and the UALR School of Law. One outstanding faculty member from each school is selected

hold this

designation of Arkansas Bar Foundation Professor of Law and receives a salary supplement upon this

page Ii'"

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT FAYETTEVILLE. 1998-99 SCHOLARSHIPS SCHOLARSHIP AWARDED

RECIPIENT

Arkansas Bar Foundation (In honor of Sebastian County Bar, U.M. Rose, Mike Gorman & Edward L. Wrighr) Shelley Douglas Arkansas Association of Women Lawyers (In honor of Ruth Huskey Brunson) Lisa Evans Joe C. Barren Angela A. Biggers Bogle-Sharp Scott Andrew lrby R. A. Eilborr, J,. LaDarron Williams Vincent W. Foster, Jr.

Laura Foster Ronema Wooten Corey Seats Michael L. Johnson

Fciday, Eldcedge & Clack Edward Lester Horace H. McKenzie

Cynthia Wood Paul Lynch Erica Hayes Murray Wells Wade Kimmel Paul Stark Charlene Kim

Judge John E. Mille' Judge William R. Overton

Col. C. E. Ransick Rather, Beyer & Harper The Shackleford Scholarship Justice George Rose Smith

Smith, Stroud, McClerkin, Dunn & Nurrer M. JeffS""lin" Judge Thomas Clark Trimble C. R. Warner Harry P. Warner Bernard & Bud WheLStonc

Judge Henry Woods Arkansas Bar Foundation (Merit Scholarship)

Roben C. Parks Pamela Antonacci John Mikesch Eric Payne Michelle Snyder Michael Johnson Brandon Cate Charlotte Scon

"Will be awarded in the spring UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. 1998-99 SCHOLARSHIPS SCHOlARSHIP AWARDED

RECIPIENT

Arkansas Bar Foundation (In honor of Sebastian CounÂŁ)' Bar, U.M. Rose, Mike Gorman & Edward L. Wright) Dustin H. Jones Cathy Underwood Guy Amsler, Jr. Arkansas Association of Women Lawyers (In honor of Ruth Huskey Brunson) Odette Woods Bogle-Sharp Bryan Duke John H. and Ruth H. Brunson Patrick McAlpine R. Margaret Dobson Bryan Duke Justin Allen Melissa A. Mcjunkins Joseph Ghormley Julie DeWoody Greathouse E. Charles Eichenbaum Paul E. Bross Lesley Hager James L. Ward R. A. Eilbon, Jr. Pamela Perry Judge John A. Fogleman Pam Fisk Judg' J. Smilh Henley Julie DeWoody Greathouse Justice J. Frank Holt Paul Schrier James H. Larrison, Jr. Melissa A. McJunkms Edward Lester LaRonda Pondexter Brian MacM ilIan Patrick Benca Col. C. E. Ransick Deana M. Graves Rather, Beyer & Harper Aimee Sisk Rose Law Firm Bryan Duke U. M. Rose Melissa A. Mcjunkins C. R. Warner Joey Shodl Harry P. Warner Debornh K. Pitts Bernard & Bud Whetstone DeLeith Gossett Roxanne Tomhave Wilson Sonya Broussard Deana M. Graves Cathy Underwood Judge Henry Woods Julia M. Sullivan Arkansas Bar Foundation Joseph Gho,mley (Merit Scholarship) Deana M. Graves Arlene R. Rusch

\X'dh.lm A. pag~ six

~Idrcdgl',

Jr A\\Jrd'

FOUNDATION MID-YEAR EVENT The Mid-Year Reception and Dinner of the Arkansas Bar Foundation was a special celebration for the Foundation in 1999. The Foundation celebrated the rcrircmcIH of its mortgage on the Arkansas Bar Cemer building in conjunction with the Mid-Year Scholarship Dinner. A reception was held at the Arkansas Bar Center followed by a dinner at the DoubleTrec Hotel in Linle Rock on January 22, 1999. The Foundation was honored to have Judge Henry Woods as our guest speaker to highlight the many interesting facts associated with the conception and development of the Arkansas Bar Center back in the early 1970's. Below, pictures and excerpts taken from the Arkansas Bar Center Ground Breaking Ceremony in September, 1972 are the late Edward Lesrer, Chairman of rhe Arkansas Bar Foundation in 1972-73 and Judge Henry Woods, President of the Arkansas Bar Association in 1972-73.

We of the Bar of Arkansas should remind ourselves that as important as a functional, beautiful building will be, still a Bar Center is far more than that, for here men of all persuasions will sit and make decisions together; here will be smred and housed the books of over a thousand years of government under law; here young, eager minds will be trained in the difficult disciplines of the law; and, yes, here the lawyets of Arkansas will have made their statements and will continue m say that government under law, as slow and with as many faults as it has, is still the best, if not the only hope for mankind. Chairman Edward Lester Arkansas Bar Foundation

This is a great day for all of us. and I am proud that it so happened that I was President of the Bar Association on the occasion that we meet for here mday. However, I do want to praise all of those predecessors, beginning back in the early 1960's, in the presi-

dency of the Bar and other officers of the Bar that made possible this great occasion.**** So we should think in terms here of nOt JUSt a headquarters of the Arkansas Bar Association, but a great legal complex. President Henry Woods Arkansas Bar Association

page seven

FELLOWS OF THE ARKANSAS BAR FOUNDATION Outstanding la\V)'ers in the State of Arkansas are invited to become Fellows of the Foundation. Upon invitation, a Fellow must contribute or pledge to conrribure an amount designated by the Foundation Board. The curfent financial requirement to become a Fellow is a pledge of $1,500, which is payable over a three or five year period. Upon receipt of the pledge and initial payment, the attorney is designated a Fellow. After the pledged contribution has been paid in full, the Fellows picture will be displayed in the Hall of Fellows in the Arkansas Bar Center. This list represents the current 541 Fellows of the Foundation as of April 30, 1999. Those Fellows whose names are highlighted in bold are recognized as newly designated Fellows for the 1998-99 year.

Pledge payments, scholarship contributions and other gifts are deposited into the Trust Fund. While investment income from the Trust Fund principle funds the charitable and educational purposes of the Foundation, a separate operating account pays for the day to day costs associated with administering the Foundation. In addition to rent from tenants in the Arkansas Bar Center, a primary source of operating funds is through Sustaining Fellowships. Any Fellow of the Foundation who contributes $75 annually may become a Sustaining Fellow. We appreciate the suPPOrt of our 179 Sustaining Fellows. Names marked with a "' represent Fellows who were also Susraining Fellows as of April 30, 1999.

W Christopher Barrier Ben T. Barry Sherry P. Bartley David E Barton Robert Banon Samuel R. Baner R.T. Beard, 111 John R. Beasley Mike Beebe Joe D. Bell Paul B. Benham, 111 Joe Benson Sanford L. Boshear, J•. Edgar E. Berhell Sam N. Bird Eric W. Bishop H. David Blair James B. Blair TImBoe Paul R. Bosson • Ted Boswell William H. Bowen Edward Boyce Wayne Boyce Comer Boyett, Jr. Thomas M. Bramhall Ellen B. Brantley . William C. Bridgforth Bill W. Bristow

•

• •

SUSTAINING FELLOWS

Julius C. Acchione Rich"d B. Adkisson Charles Greg Alagood Edwin B. Alderson, Jr. H. William Allen R. Ben Allen Guy Amsler, Jr. E. M. Anderson Overton S. Anderson Philip S. Anderson R. Keith Arman Morris S. Arnold W.H. "Dub" Arnold Jess L. Askew, 111 Virginia Atkinson E. leRoy Autrey Lawrence H. Averill, Jr. Donald H. Bacon Carlton Bailey Frank H. Bailey Nancy H. B~ley Kenneth B. Bairn Charles W. Baker James P Baker, Jr. Roy L. Baker, Jr. E.J. B~I William K. Ball Don K. Barnes Ralph C. Barnhart

•

• • • ·

Edward W Brockman, Jr. Charles A. Brown Gerald Brown Robert L. Brown Thomas E. Brown C. Brandey Buck C. Douglas Buford, Jr. Tom A. Buford Dale L. Bumpers Dan M. Burge Larry W Burks Kevin R. Burns Richard C. Butler, Jr. James A. Buttry E Wilson Bynum, Jr. John R. Byrd Richard J. Byrne Robe" D. Cabe John C. Calhoun, Jr. Worrh Carnp, Jr. George E. Carnpbell Claude Carpenter, Jr. Thomas M. Carpenter Phillip Carroll Daniel R. Caner Jean T. Caner Paula J. Carey Robe" M. Cearley, Jr. John S. Cherry, Jr. Sandra Wilson Ch<rry Lawrence E. Chisenhall, Jr. Bill S. Cl"k William M. Clark, Jr. W. Dane Clay H. Murray Claycomb Hillary Rodham Climon Ralph M. CI,m, Jr. H. Howard Cockrill Eldon E Collirum Charles '[ Coleman Roben C. Complon Barry E. Coplin Ben Core Nate Coulter J. Sam Corington Kenneth W. Cowan James O. Cox Michael H. Crawford Jan R. CromW<1l James D. Cype" Roy E. Danuser Jim Darr, Jr. John A. Da'is, UI Sidney P. Davis, Jr. Robert T. Dawson j.c. Deacon Gerald L. Delung Robert L. Depper, Jr. Jay W Dickey, Jr. Edward B. Dillon, Jr. WG. Dinning, Jr. Philip E. Dixon

• •

•

• •

•

• •

•

• •

•

Robe" E. Dodson Robe" P. Dougherry DarreU D. Dover James E Dowden Ted N. Drake * Winslow Drummond • Timothy O. Dudley Phillip J. Duncan JamesM.Dwm Winford L. Donn James Trester Dyke B. Michael Easley John C. Echols William A. Eckert Charles H. Eddy Don A. Eilbott G. Thomas Eisele Byron M. Eiseman, Jr. • John D. Eldridge

ptlge eight

•

• *

Don R. Elliott, Jr. George D. Ellis John R. Elrod WW Elrod, II William H. Enfield Stephen Engsuorn Lewis E. Epley, J•. Robert R. Estes Gary L. Eubanks Audrey R. Evans Mike Everett Lindsey J. Fairley Phillip B. Farris Jackson Farrow, Jr. Oscar Fendler William Lee Fergus j. Michael Fitzhugh Victor A. Fleming John A. Fogleman Julian B. Fogleman Dan Ford John F. Forster, Jr. TImothy Davis Fox Clwles Frierson, III Robe" E FIWCll W. Dale Gamu M. Morrell Garhright Katherine C. Gay Martin G. Gilbe" John P Glli Marion S. Gill Charles J. Giroir, Jr. W Dent Gi,chel Monon Gitdman Roger A. Glasgow David M. Glover Charles S. Goldberger Ray A. Goodwin Naman G. Gordon Albert Graves, Jr. Alben Gram, Sr. John R. Graves Kathlyn Gra,es J. W Grecn, Jr. John C. Gregg Richard E. Grillin Ronald L. Griggs Mark W Grobrnyer Wayne Gruber Michael E. Hale Milas H. Hale, UI John T. Haley, Jr. O. Wendell Hall, J•. Don F. Hamilton Donis B. Hamilton Herman L. Hamilton, Jr. W. P. Hamilton Frank S. Hamlin Jeffrey E. Hance Stuart W. Hankins John 1: H"din PH. Hardin David M. Hargis John N. Harkey Da,id K Harp Searcy W. Harrell, J•. Eugene S. Harris James E. Harris S. Reid Harrod, Jr. John T. Haskins Riehard Halfield William D. Haught Claude S. Hawkins, Jr. M. Steele Hays Donald H. Henry Raben W Henry E. H. Herrod Sam Hilburn E. Kent Hirsch Richard W Hobbs William H. Hodge

D"id A. Hodges Henry Hodges Kaneaster Hodges, Jr. Curtis E. Hogue Cyril Hollingsworth Don Hollingswonh Bill R. Holloway , Jack w. Holt, Jr. • Ro~rt M. Honea • jenniffer M. Horan Manhew Horan Roben E. Hornberger Phillip D. HoUl Dorothy Y. Howani EJ. Haw<Il, Jr. W.Max Haw<1l D. Michad Huekah.ay aim Huey Anna.belle Qimon Imber Randall W. hhmad Hermann Ivester

• ,

· , • • • • •

Donald T. Jack, Jr. John H. Jaekaon Randolph C. Jackson Alston Jennings, Jr. Alslon Jennings Br.ldley D. Jesson John M. Jewell W Horace: Jewdl Glenn W Jones, Jr. M. Samuel Jones, III Robert L Jones, Jr. Roben L. Jones, 1lI W. Wilson Jones Jim L. Julian Eugene Kelley William H. Kennedy, III J.L. Kidil,Jr. Judson C. Kidd Mim:l. C. Kilgore John N. Killough Joseph E. Kilparrick, Jr. Warren O. Kimbrough Milam Mike Kina.rd Donald K. King Harold L. King Knox B. Kinney

John S. Kinerman Peter G. Kumpc

H. Baker Kurrus S<anIey R. Langley David N. Laser Sam Laser • John T. Lavey • Ike Allen Laws, Jr. Lilind E l.c"herman Charles R. Ledberrer Thomas D. LalbetH:r Roben B War

Markham Lester Swk Ligon Gary E Liles Rurh Lindsey W. Kirby Lockhan Floyd J. Lofron J. Hugh lookadoo, Jr. Edwin L Lowther, Jr. • P>ny W. Lueken James M. Luffman Dian< S. Mackey Edward S. Maddox Phil Malcom Howard L Manin

Richard L. Marrin William A. Martin Michael H. Mashburn Terry L. Malhews Charles D. Matthews David R. Matthews Stephen A. Matthews Ronald A. May

S. Huben Mayes, Jr. Richard L. Mays Robin L. Mays Eugene J. Mazzanti Hall McAdams, III Herben H. McAdams, 11 • AD. McAllister,Jr. • Ausrin McCaskill James E. McClain, Jr. Hayes C McClerkin Sidney H. McCollum Ed W. McCorkle Bobby McDaniel Lucinda McDanid Harry E. McDermon, Jr. Robert McHenry Marcia McIvor • James H. McKe:nzie • James A. McLany, III James Bnta McMath • Phillip H. McMarh Sidney S. McMath Toney D. McMillan • Jack A. McNulry D. L McRae Margarel B. Meads Russ Meeks David E Menz William S. Miller, Jr. H. Maurice Mitchell Michael W. Mitchell MarkA. Moll Edward O. Moody • James M. Moody Charles Mooney · Dewey Moore, Jr. · Harry Truman Moore James l.. Moore, III • James W. Moore John B. Moore, Jr. Richard N. Moore, Jr. • Charles A. Morgan Stephen E. Morley • Kenneth R. Mounon Rosalind M. Mower • Wm. Kirby Mouser Lee J. Muldrow Ban G. Mullis Waher A. Murr.ay Richard S. Mwe Ronald G. Naramore ally Neal E. Shdlidd Ndson Charles R. Nesrrud David N<Wbern George H. iblock Raymond L. iblock Wyck Nisber, Jr. R. Gary Nuner Mike A O'Brien Bobby Lee Odom Conr.ad T. Odom Richard ~ Osborne Thomas L. o-<rbey Charles COwen William L. Ov.oen Michael O. P>rk<:r

Nicholas H. Panon William L. P>"on, Jr. Richard L. Peel • Edward M. Penick Bill Penix Samuel A. Perroni Donna C Petrus E. Lamar Pettus Norwood Phillips George E. Pike, Jr. John M. Pinman Charles E. Plunken Odell Pollard David M. Powell pag~

Donald E. Prevalle! William I. Prewen David H. Pryor Thomas 8. Pryor Donald C. Pullen Steven W. Quaulebaum John W. Raines Michael R. Rainw.uer Louis L Rarnsoy, Jr. Richard L. Rarnsoy c.E. Ransick 8ri2n H. Ratcliff Gordon S. Ralher, Jr. • J. Thomas Ray · Stephen M. Re2soner • David Roes Richard A. Ikid James R. Rhodes, JJI Ben E. Rice · Elton A. Rieves, III Richard W. Roachdl Andrtt I. Roar John B. Robbins Mark RobertS Susanne RobertS Thomas E. Robertson H. Clay Robinson Robert L Robinson, Jr. Spencer F. Robinson Judith Rogen • Charles B. Roscopf Charles D. Roscopf · Louis Rosen Jeff M. Rosenzweig

Roben D. Ross Robert R. Ross Beverly A. Rowlett Elsijane T. Roy KeOl J. Rubens Herbert C. Rule, III Donald S. Ryan

J.E. Sanden Daniel K. Schiemer Eugene L. Schiemer Don M. Schnipper baac A. Scon, Jr. Lennard L. Soon Mary Davies Scon

• • •

•

Fr.mk B. Sewall Drnnis L. Shackleford John M. Shackleford, Jr. John K. Shamburger James B. Sharp Harold Sharpe Stephen M. Sharum J. L. Shaver, Jr. J. Mich,,1 Shaw Kenneth R. Shemin William F. Sherman Soorry Shivdy Roben Shull. Steven T. Shults Harold H. Simpson, II James Marlon Simpson, Jr. Jack Sims Ted C. Skokos Rodney E. Slater Howard L. Slinkard Bed A. Smilh Bed S. Smilh Donald H. Smith Douglas O. Smirh. Jr. Griffin Smith Laura H. Smilh Ray S. Smilh, Jr. Robe" D. Smirh, 111 Rodney K. Smith William J. Smith Frank Snellgrove, Jr. David Solomon Thomas E. Sparks

nhu

James v. Spencer, III James D. Spron Roy E. Stanley Wilton E. Stttd Gale B. Srewan Jean D. Stockburger William M. Siocks Thomas S. Stone O.H. SlOrey, III Thomas S. Suttunan · Leonard P. Stridmu.n Joseph A. Srrode • John E Srroud, Jr. P>u1 Sullins William H. Sunon limothy R. Tarvin Rex M. Teny William L Terry Let Thalh(:imer Marvin D. Thaxton Hoyt Thomas Roben F. Thompson -~

-0

Ray Thomton Danny Thrailkill Thomas P. Thf2Sh John R. Tisdale • Win A. Tralford Roben D. Trarnmell William H. Trice, III N. Walls Trimble Otis H. Turner Edgar J. Tyler • Fred S. Ursery David B. Vandergriff ~ A. Glenn Vasser Robert C. Vinitow Eddie H. Walker, Jr. w.J. Walker James R. Wallace Larry C. Wallace G. Chris Walthall CR. Warner, Jr. John J. Warkins Frank L Watson, Jr. John Dewey Warson limothy F. Watson, Sr. Royce Weisenberger, Sr. James E. West Bernard Whetstone Bud B. WhetStone Fr.mk B. Whilbeck Fr.mk L. Whilbeck Norman Wilkinson Chris E. Williams Richard A. Williams Roben H. Williams W Jade Williams, Jr. J. Gaston Wtlliamson Ralph E. Wilson Raben M. Wilson, Jr. William R. Wilson, Jr. Russell B. Winburn TertSa M. Wineland Carolyn B. Wirhenpoon Tom D. Womack Henry Woods Joe D. Woodward Richard H. Woollon Jacqueline S. Wrighl Roben R. Wright, III · Susan Wehber Wright Terry F. Wynne W. Kelvin Wyrick Cary E. Young Damon Young H. David Young Paul B. Young Roben E. Young

DONORS The Arkansas Bar Foundation acknowledges with grateful appreciation [he n:ceipr of memorial gifts, scholarship contributions, honorariums and other donations to the Foundation during the 1998-99 year. This list represents gifts, not including pledge or sustaining fellow payments. received from july J. J 998 through April 30. 1999. We thank you for your sup-

pan. Arkansas Associarion of Women

Lawyers Naney H. Bailey W Christopher Barrier W.W. Ba.ssen, Jr. ina Beebe Anthony W. Black Joyce Bobbitt Boswell Law Firm

Bridewell & Bridewell Pannership Charles A. Brown Capital University Carhi Compron Doug Daniel Jack c. Deacon Mrs. E. Charles Eichenbaum Danny Elrod Georgia Elrod Lewis E. Epley. Jr. Judge John and Annis Fogleman Kay WeSt Forrest

Peggy Holt Fre<:man Mr. and Mrs. john P. Gill Judith Gray Gresham tx. Kirkpatrick Tami Harlan Searcy W. Harrell, Jr. Cyril & Betsy Hollingsworth Don Hollingsworth

judge Jack Holt. Jr. Hyden, Miron & Foster, PLLC Judge Annabelle Clinron Imber Ledberrcr. Cogbill. Arnold & Harrison, LLP William A. and Mary Lou Martin Buzz and Cissie May Robert W, McCorkindale, II Elisabeth McGee James and Betry McKenzie McKenzie, Mc~e, Vasser &

Middleton, Adams & Tate,

P.e.

Judge Jamcs and Lisa Moody Johnny L. ichols Niblock Law Firm George M. Purvis

Hoyte and Ann Pyle Donald P. Raney Bruce A. Rhoades Reeves Law Firm Charles B. Roscopf Dennis and Jane Shackleford Judge John and Marietta Stroud William H. Surron Warner, Smith & Harris, PLC Judge Willianl R. Wilson, Jr. Carolyn Witherspoon Judge Henry Woods Paul and Marcella Young

Barber. PLLC Jack A. McNulty

SPECIAL PROJECT GRANTS The Arkansas Bar Foundation provided special project grants wtaJing approximately 530,000 w programs during the 1998-99 year. Funding for the following legally-related projects represents the Foundationis commitment to its educational and charitable mission w improve the administration of justice Arkansas Bar Association Lawyers for Literacy Committee Revision of pamphJets explaining our criminal justice system to be used by less proficient readers

$ 2,000

Ozark Legal Services Case management software update

$ 2,900

Arkansas Bar Association Committee on Individuals with Disabilities Compilation and printing of Handbook of Laws which Affect and Protect Individuals with Disabilities

$ 5,000

Arkansas Volunteer Lawyers for the Elderly Reprint of "Your Living Will" brochure

$ 2,000

Arkansas Bar Association Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee Printing and dsicriburion of ABCs of Mediation brochure

$ 1,800

Arkansas Bar Asociation Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee Sertlement Week activities - training attorneys to become third party neutrals

$ 4,400

Arkansas Bar Association Funding for Professionalism Among Arkansas Lawyers Program with Annual Meeting speaker Arthur Miller

$11,450

pagl tm

RECOGNIZING EXCELLENCE 1999 Annual Awards

These awards are given jointly by the Arkansas Bar Foundation and Arkansas Bar Association

and prescnrcd during rhe annual bar meeting in Hot Springs.

PiCNtred are the J999 recipients ofA,krlnsas Bar Foundation and Association joint Awards.

They are, clockwise: \Vimlow Drummond, judg< Wend"l L. Griffin, Philip S. And",on and Richard A. \Villiams OUTSTANDING lAWYER AWARD Given in recognition of excellence in the practice of law and outstanding contributions

profession. •

the

WINSLOW DRUMMOND

OUTSTANDING LAWYER-CITIZEN AWARD For recognition of outstanding participation in and excellent performance of civic responsibilities, and

for demonstrating high standards of professional competence and cooduer. • WENDELL L. GRIFFEN

C. E. RANSICK AWARD OF EXCELLENCE Given in recognition of extraordinary service to the legal profession.

•

PHILIP S. ANDERSON

OUTSTANDING LAWYER-HUMANITARIAN AWARD To recognize outstanding humanitarian service.

•

RICHARD A. WILLIAMS

OUTSTANDING LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATION Recognizing outstanding activities which enhance the position and standing of the legal profession.

•

BENTON COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION

ARKANSAS BAR FOUNDATION WRITING AWARDS

•

GENERAL WRITING

LEGAL WRITING

Paul Kelly "Juvenile Offenders in Arkansas" The Arkansas Lawyer Vol. 33, No.4

Patricia Hays "Show Me the Money...Not! (So Fast)" The Arkamas Lawyer Vol. 33, No.3

DISTINGUISHED WRITING AWARD

•

Judge Richard S. Arnold "Philip S. Anderson - A Tribute" The Arkamas Lawyer Vol. 33, No.4

Vincent Foster, Jr. "Roads We Should Travel" The Arkansas Lawyer Special Centennial Issue 1998

The contents of this repon reflect activities of the Arkansas Bar Foundation from

July 1, 1998 through Aptil 30, 1999. pllg~ ~/rom

•

1998-99 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

OFFICERS

President Vice Presidem Secrcrary- Treasurer

James D. Sprott Bradley D. Jesson Donis B. Hamilton

Harrison Fort Smith Paragould

Bobby McDaniel Lucinda McDaniel Donis B. Hamilron

Jonesboro Paragould

EASTERN BAR D1STRlCf

1999 2000 2001

Jonesboro

WESTERN BAR D1STRlCf

1999 2000 2001

David K. Harp Bradley D. Jesson Donald C. Pul.len

Fort Smith

Thomas L. Overbey Narc Coulter Steven T. Shults

Little Rock Little Rock Little Rock

Ed McCorkle

Arkadelphia Prescott Pine Bluff

Fort Smith Hot Springs

CENTRAL BAR DISTRICT

1999 2000 2001 SOUTHERN BAR DISTRICT

1999 2000 2001

A. Glenn Vasser

William Kirby Mouser

NORTHERN BAR DISTRICT

1999 2000 2001

David Marchews

Rogers Fayetteville

Timothy R. Tarvin Katherine C. Gay

Fayetteville

EX-OFFICIO A. Glenn Vasser, Immediate Past Presidem. Arkansas Bar Foundation Paul B. Young. Chair, Trus£ Commircce Robert M. Cearley, Jr., President, Arkansas Bar Association

ARKANSAS BAR FOUNDATION COMMITTEE CHAIRS Trust Paul B. Young

Investment

Special Projects John F. Stroud, Jr. Annual Awards James D. Sprott

Audit Thomas L. Overbey

James B. Sharp Building Russ Meeks

Writing Awards Victor A. Fleming

Save the Building Fund J. Thomas Ray

FOUNDATION STAFF Ann Dixon Pyle. Executive Director Joyce Bobbitt. Administrative Assistant

•

order [0 fully embrace and participate in OUI democratic form of government. In 1995. ,he 1 S ini'ia<ed i<s Ci'izenship USA program [0 expedite processing of naturalization cases and to reduce the backlog of applications. some of which had been pending in I S offices for over three years. As a result of this program. over one million people were naruralized from Augusr 1995 chrough September 1996. 5 Cricics of che program charged chat che I S pushed rhese cases through the system to enable new citizens [0 voce in the 1996 federal elections. In 1998. an audit repon pinpointed numerous problems with the naturalization process and also reported that a number of cases. which were approved without processing background checks. resulted in the namralization of persons who had been convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral mrpirude. 6 In reaction to the report and to intense criticism from Congress. the INS began implementing policy. process, and procedural changes to redesign the namralization process. This redesigning process has result-

tilities, and enlisted while in the U.S .• lhe Canal Zone, American Samoa or Swains Island. INA § 329(a), 8 U.S.c. § 1440(a). 4. Whether the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Ft. Smith INS office or the Memphis I S office is determined by the Arkansas couney in which the naturalization applicanl resides.

ed in increased processing times and delays for persons applying for citizenship. According to an INS naturalization program upda'e for ,he ,hird quarrer of fiscal year J 999, however, ,he INS is now making significant progress in reducing the backlog of naturalization applications} The I NS completed rwice as many namra.1izarion applications during the period April ro June 1999 as it had completed during the same period in 1998. The agency's goals are ro reduce the national average projected processing time for a naturalization case to twelve monrhs by ep'ember 30, 1999, and ro reduce the average processing time to approxima,e1y six monchs by Sep'ember 30, 2000. Cases pending ar rhe I S Texas Service Center are currently taking over one year to process.

5. S" 74 1","1'"'" /Ykma 266 (Feb. 23, 1998). 6. Id The I S review consisted of three ~pa

Endnotes I. U.S. Const.• an. 1, § 8, d. 4. 2. INA §§ 310-347, 8 U.s.c. §§ 1421-1458. 3. An exception ro this rule is made for persons who served honorably in the U.. Armed Forces in limes of war or other declared hos-

Kathy W':" Goss is an Attorney in Lonoke. Arkansas. Sbe focuses her practice primarily on immigration and nationaLity Low.

rate srudies conducted by the INS and a.nd validated by the accounling firm of KPMG Peal Manvick. 7. Depanmenl of Jusrice. Immigration & aturalization Service. aturaJization Program Update 3rd Quarter. FY1999 supervi~d

(Aug. 16, 1999).

For ovt'r II J~an, Rowell & Associates. al1

ROWELL & ASSOClATES Private Investigators 1020 Tower Building, Li,de Rock, AR 7220 I 501.372.1809 Fax 501.374.0143 Arkansas Toll Free 888.372.1800 E-Mail Address:

RowelI98@ao1.com

Since 1988 Arkansas License AI 038 $2M Errors & Omissions Insurance

Norma RoweU Own~r

Serving: Arkansas. Missouri. Alabama, Mississippi Insurance Fraud· Workers' Compensation· Liability Domesric • Child Cusrody Missing Persons· Adoption Searches Process Service· Polygraph Services· Background Cheeks Undercover· Court Litigation· Witness Statemems • Debugging Homicide & Criminal Investigations Darabase Research· Asser Searches Memberships American Society of Industrial Securities, Chairman 1996 Arkansas Board of Private Investigations and Security Agencies. Vice Chairman 1991-1996 National Association of Legal Investigators World Associadon of Detectives. Inc.

illv~Sfig(ltio11S

agency. hill bun known lhroughom L..

....

Arkansas for highly prof"'ional qua/icy

work. \flo orr liunstd to st'TViCt' tIM mtirr sralt' ofArkamas. Somi' of til' strvius offirrd include activity rhi'rltS ronduclt'dfOr thosi' suspt'cud of imura"c~ and liability fraud, chilO custody proeudiltgs. and dom~tic litigariom. AJditio"ally. ~ conduct smsitiw intn'vit'ws. wirnro location a"d background and lUJer invmigariollJ fOr pormriallingario". \~ also co"dllet rmdt'reovt'r inwstigatiom. lUJisting eompanin cunail thifi, sabolagt' or drug fIJt' among t'fflployt'n.

1'* offir a staffofhighly div=ifid liunJed invt'Jtignton, who art' bondt'd and illStirtd, with prior ~xpt'rimCt' in Stich fi~1ds as criminal jusliulcriminal dt'fmst', stCllri~ ty, darn proussing, compuun, tramporra·

'ion, business mmll1grmt'lll, jinmlct' nnd Iq,nl ;'wm;gntiom.

Ill.lllo. I/Fall U99

Tbr .\rkaoll! Lalljrr

Michael Shannon, Michael Smith, Kevin Keech, David Marlin, Kalh'yn Perkins, Mark Davis

ROSE lAW FIRM Welcomes Its Newest Members

David P. Martin Kathryn B. Perkins

Michael N. Shannon Michael G. Smith

And Congratulates

Mark A. Davis

Kevin P. Keech

On Becoming Our Newest Associates

120 East 4thÂˇ Liltle Rock, AR 72201 â&#x20AC;˘ 375-9131

28 1hr Arkansas Law!rr

rol.llilo. -1/I'aIl1999

\lIung tall ~ "I'S SI'1'1 illn IIl'plll'l Jjo

•

F§YOlles

@j Refmh

Stop

Home

...kbaI.comIPlAlic_no.html

On Our Way to a Successful Year by Baxter Sharp our Young Lawyers Section has completed the first [wo segments for anomer successful year. First. at the annual meeting we held OUI elections for officers and Executive Council members. Your I 999-2000 officers (besides me)

art: Scan Zuerker, Fort Smith, Chair-Elect; Cindy Thyer, Jonesboro, SecrcrarylTreasurer;

and Gwen Hodge, Little Rock, will rotate to the posirion of pas< chait. Your 1999-2000 Executive Council Members are: Charles Kester, Fayerreville; Thomas E. Smith, Gravette; Jeff Harrelson, Texarkana; Chris May, Pine Bluff; Paul Dumas, Morrilton; Chad Trammel, Fort Smith; Chris Gardner. Jonesboro; Dustin McDaniel, Jonesboro; Todd Greer, Little Rock; and Mark Hodge, Linle Rock. You need ro know who these members are because they repfesent our young lawyers. and you need ro communicate with them so that they can represent you. Second, we have held our Executive Council annual retreat. This year's retreat was held in Helena at the Edwardian Inn. This retreat is importam because it gives these representatives the opporrunity to form a good working rela~

rionship, and me year's activities are discussed and planned. Of cou~, we will be cominuing our normal projects such as disaster legal assisrance, the swearing in ceremony, rhe newsletter. handbook revisions (this year's being consumer law), bridging the gap, law week, and our new annual meeting tennis tournamem. Some new projecrs that we will he undertaking will be a video dealing with Elder Fraud (Chad Trammell), a video on duties and obligations of guardians (Tim Cullen), a history of our section (Chris Tyet), and a literacy project in primary/elememary schools (Mark Hodge). Also, our menror program at the law schools never has been what it should he. and Scon Zucrker is tackJing modifications of that project. The section is for all young lawyers. uncil they reach the age of 35. or have been practicing for 5 years. I would like to encourage: you to find a project that imercsts you and get involved in your section. and attend our events mat we have periodically around the: State. We can do so much ro benefit so many if we all JUSt give a little bir of our rime. What do you want to do?*

Visit the Arkansas Bar Association at

WWW. arkbaro com and get the NEW Senior Citizens/Caregivers Guide ALSO:

f rom I~e Env;ronmenlal Group 01 Milc~ell

W;II;ams -

~~~~'.UU.mN!<Yo

The latest in CLE o

The Table of Contents for Handbooks and Systems o

fop

lJOU.

O'ECenl nalional appoinlmenl b~ I~e Ame.kan

Bo.

Assodalion as C~aip of I~e A;p Qualil'J Committee of I~e Secl;on of Env;ronmenl, Enerq'l ond Resources.

Pamphlets available to the public o

What's New and Noteworthy in your Association o

Member Benefits

MlTCHEU W1LLlAMS

and coming in August.

SElIG· GATES· WOODYARD· H·L·C·

425 W",t Cop;lol A""nu., Su;l. 1800 L;III. Rock, AR 72201

501-688-8800

arkansasfindalawyer IIU!.lo.I/I'aIlI Q!9

The .\rkaOlll Llw)er

My First Time As A Juror â&#x20AC;˘ by Maggie Bush â&#x20AC;˘ Ef/ch ofthe attonleys f/Sked questions ofthe jury panel about their knowledge ofthe medicf/l or legf/l profession, The best question, asked by the defense attonley. was "How mllllY 0/you

think that becf/use this doCtOl' is here in court thf/t he hf/S done something wrong?"

Thp "r~lnlall,a\\TPr

101. II \0. I/Fall 1999

ABOUT THE CASE This was a medical malpractice case against a Little Rock doctor who was accused of allowing placenta or "retained products of conception" to remain in the uterus of a 33 year old woman, ultimately resulting in her contracting a major infection and causing her to have her uterus removed. her spleen removed, her blood replaced and resulting in over $167,000 in medical bills. The doctor had never seen this patient before the delivery date, had not treated her previously and knew nothing of her previous care, except what was written in her chan. The delivery produced a healthy baby. and me mother was discharged from me hospital, healthy and happy, the day following the delivery. Her problems began around 11 days after delivery. and she was re-admitted ro the hospital with what they though might be ole (an infection from retained products of conception that gets into the blood stream, which can be fatal). One of the symptoms of Die is massive bleeding. AJI medical records. however. pointed to TTl' (Thrombotic Thrombopsychopenic I'urpura)(probably spelled incorrecrly!) ...TTP is common in

pregnam women and is usually detected early on in the pregnancy. The plaimifF did not show signs of excessive bleeding. Ultimately, I saw nothing in the medical records. or from the expert testimony, that would even remotely indicate that the doctor had done anything out of the scope of ordinary care. The following notes are my "opinions" as I observed the witnesses. the evidence, the attorneys, the parries. and the other jury members.

VOIR DIRE Each of the attorneys asked questions of the jury panel about their knowledge of the medical or legal profession. The best question, asked by the defense artorney, was "How many of you think rhat because this doctor is here in court that he has done something wrong?" One juror raised her hand and said "Well, if he's here in court, he must have done something wrong." She was eliminated. Another juror stated that he had previously had some really bad experiences with doctors and just hated the way you had to sit in their offices forever to get to see one. He was eliminated. Myexperience as a legal secretary, contrary to popular belief 0) did not prohibit these anorneys

from selecting me for this jury. They simply asked me if I thoughr I could be objecrive in deciding this case and, of course, my answer has to be "yes". I thought morc questions needed to be asked about medical knowledge, family members who have medical knowledge. bad experiences \Vim medical professionals. and any educational background in medicine. The only juror that voted for the plaintiff had a daughter who was a nurse who had expressed to her mom the poor quality of care that doctors give their maternity patients! She was prejudiced already. A retired nurse, however, was selected for rhe jury panel and she was an excellent juror and was selected as our foreman. First impressions arc rhe ones the jury will hang onco, usually. One anomer stared his case concisely and confidently and that image never changed throughout the trial. He never raised his voice or became Austered, but had his exhibits and experts pre路 pared and easy to connect. The other attorney was abusive to some of the wirnesses, confusing in his explanations and didn't make a very good impression on the jury. Waiting for an attorney to flip through a stack of medical bills or a pile of blow ups is very annoymg. OPENING STATEMENTS Opening remarks should be brief, to the point, and actually give the jury some idea of what the case is about, what type of testimony they will hear, and what their dury will be with regard to the finding of guilt or innocence. I noted in final deliberations that some of the jurors were not even sure what the doctor had been accused of doing! Tell them whar they are looking for! Tell them how you arc going to prove what you say and then do it. Until the jury accually hears the expert's and other wirnesscs' testimony, they won't connect all that you say, especially if you arrempt to try your whole case in your opening statement! WITNESS TESTIMONY I didn'r feel like the plaintiff should be the first to take the stand. Much of her tCSrimony played on rhe sympathy of the jury, but before the end of the trial, that sympathy was more directed at the darts being thrown at the doctor. I didn't think the plaintiff's husband should have testified at all. He was obviously stating his ideas from "coaching" he had received from his arrorney. His statement that he saw the placenta

fall to the floor after his son was delivered was hard to believe from the start. He even used the word "splat"! Of course, the visual effect in my mind lingered for some time! Later expert testimony confirmed that this just doesn't happen! In dosing remarks, defense anorney made a comment that this was the man's first child and why was he nor looking at his son who had JUSt been born instead of being concerned abom what had fallen into the floor? Very effective.

looking at blow ups. Since they wouldn'r let us have them in the deliberation room, I thought somebody wasted a lot of money on blow ups... Besides, one anorney could never find the one he wamed, and he wasted a lot of time looking! I noticed several times that the attorneys were too busy showing the exhibit; rhey forgOt to talk about its relevance ro the case. It's important for jurors to know what they are looking ar and what it has to do with the case. Overhead projected material would be much easier to see and understand, if thar is still possible to do in a courtroom. It would certainly be a lot cheaper than blow ups!

EXPERT TESTIMONY Plaintiff's expert was a well known local doctor. At one time he was a very well respected and knowledgeable physician, I'm sure. But his testimony was so obviously shaky, and his deposition contradicted a lot of what he said in trial. He stated in his deposition that he didn't see anything that the doctor had done wrong, and in the trial he stated emphatically that the doctor had violated the standard of care for this paticnt. At one point he began to answer and his remark was ''I'm not really an expert in this field, bur... " that was enough for me to hear. Defense experts were excellem. They were asked questions abom their own field of expertise; they wcre asked when they received the medical records in review; they were asked how much thcy charged per hour to review records, and, most imporrandy, the defense attorney asked them "Did anything I say or did influence your testimony in any way?" And they answered "no". This was impressive to me. They established the witnesses' credibility, their involvement, and how much they were being paid, rather than waiting for the other attorney to imply that they were "bought and paid for" witnesses.

CLOTHING AND MANNERS OF THE ATTORNEYS A near appearance is a must for the anorneys. Looking and acting professional in from of a jury is very imporram. I was surprised that even in the deliberations, some of the jurors commemed on looks and mannerisms. A neatly pressed suit, shirr and tie add so much to rhe presemation. Sloppy dress usually means sloppy presentation!

EXHIBITS Medical records III large quantities are difficult to pass around to a jury. If there is a specific record, it would be helpful if it could be passed around. However, in passing documems to the jury, the juror can't lis(cn to whar is being said and read at the same time. If the medical records were not extremely voluminous, the documents could be numbered and easily referenced. Most of the time, in this eype of case especially, the documents are too numerous to do that. Blow ups arc great, bur I couldn't see what they said from where I sat, so they meant nothing to me umil I saw them during the breaks. With only a 15 minme break to relieve your "distress" (as Judge Ward so aptly put it) there wasn't much rime for

DELIBERATIONS Upon retiring to the jury room, and given only sparce instruction, I noted a look of panic on most of the faces. What do we do now? One lady, whose daughter was 3 nurse, and who had obviously closed her mind to the facts presented, began in an almost hostile manner, stating that this doctor should be hung out to dry. Before she got very far, others had started to talk, ALL AT ONCE! and I could see right away thar someone had to bring a sense of order to this madness, or we would be there for days. Some of the jurors had no idea what we were even trying to vote on. I suggestcd that we select a foreman and then take a preliminary vote ro see where everyone stood. We selected a former

VIDEO DEPOSITION YS. SOMEBODY ELSE READING IT The video deposition of the doctor we saw was so involved with the doc's credentials thar I almost fell asleep while he was giving it. Having relevant portions of a deposition read by someone, anyone, is much more effective to me. There is such a thing as "toO much" introduction of a wirness and his credenrials... Endless names of schools attended, awards, publishing works, etc. is really boring. Establish it and go on.

1'01. II .\0. III'ali 1999

The ,Irkmos LawjU

nurse-who seemed very open-minded and unbiased-as our foreman. We rook a vore, and the lady who spoke up first voted for the plaintiff, tWO mhers were undecided, and the rest voted for the defendant. We then starred around the room and by rhe time the Aoor ws given to me, I knew that if I didn't say something profound we could be there for days. I simply said "All we are here ro do is decide if this doctor did anything ro cause this young woman's problems, and I haven't been shown anything in these medical records or heard any testimony that makes me think he has done anything wrong." After going around the room and taking a second vore, the mouthy woman, who had already made up her mind she wanred ro hang a doctor that day, was the only vore for the plajnrifF. Nothing anyone else said made her think differently. (As a matter of fact, after the trial was over, she stopped me outside the courthouse and said "Would you believe this isn't the first ime this doctor has been sued~" - how did she come by that informa(ion~)

I felt like the jury needed a little more in the way of instructions when they go inro this room. Someone needed ro give them a little guidance on procedure and proper discussion of the case. No wonder it rakes juries hours and days to reach a verdict. They can't even agree on how ro agree! A few simple words from the bailiff would probably suffice. "Knock on the wall when you're through" doesn't seem like much instruction to me.

SUMMARY Being on a jury panel gave me an entirely new perspective on trial work. I've been a legal secretary for many years, but have never stopped to cilink about what it feels like to have information "spoon fed" to me. Don't presume that because you know all the facts yourself, you are getting all those facts lined up as precisely for the jury! In some of the cases we arc currently working on, I immediately went back and listed the things about the case that would confuse me, bore me, and JUSt generaJly nOt seem

CONGRATULATIONS

TROY A. PRICE W. Harold Flowers Law Society President

1999-2000 From Your Friends and Colleagues at WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue. Suite 2200 â&#x20AC;˘ Uttle Rock. Arkansas 72201 â&#x20AC;˘ www.wlj.com

II fbI ,lrlanSal LallTer

Inl. 1I \0. III'alil m

Imponanr ro me as a juror. Finding a verdict among all the testimony and documents that are presented is nor as easy as it sounds. Prejudices try to slip in. Personal feelings of pity, sympathy, anger, and past experiences are sure to surface. Being impartial comes easy for some, bur others may be too quick to find fault. That's why it is so imporranr to question your jurors carefully in voir dire. Let them do the talking...they will usually give you what you want...people love to talk about themselves and their experiences. Another thing that came up in deliberations was that there was so much repetition. If you've selected the juror carefully, you should be able co give him/her a lircle credir for a little common sense and nor insult their intelligence by repeating things over and over. The bench conferences didn't seem to bother the jurors. Most of them at this trial, I felt like, were to determine who would put on what testimony, when we would break and what could be put off till tomorrow. Some of them were "scoldings" from the Judge, I think. This didn'r look good co the jury, but most of them didn't understand the law anyway and were not sure why the attorney was being scolded. Being able to stand up after sitting for I 1/2 hours was glorious. Sometimes it is difficult to sit in one SpOt for mat long. And when you start to feel "djsrressed" then your mind becomes muddled with other things, and you stop paying dose attention co the testimony. I would say that one hour is about the best rime limit for "sitting" and although it is difficult to Stop at certain intervals in the trial, the jurors seem to get restless after more r.han an hour. In summary, I don't think I've ever experienced anything quire like being on a jury. Although this was a relatively simple case, there was a lor of materiaJ thrown in that complicated and confused the issues. I would think a good rule of thumb in preparing anything for trial would be "keep it simple and to the poinr" and don't cloud the issues with a lot of nonsense and theatrics. Everyone should experience the role of a juror just oncc... it cenainly made me proud to be an American! And it certainly made me look at the cases we are working on from a differenct viewpoint. All in aJl, it was a valuable four days.9

Maggie Bltsh is a Legal Secretary for the Luekeu Law Fiml ill Little Rock. Arkansas.

Unlimited Access To Law Libraries.

RESTRAINTS It's the freedom of information. With Law Office Information Systems, Inc., you can do all the research you want for one flat rate. You get unlimited access to the most current cases, statutes, regulations and more through the Internet or on CD-ROM. And only LOIS gives it to you at a price every practitioner can afford. So don't wait. Call today at 1-800-364-2512 ext. 152 and find out how much money you can save by using LOIS law libraries. With our 3D-day money-back guarantee, there's nothing to lose.

L 0

I S

1路800路364路2512 (ext. 152) www.loislaw.com Fast, Acnlratt, Affordable Lrgnl RfswrclJ''''

PROPOSED REvISIONS IN AsSOCIATION'S CONSTITUTION By Harry Truman Moore

he Arkansas Bar Association will have an opportunity in November ro vote on a revised constitution that will allow a more efficient governance of our Association as we move inca the 21 sr century. The proposal is the culmination of the work of three subcommittees, after consideration of professional reviews of our governance, and active participation in and review of the process by both our Executive Council and House of Delegates. The proposal accomplishes one of the directives of our currem consrirmion in that it redraws OUf House of Delegate districts CO reflect Association membership. This effon, as well as the effafes to create a new Board of Governors and Presidemial districts, was led by Winslow Drummond, who performed the same task for the bar district boundary proposals for the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. Our Association will mirror the vase majority of similar bar associations in that we will have a Board of Governors which operates much like a corporate board of directOrs to manage the ever increasing business of the Association. The Board of Governors would replace the Executive Council, but would have an executive committee consisting of certain Association officers. At the same time, we wiU retain a broad based House of Delegates that will concentrate on major policy decisions for the Association, bur which will retain the ultimate authority over all Association decisions. Members of both the Board of Governors and the House of Delegates will be elected by the members on a geographic basis. The proposal has been unanimously endorsed by both the House of Delegates and the Executive Council and has broad support from the Association's past Presidents. The proposed revisions to the constitution will be mailed to the entire membership, along with a ballot, in late ovcmber. If you wish ro review the entire proposal prior to then, please contact the Bar Association office and a copy will be provided to you.

fhr ,\rkans;ls Lawjrr

1'01.ll,ln. ,jff'alilm

HIGHLIGHTS OF PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ARKANSAS BAR ASSOCIATION HOUSE OF DELEGATE ISSUES • Our House of Delegates, with 89 members, is too large to attend to the ever increasing business decisions before the Association. • The average size of the governing body of the six voluntary state bar associations with less (han 5,000 members is 25. Without Arkansas. the average size of the governing bodies is 13. The average governing body of all voluntary state bar's is 34. • Because of the frequency of required meetings and the increasing length of meeting agendas, attendance at House of Delegates meetings has decreased, and it has been more difficult to find candidates for House seats. • Regular meetings of the House of Delegates would be reduced to two per year. • This proposal would still allow a broad geographic representation for members of the House of Delegates, but meeting agendas would be directed toward major policy decisions, such as the legislative package, petitions to the Arkansas Supreme Coun, and other such matters that need and deserve deliberative debate and panicipation by a broad base of our membership. • The size of the House of Delegates wilt not be reduced. The district boundaries will be redrawn geographically, based on association membership. Redistricting is already required every ten years by our constitution, and this provision will be retained. • This proposal will eliminate the lengthy gap between the election of members to the House and the beginning of their term of service in the House. • The House of Delegates will retain the ultimate authoriry over all aspects of the Arkansas Bar Association.

EXECUTIVE COUNCILBOARD OF GOVERNORS ISSUES • Thc Board of Governors will replace the ExecUtivc Council and will assume the responsibility for the vast majority of the

"business" decisions of the Association. It will operate much like a corporate board of directors. The Board would meet a minimum of four times per year. • The Board of Governors will be six members larger than the current Executive Council. • Eighteen members of the Board of Governors would be elected on a geographic basis to guarantee representative participation by members of the association. Three members would be appointed to staggered tcrms ro assure diversity on the Board.

PRESIDENTlAL ELECTIONS AND NEW BAR DISTRICTS • There will now be three bar districts for the purpose of Presidential elections rather than the current five. In some years, there has been a lack of candidates from certain bar districts. • Currently, potential Presidential candidates outside of PuJaski County have a window of opportunity only every six years. Considering the additional demands on a President's time, it is often difficult to plan that far ahead for potential service as President. • Candidates outside of Pulaski County will have the same window of opportunity for service now available to candidates from Pulaski ounty. • The proposal is very similar to one considered by the Association at the time the current constitution was adopted in the early 1970's.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVlSIONS • This proposal also contains several technical changes to address problems that have developed since the passage of our almost 30-year-old constitution. • The term "residence" is more clearly defined for purposes of voting and running for Association offices. • The calculation of "times" under the constitution will mirror the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. • There will be a more efficienr system for the filling of vacancies in the twO governing bodies.*

PAST PRESIDENTS ENDORSE REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL We encourage the members of the Arkansas Bar Association co vore YES on the proposal co amend the Association's Constirution as summarized by the Harry Truman Moore article on the preceding page. Members will receive their ballot and the proposed amendments during the latter part of November. The proposal is the result of a twO year study by a committee whose members are representative of our membership geographically and otherwise. It is unanimously recommended for approval by the Executive Council and the House of Delegates. We are pleased co have had this opportunity co review the proposal and co give Oll r endorsement of it.

Wayne Boyce

Harry Truman Moore

Phillip Carroll

E. Lamar Pettus

Robert M. Cearley, Jr.

Louis L. Ramsay

Robert e. Compton

Charles B. Roscopf

James D. Cypert

Don M. Schnipper

J.e. Deacon

Dennis L. Shackleford

Philip E. Dixon

James B. Sharp

Oscar Fendler

J. L. Shaver, Jr.

John A. Fogleman

John F. Stroud, Jr.

John P. Gill

James E. West

David M. (Mac) Glover

J. Gaston Williamson

Richard Hatfield

Carolyn B. Witherspoon

Robert L. Jones, Jr.

Henry Woods

Robert L. Jones, III

Paul B. Young

Jack A. McNulty

lol.ll,lo. IIFall1999

fhl ,lrkoolaS LO\\Trr

Clockwise: Philip S. Anderson, Richard A. Williams, Winslow Drummond and Wendell F. Griffen Federal Advisory Committee, United States Court of Appeals for rhe Eighth Circuit, and in 1978-79 was appointed by rhe President ro serve on the United States Circuit Judge ominating Commission, Panel for the Eighrh Circuit. Phil Ande."on has rruly contributed extraord.inary service to the profession, recognized noc only by the Great State of Arkansas, but throughout the country as well. Richard A. Wdliams Outstanding Lawyer路Humanitarian

The Outstanding Lawyer-Humanitarian Award is given ro recognize outstanding humanitarian service.

Four Given Highest Honors at 1999 Annual Meeting Philip S. Anderson C.E. IUnsick Award of Excdlcncc

This award is given in recognition of extraordinary service to the legal profession. Philip S. Anderson's record of service to the profession is exemplary of what lawyers should be and is ofsuch manifest distinction that no one can deny iL As stated by Judge Richard Arnold, "'We have many reasons to be proud of our St3te, and Phil Anderson is Exhibir A ... Phil is rhe model of what a lawyer oughr ro be." Phil's Bar leadership, especially on the nadonaJ level, is exceptional. As a Fellow of

Til .lr~'1l1l

La~!/r

Iltll II. 1II',IIIl9l

Arkansas Bar Foundation, he has served as Chair of the Trust Commirree and President of the Board of Directors. Phil is a Life Fellow of the American Bar

Foundation. He has served in such a variety of capacities for the American Bar As ociation that the list is too numerow to prim. A few of his many contributions to the American Bar include Chair of the House of Delegares, member of rhe Board of Governors, Srare Delegate for Arkansas, and of course, his current role as President of the American Bar Association. Phil has aJso served as co-chair of the

Richard A. Williams has generously contributed his time, raJents and resources to both his profession and his community. This award honors an outstanding attorney who has also excelled in philanthropic activities in order to further the welfare of humanity. Dick is recognized in his field as one of the country's top tax attorneys. He is the only Arkansan to lecture at the prestigious .Y.U. Federal Tax Insrirure. He has published arric1es on tax law in aJi of the major national tax journals and served as Editor of L'gnl Economics. Dick also has an extt30rdjnary record of service to the organized bar. He served the Arkamas Bar Association as Chair of the Executive Council. As a Fellow of the Arkansas Bar Foundation, he has served as a member of the Board of DirectOrs and Trust Commirree, Chair of the Special Projects Commirree and is currently engaged in the effort to Save the Bar Center. Dick is a longrime member of rhe V.O.CAL.S. program, which provides pro bono legal assistance, and is a charter member and past president of the Central Arkansas Estate Council. His involvement with civic activities are numerous as well. Dick is a past Chair of the Sf. Vincent Development Foundation Board. He was an active member of the Board of rhe Easler Seal Society for many years, also serving as its Chair. As a member of the Board of rhe Museum of Discovery, he helped guide i[ through its transition from MacAnhur Park to its present location and ob[ajned several event and exhibit sponsors.

Winslow Drummond Outstanding Lawyer

inception of the Arkansas Supreme Court's

ty and has made significant contributions to both

Comminec on Civil Jury Instruction, he has

for many years. For fifteen years. Wendell prac·

The OULStlnding Lawyer Award is gi\'en in recognition

been one of its most valuable members, also serv·

ticed law at the firm of Wright. Lindsey &

of excellence in the practice of law and oULSl2Jlding con-

ing as the committee's Chair. As a member of the Arkansas Bar Association, Win accepted the task

Jennings. In the mid.eighties. he took a leave from the firm when he was appointed by the

of chairing the committee: for redistricting the

Governor as Chairman of the Arkansas Workers'

Association and has answered the caU to provide

Compensation ommission. Since January 1996, Wendell Griffen has served as a Judge on

tributions to the profession. For the past forty years, Winslow Drummond has distinguished himself as an outst:a.nding trial lawyer and is recognizat by his peers as a "lawyer's lawyer." Win Drummond combines the anributes of a scholar and a litigator. His

continuing legal education programs as a lecturer on a number of OCClSions. He frequencly lectures young attorneys about civility and professional.

character is impeccable and his professionalism is

ism in the practice oflaw. Winslow is a Fellow of

unsurpassed. Win is universally recogniz.ed for his candor, for his integrity, and for his ability to

the Arkansas Bar Foundation and a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Winslow

evaluate the critical issues in a case. As one of the nominators stated, "He is extremely respected by

Drummond's contributions have uuJy had an

both the plaintiff and defense Bar, not only as a

impact on the administration of justice and the rule of law.

trial lawyer, but as a mediator, counsdor and friend."

tho Arkansas Coun App<>ls. Wendell is a member of the Arkansas Bar Association, American Bar Association. American Bar Foundation. and the W. Harold Flowers Law Society.

He currently serves the

Pulaski County Bar Association as its President. Wendell's involvement in the community is expansive. He is a Pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church. He served his COUntry in the United

W.nd.ll F. Griff.n Outstanding LaW}..r-Citiun

States Army. Wendell currently sc:.rves on the &ard of Pulaski Academy. At the University of

The OULSnnding Lawyer-Citizen Award is given in

standing defense anorney with the law firm of

recognition of oULSnnding participation in and excellent performance of civic responsibilities and for demonstrat-

Arkansas for MedicaJ Sciences, he is on the Foundation Fund and Pastoral Care Boards. He is involved with the Central City Coalition of

Wright, Lindsey & Jennings. He has spent the past fifteen years as an excellent plaintiff's anor·

ing high standards of professional competence and conduct.

Congregarions and takes an active interest in fol· lowing his SOilS' Scout troop.

ncy with the McMath firm. His contriburions (Q his profession have been numerous. From the

Judge Wendell F. Griffen has willingly and faithfully served his profession and his communi-

Win obtained his law degree from Duke University where he was a member of the Order of the Coi( For many years, Win was an out-

f rom

your colleagues al Mitchell Williams -

C!)fe fconuy to- OU/I/ ne«Y 'A/l/tA.J/VII.~U{J{,••• John . Moof'e, Associate, Business Group Jennirer Ronnel, Associate,

Tax Group Don

.nr~,

Of Ceun,.1,

Business Ltiqalion and

Bonkrupfc~ Group

Eh'Obeth Andreoh, As,oc:;of., In,uronc. Requlolor~ Group Travis MorrisselJI Associate, Business Group

MnCHELL W1LLlAMS SELIO· OATES·WOODYARD P·l·l·C·

425 W"I Cop;lol A","o', 5011, 1800 LIII, Rock, AR 72201

501-688-8800

130 W"I c."I~1 A","o'

13."10",111" AR 72712 501-273-9561

I',l j 1110. I/Yall Im TIe lrkmll LI~W

.1 udil'ial

.\d\isOl} Opinions

The Judicial Advisory Opinions are written and provided by the Arlcansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee

Honorable Rice Van Ausdall Harrisburg, Arkansas Advisory Opinion 99-04

July 6, 1999 In our Advisory Opinion #99-04, responding ro a requesr from judge Rice Van Ausdall, we advised against membership in organizations dedicated to promoting and furthering the interests of either the plaintiffs' bar or the defendants' bar and its clientele. We expressed the belief that such memberships call into question the judge's ability to preside in certain cases with the unquestioned impartiality envisioned by Canons 2A and 4A of the Code of judicial Conduct. We nmed that other jurisdictions - Arizona, Georgia. Florida, and Louisiana have caken similar positions. You have asked the Committee to reconsider, mentioning your own long standing memberships in the American Trial Lawyers Association and the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association. You state that after your judicial service began in 1981 your membership in ATLA continued on a complimentary basis. You do nm attend meerings, but you

do find the publications informative and beneficial. We suspect that your involvement is typical of other judges throughout the state. Our examination of the literature. both print and electronic, of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association and the American Trial Lawyers Association, reveals that these organizations of attorneys have a consistent position on the plaintiffs' side in personal injury matters. Certainly judges are permitted to attend ATLA meetings and forums (see Advisory Opinion 99-06), ro speak at ATLA programs, to receive ATLA mailings. to receive ATLA materials, and to prepare materials for ATLA publications. But to be a member, whether or not the judge pays dues. whether or not the membership is described as honorary or complimentary, identifies the judge as generally supportive of the positions taken by that part of the bar. Likewise, continuation of membership after assuming a full-time judicial role does not, in our opinion, promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 2 A (I). Perhaps other organizations of attorneys

THE LA\'<7 FIRM OF HANKINS, HICKS, ,\1ADDEN & BLAGG W1SHES TO ANNOUNCE HAROLD \'<7. M..! \DDEN HAS \'<7ITHDRA\'<7N FROM TilE FIRM EFFECTIVE j

[E 3D, 1999

THE TAME OF THE FIRM IS NO\'<7 HANKINS, HICKS & BLAGG A. VAUGHAN HANKINS HAS JOINED THE FIRM AS AN ASSOCIATE Stuart \'<7. Hankins BasJ V. Hicks, jr.

J. Ted

A. Vaughan Hankins

800 \VEST FOURTH STREET P.O. BOX 5670 NORTH UTILE ROCK, A.R 72119-5670 (501) 371-9226

TR '\rklllil Ll~W

!"li..lll,. 1/1'i1l11ll

Blagg

have a likewise consistent position on legal issues, both within the profession and to the public at large. Such organizations may be on the plaintiffs' or defense dise in civil matters, may be on either side in criminal matters, or might be other specializ.ed bar organizations. Our opinion applies to them also. However, it is the responsibility of the judge to make the determination whether membership in an organization calls into question the judge's ability to preside with unquestioned impartiality. Similarly, in d.isqualification matters. case law indicates that the judge had discretion to determine whether his impartiality can reasonably be questioned. Likewise, the commentary to Canon 2 C indicates thar the judge in his own conscience must determine whether participation in an organization that appears to be discriminatory does violate the Code. The judge musr decide wherher her membership in an organization covered by Canon 4 C (3) is consistent with the general guidelines on extra-judicial activities. The responsibility placed on the judge in rhis opinion is consistent with these other areas.

.llIdiriillllisl'iplinill} .\l't ions The Judicial Disciplinary Actions are written and provided by the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission.

Hooorable Jim Bob Steel June 15, 1999 The Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission announced that Judge Jim Bob Steel has as of tOday recused himself from presiding over all criminal cases in the Municipal Coun of Pike Cauney and the City Court of Glenwood. Arkansas. The Order of Recusal was entered based on an agreement between Judge Steel and the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission due to a felony charge presemIy pending againS[ Judge Sreel. That felony charge was for passing a $5.000 hot cheek. On April 3. 1999. Judge Sreel purchased a vehicle from Russell Chevrolet auto dealership in Sherwood, Arkansas. As parr of financial arrangements, he furnished the dealership with a $5.000 check and took posscssion of the vehicle. On April 23. 1999, the dealership was notified by a bank that Judge Steel's check has been returned for not sufficient funds (NSF). On April 27. 1999. a representative of the auto dealership told the judge that the check had not been returned for insufficient funds. Judge Steel raid the representative that the check would be honored by the bank. On April 28 and 29. bank officials stated to the representative that the judge's checking account did nOt have sufficient funds to cover the check. Based on a sworn affidavit, a felony Warrant of Arrest (Hot Check) was issued for Jim Bob Steel on May 4. 1999. A copy of that warrant was attached. On May 13. 1999. Jim Bob Steel was arrcsred for speeding and later served with the felony warrant for the hOt check. On or about June 8, 1999. Judge Steel paid the amounr of the check and associated coun costs to the Sherwood Municipal Court. The Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission gave notice to Judge Steel and his anorney. Sam Perroni of Little Rock. that the Commission would meet to consider recommending to the Supreme Court that Judge Steel be temporarily suspended from judicial office with pay pending the outcome of any disciplinary determination by the Commission. After considering a proposal by Judge Steel and his attorney. the

Commission decided that if Judge Steel were to recuse from all criminal cases pending the outcome of the criminal charges f~ed against him by the State of Arkansas. no suspension petition would be filed with the Supreme Court at this time. This morning, June 15. 1999, Judge Steel entered an order, recusing himself from presiding over all criminal cases in the Municipal Court of Pike County and the City Court of Glenwood. Arkansas.

Honorable Morris W. Thompson July 1, 1999 The Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission today announced that formal charges have been served on Little Rock Circuit Coun Judge Morris W Thompson and that the Commission will proceed to a Formal Disciplinary Hearing on those charges. The hearing will be conducted as a result of the Commission's investigation of two (2) complaints open against Judge Thompson. The formal charges allege that while serving as Circuit Court Judge. Morris W. Thompson: 1. Continued to represent a client. Jacqueline Ford. This representation included the receipt and disbursement of settlement funds and advising the client on various legal maners. In addition, Judge Thompson requested a one-third (l/3) attorney fee from the Southern Council of [ndusrrial Workers for withholding their reimbursement under a subrogation agreement from the settlement funds received. 2. Continued to represent clients, Ada Gant and others, in a wrongful death lawsuit. This included authorizing a co-counsel [Q sign his name to a.ny documents necessary [Q resolve the lawsuit and being personally involved in settlement discussions. He issued settlement checks to his various clients and paid the costs associated with the Lawsuit. Thompson was involved in this Lawsuit for almost eighteen (18) months after becoming a circuit court judge. 3. Deposited clients' funds in an account other than an identifiable trUSt account. and at other times he deposited his personal funds in his attorney trust account. It is also

alleged that Thompson did not testify truthfully in a pretrial deposition concerning where a client's funds were deposited. In addition. some settlement checks were returned by a bank because there were insufficient funds in the account. 4. Failed to honor contractual obligations. Thompson signed a subrogation agreement with his client and after receiving the settlement funds, he did not disburse the funds in accordance with that subrogation agreement. In a subsequent lawsuit. a federal judge ruled thac by failing to reimburse the Southern Council of Industrial Workers, pursuant to the subrogation agreement. Judge Thompson had converted $29.971.35 which belonged to the Southern Council. S. Failed to file a report of outside income as required for 1993 by omitting to report approximately $95,000 of outside income. In his report for 1994. Thompson omirted reporting approximately $180,000 of Oll[side income. In 1996. he failed to file a report of outside income with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. In 1996. Thompson also failed to file a Statement of FinanciaJ Interest with the Secretary of State's office. 6. During the period of December 1992 to June 1997. he wrote and issued approximately sixty-four (64) checks which were d.ishonored and returned by various banks for non-sufficient funds. This includes having three (3) clients' checks returned for insufficient funds. In one instance, Judge Thompson directed a Prosecuting Attorney Staff member to come to the judge's office to pick up his money order to setrle the matter after an affidavit for a Warrant of Arrest (Hot Check) was served on him. 7. Failed to properly file and pay his personal income tax for 1994. 8. Drove his gold Ford pickup truck in Little Rock from January to September 1997 with a fictitious license plate tag. Attorney Darrell F. Brown of Little Rock is representing Judge Thompson. Attorney Marie-B. Miller of Gill. Elrod. Ragon also of Little Rock, is the special counsel to the Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission, and will be presenting the case the the Formal Disciplinary Hearing.

I'ol.ll XO. 1/1'a1l1999

The .Irklolil LIII)/r

Lil\\}PI'

DisripliRill} lrtions

The Lawyer Disciplinary Actions are wriuen and provided by the Supreme Courl ofArkansas' Commiuee on Professional Conducl. NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF LICENSE Ricky "'hlock Conway, AR June 15. 1999

The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Complaint of Fay Brannon. Ricky Ashlock, an attorney then practicing law in Conway, Arkansas, was employed by and paid $600 by Ms. Brannon in June 1996 to represenl hcr in a bankruptcy maner. Mr. Ashlock stated th:1.l the bankruptcy ~ti[ion would bc= filed in a few wttks and dUll if Ms. Brannon received any calls from credilOr$ rhal she should have lhem call him. Ms. Brannon did receive calls from creditors and shc provided the' crniitors with Mr. Ashlock's name and telephone numbc=r. The cralitors then aUed back and informed Ms. Brannon thon thq could not canGlO Mr. Ashlock. Ms. Br2nnon then called Mr. Ashlock's office to check on the status of the mailer and discovered that there was no answer when she called. As Ms. Brannon was unahle to speak wim Mr. Ashlock hy telephone. she wrme him twO leiters which were returned to her. In September 1997 Ms. Br2nnon sent a leuer to Mr. Ashlock hy certified mail. The certified mail was returned [0 her in Octoher 1997. As creditors continued [0 call, Ms. Brannon sent anOlher leiter hy certified mail to Mr. Ashlock's home. Mr. Ashlock signed for the leuer on October 23, 1997, and, despite the receipt of the lener, failed to contact Ms. Brannon. No hankruptcy petition was filed by Mr. Ashlock. Mr. Ashlock was served with a copy of the Formal Complaint by certified mail, restricted delivery, on Decemher 14, 1998. pursuant to Seelion 5E, Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct ofAuorneys:lIl Law (Procedures), as revised January 15, 1998. Mr. Ashlock railed to respond to the Complaint. His failure to respond timely to the Complaim constitutes admission of the factual allegations contained in the Complaint pursuant to Section 51(4) of the Procedures. Upon consider2tion of the formal complaim and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Commiu~ on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Ashlock's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3,when he failed to file a hankruptcy petition on behalf of Ms. Brannon or otherwise act in a manner evidencing reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a c1iem. 2. That Mr. Ashlock's conduct violated Model Rule 1.4(a), when he failed to maintain any communication with Ms. Brannon in regard to her bankruptcy maner despil'e her anempts to communicate with him. Model Rule 1.4(a) requires that an attorney keep a diem reasonahly informed about the StatUS of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. 3. That Mr. Ashlock's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d) when he failed to file a bankruptcy petition on Ms. Br2nnon's behalf which result'ed in unnecessary delay of her legal matter. Model Rule 8.4{d)requires that a lawyer nm engage in conduct that is prejudicial [0 the administration of justice. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional

10 The ,lrkaosas La"jrr

I'ol.ll No. IfF/II!!!!

ConduCT that RICKY ASHLOCK, Arkansas Bar ID #94124, be, and hereby is, SUSPENDED from the practice oflaw for his conduct in this matter for a period of six (6) months and shall become effective as of the date' of the filing of mis Order. Pursuant to Section 51(2) of the Procedures the sanction imposed hy the Commince is enhanced for Mr. Ashlock's failure m respond to the Complaint.

James Guy Tucker, Jr. Little Rock, AR June 22, 1999 Jim GU)' Tucker, Arkansas Bar ID #68067, an attorney practicing law primarily in Little Rock, Arkansas. enu~red a plea of guilty. in the United States Dimict Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on February 20, 1998, to the criminal offense of Conspiracy to Defr2ud the United States by Impeding the Lawful Functions of the Internal Revenue Service. a Class D Felony. Case No. LR-CR-95-1 17. On May 21,1999, a Judgment in a Criminal Case was filed of record in the aforesaid criminal matter, a file marked copy of which is appended herera. The Arkansas Supreme COUrt Committee on Professional Conduct (Committee), upon prcsent'ation of a file marked copy of lhe judgment appended hereto found that Mr. Jim Guy Tucker had been convicted of a felony and direered that disharmem action be instituted pursuant to the mandate of Section 6B(I), Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (Procedures), and that an interim suspension of Mr. Jim Guy Tucker's privilege to practice law under the authority of his Ark.tnsas law License be imposed pursuant to Sect.ions 7E(3)(a) and (h). and 8B(J )(a) and (b) of the Procedures. It is therefore ORDERED that JIM GUY TUCKER be. and he hereby is, SUSPENDED from the pr2Ctice of law within this jurisdiction immediately upon the filing of this Order with the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

James Guy Tucker. Jr. Little Rock, AR June 22, 1999 Anorney James Guy Tucker, Jr., an :morney practicing primarily in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, Bar ID #68067, has been suspended from the practice of law within the jurisdiction of this State pursuant to Sections 7ÂŁ(3)(a) and (b), and 8B(I)(a) and (b) of the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Regulating Professional Conduct ofAttorneys at Law (Procedures), as revised January 15. 1998. The Commin~ on Professional ConduCT has directed that disbarment action will be instituted pursuant to the mandare of Section 6B(I), Procedures, based upon his conviction of lhe criminal offense of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States by Impeding the: Lawful Functions of the Internal Revenue Service, a Class 0 Felony. Please be advised that a suspended altorney shall nor be r(instated to the practice oflaw in this Stale until the Arkansas Supreme Court has received an affirmative VOle by a majority of the Committe<:. If and at such

time as the Committcc may reinstate the attorney. you will be provided notice of the reinStatement and the effective date thereof. If you have any questions in this regard or you have information evincing the attorney's conlinued practice contrary to lhe status of his license, please contact this office.

Hiram McBeth III Little Rock. AR

July 2, 1999 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is hased arose our of information provided by Jerry Larkowski, an anomer pr2cticing in Linle Rock, Arkansas. On or about March 30, 1998. Mr. Larkowski's client. Nadine Richardson, received corre~ spondencc from Hiram McBeth, an attorney licenscd to practice law in Arkansa.s, but who maintains his office in Mesquite. Texas. Mr. Larkowski's client was leasing property in Pine Bluff from Mr. McBeth's clients, Albert and Gladys Alley. The correspondence from Mr. McBeth advised Ms. Richardson that the lease was being terminated and she needed to vacate the premises. After Ms. Richardson provided Mr. Larkowski with the correspondence. he wrote Mr. McBeth and advised him of his representation of Ms. Richardson. Thereafter Mr. McBeth called Mr. Larkowski and they had a brief discussion concerning the dispute betw~n their clients. No agreement was reached betwccn the clients of the twO anorneys. On May 15, 1998, Mr. Larkowski's client was scrved with an unlawful detainer complaint and summons, which were filed in Jefferson County, Arkansas. The summons listed Mr. McBeth as plaintiff's attorney while the complaint was signed by the plaintiff acting pro se with Mr. McBeth designated as "Of Counsel". Based upon previous information obtained by Mr. Larkowski, aner receiving the documents from his dient. he comacted the Arkansas Supreme Cour[ Clerk, to inqujrc of Mr. McBeth's licensure status in Arkansas. Mr. Larkowski learned that Mr. McBeth was still suspended from practicing law in Arkansas hased upon his failure to pay his annual license fee for a period offour years and also because of his failure to comply with the minimum continuing legal education requirements. Despite the suspended status of his attorney's law license in Arkansas, Mr. McBeth filed an Application for Special Admission of Out of State Anorney. In the application. Mr. McBeth advised the [rial judge ofhis StatuS as an attorney licensed in Taas, but he failed to advise that he had a license in Arkansas which had been suspended for a number of years. Before any action could be taken on the special admission application, Mr. Mclkth filed a Supplemental Complaint and Answer to Counterclaim as attorney for plaintiffs. Although Mr. McBeth may be in good standing in Texas and also resides in Texas. his suspended statuS in Arkansas prohibits him from appearing and practicing in an Arkansas Court even under comity provisions. Upon consider2tion of the formal complaint, the response thereto, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. McBeth's conduct violated Model Rule

tim}lll' IliSriplillill} .\rtions 3.3{a). wh~n he f2jied to advi$t th~ Circuit Coun]udgt in his Applicllion for Special Admission ofOut ofSene Anorn~ of the mall~:rial fact mat he holds an Arkansas law lictnse which is suspended, and such f.U..lurt: is the ~uivalent

of an affirm.:ilti~ misrq)t~nnuion under

the circumst2nc:es. Mood Rule 3.3(a) states, in prrti-

R(nt pan, thai a la~r shall not knowingly make a f.a.lse StatcffiC'nt of material f2et 10 a tribunal. 2. Th:u although Mr. Mclkth's license to pr.lcrice I.aw in Ark..an.w was suspended, he prep:lred and filed pleadings in

:.II Court

proceeding being punued in

]efttrson County, Arkansas. Such conduct violated Model Rule 5.5(a). Mood Rule 5.5(a) states thai a lawyer shall not practitt law in a jurisdiction where' doing so viol:ues the regul:uion of the legal profession in that jurisdiCtion. WHEREFORE, il is dttision and order of the Arkansas Suprt:me Coun Commiu« on Professional Conduct that HIRAM MCBETH, III, Arkansas Bar ID 184102. ~, and h~ll:by is. SUSPENDED for a period of thltt (3) months for his conduc1 in this matter. Said suspension shall become ~ffectivc: as of the date of filing this Order.

Daniel Edward Ford Rogers, AR

July 15, 1999 Anomey Daniel EdW2rd Ford, Post Office Drawer 848, Rogers, Arkansas, Arkansas Bar ID #81057 has been permanently barred from engaging in the unlicensed practice of law in this State for violation of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. On the recommendation of the Arkansas Supreme CoUrt Commintt on Profes.o;ional Conduct. the Arkansas Supll:me Court accepted the surtC'nder of the law lice:n~ of Daniel Edward Ford on July IS. 1999. The sUfll:nde:r is eff«tive immediately. Anorney Ford's Petition to Surll:nder W2S based upon violation of Model Rule 8.4(b) of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The Petition and attached ahibiu on file with the derk of the: Arkansas Supreme: Court, reAea that the anomey W2S conviCted of abUSt of offiu. a dass B Misd~meanor, in violation of Sec1ion 5-52-107. Arkansas Code Annotlued. If you have: any questions in this regard or you have informauon evincing the attorney's continued practice: contrary to the: S12lUS of his li«nse, please con12Ct this office.

The: Arlunsas Supr~m~ Coun Commintt on Professional Conduct (Commin«). with on~ mcm~r a~nt, upon present2tion of the verified petition found that Mr. Me:urer has ~npged or is ~ngaging in misconduCt involving (I) misapropriation of funds or proper~ ty; (2) abandonm~nt of the: practice: of law; and, (3)a substantial threat of serious harm to the public or to his dicnts, and, with all m~m~rs concurring. directed thar an Orde:r of Interim Suspension be: issued suspending Mr. Me:urer's lice:nse to prac1ic~ law until pending disci plinary matt~rs can ~ brought to disposition. Th~ swpension of Mr. M~urer's licen~ is, h~reby, impose:d pursuant to Sections 7E(3)(c) and 8B(I)(c) of th~ Proadurd. lr is th~refore ORDERED that ROBERT FULLER MEURER ~, and he: h~reby is. SUSPENDED from th~ pt:llctice: of law within this jurisdiction immroiardy upon the filing of this Ord~r with the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

said criminal mart~r. a file marked copy of which is appended he:reto. Pursuant ro the: mandar~ of Section 6B(I), Procedures of the Arkansas Suprem~ Coun Regulating Profc:ssional Conduct ofAttorneys aluw (procedures), u revised january 15. 1998. a disbument action shall be initiarro againsr Mr. Davis u a rduh of his felony conviction. Additionally. an inte:tim suspension of Mr. Davis's privilc:g~ to praaic~ law und~r the: authority of his Arlunsas law lice:n~ shall ~ impoSl"d pursuam to Seaions 7E(3)(a) and (b). and 8B(I)(a) and (b) of the: Procroure:s. It is th~r~for~ ORDERED thar ALBERT WAYNE OAVTS ~, and h~ he:reby is. SUSPE OED from the pl'2crice of law within this jurisdiction immediately upon the filing of this Order with the: Cle:rk of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Albert Wayne Davis Little Rock, AR Robert Fu.IJ~r Me:unr Sorey, AR

July 26, 1999

July 22, 1999

Anorney Albert Wayne Davis, an 2ttorney pt:llcricing primarily in Lirtl~ Rock, Pulaski County. Arkansas, Bar ID #76026, has been suspended from th~ practice of law within the: jurisdiction of this State pursuant to Sections 7£(3)(2) and (b). and 8B(I)(a) and (b) of the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme COUrt Regulating Professional Conduct ofAnorneys at Law (Proc~dures), as r~vise:d janu2ry IS, 1998. Th~ Committee on Professional Conducr has dir~ct~d that disbarment acrion will be instituted pursuant to the: mandat~ of Section 6B(I), Procedures, basc:d upon his convictions of the criminal offense of Possession of Methamphe:tamine, a Class C Fdony and of th~ criminal offe:nse of Possession of Drug Pal'2ph~rnalia. also a Class C Felony. Please ~ adviSl"d that a suspended attorney shall not be reinstated to th~ practiu ofIaw in this Sure: until the Arkansas Supreme: Court has recc:ivtd an affirmativ~ vore: by a majority of the Committ«. If and at such tim~ as th~ Committtt m2y re:insr:ue th~ anorney, you will ~ provided notice of th~ reinscue:me:nt and the: dfecti"e date th~reof. If you have any quesrions in this regard or you have information evincing th~ anorney's continued pr.tc[ic~ contrary ro the st:atw of his license, pl~ con12Cl this office.

Anorn~y Robert Fuller Meurer, an anorney practicing primarily in Scarcy, Whit~ County, Arlunsas, Bar 10 #85108, has be~n suspended from th~ practice of law within th~ jurisdiction of this Star~ pursuanr to Sections 7E(3)(c) and 8B(I)(c) of th~ Procedure:s of the Arkansas Supreme Coun R~gulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (Procedures), as revis~d january 15. 1998. Th~ Committee on Profwional Condud has directed that Mr. Me:urer ~ placed on inr~rim suspension following itS revi~w of a Verified P~tition presented by james A. Ne:al, Executive Direcror of the Committee. The Ve:rifiro Petition de:monstt:llted that Mr. M~urer has engaged or is ~ngaging in miscon~ dUd involving (I) misappropriation of funds or prop-~rry; (2) aba.ndonm~nl of the pr.tcti« of law; and (3) a substantial threat ofSl"rious harm ro th~ public or to his

di~ntS. PI~ ~ adviSl"d that a suspended anorncy shall not

be: reinst:ated to the pr.tctice ofIaw in this State: until1h~ Arbnsas Suprem~ Court hu received an affirmarive' vote by a majority or the Committtt. If and at such time: as th~ Committee may reinstate the attorney. you will be provided n01ic~ of the: reinS12te:menr and the effeaive: date th~reof. If you hav~ any questions in this regard or you hav~ information evincing th~ attorney's cominuro pt:llctiu OOnlrary ro the status of his lic~n~. pl~ contact this office.

Ann Halarear McLeod Piper

April 5, 1999

Robe.rt Fuller M~u~r

s.."Y, AR July 22. 1999 james A. Neal, Executive: DilUtor of th~ Arkansas Supreme Court Committtt on Professional Conduct, has presented to the Comminee 2 verified Petition for Interim Suspension pursuant to Seaion 8B(l)(c) of the ProcedUrd of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Profc:ssional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (Procedures) concerning Robert Fuller Meurer, an anorney with Arkansas Bar ID #85108. The Petition w:LS presenred ro the Commitle~ bas~d upon the conc~rn that Mr. M~urds conduct po~s a substantial thrt:at of ~rious h2rm to the: public or 10 the: lawyds die:ntS.

Albert Wayn~ Davis Littl~ Rock, AR

July 26, 1999 ALBERT WAYNE DAVI • Arkansas Bar 10 #76026, an anorney previously practicing law primarily in Littl~ Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, was con~ vicred in the Pulaski County Circuit CoUrt in case: number CR 97-3344, of the: ofTe:nsc of Possession of Methamphetamin~. a Class C Felony. and of the offe:ns~ of PosSU'iion of Drug Paraphernalia, also a Class C F~lony. On july 14, 1999, a Judgment and Comminment Order was filed of record in the afor~-

Th~ formal charges of misconduc1 aro~ from the: Complainr of james V. Wiley. Mr. Wiley hhed allorney Ann Halarear Mcleod Piper to represenr him in a marter involving child support. One of Mr. Wiley's childr~n had r~ached majority and Mr. Wiley wishro to be relieved of th~ support obligation of that child. After Mr. Wil~y consulte:d with Ms. Pipe:r, a Profc:ssional $c:rviccs Agre~menr was executed in connection with the r~presentarion. Th~ agr~~m~nt requir~d that 5515 be: paid for the: re:pr~sc:ntarion. Mr. WiI~y was only able: to contact Ms. Piper on on~ occasion to discuss th~ legal mane:r following the initial consultation, despite numerous anempu. No action

till' "111' was ever raken on beha.!f of Mr. Wiley by Ms. Piper. When Ms. Piper dicontinued her practice of law in Arkansas, she failed to notify Mr. Wiley. She also failed to take any stt=ps to prOt'ecl Mr. Wiley's interests. Ms. Piper personally signed for the forma.! complaint on Sq>tember 16, 1998. Ms. Piper failt=d to tespond. Her failure to respond timely to me complaint conStitutes admission of Ihe facru.aI a.!legations contained in the complaint pursuant to Section 51(4), Proct=dures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professiona.! Conduce of Attorneys at Law (Procedures), as revised January 15, 1998. Upon considera.tion of tht= forma.! complaint herein, the Committee on Professional Conduce finds: 1. That Ms. Piper's conduct violaled Modd Rule 1.3, Arkansas Modd Rules of Professional Conduct, in that during the t=ntire period of rt=present2tion she failed to diligently pursue tht= servict= Mr. Wiley retained her to perform. Model Rule 1.3 requires mal 2 12wyer shall aCI with reasonable diligena and promptness in ccpresenting a client. 2. That Ms. Piper's conduct violated Model Rule 1.4(a), Arbnsas Mood Rules of Professiona.! Conduct, by never returning any of Mr. Wiley's many calls he made attempting to be updated on the progress of his It=gal matter. Model Rule 104(2) requires th21 2 lawyer sha.!1 keep 2 diem rc2.SOnably informed 200m the status of a maner and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. 3. That Ms. Piper's conduct violated Model Rule 1.4(b), Arkansas Model Rules of Professiona.! Conduct, by fajling 10 e.xplain to Mr. Wiley th2t her represe.nration W:l.S nOl going 10 accomplish his goaJ, Ihereby depriving him of me opportunity to timely seck other counsel. Model Rule 1.4(b) requires chat a laW)'Cr sha.!1 e.xplain a matte.r to the atent reasonably necessary to permit me c1iem 10 make informed dttisions regarding the reprcscm2tion.

VALUATIONS CLOSE CORPORATIONS UNIQUELY QUALIFIED CONSULTANTS Analysis

Appraisal

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

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

11 fR ,Irllllil Ll~W

1'.I.ll I•. ·Ilflllim

Uisl'ipliRiIl} \l't ions

4. That Ms. Piper's conduct violated Model Rule 1.16(d), Arkansas Model Rules of Proft=ssional Conduce, by failing to provide any notice 10 Mr. Wiley that her practice of law in Little Rock, Arkansas had e.nded; by failing to 2dvise Mr. Wiley to employ other counsd prior to leaving me state; by fajling 10 surren· der papers and property to which Mr. Wiley W:l.S COli· tied before she len the SUtei and by failing co reeurn any unearnt=d fee to Mr. Wiley prior to leaving the State. Modd Rult= 1.16(d) requires that upon Iwn.ination of rtprcscm2tion, 2 lawyer sha.!1 rake Sleps to the exlent rc2.SOnably practicable to prOlttt Ihe client's interesl, such as giving rc2.SOnable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, sur· rendering papers and property to which the client is entitled 2nd refunding any advanced payment of fcc that has not been earned. 5. That Ms. Piper's conduct violat'ed Modd Rule SA(c), Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Her fajlurt to advise Mr. Wiley in any manner wh:lI.so" ever mal she was moving and th2t he should e:mploy other counsellx:c:.ausc she W:l.S not going to perform the serna for which she W:l.S hired constitmed deceitful conduct. Modd Rule S.4(c) requires, in pertinent part, that a lawyer shaJl nOt engage in conduct involving dccril.

WHEREFORE, it is me decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committ'ee on Professional Conduct that ANN HA1AREAR MCLEOD PIPER, Arkansas Bar 10 #95055, be, and hereby is, SUSPENDED for her conduct in this matter, said sanction was enhanced by the aforementioned failure to respond. Ms. Piper's suspension shall be for 2 period of six (6) months and sha.!l become dfc:aive as of the date of the filing of this order. Further, pursuam to Section 8A(3) of the Procedures, it is the decision and order of the Committee th2t Ms. Piper be, and hereby is, ordered 10 make restitll(ion to Mr. Wiley in the amount ofS330. Said restitution paya.ble to Mr. Wiley shall be remitted to the Executive Director within twenry (20) days of the date of filing of this Order with lhe Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme CoUrt.

OTICE OF REPRIMANDS Brua Jamison 8c.nnett Bentonville, AR M2Y 14, 1999 The formal chuges of miscondUCt upon which this Ordet is basa:J arose out of information provided by Robert 821fe, Chief Deputy Prosecuting Anorney for the Nineteenth Judicial District, Benton COUnty, Arkansas. The information providt=d by Mr, Ba.!fe rel:l.t· ed to Brua J. Bennell, an 2110rney practicing in Benronville, and his conduce in Ihe representa.tion of Daniel Curtis. Mt. Balfe's information was initially obtained from a report prepared by the Bemon County Sheriff's Depanm~nt. The investigative report indicated th2t Mr. Curtis, Mr. Bennett's client, had provided Lana Flowe:rs, a reponer for the Morning News of Northwe:st Arkansas, a copy of a purported Complaint in the civil ca.sc of Daniel Curtis v. Dr. Gary Moffitt, M.D. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Benton County Circuit CoUrt, Division II, Case Number C1V·97-962·2. The copy of the Complaint which was signed by Mr. Bennen and bore

the stamped file·m:l.rk of Sue Hodgcs, Benton County Circuit Clerk. When Ms. Flowers went 10 me Circuit C1e:':rk's office 10 ve:':rify the:': filing of the Complaint, she was advised that 97·962-2 was not a valid case number. When Ms. Flowers later spoke to Mr. Bennett, he admitted 10 her that he made up the casC' number. During an interview conducted by a detc:aive with the Sheriff's Depanmem and during an interview conducted by Mr. Balfe, Mr. Benneu aplained that his diem had bttn pressuring him to file the Complaint. He also explained thai he produced the f21sc Complaint and "CUi and paste[dj" file Sla.lTlps to produce the appear· ance of a legitimate Circuit Clerk's file-mark. According to Mr. Bennett, he did nOt intend to file me False complaint. His excuse for his conduct was that he wanted to "tCSI" his client :l.nd determine what his intemions were. After the invcstigation was complele, the dedsion was m:l.de not to pursue crimina.! ch:l.rgcs. Mr. Bennett acknowledged Ih:l.1 the aJleg:nions in the Complaint were mostly true. He SUted that none of his conduct was done with the intemion of rea.ping some gain on his p:l.rt, orner th:l.n wh:l.1 might have httn dcscrved from the merits of his c1iem's casC'. Mr. Iknnett had previously filed a bwsuit on beha.!f of Mr. Curtis against Wal.Mart which had been non·suited. According 10 Mr. Bennen, during discussions about refiling the ca.sc, Mr. Curtis had made st:ltementS th:l.t caused the I:l.wyer to become suspicious of some of the client's motives in pursuing the malter. His suspicion prompted his actions, which he now realized were wrong. Upon consideration of Ihe forma.! complaint, the rcsponse Iherelo, a.nd me Arbnsas Model Rules of Professiona.! Conduct, me Committee on Professiona.! Conduct finds; I. 11m Mr. Benneu's conduct viol:l.led Model Rule SA(c), when he falsified a Bemon County Circuit Clerk's file mark on a Complaint he prepared on behalf of Daniel Curtis, :l.nd when he presented :l. purportedly filed Complaint to his client. Model Rule sA(c) requires [har 2 l2wyer not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misreprescnl':uion. 2. Thai when Mr. Bennen reprcscnled ro his client in D«emlx:r of 1997 that he had a.!ready filed a Complaim on his behaJf and presemed to Mr. Curtis a bogus Complaint as evidena thereof, and when he 2dmittedly a.!tered a copy of a Bemon County Circuit Clerk file-mark in order to make it appear that he had filed a Complaint on beha.!f of Mr. Curtis during December of 1997, he violated Model Rule SA(d). Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a 12wyer not engage in conductlh2t is prejudicia.! to the administration of jus· rice. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of lhe Arkansas Supreme CoUrt Committee on ProfessionaJ Conduce that BRUCE JAMISON BENNElT, Arkansas Bar ID 192140, be, and hereby is, REPRJ· MANDED his conduct in this matter.

Stephen J. Jackson Stuttgan, AR May 14, 1999 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is based arose OUI of information referred to the Commintt by Honorable Russell Roge:':cs, Circuil & Chancery Judge, Eleventh Judicial Dislrict - Easl. The

till' ~'l'l' information referrm arose:: OUt ofSu=phen J.ackson's repreK:m:uion of Kalhlttn Dorman in cast: no. E.96-115. Dorman v. Dorman. On August 25. 1998. Mr. Jackson, an anorn~ practicing law in Srungan. appeaml bd'o~ Judge ~rs for a hearing hdd in conn«tion with a pon·lXcrtt matter in\'Olving child visialion.

During me cou~ of me hearing. Mr. Jackson disrupttd the proaeding with an outburst. Mr. Jackson admiu thai he was angry with Judge Rogers and m:.n he voi«d his an~r during the haring. Mr. Jackson explains that his anger rc'Sulted from Jud~ Rogers's sl:uemcms during the proceeding that the hearing had bttn requested by Mr. Jackson (although it had not) and th.u a hearing had bo::n conducted earlier on me issues to tx pr~mro (although no hearing had prrn-

owly bttn conducted). The manner in which Mr. Jackson add~ the situarion and conducted himsdf were unprofessional. He aC'Cll.St:d Judge Rogers ofbe.ing dishonest, crooked, unprofessional, evil and wicked. ikc:.I.USt: of the outburst, Mr. Jackson W2S found to Ix in comempt of Court and W2S ordered to be held in jail for a period of ten (10) days. Later that day Mr. Jackson was broughl back 10 Judge Rogers' counroom to apologize to Ihe Judge. According to Mr. Jackson, he:: apologized aft:er being advised by an attorney that he:: should apologize if for no other reason man for his diem's sake. When Mr. Jackson apologized he admitted 10 Judge Rogers that his outbursl had been uncalled for and was a disgrace to the Coun. In his ~nse to the Complaint before the Committee, Mr. Jackson qualifies his apology and explains that he was apologizing to the Court and itS mantle of authoriry, but nOI to Judge Rogers. Upon consider.uion of the formal complainr, the response therelo, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Jackson's Conduct violaled Modd RuJe 3.5(c), when, during the course of a CoUrt proettding conducted Augusl 25, 1998, before the Honorable Russell Rogers, he disrupled il by engaging in an outburst wherein he accused Judge Rogers of being dishonest, crooked, unprofessional, evil and wicked. Model Rule 3.5(c) requires thai a lawyer nOt eng:lge in conduct inu:nded to disrupt a uibunal. 2. Thai Mr. Jackson's conduct violated Modd Rule 8.2(a), in mat, with no basis in fact and with reckless disreg;rnl as to itS fruth or falsiry, tK accused Judge ~rs of being dishonest, oooked, unprofessional, evil and wicked. Modd Rule 8.2(a) requires, in peninent part, that a lawyer nOI make a Stalement that me lawyc:r knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to ia uuth or falsiry concerning Ihe qualifications or integriry of a judge. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Comminee on Professional Conduct !hat STEPHEN J. JACKSO ,Arbnsas Bar ID 194013, be, and hereby is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this maner.

Phillip K. lGnsey Fort Smith, AR M,y 19, 1999 The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Complaint of Timothy and Connie Adams. Mr. And

Ilisriplillill} \I't ions

Mrs. Adams were servt:d with a Complaint for Foreclosure on February 26, 1997, seeking judgment and enfora:ment on a matcrialmen's and laborer's lien. Upon recr:ipl of the Complaint, Mr. and Mrs. Adams met with Phillip Kinsey, an anorney practicing law in Fon Smith, Arkansas, and employul him to reprtKm me'm in !he actjon. Mr. Kinsey assufC'd me Ad.amses that he would file an ~r 10 !he Complaint and a Cross-Claim aga.inSt a aHiefendant contf2C[or. Before an Answer could bt filed to the inilial Complaint, a Cross-Claim was filed by the co-defendant contf'2ctor against the Adamses. A pleading entitled Answer and Cross-Complaint W2S filed 10 the Cross-Claim of the e<rdefendant contf'2ctor on May 19, 1997, but no cross-daim was containul. in the pleading. On May 21, 1997, the' Ad.amses met with Mr. Kinq and discussed a:rtain matters in the CIS(:. Mr. Kinsey wrote me Adm'lses on October 27, 1997, and informed the'm that he was preparing an Amended Answer and CrossComplaint and that trial was set for December 15, 1997. The Adamses began calling Mr. Kinsey's office a w«k before' trial to check on the status of their matter. Mr. Kinsey called the Adamses on December 15 at 8:00 a.m. and informed them that !he case had been POStponed. Mr. Kinsey added that due to he'alth problems he had been experiencing, he djd nOI fe'c.1 as though he could continue' 10 re'prCSC'nt them. Following !he telephone conversation, the Adamses picked up papers from Mr. Kinsey and took them to another atlorney for review. It was then discovered that Mr. Kinsey had nOt filed an Answer to the original Complaint. As a result, a DeF.lUlt Judgment was entered by the Sebastian Counry Chancery Coun on December 18, 1997, against the Adamses in the amounl of $4,013.99. Mr. Kinsey W2S served wi!h a copy of the Formal Complaint by a:nified mail, resuicted delivery, on February 3, 1999, pursuant to Section 5E. Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme' CoUrt Regulating Professional Conduct of Anorneys at Law (Procedures), as revised January 15, 1998. Mr. Kinsey failed to respond 10 the Complaint. His F.tiJure to respond to the Complaint constitutes admission of the fictua.l allegations contained in the Complaint pursuant to Section 51(4) of the' Procedures. Upon conside'r.lIIion of me' formal complaint, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: l. That Mr. Kinsey's failure to file an ~r on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Adanu 10 the original Complaint and his pleading entitled ArmvC'r and CrossComplaint filed in response to a co-de'fendam's crossclaim thai failed to contain a cross-claim violated Model Rule 1.1. Model Rule 1.1 requires, in pertinent part, that a lawyer provide' competem repfCSC'ntauon to a client, including the thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the' re'presC'ntation. 2. That Mr. Kinsey's failure 10 file' an ~r on behalf of his clientS to the original Complaint resulted in a Default Judgment being ('nt('red ag;&.inst them, and violatC'd Model Rule' 1.3. Model Rul(' 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligena: and promptness in reprCSC'nting a client. 3. That Mr. Kinsey violaled Model Rule 1.4(a) by his failur(' to keep the Adamses reasonably informed about the Status of their matter despite their requests. Model Rule 1.4(a) requires that a lawyer keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a marter and promptly comply with reasonable requests

for information. WHEREFORE. it is !he decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct thai PHillIP K. KINSEY, Arkansas Bar ID '67031, be, and he'rroy is, REPRIMANDED for his Conduct in this maner. Pursuant to Sections 51(2) and 8A(2) of the Pro«dures, the sanction imposed upon Mr. Kinsey is e'nhanced wi!h a fine of $500 for his failure to respond to Ihe Formal Complaint. Said fine 10 be remined 10 Ihe' Executive Direcror within rwenry (20) of me filing of this Order.

David Michael Love HQ[ Springs, AR May 27, 1999 The formal charges of misconduct arose from !he' complaint ofAnita Hudman. David M. loVe', an anorney practicing law in Hot Springs, Arkansas, was employed by Ms. Hudman in February, 1996, to enable her mother to qualify for Medicaid. Ms. Hudman was her mother's attorney-in-fact. Mr. Love advised that it wouJd COSt $850 to prepare' necessary application for Ms. Hudman's mother to qualify for Medicaid. Ms. Hudman paid the 5850 and provided financial statcments, bank records, insu.rance policies and bonds. Mr. Love Sfated that the application would take about twO wedu to prepare. In March, 1996, an application for Medicaid benefits was executed. At the same time, a change fO an investment account belonging to Ms. Hudman's mother was executed. Mr. loVe' look both executed documentS with him and said that he should have' some' information within thirry days. From May through October 1996, Ms. Hudman met with Mr. Love and discussed the status of her mother's application for Medicaid benefitS and the SlatUS of the investment account. On October 3, 1996, Ms. Hudman met with Mr. Love. Mr. Love provided Ms. Hudman with a memo regarding the "spend-down" amount. As Ihere were other gifts which were to impact !he "spend-down" amount, Mr. Love was to gel back wi!h Ms. Hudman on the dfccr the gifts would have. On October 28, 1996, Ms. Hudman called Mr. Love to check on the effccr of me additional gifts. Mr. Love St.-led thai he' had not yet contacled the Dqunme'n1 of Healh Services about Ihe m.attc.r. Ms. Hudman informed him that the' change 10 the investmentS accOUnt had nOI occurred. Mr. Love was to respond on both matte'rs. On o,,"cmbe:r 41h and 14th and on December 3rd, Ms. Hudman placed calls to Mr. Love"s offiCC' and left a message for him to call. 0 calls were murned. Ms. Hudman called his office on December Illh, 12th, and 13m but there was no answer. Ms. Hudman went 10 Mr. Love's offiCC' building on December 16th and spoke to !he receptionist for the floor whe're Mr. Love"s office W2S located. The receptionist informed Ms. Hudman thaI Mr. Love no longer had an office in the building and had left no forwarding address or telephone number. Mr. Love :.tSSC'rted in his response that he W2S employC'd by Ms. Hudman and that he received a payment of 5425 for Medicaid Planning Services and $425 was for prospective Medicaid Processing Services if these services wert: Ilet:ded. Mr. Love stated thaI in the mattcr of Ms. Hudman's motht:r, a gift: was made 10 Ms. Hudman from her mother which crcated a period of disqualification of at least ten months for Medicaid

tim}I'I' bt:ndilS. According (0 Mr. Lovc:. an application filed during [he' disqualification period would have resulted in a stmdard denial. As the ~rliC$t d2(C' of qualifiCltion would h:lvC' bttn in January, 1997, Mr. Love W2S nO( conarned ahom applicuion. Mr. Love' d~

me'

his offi« in

~mtx:r,

1996. and movm

Taas. but

mat

I"ttumed to Hot Springs m::c'ntly. He a.ssened his fee was fUlly ~ntd in March, 19%, and smed m.:.u all

services for which paymC'n1

W:lS

made'

fully dis-

charged. Upon considC'ration of the' formal complaint. the' response: IhC'~to, and the' Arkansas Mood Rules of Professional Conduct, the' Commiutt on Professional Conduct finds: 1. Thai Mr. Love violated Mood Rule' 1.3 by his

&ilurc: to dC'ffionnrat'C' reasonable diligence' in filing an application with the Medicaid Division of the' O<'partmcnt of Human X.rviCd and in completing a change' in the' uansfer-on-de:uh provision of an invcsl-

me:m accoum on bc=half of a c1ie:m. Modd Rule: 1.3 rc=quirc=s that a lawye:r act with rasonable: dilige:nCl: and prompmess in rc=presc=nting a clie:m. 2. Thai Mr. Love: violal'ro Modd Rule: 1.4(a) by his failure: to timdy and rc=asonably communicate: with his clie:nl. Mood Rule: IA(a) rc=quirc=s that a lawye:r ke:e:p a c1ie:nt rc=asonably informc=d about the: status of a mat~ te:r and promptly comply with rc=asonable: rc=quc=srs for information. 3. That Mr. Love: violatro Mood Rule: 8A(c) by acce:pting a fc=c= for prospc=ctive: Ic=gal sc=rvicc=s and subsc=que:ndy closing his offiCI: without notice: lO his clie:m and without substantial performance: of the work for which he: had bc=e:n paid. Mood Rule: 8A(c) Statc=s mat it is profC$$ional misconduct for an atlorne:y to e:ngage: in conduct involving dishonc=sty, fraud, dc=cdt or misre:presc::nt;ttion. 4. Th:n Mr. Love: violatc=d Model Rule: 8A(d) by conduct which ddayttl and prc=judicro his c1ie:nt's ability lO obt;tin a disposition of me: Ic=gaI marre:r in an orde:r1y and timdy manne:r. Modd Rule: 8A(d) St;ttes mat it is professional misconduct for an arrornc=y to e:ngagco in conduct that is prc=judicial lO the: adminjsrration of juStice:. WHEREFORE, it is the: dc=cision and orde:r of the: Arkansas Supre:me Court Commirrtt on Professional Conduct that DAVID MICHAEL LOVE., Arkansas Bar 10 #79197, bc=, and he:rc=by is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this mane:r.

Chris A. Tarttr

litde: Rock, AR July 2, 1999 The: formal charges of misconduct arosc= from a Pe:r Curiam Orde:r of the: Arbnsa:.s Suprc=me: Coun in me: casc= of KingraJe: Collins v. St;tte: of Arkansas, CR 98563. Chris A. Tat'\'c=.r, Anornc=y at law, little: Rock, Anunsas rc=presc=nted Mr. Collins in an appeal of his convicrion from the: Cros.s County Circuit CoUrt. Mr. Tarve:r filc=d a Notiu of Appc=a1 on Mr. Collins's behalf and on June: 22, June: 30, August 24, and Nove:mbc=r 12, 1998, he: rc=questro and rc=cdve:d extensions to file: the: brief. The: August 24 and Novembc=r 12, 1998, elCle:nsions were noted as final extensions. A brief on Mr. Collins's behalf was due to be: file:d on Dece:mbc=r 10, 1998. Instead of filing the: brief as directed by the: Court, Mr. Tarve:r filed an additional Motion for

H ne Arkllllll.'Wrer

[01, II Nt. ,111',11 1m

IIisripliRiIl} .\d ions

Exte:nsion of lime. The Court did nOt rule on me Motion. On January 14, 1999, the Court is.suc=d a Show uusc= Order directing Mr. Tarver to appear and show aUS(: why he should nO( bc= hdd in come:mpt for his failurc= to file: a brie:f on or be=:forc= Dc=a:mbe:r 10, 1998. On January 21, 1999, Mr. Tat'\'c=.r appearnl and e:nte.red a pia of guilty for his failurc= to file: a brie:f on Mr. Collins's bc=hal( The: Suprc=me: Court accqnro the: plea of guilty to the: come:mpt and assc=s.sc=d a fine: of $250.00. Mr. Tarve:r was gramed additional time: until FdJruary 10, 1999, to file: the: brief The: brie:f was filc=d with the: Court on Fe:bruary 10, 1999. Mr. Tarw.r was sc=rvc=d with a copy of the: Formal Complaint by cwific=d mail, rc=srncted ddive:ry, on FdJruary 19, 1999, pursuant to &aion 5E. Proco:Iures of me: Arkansas Supre:me: CoUrt Rc=gulating Professional Conduct of Auornq'S at law (Proco:Iurc=s), as m'isc=d January 15, 1998. Mr. Tarve:r failc=d to rc=spond to the: Complaint within the: a1loned time:. His failurc= to respond timdy to the: complaim constitutes admis.sion of the: factual allc=gations cont;tinc=d in the: complaint pursuant to cetion 51(4) of the: Procedurc=s. Upon conside:ration of the: formal complaint, the failure: to rc=spond, and the: Ark.a.nw Mood Rulc=s of Professional Conduct, the: Commintt finds: I. That Mr. Tarve:r's failure: to file: a brie:f on bc=half of his client, Kingrale: Collins, with the: Cle:rk of the: Court on or before: the: final de:adline: date of Dece:mber 10, 1998, violated Modd Rule: 1.3 of the: Ark.a.nsas Modd Rulc=s of Profwional Conduct. Modd Rule: 1.3 rc=quirc=s that a lawye:r act with re:asonable: dilige:nce: and promptne:ss in reprc=se:nting a clie:m. 2. That Mr. Tarvds failure to file: a brie:f with the: Cle:rk of the: Court on or be=:fore: De:ce:mbe=:r 10, 1998, r«juirro the: CoUrt ro issue: a Show Caust: Orde:r and to conduct a horing which would nO[ have: 1>«:n nc=cc=ssary had he: filed a brie:f on bc=half of Mr. Collins on or be=:forc= the: date: sc=t by the: CoUrt, and Mr. Tarvds F.1ilurc= ddayttl the: orde:rly and timdy resolution of appc=llate: proce-edings, both of which violated Modd Rule: 8A(d). Modd Rule: 8A(d) rc=quires that a lawye:r not e:ngage: in conduct that is prejudicial to the: administration of justice:. WHEREFORE, it is the: dc=cision and orde:r of the: Arkansas Supreme: Court Commintt on ProfC$$ional Conduct that CHRIS A. TARVER. Arkansas Bar o. 87170, bc=, and he:re:by is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this matre:r. For his failuu to respond to the: Complaint, the: Committtt imposes a sc=parate: uncrion in me: form of a fine: in the: amount of $250.00. Said fine: is to be=: remined to the: Exc=cuti~ Director within rwe:nty (20) days of the: filing of this Orde:r.

John M. Burne:n Springdale:, AR

July 2, 1999 The: forma.! charges of misconduct upon which this Order is based arosc= from the: Complaint of Je:nnife:r Lynn Knight. Ms. Knight and he:r fathe:r contactc=d John M. Burne:u. an attorne:y now practicing in Springdale:, to discuss pos.sible: re:presc=ntation of the:m in a me:dical malpracticc= action against twO doctors who trc=an~d Mr. Knight's spouse, complainant's mOlhe:r, prior to he:r de:ath on Fe:bruary 25, 1997. A contract for re:prc=sentation was e:ntered into on the: day Ms. Knight and he:r fathe:r first met with Mr. Burnc=n. The:

contract is c10r that Mr. Burne:n's rc=presc=ntation was to include: pursuit of all claims against a Dr. Wallace: and a Dr. Maes, both of whom had tro.tro the: dc=cea.sc=d. The: COntract also indicated that the: funds .....ould be=: rollmed for the: urate: of Donna June: Knight, d~. H~r, no probate: procttding to ope:n an esute: was t:Ve:r initiatc=d nor was opening one: ~r discussc=d with the: c1ie:nts. Whe:n Ms. Knight obtainro a comp1c=te: copy of hu mothds mc=dical rc=cords. she: ddive:red the:m to Mr. Burnett. For approximatdy two months ane:r the: mroial rc=cords we:rc= ddive:red to him, Mr. Burne:n provided various aCU$d to Ms. Knight and he:r fathe:r ron~ ce:rning the: dday in m'ic=wing the: rc=cords. Finally, in January of 1998 Ms. Knight and he:r fathe:r me:t with Mr. Burnc=tt again. During the: mttting. Mr. Burne:n aplainc=d that he: had found a -medical aJX-rt" in ew Maieo to sc=nd the: records to for m'ic=w. For sc=ve:raJ months the:reafte:r, Ms. Knight was unable: to obta.in any information about the: St2tllS of the: mane:r fTom Mr. Burne:tt. Mr. Burne:n assc=rrc=d in his respollS(: that he obtaine:d a medial opinion which was not favorable: to his clients during Fe:bruary of 1998 and made his c1ie:nts aware: of it during March of 1998, afte:r he: flew to Nc=w Me:xico to consult in pe.rson with the: mc=dical apc=rr on this maue:r. Nothing dse: was sc=nt to Ms. Knight and her fathe:r until the: e:nd of August of 1998. Al mat time:, Ms. Knight rc=cdvc=d a Ie:ne:r from Mr. Burnett whe:rdn he: e:xplainc=d that he did not have: time: to dc=vote: to thdr Ie:gal mane:r. In that le:uer and me accompanying Rdeasc=, Mr. Burne:n c1e:arly se:rs out that the: statute: of limitations for the: me:dieal "ne:glige:nce" case was Fe:bruary 28, 1999. That date: is twO ye:ars from the: date: of death of Ms. Knight's mothe:r. Mr. Burne:n's advisory st;tte:me:nrs make: no me:ntion that the: applicable: statute of limitations relates back to the: last date: of [fO,tme:nt by c=ithe:r Dr. Wallace: or Dr. Maes. From th~ dates of ue:arme:nt, the: st;t[Ute: of limit;ttions apired on any claims against Dr. Wallace: on May 16, 1998, whe:n Mr. Burnc=tt nill had the fLIe:, and on &pte:mbc=r 30, 1998, on Dr. Wallacc=, approximatdy one month afte:r Mr. Burnc=n norified Ms. Knight that he: could no longe:r rc=presc=nt he:r. According to Mr. Burne:n, he: made: it clar to Ms. Knight and he:r fathe:r, during the: COUtK of his rq>teK'nt;ttion of the:m that mc=n 'A'(:re difTe:ring dates for application of the: statute: oflimirations for ach dd'e:ndam. Howeve:r, his Re:lc."aSc= and rorrc=sponde:ntt de:monstt21te: to the: con[raty. Upon conside:ration of the: formal complaint, the: rc=sponst me:mo, and the: Arkansas Modd Rula of Professional Conduct, the: Committtt on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Burne:u's conduct violated Modd Rule: 1.1 as de:monstrated by advising his c1ie:nrs of an incorrea date: for the: apiration of the: statute: of limitations on the medial malpractiu claims and by his failure to de:termine: in a timdy manne:r that he: would be: unable: to pursue: Ms. Knight's Ic=pi mane:r. Mood Rule: I. I rc=quires, in pe.rtinem pan, that a lawyc=:r provide: compc=tent represc=m2tion to a c1ie:nt, including the legal knowlc=dge: and thoroughness rasonably nc=cessary for the represe:nt;ttion. 2. That Mr. Burne:n violarc=d Mood Rule: 1.3 whe:n he: faile:d to take prompt and dilige:nt action on behalf of Ms. Knight and he:r family ane:r agrc=c=ing to pursue a mwical malpractice: action on me:ir bdlalf. Model Rule: 1.3 requires that a lawye:r act with rc=asonable: diJige:nce:

til\\ ~'(ll' and promptness in representing a client. 3. That Mr. Burnen's conduct violated Modd RuJe 8Aed) because his delay in raking action on behalf of his clients resulted in the staNte of limitations expiring

on any claim against Dr. Wallace:: for his alleged medica! negligence and because his delay in advising his clients that he could nOt punuc a claim against Dr. Maes on their behalf resulted in them being unable to locate an attorney to assist them because of the nearness of the:: expiration of the statute of limitation on that claim. Model Rule 8.4(d) requires chat a lawyer noc engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of jus~ cia:. WHEREFORE. it is the d«ision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Commirree on Professional Conduct that JOHN M. BURNETT, Arkansas Bar ID #95082, be, and hereby is. REPRIMANDED for his conducr in this maner.

John Frank Gibson, Jr. Momicdlo, AR July 2, 1999 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is based arose from the Complaint of Janey Lou Oakley. Ms. Oakley and her son, Bryan Oakley, rewned the services of John Frank Gibson, Jr., an attorney practicing in Monticello, Arkansas, to repre~ sent Mr. Oakley in various criminal matters and also [Q pursue a civil action on ~half of her son. Mr. Oakley gave Mr. Gibson consent to discuss all the legal maners with his mother. During February, 1997, the decision was made to pursue civil action against the City of Dumas Police Department on the basis of violation of Mr. Oakley's civil rightS. According to Mr. Gibson, he only agreed to pursuc thc civil action because he was very sympathelic to the desires of Ms. Oakley. However, he did so with the knowledge thll.[ there was no real chance for recovery. It is undisputed th.:u the agreed upon fee was $1500 as an initial rewner for court costS and ex~nses and 50% of any proceeds recovered. Although this fee agreement was contingent in nature, a written fee agreemenr was never executed. Mr. Gibson explains that it is his practice to always have contingent fee agreementS in writing, but he is unable [Q demonstrate that one was executed in this instance. Four months after he received payment of the retainer from Ms. Oakley, Mr. Gibson filed a complaint in federal court on bchalf of Mr. Oakley. Mr. Gibson never filed any other pleading on ~half of Mr. Oakley in the legal procuding. Mr. Gibson also never responded to the discovery requestS made by the defendants. The failure of his client, who was incarcerated, to prompdy ddiver responses [Q discovery requestS is Mr. Gibson's explanation for his failure to respond to the discovery requests. During the course of the litiga. tion, the defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Gibson did not respond to the Motion on behalf of his client. According to him, his failure to respond was based upon the faCt that he had no other factS [Q offer other than what was contained in the Motion for Summary Judgment. Ikcause of the failure to respond, the Coun entered an Order granting rhe Motion on rhe unrefured fucts contained therein and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Mr. Gibson provided Ms. Oakley with a copy of the Order. After reviewing the Order, Ms. Oakley asked Mr. Gibson [Q

IIisl'iplinill')' 1ft inns

appeal the decision, but he refused. He explained to her th.at no appeal could be taken from the Order. Mr. Gibson denies this conversation and asserts that he was never asked to appeal the Order dismissing the com~ plaint. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the response thereto, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Commintt on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Gibson's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3 when he failed to file any response on behalf of his client, Bryan Oakley, to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendanrs in the lawsuit he was pursuing for Mr. Oakley resulting in the Complaint bcing dismissed with prejudice. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. 2. That Mr. Gibson's conduct violated Modd Rule 1.5(c) when he failed to place the fee agrcement in writ· ing although his fcc for representation of Mr. Oakley in his federal civil lawsuit was contingent on the outcome of the litigation. Model Rule 1.5(c) requires, in pertinenr part, that a contingent fee agreement be in writ· ing. 3. That Mr. Gibson's conduct violared Model Rule 3.4(c) when he failed to file and .serve a concise starement in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment with supporting authorities within eleven days from the date a copy of the motion and brief were S(:rved on him even though required to do so by Local Rule 7.2 and when he failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1 by failing to file a statment of marcrial facts [Q which he contended a genuine issue existed to be tried. Model Rule 3.4(c) requires, in pertinent part, that a lawyer not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a rribunal 4. That Mr. Gibson's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d) since Mr. Oakley lost any legal remedies he might have had available against the City of Dumas Police Department when he failed to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment causing a dismissal with prejudice. Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the adminiStration of juStice. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of rhe Arkansas Supreme Coun Committ«: on Professional Conduct thar JOHN FRANK GIBSON, JR., Arkansas Bar ID #66021, be, and hereby is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this matter.

Richard N. Dodson Tocarkana, TX July 2. 1999 The formal charges of misconduct arose from the Complaint of Alma L. Wilson. Richard N. Dodson, an Arkansas Attorney ar Law whose office is located in Tocarkana, Texas, was employed in 1992 by Ms. Wtlson ro obtain guardianship of her aunr, Agnes Wyatt. Prior to the guardianship mmer being com~ plered, Ms. Wyatt died. Ms. Wilson met with Mr. Dodson in June, 1993, and employed him to probate Ms. Wyatt's estate. The sole beneficiary and designat~ ed executor of the estare, Raymond Hopes, resided in California and declined in writing to serve as executor. In November, 1993, Mr. Dodson filed a Petition to Probare Will and Appointment of Personal Representative on Ms. Wilson's behalf. Ms. Wilson was thereafter appointed personal represenrative. No activity was recorded on the Probate Clerk's docker sheet until February, 1995, when a Notice of Probate was published. No claims were made against the estare within the starutory time for filing claims. According to Mr. Dodson, Ms. Wilson informed him that Mr. Hopes wished to quitclaim his interests in the estate to Ms. Wilson. Mr. Dodson prepared documents to reflect whar Ms. Wilson informed him but Mr. Hopes never confirmed his intendons ro the attorney. The estate remained open and no further acdvity was recorded on the Probate Court's docker sheet since February, 1995. Ms. Wilson placed a number of calls to Mr. Dodson in 1996, 1997, and 1998, and made visits to his office in Tex.arkana to get a reason for the failure ro have the marrer concluded, but was unable to obtain an explanation from Mr. Dodson. Mr. Dodson failed to take any affirmative steps during a period of several years either to ascertain the purported inten· tions of Mr. Hopes or ro proceed with the probate con~ sistent with the terms of the WilL Mr. Dodson stated he did not know how this matter fell through the cracks, but that he was ready to bring the matter to an immediate conclusion consistent with the decedent's will and Mr. Hopes's wishes. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the response thereto, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: 1. That Mr. Dodson's failure [Q bring the Estate matter (0 timely conclusion violated Model Rule 1.3.

Accountant/Economic Analysis

• Business Valuations • Personal Injury Damage Analysis • Divorce (Property & Child Support Issues)

Court-Appointed. Regular Court Appearances Richard L. Schwartz

Certified Public Accountant Certified Business Appraiser Certified Fraud Examiner

11510 Fairview Road, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72212-2445 Phone: (501) 221-9900 Fax: (501) 221-9292 email: schwartz@busvalu.com

fol. II No. I/Fall1999 fbe .Irkmll Lawrer 1\

tim )路1'1' IIisriplillill') .\l'tions Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer shall act with rea~ sonable diligence and promptness in representing a c1iem. 2. That Mr. Dodson's failure [0 kerp Ms. Wilson, the personal representative of the estue, reasonably informed about the SllllUS of rhe estate maner violat'ed Modd Rule 1.4(a). Model Rule 1.4(a) requires mat a lawyer kerp a client reasonably informed about the Slll~ tUS of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requestS for information. 3. That Mr. Dodson's failure to take action in concluding me estate maner resulted in unnecessary delay in me administration of jusrice in violation of Model Rule 8.4(d). Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct [hat is prejudicial to {he administration of justia. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Commiuer on Professional Conduct that RJCHARD N. DODSON, Arkansas Bar ID 183053, be, and hereby is. REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this maner.

Wayland A. Parker Grernwood, AR July 2. 1999 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is based arose from the Complaint of Beth Woolsey. Mrs. Woolsey and her husband hired Wayland A. Parker, an anorney practicing in Grttnwood, 10 represent mem in an action to quiel title. Mr. Woolsey was hired after an Amended Complaint for Quiet lide was .sc.rvc:d on them by the plaintiff in the legal maner. Several months after Mr. Parker was hired, trial was held in the mmer. Initially. the trial judge ruled in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Woolsey. However, he almost immediately reversed himself and awarded the property to the plaintiff. Mr. Parker was advised of Mrs. Woolsey's desire to appeal the dc<:ision. He filed a timely Notice ofAppeal on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Woolsey and ordered the transcript which Mr. and Mrs. Woolsey paid for as well a.s me filing fer for the appellate court. These paymenlS were made during July, 1997. Mr. Parker filed the Notia of Appeal to pUJ'Sue an appeal on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Woolsey even though he viewed the chana of rcve:rsal on appeal as extremely slight. The transCript was complered

shortly before the 90 days to file the rttord expired. Although the transcripr was completed, Mr. Parker filed a Motion for Exl'ension oflime to File the Record because he wa.s aware that the same. could be done when additional time was nceded to file or prepare the record for appeal. Mr. Parker sent the Order to be: signed by the trial judge c:xtending the time to file the record, but failed to make ana.in that it was signed and film by me trial COUrt in a timely manner. Thereafter, when Mr. Parker attempted to file the record on appeal, rhe Clerk of the Arlunsas Supreme Court refused to accept il because of the Order c:xtending time [0 lodge the same has not been timely filed. Mr. Parker was advised by the depury clerk that he spoke with thar the only way to cure the error of nOl having had the Order extending lime limely filed was to file a Morion for Rule on the Clerk accepting f.mh for the error. Allhough he could file a Motion for Rule on the Clerk in an effort (0 cause. the appeal to be pursued he did not do so. Bcca~ Mr. Parker was certain mat in a civil C:iISC' a Motion for Rule on me Clerk would not be granted, he did nOt filC' one on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Woolsey. Du.ring this woe time period, Mr. and Mrs. Woolscy believed mat the appeal was being procC':55cd bcause [hey had never heard any thing to the contrary from Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker's c:xprcssro reason for nO{ Ielling Mrs. Woolsey of the late filing was that he did nOI have the hean to hun her further. In laic April, 1998, Mrs. Woolsey received information thai the appeal wa.s not processed. Approximately onC' werk after receiving the informacion, she met with Mr. Parker in his office. He advised Mrs. Woolsey mat the decision on appeal wa.s to affirm the trial judge's dtti~ sion. Bcca~ Mr. Parker did nOI bill her for his work on the appeal. Mrs. Woolsey became suspiciow. She checked with the Sebastian County Circuit Clerk and the Supreme Coun Clerk and was able to determine that the appeal did nor get completed. Mrs. Woolsey returned to Mr. Parker's office and demanded proof that the appeal was finalized. Mr. Parker showed Mrs. Woolsey the leiter from the Clerk advising thar the record could not be accepted on appeal bcause the Order Extending the lime to File the Record wa.s filed lair. Afler being served with the formal complaint herein, Mr. Parker refunded the casu for the transcript and the filing fer to Mr. and Mrs. Woolscy. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the response thetcfo, and the Arkansas Model Rules of

Examination Consultants, Inc. 10220 W. Markham, Suite 201C

Phone/fax: 501-225-8985

Little Rock, AR 72205

e-mail: tayloreci@aristotle.net

Forensic Documem Examiners Linda Taylor and Howard "Bear" Chandler are retired from (he Arkansas State Crime Laboratory with over 70 years of combined experience in handwriting idemification, inks, paper and ocher aspects of documem examination.

U Tit Ir~lIill

Li~W

1'~.lllt.IJf'llllm

Professional Conduct, the Commiuer on Professional Conduct finds: ). That Mr. Parker's conduct violated Model Rule 1.2(a) since one of the objectives of his representation of Mrs. Woolscy and her husband was to pursue an appeal to the Arkansas Coun of Appeah, but he did not do so. Model Rule 1.2(a) requires, in ~rtinem pan. mat a lawyer abide by a diem's dttision concerning the objectives of rq>rcsc:nt2rion. 2. That Mr. Parker violated Model Rule 1.3 when. during his representation of Mrs. Woolsey and her hus~ band, he failed to timely obtain an Order extending the time to file the record on appeal. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a diem. 3. That Mr. Parker violated Model Rule 1.4(01) by f2i1ing to inform Mrs. Woolscy and her husband that no appeal would be pursued on their behalf when he learned that the record would nm be accepted by the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Coun. Model Rule 1.4(a) requires thai a laW)~r keep a client reasonably informed aboul me St2tUS of a maner and promptly comply with reasonable requeslS for information. 4. That Mr. Parker's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(c) when after he learned that the record on appeaJ could nOI be accepted bea~ of his failure to obtain a timely Order extending the time to file it, he continued to advise Mrs. Woolsey and her husband thar their appeal was being pursued and considered by the Arkansas Coun of Appeals. Model Rule 8.4(c) requires, in pc=.rtinem pan, thar a lawyer not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, deccir, or misrq>tcSenration. 5. That Mr. Parker's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d), to wit: (i) His failure ro oblllin a timely and effective Order exrending the time ro file the appellare record on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Woolsey resulted in their inability to have: the trial coun's adve:rsc dttision reviewed by a higher coun and (ii) Mr. and Mrs. Woolsey's payment of $349.70 for the trial transcript and their payment of $100 for the filing fer were for naught because of his failure to attend 10 the appeal process in a timely manner. Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a la~r nOI engage in conduct that is prejudicial to me administration of junia. WHEREFORE, it is the dttision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Comminer on Professional Conduct that WAYLAND A. PARKER, Arkansas Bar 10183141, be, and hereby is, REPRlMANDED for his conduct in this marter.

George Robin Wadley. Jr. Jonesboro, AR July 15. 1999 The formal charges of misconduct upon which mis Order is based arose OUI of informarion provided by Jesse. James Lyles. George Robin Wadley, Jr., an anorney practicing law in Jonesboro. rq>tcSented Mr. Lytes's ex-wife, Sharline Lindsey, during AuguSt of )996 in connection with a child suppon maller. Mr. Wadley filed a Perition for Contempr and Petition to InarCCrate Defendant on behalf of Ms. Lindsey. On July 11, 1996, a Notice of Hearing was filed with the Chancery Clerk setting the Petition for hearing on August I, 1996. Mr. Wadley senl Nmia of Hearing to Mr. Lyles by anified mail. The certified

Lim}lll' Ilisl'iplinill')' .\I't ions mailing was receipted by someone: other than Mr. Lyles on the same date that the hearing took place. The hearing, attended by the plaintiff, was conducled on August I, 1996. despite me faa mat m:irher Mr. Lyles nor Mr.

Wadley was

pr~nr.

However. Mr. Wadley

sub~

qucntly prepared an Order which was signed by me

Chancdlor on October 10. 1996. In that Order, Mr. Wadley a.s.s<:rted that Mr. Lyles had been "duly ~rved by Summons in accordance with Arkansas Law", While the assertion that summons was duly served is accurate, the Order failed [0 confirm defendant's timely notice of the hearing. Such notice is a fundamental requirement of due process oflaw. To the orcn! that the Order's reference to service of summons may have been intended to imply or did imply proper notice of the hearing to the defendant, it is a misrepresentalion of a material faCt. Failure to make a disclosure can be the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation. It is notewonhy that the return of the cerlified mail receipt was not received by me lawyer until some six days following the hearing date and the receipt clearly showed a delivery date of August 1, 1996, the very day of the hearing. In fact, the lawyer attached the receipt 1'0 the Proof of Service filed with the Court on August 7, some sixry days before entry of me Chancellor's Order on Oaober 10,1996. Mr. Wadley's reliance, in his Response to the Complaint, on me newspaper publication advising of the filing of the Petition is misplaced since me August 1, 1996, hearing was not scheduled undl after the proof of publication was filed. Mr. Lyles was unaware of the Order signed October 10, 1996, because Mr. Wadley did not send him a copy. This fact is not djsputed by Mr. Wadley. Mr. Lyles learned of the Order from his child support case worker during late December, 1996 or early January, 1997. On January 3, 1997, while meeting with another attorney in Jonl"Sboro about this maner, officers of me Barling Police Dcpanmem broke into Mr. Lyles's home to arrest him pursuant to the Body Anachmem issued from the Order emered in October, 1996. During January of 1997, Judge Templeton recalled the Order of Body Attachment. Although the Order of Body Attachment was recalled, the increase in me child support obligation contained in the October, 1996 Order was not corrected. In order to correct this matter, Mr. Lyll"S was required to retain the services of another attorney who filed additional pleadings and set the maner for hearing. Ultimately on Oerobe.r 28, 1997, me Order entered on October 10, 1996, was set aside and held for naught. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the response thereto, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Comminee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Mr. Wadley's conduct violated Model Rule 3.3(a)(l) , when he falsely advised the Chancellor that Mr. Lyles had been duly served with notice of the hearing held on August 1, 1996. Model Rule 3.3(a)(l) requires, in pertinent pan, that a lawyer not knowingly make a false statemem of material f-act to a tribunal. 2. That Mr. Wadley's misrepresentation to the Chancellor that Mr. Lyles had been duly served with notice of hearing held on August I, 1996, violated Model Rule 8.4(c). Model Rule 8.4(e) requires, in pertinent part, that a lawyer not engage in conduct involving misrepresentation. 3. That Mr. Wadley's conduct violated Modd Rule 8.4(d), to wit': (i) Based upon the finding of willful con-

tempt cont'aincd in the Order, which was obtained withour proper notice to Mr. Lyles, officers of the Barling Police Department' broke imo Mr. Lyles' home while attempting to pick him up pursuant to the Order; (ii) Mr. Lyles was required to rewn additional counsel and pursue legal assist:lJ1ce and remedies in an efron to have lhe Order filed in October of 1996 set aside; and (iii) Bas«! upon Mr. Wadley's misrepresem:l.lion to the Chancellor about whether Mr. Lyles had been served, other pleadings and matters had to be considered by the Chancellor than would have been necessary otherwise. Model Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer nOt engage in conduct mat is prejudicial to me administration of justlce. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of me Arkansas Sup~me Court Committee on Professional Conduct that George Robin Wadley, Jr., Arkansas Bar ID #87180, be, and hereby is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this maner.

ID #66014, be, and hereby is, REPRIMANDED for his conduct in this maner.

NOTICE OF CAUTIONS William Harry McKimm Mt.lda, AR

M,y 14, 1999

The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is based arose from the complaint of Alan H. Tooraen. William H. MeKimm, an anorney practicing law in Mt. Ida, was contacted during April of 1997 to ~present Mr. Tooraen in a legal matter involving a properry line dispute with a neighbor. Since Mr. Tooraen had a sale oHis properry pending he informed Mr. MeKimm that time was of the essence. Shordy after Mr. McKimm agreed to assist Mr. Tooraen, Mr. McKimm became unreachable by lener, fax, or telephone. On numerous occasions Mr. Tooraen G.B. "Bing" Colvin attempted to contact Mr. McKimm with no success. Monticello, AR After the pOlemial buyer for the properry was approved July 2, 1999 for financing it became even more importam to get the dispute settled. Each of me few times that Mr. Tooraen The formal charges of misconduct arose from me was able to speak to Mr. McKimm, he was assured that Arkansas Sup~me Court case of Ray Albert Hussey v. Mr. MeKimm was cominuing to work on the Icg;;r;1 matfer. Mr. McKimm did not follow through with con~ State of Arkansas, CR 99-61. G.B. "Bing" Colvin, an practicing law in Monticello, filed a Notice of Appeal mcring the neighbor with whom the properry dispute arose despite telling Mr. Tooraen he would do so. on behalf of Mr. Hussey on October 13, 1998. However, he did not tender the record until January 12, Ultimately, Mr. Tooraen lost the pOlential sale of his 1999, which was more than ninety days laler. Because home and demanded Mr. McKimm return his file. Mr. McKimm did nOl rerum the file for over six (6) weeks. the: record was tendered late, Mr. Colvin was required to After his representation was tcrminated, bur prior ro file a Molion for Rule on the Clerk admitting fault. Mr. Colvin admits that the mistake was his. On Friday, returning me file contentS, Mr. McKimm informed Mr. January 8, 1999, Mr. Colvin learned thar the transcript Tooraen for the first rime that he did nOl specialize in quiet tide actions but he could refer him to another was completed and ready to be filed. Since it was tOO anorney who did so. Although Mr. McKimm disputes late to get the record to Little Rock and file it wim the that he did not t2ke timely action on behalf of Mr. Arkansas Supreme Coun Clerk, he w-aited. In his hurry, Tooraen, he admitS that his conduct did not measure up Mr. Colvin erroneously figured 90 days as 3 months to the requirements of Model Rule 1.4(a). and believed he had until January 13, 1999 to file the tmnscript. When Mr. Colvin attempted to file the tranUpon consideration of the formal complaint, Ihe response there1'O, and the Arkansas Model Rules of script on January 12, 1999, he learned it was one day Professional Conduct, the Committee on Profl"Ssional late. Three (3) days later Mr. Colvin filed his Morion for Rule on the Clerk. Conduct finds: Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the 1. That Mr. McKimm violated Model Rule 1.3 by taking no action to seule the properry line dispure on response thereto, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Mr. Tooraen's behalf from the rime Mr. Tooraen conProfessional Conduct, the Committee on Professional tacted him about his legal matter through the time he Conduct finds: lost the sale of his home and by not advising Mr. 1. That Mr. Colvin's conduct violated Model Rule Tooraen at any time during the course of his represen1.3 by failing to timely file his client's transcript on tation of him that Mr. Tooraen needed other counsel to appeal. Model Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer act with pursue a quiel title aClion because he did not specialize reasonable diligence and prompllless in representing a in those types oflegal maners. Model Rulc 1.3 requires client. that a lawyer shall act wim rcasonable diligence and 2. That Mr. Colvin's conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(d), to wit: (i) The orderly and timdy administr:l.lion • promptness in representing a client. 2. That when Mr. McKimm failed ro promptly and resolution of appellate proceedings were delayed by comply with Mr. Tooraen's numerous requests for inforhis failure to timely file the transcript for appeal on mation and when he failed to keep Mr. Tooraen behalf of his client, Mr. Hussey; and (ii) his failure to informed about the status of his legal mauer, he violatfile the transcript with me Clerk of the Arkansas ed Model Rul... 1.4(a). Model Rule 1.4(a) requires that Supreme Court required the Court to expend additiona lawyer shall kctp a client reasonably informed about al time and effort which would nOt have been necessary the status of a matter and promptly comply with rca· otherwise. Modd Rule 8.4(d) requires that a lawyer not sonable requestS for information. engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administra~ WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the tion of justice. Arkansas Supreme Court Commiuee on Professional WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Conduct that WILLIAM HARRY MCKIMM, Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Arkansas Bar 10 #78110, be, and hereby is, CAUConduct that G.B. ~BING" COLVIN, Arkansas Bar

I'ol.ll SO. IIFall 1119

The Ar~aolll

LIW)U

til\\ ~'l'l'

Hden Rice Grinder Conw:ay. AR May 14. 1999

TlONED for his conduct in Ihis maner.

StanJey Vina:ot Bood Fayettevill(:, AR

M,y 14, 1999 Th(: formal charges of misconduct upon which this Ord(:r is based arose from th(: complaint of Clinton K. Jones, FaY(:II(:viU(: City Prosecutor. In lh(: courst of his employm(:nt as proS(:cutor, Mr. Jones m:c:ivc:d a copy of correspond(:nct which had b«:n S(:nt to Frank Broyles, Athletic Director for me Univ(:rsity of Arkansas. and to Chuck Dicus of th(: R:uorback r"Oundation. The lett(:r wnu(:n on Ix:half ofJerry A. Nl:Wton by Stanley Bond, an attomey practicing law in Fay(:ueviJl(:, who was hirro to tq)resent Mr. l:Wton's son, J(:rry A. l:Wton, II, in connection with a traffic f(:larro malt(:r. Mr. Nl:Wton II had bttn tickuro for f.a.iling to yield to a JXdestrian in a crosswalk in the confines of me UniV(:.rsity. Although the lener began with Mr. Bond vigorously def(:nding his clienl, by its conclusion Mr. Bond (:ngaged in conduct which amountro to an an(:mpt to bring undu(: prt:SSurt: on a public official to gain htvorabl(: treatm(:nt. The dd(:r Mr. N(:Wton has bttn a long* time Ix:n(:htctor of University amletics and is also m(: own(:r of Arkansas Bus Sales, Inc., twO filctS point(:d OUI in th(: beginning of th(: I(:([(:r by Mr. Bond. In concluding th(: I(:ner, Mr. Bond assert«l that th(: action of th(: Campus Polict Department has caus(:d Mr. N(:W(on to drop his contribution to BroylesMatmN'S Scholarship Fund and caused Arkansas Bus Sales, Inc. to puIJ all of iu adv(:rtising out of Univmity Athletic Publications. Th(:n Mr. Bond rt:questro mat ·som(: prt:SSUf(: be: broughl to bear to have: mis case dm(:r dismissed or for the charges to Ix: rroucro in pro-portion to the alI~ violation" Mr. Bond acknowi· rog«l that he St:nt the cornspondenc(: to Mr. Broyles and Mr. Dicus. H(: also admiuro bt:ing th(: sole author of itS COnlWlS. According to Mr. Bond, his int(:nt was 10 inform th(: two officials and m(:mbt:n: of th(: public of m(: implications of th(: proSt:'Cutor's drosion 10 mak(: :rn unacct:ptable oH"(:r fO m(: charg(: that Mr. Bond found unacct:prabl(:. Mr. Bond orplainro mat any conduct which was pf(:judicialto the administration of jus· tict was an unint(:nded consequ(:nlX of his repteS(:.nl2tion of Mr. N(:Wton II. Upon consid(:ration of th(: formal complaint, th(: response: th(:r(:to, and th(: Arkansas Modd Rules of Professional Conduct, th(: Commiu~ on Prof(:$Sional Conduct finds: 1. That Mr. Bond's conduct violat«l Modd RuI(: 8.4(d), wh(:n h(: rt:questro that Mr. Broyles and Mr. Dicus apply pressure on th(: appropriat(: authorities in an (:ffort to secure a particular outcom(: in a pe:nding legal manu sinct implicit within his rt:qu(:S( is m(: restoruion of 6nancial suppon by his diwt's htmer to me University of Arkansas Athlttic IXparun(:nt if pressure is brought to haY(: th(: cast: dismissc:d or th(: charges rroucro. Modd Ru!(: 8.4(d) rt:quires that a la~r not (:ngagt: in conduct that is prt:judicial to th(: administr2tion of justict. WHEREFORE, il is th(: dwsion and ord(:t of m(: Arkansas Supf(:m(: CoUrt Committ~ on Professional CondUCt mat STANLEY VlNCENT BOND, Arkansas

m(:

au ID #93034. be, ",d h,,,,by is. CAUTIONED fo< his conduct in this mau(:r.

48 ne ArkuSll LI~Ter

f~.

ItisripliDill} .\I't ions

14 8•. 41F1I11l1l

Th(: formal charges of misconduct arOS(' from the Arbnsas Supt(:m(: Court C'aS(: of Christin(: Jones v. Jmy A. Jones, no. 97*212. Hd(:n Ric(: Grinder, an attorney practicing in Conw:ay, had Rule II Sanctions imposc:d against h(:r for h(:r conduct in the aforem(:ntion«l malt(:r. Consc:qu(:nlly, the Court ord(:r«l Ms. Grind(:r to pay a fin(: of $500. Th(: Arkansas Suprem(: Coun first addressc:d th(: child-custody modification caR involving Ms. Gnnder's cli(:nt, Jerry A. Jones, in an Opinion ddivcred Novembt:r 4, 1996. In th(: Opinion, authored by th(:n Chi(:fJustic(: Bradley D. Jesson. Ih(: f2aual background of m(: child-cusrody C2St: was providro. Afi(:r addrt:SS* ing lh(: Chancellor's basis for changing custody in htvor of Ms. Crind(:r's client, th(: Coun r(:Versed the ChanctlJor's Ord(:r and remandro the matter to me trial COUrt with clear instructions to f(:insl2t(: m(: original custody ord(:r. A suhsequ(:nt P(:r Curiam was issuro 10 (:nforc(: the previous mandat(: rt:quiring custody of th(: minor child bt: f(:wmro 10 th(: moth(:r. Th(: custody order rt:f1(:C(ing the Court's d(:t(:rmination was finally (:nrerro Decembe:r 13, 1996. Following issuanc(: of m(: Per Curiam, a h(:ating was s(:t in lh(: trial court to d(:rermine the visitation rights of Ms. Grinder's c1i(:nt. Prior to th(: h(:aring. a P(:tition for Chang(: of Custody was filed on be:half of Ms. Grindds c1i(:nt. Th(: Pf=tition, whil(: averring a change of circumstances of th(: panies, in great(:r pan was JUSt a teargUm(:nt of m(: custody dispUI(: history be:{W~n me parties prior to th(: Suprt:m(: Coun's decision of Nov(:mbe:r 4, 1996. Ms.Grind(:r aplainro that presmration of htauaJ circunul2nces in custody cases is different than any oth(:r rype: of case. trial She offered that it is within th(: discrttion of court wh(:n a p~ous ord(:r has b«:n (:nt(:rro wh(:th(:r to hClJ' evidenct of circunurances occurring prior to th(: orde:r which either were not presmt«l to Chanctllor or wert: not known by th(: Chancellor at m(: tim(: m(: original custody order was ent(:rro. After m(: ~tition for chang(: of custody was flJro, a Petition for Writ of Prohibition 10 prev(:nl th(: trial Court from rro(:t(:rmin* ing me custody issu(: was fiI«1 with th(: Supf(:m(: Court by Mr. Jones's ex*wife. Ms. Grinder apressed h(:r Ix:li(:f thaI it is som(:What unf.a.ir that her c1i(:nt's or·wif(: has nOt bc:en sanction«l ev(:n though sh(: r~ues[«I [his Writ of Prohibition which was wholly unwarranl(:d based upon existing law. On April 7,1997, th(: Suprt:m(: CoUrt deniro the Petition for Writ of Prohibition, but also warnro Ms. Grindu that RuI(: 11 sanctions might be: requ(:S(ro if sh(: or h(:r di(:nt initiatro a frivolous proettding or appeal in violation of m(: dictates of the rules. FoUowing th(: April 7, 1997. Per Curiam, Ms. Grind(:r, along wim co<ounsd, filro a Petition for Reh(::lring and Oarification of Ordu with the Supf(:m(: CoUrt. Ms. Grind(:r pursuro th(: Pttition with th(: (:mphasis of the argument based upon an elaboration of m(: concurring opinion from th(: initial Supmn(: Coun opinion in this child custody marr(:r. Sh(: bdieves that it was reasonabl(: and not frivolow to do so. On May 27,1997, th(: Court d(:nied Ms. Grindds P(:tition, In th(: Per Curiam d(:nying th(: P(:tition, m(: COUrt aplain«l that actions in the continuing custody bat!l(: had becom(: "repetitiv(: and frivolous". Ms. Grind(:r was orderro to appear and show cause: why sanctions should not be: imposed.. In h(:r response to th(:

m(:

show causc= ord(:r, Ms. Grind(:r includro information about m(: minor child's physical and (:motional statUS su~u(:nllo(:nuyoflh(: D«r:mba 13, 1996, custody ord(:r. Sinc(: such information was nOI pan of m(: record be:fof(: th(: Court, it should not hav(: b«:n SC:I OUI in Ms. Crindds response:. Following lh(: h(:aring con* ducI(:d on th(: show caus<: ord(:r, th(: Court d(:l(:rminc:d thai Ih(: p<:lition and ugum(:nl w(:r(: frivolous and wilhOUI f(::.lSQnabl(: or filclual basis and imposc:d a $500 fin(: againsl Ms. Grind(:r. Upon consid(:rarion of lh(: formal complaint, th(: response: lh(:f(:to, and lh(: Arkansas Modd Rules of Prof(:$Sional Conduct, m(: Commilt~ on Professional Conduct finds: I. Thai Ms. Grind(:r violatro Modd RuI(: 3.1. wh(:n sh(: look a cout'S(: of action following m(: Aric.ansas Supf(:m(: Court's Opinion ddiV(:.rro on Nov(:mbe:r 4, 1996, which was found by th(: Supf(:m(: Court to be: ·rqKtitiV(:. and frivolous·; wh(:n sh(: filro a Protion for Chang(: of Cwtody set:king 10 rttry m(: custody issu(: which had bttn substantivdy d«idro by th(: Suprt:m(: CoUrt on Nove:mbe:r 4, 1996; wh(:n sh(: filro a Petition for Rr:hClJ'ing and Ouificarion ofOrd(:r thar was du(:rminro by m(: Suprt:m(: CoUrt to be: frivolous and without rnsonabl(: or htetual basis; and wh(:n sh(: PfeS(:ntro argum(:nts in th(: P(:tition for Jtd\(:aring which W(:f(: d(:t(:rmin(:d ro be frivolous and without r(::.lS()nabl(: or faCtual basis. Mood Rul(: 3.1 SU.I(:S, in pc:rtin(:nl parI, that a lawy(:r shall not bring or def(:nd a procttding. or a5S(:rt or controv(:rt an issue th(:rein. unl(:$S m(:r(: is a basis for doing so mat is not frivolous, which includes a good f.a.ith argum(:nl for an ort(:nsion, modification or r(:V(:.rsaJ of uisting law. 2. That Ms. Grind(:r violatro Modd RuI(: 3.4(c), by h(:r rdUsaJ to acc.qu m(: Supr(:me Coun's admonitions and dKisions conctming m(: custody of her cli(:nt's minor child which resultro in violation of RuI(: 11 of Appdlat(: ProcroUf(: Civil; by impropc:rly sening fOM information which was not pan of m(: record conctming m(: minor child's physical and (:motional SI2rU5 subsequ(:nt to th(: D«r:mbe:r 13, 1996, custody ordu, in h(:r response to th(: Show Causc= Ord(:r wuro by m(: Supt(:m(: CoUrt; and by continuing h(:r (:ffom to usc= m(: sam(: htctuaJ circumstances preK'ntro in m(: initial custody uial in furun: custody modifications although th(: Supf(:m(: CoUrt plainly prohibitro it. Modd Rul(: 3.4(c) States mat a lawy(:r shall not knowingly disobey an obligation und(:r th(: rules of a tribunal exc(:pt for an opc:n r(:fusal based on an asswion that no valid obliga* tion ex.ists. 3. That Ms. Grinder violatro Model Rul(: 8.4(d),in that her conduct, which was d(:t(:rmined to be: .rq>ttitiY(: and frivolous,· caused m(: ord(:rly and timdy administration and resolution of appe:Uaf(: proceedings to be: d(:laycd and requirro th(: Court to expend addi* tional time and ttfort which would not have: bttn nec* essaJ'Yotherwise. Modd Rule 8.4(d) states that a la~r shall not (:nvge in Conduct that is pn:judicial to m(: adminimation ofjustic(:. WHEREFORE, it is m(: decision :rnd order of th(: Arkansas Supmn(: Court Commin~ on Prof(:$Sional Conduct that HELEN RICE GRI DER, Arkansas Bar 10181076, be:, and h(:reby is, CAUTIONED for h(:r conduct in this man(:r.

l,il\\}(II' Marsha A. Ba.singer Prescott.AR May 14. 1999

The' formal charges of miscondua ~ from rhe Arkansas SUprt'ffiC: Coun ~ of Donnie Whitnq v. $tlUC' of Arkansas. CR 98-922. Marsha A. Basin~r, an :morney men pr.acticing law in Prescon, fil~ a Noria of Appeal on behalf of Mr. Whitney on January 28. 1998, four days before: the Orde'r dC'nying the: PainoR for Rulc 37 rdiC'f was enu~ru1 of record. As a resuh, the' untimely OIia of Appeal filo:t prior (0 a final ertle'r was indT~i~. Ms. Ba.sin~r did nO( file: anadler Notio.- of AppaJ within the' aJlotto:l time: following me' OrdC'r dC'nying Rule 37 relief. Subsntuendy. Ms. BasingC'r w:l$ required (0 file a Motion for Iklated Appeal with the: Supreme' Coun. The Motion, whcrt'-

in Ms. BasingC'f admitted fault. was granted by Pef Curiam dated Octolxr 22, 1998. Ms. Basinger signed the' reaipt for the: o."rtified mailing of the formal complaint on February 2. 1999. Her respon~ was due on or before February 23, 1999. Ms. Basinger biled fa respond. Her F.lllure to respond to the complaim constitutes admission of me bcrual allegations contained in the complaim pursuam to Section 51(4), Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme COUrt Regul;lling Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law (Procedures), as revised January IS, 1998. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, me Commintt on Professional Conduct finds: I. That Ms. Basinger's conduct violated Model Rule 1.3, by F.llling to file a timely Notice ofAppeal on be:halfof Donnie Whimey following emry of the Order denying his request for relief pursuant to Rule 37. Model Rule 1.3 requir~ that a la~r shall act wim reasonable diligence and promptness in represeming a dient. 2. That Ms. Basinger's conduct violated Modd Rule 8.4(d), to wit: (i) the orderly and timdy adminisu;ujon and resolution of appdlate procttdings wt're delayed by her failure to timely file her client's otice of Appeal following entry of the Order denying relief pursuant to Rule 37, along with her F.ailure to accept responsibility in her initial Motion for Belated Appeal and (ii) her failure to file an drcet..ivc Notice of Appol on her c1ient's be:half, as wt'll as her f.Ulure to accept responsibility in her initial Motion for Belated Appeal, resulted in the CoUrt be:ing required to otpend additional time and effort which would not have bttn neces.s:aIy otherwise:. Model Rule 8.4(d) sates that a lawyt:r shall not enpge in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of jwtice. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct that MARSHA A. BASI GER, Arkansas Bar ID #97007, be. and hereby is, CAlJIlONED for her conduct in this matter. Funher, pursuam to Secrions SI(I) and 8A(2) of the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law, it is the decision and order of the Commitl'ee that Ms. Basinger be:, and hereby is, fined in the amount of$100. The fine is imposed as a separate sanction for Ms. Basinger's failure to respond to the complaint. Said fine to be remined to the Executive Director within twenty (20) days of the filing of this Order.

ltisl'iplinill} .\rt ions

An~

Lawson Cluk, Sr. Little Rock, AR May 19,1999

The formal charges of misconduct arose from information brought to the Committtt's attention. And~ Lawson Clark, an attorney practicing law in Little Rock. under thr firm name of "Clark and Byarlay", plaad an advenise:ment on the internet which sated, in pertinent pan,: "While spt:'Cializing in Bankruptcy and Chapter Procttdings 7. II, and 13, we also provide legal se:rvices in these: following areas:". The Arkansas Supreme Court has not m:ognized a plan of specialization for bankruptcy. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, me response: therelO, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conduct finds: I. That the statemrnt. "Clark and Byarlay, Attorneys at Law, the Bankruptcy Experts. Specializing in Chapter 7, 11 and 13", violated Modd Rule 7.4(c). Model Rule 7.4(c) requires, in pertinent part, that a lawyer not state or imply that the lawyer is a spt:'Cialist except when he or she has been T芦ognized as a spt:'Cialist under me Arkansas Plan of Specialization approved by the Arkansas Supreme Courl. WHEREFORE, it is the decision and order of the Arkansas Supreme Coun Committee on Professional Conduct that ANDREW LAWSON CLARK, SR., Arkansas Bar 10 173018, be, and hereby is, CAU路 TIONED for his conduct in this mauer.

Patl)' Ann Wauon Lueken Little Rock, AR May 19, 1999 The formal charges of misconduct uose from the Arkansas Supreme Coun case of Christine Jones v. Jerry A. Jones, no. 97-212. Patl)' Ann Watson Lueken, an attorney practicing in Little Rock. had Rule II Sanctions imposed against he.r for her conduct in the aforementioned matter. Consequently, the Coun ordered Ms. Luekrn to pay a finr of $SOO. The Arkansas Supreme CoUrt first addressed the child-custody modifiC:llion case involving Ms. Lueken's dient, Jerry A. Jones, in an Opinion delivered November 4, 1996. In the Opinion, authored by then ChiefJwtice Bradley D. Jesson, the factual background of the child-eustody case W<lS provided. After address路 ing the Chancdlor's basis for changing custody in favor of Ms. Lueken's client, the CoUrt reversed the Chancellor's Order and remanded the maner to me trial coun with dear instructions to reinstate the original custody order. A subsequent Per Curiam W<lS issued 10 enforce the prt'Vious mandate requiring custody of the minor child be returned to the mother. The custody order reflecting the Court'S determination was finally entered December 13, 1996. Following issuance of the Per Curiam, a hearing W<lS set in the trial court to determine the visitation rights of Ms. Lueken's client. Prior to the hearing, a Petition for Change of Custody was filed on behalf of Ms. Lueken's dient. With the filing of that Petition, Ms. Lueken made her first appearancr as co-counsel in lheJones v. Jones matter. The petition, while averring a change of circumstances of the panies, in greater part was JUSt a reargument of the custody disputr hislOry betwccn the panies

prior to the Supreme Coun's decision of November 4, 1996. Ms. Lueken explained that when the petition was filed there was some confusion on how fir back they could use evidence to prove the change of circumStances resulting from the unique way that factual circumst2nces in cwtody cases are presented. She offered that it is within the djscretion of the trial court when a previow order of custody has bttn entered whether to consider circumst2nces occurring prior to the ordet. After the Petition for Change of Cwtody W<lS filed, a Petition for Writ of Prohibition to prt:VC'nt the trial COUrt from redetermjning the custody issue was flied with the Supreme CoUrt by Mr. Jones's ex-wife. On April 7, 1997, the Supreme Coun denied the Petition for Writ of Prohibition, but also warned Ms. Lueken that Rule 11 sanctions might be requested if she or her client initiated a frivolous proettding or appeal in violation of the dictates of the rules. Following me April 7, J 997, Per Curiam, Ms. Lueken, along with co-<ounsel, filed a Petition for Rehearing and Clarification of Ordet with the Supreme Court. Thereafrer, on May 27, 1997, the Court drnied the Petition. In the Per Curiam denying the Petition, the Court otpla..ined that the actions in the continuing custody battle had become "repetitive and frivolow". Ms. Lueken W<lS ordered 10 appear and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. In her response to the show cau.sc order, Ms. Lueken included information aOOm Ihe minor child's physial and emotional status subsequent 10 entry of the December 13, 1996, custody order. Since such information W<lS nOt part of the m.:ord before the CoUrt, il should not have been set out in Ms. Lueken's response. Following the hearing conducted on the show cause order, the CoUrt determined that me petition and argument presented by Ms. Lueken were frivolous and wimout reasonable or bCtual basis and imposed a 5SOO fine against her. Ms. Lueken admitted that her conduct went beyond mere zealow representation, bUl at the time of her conduct, she felt mat she didn't have another choice because of her concern for the minor child. Upon consideration of the formal complaint, the response thereto, and the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the Committee on Professional Conducl finds: I. That Ms. Lueken violated Model Rule 3.1, when she took a course of :lIC1ion following the Arkansas Supn=me Court'S Opinion delivered on ovember 4, 1996. which was found by the Supreme Court to be "repetitive and frivolous"; when she flied a Petition for Change of Custody se-eking to retry the custody issue which had bttn substantively decided by the Supreme Court on Novr:mber 4, 1996; when she filed a Petition for Rehearing and Clarification of Order mat was determined by the Supreme Court to be frivolous and wimoUl reasonable or bettW basis; and when she pn=semed argumentS in the Petition for Rehearing which were determined to be frivolous and without reasonable or bctual basis. Model Rule 3.1 States, in pertinent part, that a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assc:rt or controvert an issue therein, unless mete is a basis for doing so that is nOt frivolous, which indudes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. 2. That Ms. Lurken violatrd Model Rule 3.4(c), by her refusal to accept the Supreme CoUrt'S admonitions and decisions concerning the custody of her client's minor child which resulted in violation of Rule II of

1'01.11 SO. 路1/1'0111999

The Arkmas LaWler

,19

l,a\\}PI' Disriplinal} 1ft ions Appdlalt: ProcroUR: Civil; by improperly setting forth information which was not pan of tht: record concern-

ing the minor child's physical and emotional starns subsequent to me December 13, 1996. cusuxiy order, in her response to the Show Cause Order issued by mt: Supremt: Court; and bycominuing her dforrs to uS(' [he same facrual circumstances presenlt:d in the initial eusmdy lrial in future custody modifications allhough the Supreme Coun plainly prohibited it. Model Rule 3.4(c) Slates thai a lawyt:r shall not' knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an

open refusal based on an ass<=rtion that no valid obligation exists.

3. ThaI Ms. Lueken violated Model Rule 8.4(d), in to be "reperitive and frivolous," cau~ me orderly and timely administh:u her conduct which was determined

[ration and resolution of appellate: proc~ings to lK ddayc:d and rc:quirro me: Court to apend additional time: and dfoft which would nOt have: bttn na:c:ssary ome:rwi~. Modd Rule: 8.4(d) srarc:s [har a lawyc:r shall nor e:ngage: in conduct that is pre:judicial to the: administration of jusrice:. WHEREFORE. it is the: dc:cision and orde:r of me: Arlunsas Supre:me Court Committee- on Profc:ssional Conducr that PATrY ANN WATSON LUEKEN, Arkansas Bar ID #89161, be, and herc:by is, CAUTIONED for her conduct in this marter.

Thomas William Brarlar Lirtle: Rock, AR May 27. 1999 The formal charges of misconduct arose: from information brought to the Committtt's atte:lllion. Thomas W. By:ulay. an attorney practicing I.aw in Little Rock, unde:r the: firm name: of YCiark and Byarlay". placo:l an adve:rtisc:me:m on the: inre:rne:1 which sralro, in pc:rtine:m part,: YWhile: speeializing in Bankruptcy and Chapm Procttdings 7.11. and 13, we: also provide legal se:rvices in these: following areas:". The: Arlunsas Supreme Court has not n::cognized a plan of specialization for bankruptcy. Upon consideration of the: formal complaint, the rc:sponse: the:re:to, and the: Arkansas Model Rulc:s of Profc:ssional Conduct, the Committe:e on Professional ConduCl finds: That the: state:ment, "Clark and Byarlay, I. Anorne:ys at Law, the Bankruptcy ExpertS. Specializing in Chapter 7. 11 and 13", violatc:s Model Rule 7.4(c). Mood Rule: 7.4(c) requirc:s, in pertinent part, that a lawyer nOt State or imply that the: lawyer is a specialist OI:ce:pt when he: or she has bttn rc:cognized as a specialist unde:r the: Arkansas Plan of Specialization approvro by the: Arkansas Supreme Coun. WHEREFORE, it is the: dc:cision and orde:r of the: Arkansas Supn::me: Coun Commirrtt on Profc:ssional Conduct thai THOMAS W. BYARUY, Arkansas Bar 10 #86029. be, and hereby is, CAUTIO ED for his conduct in this marrero

Agathc:r Qleste McKeel Linle: Rock. AR

July 2,1999 The formal charges of misconduct upon which this Order is basc:d arose: from the Complaint of loretta

Thr Irkmas La"Ter

1'01. II

No. 4/I'aIl1999

Raquel Sanders. Ms. Sanders hirro Agathe:r Cdc:ste MeKttl, an arrorney practicing in Linle: Rock, to pursue a fe:de:ral lawsuit for he:r againsr Cymbore:e: Corporation. Ms. McKttl de:nic:s be:ing hirc:d to pursue a fc:de:rallawsuir. Insre:ad, she: asse:rtS mat she: was hired only to research and review Ms. Sande:rs's matters. During the initial consultation, Ms. Sanders provided Ms. McKeel with a copy of the Notice of Right to Sue that she: had rece:ived from the Equal Employment Opponunity Commission. Ms. MeKe:d went over the Notice: with Ms. Sanders and explained to her thar she had ninety (90) days to take action following her receipt of the: otice. Ms. McKeel also rc:quc:st«i ce:nain additional docume:ntation and informal ion from Ms. Sande:rs which Ms. Sande:rs providc:d to he:r. The: day after the: initial consultation Ms. Sanders paid Ms. McKttl the: rc:questc:d $500 initial rc:raine:r ftt. Ms. McKttl had informro Ms. Sande:rs that she would bc:gin by sc:nding a letter on be:half of Ms. Sanders to the Ic:gal de:partme:m at Gymbon::t: to se:1 Out the: situation. Ms. Sande:rs rc:questc:d that a copy of that Ie:tte:r be: pro· vide:d to her. but none: was c:ver providro. Although the: dale of thl." conversation is disputro, both Ms. Sande:rs and Ms. McKeel agree that they had a conversation about Ms. McKee-I's preparation and filing of a pbding on be:half of Ms. Sanders and the lawyer's signing of the: plaintiff's name to it. Ms. Sanders did not fully under· stand what that action meant bUI she agreed to it" because Ms. McKeel was her attorney and she believed thaI the: anorney was acting in her best interest. According to Ms. McKeel, she: OI:plaine:d to Ms. Sanders the urgency and necessity of filing an aClion because: the ninety (90) day period was about to apin::. On August 7.1998, a pro se: complaint was fiI«i in f«ieral district coun. Ms. Sande:rs did not learn of the filing until after she filc:d her initial gri~ce form wim the: Execulive: Dirc:a:or's office. Although the complaint appc:ars 10 have: bttn filc:d pro ~, it was actually pre:parc:d, signro, and filro by Ms. McKttl who also paid the: filing ftt. Ms. McKed does nOl be:lic:ve that pn::paration and filing of a pleading as if it were a pro se: :action when, in faCt, it was done: by an anorney for anothe:r, involvc:s fraud, dece:il or misre:prese:ntation. At no time: after the Complaint was filc:d did Ms. McKe:d take: action to have the defendantS served. Nor did she ever explain to Ms. Sande:rs thal the:re: was a time limit in which to do so or her lawsuit would be dismissed and foreve:r barred on those claims. Ms. McKeel explains that she did advise: Ms. Sande:rs that if she wanted to pursue the matter she: nc:«lro to make: an appoinunent to come in and discuss the: legal matte:r. However, Ms. Sande:rs nc:ve:r djd so. Upon conside:ration of the formal complaint, the: rc:sponse: thereto, and the: Arkansas Mood Rules of Professional Conduct, the: Comminee on Professional Conduct finds: Th:n Ms. McKttl violalro Modd Rule 1.3 I. when she failro to se:rve: Cymbortt Corporation within 120 days after filing me: lawsuir against them on behalf of Ms. Sande:rs. Mood Rule: 1.3 requires that a lawye:r act with re:asonable dilige:nc:c: and prompmc:ss in re:pn::se:ming a client. That Ms. McKeel's conduct violatro Model 2. Rule: 1.4(b) when she: failed to OI:plain ro Ms. Sanders that she: had filed a complaint to appear as ifit had been filed pro se and failed to explain to he:r that she needed to have someone undertake service: on the defendant within 120 days. Model Rule 1.4(b) re:quires that a lawyer e:xplain a matter to the: exte:nt reasonably neces-

sary to pennit the: die:nt to make: informro decisions regarding the: n::prese:nution. 3. That Ms. McKttl violatro Modd Rule: 8.4(c) whe:n she: prepared, signro and filro a complaint in froe:ral court on behalf of Ms. Sande:rs and did so as if it were done pro $C. Model Rule: 8.4(c) requires. in pertine:nt part, that a lawyer nOt engage in conduct involving de:ce:il or misrepresentation. 4. That Ms. McKe:el's conduct violatro Modd Rule 8.4(d) because Ms. Sanders's legal reme:dies against Gymhoree Corporation for discrimination appear to have been lost because of her failure to serve the corporation within the time allowro by law. Modd Rule 8.4(d) rc:quirc:s that a l.awye:r nor e:ngage: in conduct that is pre:judicialto the: administration of justice:. WHEREFORE, it is the: d«ision and orde:r of the Arkansas Supreme: Court Committtt on Professional Conduct that AGATHER CELESTE MCKEEL, Arkansas Bar 10 #95035, be:. and hereby is, CAU· TlONED for he:r conduct in this mane:r.

liti9ation

Attorvte~

Wilkes & McHu91t, EA., AfinH COHCCtltt'titilt9 all plaintiff's tlllrsitl9 'IOUIC liti9Cttiott, is seekiH9 AH Atto,,1C~ ror its little Rock office. ltilVlJers lViU. 3 ~etil'S pillS illtellS< civil lit-

credcHtials, tind

IUU"li-workit19 positiuf

attitude lirc invited to setld re5tnJle5. Good bellefits, collIl'eHStitioH l'ilckilge (Above 'IIi;rkct) AVAililble.

III lIrmOl'iillll Wtlliam W. Green Hot Springs, AR William W "Bill" Green, age 66, of Hot Sptings died June 13, 1999. He was born January 19, 1933, in Hot Springs to Wallet Ollis and Snoda Fleming Green. Ftom 1954 to 1958, he served as a Naval Fighter Pilm aboard the Aircraft Carrier USS Yorktown. He earned a Bachelor of cience in Business Administration from the University of Arkansas and graduated from the U.A. School of Law in Fayeneville. He was a member of the American Bar Associadon, the Arkansas Bar Association and University of Arkansas Alumni Association, a former member of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association and the Greater Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce. He was licensed co practice law before the Arkansas State CourtS, United States

District Court, U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Survivors include four children. Lizette Green of Nashville, Tenn .. Tech. Sgt. Wally Green of Sr. Louis, Mo., Vail Green Carlson of Denver, Co., and Tom Green of Seattle, Wash.; a sister, Barbara Arnold ofTroy, Mo.; four grandchildren; and several nieces and nephews.

moved to Wyoming, and when the time came for Sampier to attend college, he rode 370 miles from Lightning Flats to Laramie to attend the University of Wyoming, graduating in 1928. He moved to Arkansas in 1931. He worked as an educator in Northwesr Arkansas, reaching, coaching and serving as superintendent in school systems including Pea Ridge, Garfield and Rogers. Mr. Sam pier took courses in the law from LaSaJle Extension University and worked in local law offices. He was admirred to the Arkansas Bar in 1934. Mr. Sam pier's career at the bar was interrupted by periods of public service in the Armed Forces and the Arkansas General Assembly. He served 37 years in the U.S. Army Reserve and the Arkansas Narional Guard. including nine years on actice duty in World War IT and the Korean War. Mr. Sampier was twice elected to the state House of Representatives, serving in the legislature in 1935 and 1937. He also served twO terms in the state Senate. from 1939 to 1945. He was widely spoken of as a candidate for governor in the late 1940s, but declined to run and then was called to duty in Korea. Survivors include a son, John Sampier of Rogers; a stepson, Jon Freshour of Albuquerque, N.M; three grandchildren, Rob. Erin and Courtney Sampier of Rogers; a sister. Pauline Arango of Roswell, N.M; and a brother. Frank Sampier of Omaha, Neb.

was born October 29, 1920, ro Lee and Alice Malone in Kosseoka. Miss. He attended Southwestern University where he played football and was a member of Kappa Sigma fraternity. He earned his law degree from the University of Arkansas in Litde Rock and was a member of the Arkansas Bar Associarion. He was a paratrooper in the 10 1st Airborne Division from 1943 to 1946 doing combat in the European Theater of Operations. He moved from Arkansas to Texas and retired after 20 years from Texas Farm Bureau. He moved to Dallas in 1991 and retired after 20 years at the age of 71 from Blue Cross and Blue Shield as an associate in the Legal Division and a Medicare Hearing Officer. He is survived by his wife. Joan MaJone; daughter, Patricia Ann Krehling of Elberta. Alabama; stepdaughter. Debi Lynn Davis of Dallas; and his grandchildren, Chris Odell, Bill Odell and Greg Odell, Geoffrey Davis, Katie Davis, Thomas Baen and Jason Baen. He is also survived by four great-grandchildren; twO sisters, Gladys Onel! Foster of Little Rock, AR, and Betty Jean Wade of Branson. MO; and several nieces and nephews.

The Arkansas Bar Foundation acknowledges with gratefitl appreciation the receipt of memorial gifts and scholarship contributions give" in nlenlOlY of the following individuals from June II, 1999throllgh September 1, /999.

Judge Don Bevis Lonoke,AR IN MEMORY OF PATrY BALDRIDGE

J. Wesley Sampier Rogers, AR J. Wesley Sampier, age 93, of Rogers died in July at the Innisfree Nursing Home in Rogers. Mr. Sampier was born September 5, 1905, in Lingle, Texas, to Frank and Effie Taylor Sampier. He earned his high school diploma through an extension course from the American School of Chicago. His family

Lonoke County Judge Don Bevis, age 55, of Cabot, died in July at a Jacksonville hospital. Bevis was a graduate of Lonoke High School and arrended the University of Central Arkansas and the University of Arkansas. He had served as Lonoke County Judge since 1992.

Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. IN MEMORY OF JAMES H. CRA\Y}'ORD

Judith Gray

MEMORY OF B,LUE

Lou

HATFIELD

Judith Gray L'I MEMORY OF MRS. FAYE MANN Judge William R. Wilson, Jr.

Clyde N. Malone Waco, TX

IN MEMORY OF TOM B. SMITII

Craig Westbrook Clyde N. Malone, age 78, of Waco died June 30. 1999, at his residence. Mr. Malone

lui. 11,10. ,I/I'a1l1999

Tbe Mkmas LallIer

Law Office Technology Continued from Page 8

posring home pages is available at h np:11 www.state.ar.us/di rectory/batchla gencies.o((. hnp:11 couns.state.ar. usl csearch2.h tml (the URL for searching Arkansas appellate opinions). htrp:llwww.arkleg.state.ar.us/lpbinllpex

Ldll?f=fiIe[fbrowse-h.htm] (URL for

7. 8.

10.

11.

searching the Code). All Arkansas sites may be reached by following hypencxr links from the Arkansas home page. hnp:llwww.arkleg.state.ar.usl. The Legal Information Institute majntained by the Cornell Law School is considered one of the premier sites for searching federal databases on the Internet. The home page address is www.law.comell.edu.From that address, links may be used to reach the desired research source. hnp:/Iwww.wulaw.wustl.edu/Bth.cir/ci ndex.html is the home page address for the Eighrh Circuit COUrt of Appeals. Switchboard is an excellent people locaror (www.aIravista.swirchboard.com). The Zip2 Yellow Pages work well for locating businesses (h up: Ila vyellowpages. zi p2.coml). These arc only two sources. Many other locators are available on the Web. Medscape is a free medical source, but does require you to register before using their data (www.medscape.com).

Alisa Thorne Corke is a sole practitioner III

Springdale.

Her prac-

tice focuses upon trial and appellate writing, family law. construction areas. and business matters. Ms. TIJonu Corke offirs a four hour CLE course 011 using tbe Inttnlet. Please send commetlts or questions to ate@nwark.llet or (501)

927-4132.

f1assifipd .\dwlttising Skip TI'i1l'ill~

I.lIl'ill III'

Need to locate someone~ Will locate the person or no charge and no minimum fee for basic 92% success rate. Nationwide. locate. Confidendal. Ocher attorney needed searches/records/reporrslinrormation services in many areas from our extensive database. Tell us

what you need. Verify USA. 888-2-Verify.

To Place a Classified Ad: $45.00 for 50 words or less; over 50 words - $.25 each. Payment must accompany order. Send order to The Arkansas

Lawyer, 400 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201. For more information call 501-3754606 or 800-609-5668. Advertising Closing Dates: January Issue - November 15 Aprillssue - February 15 July Issue - May 15 October Issue - August 15

ADR, Inc. Examination Consunants John McAllister landlecll Dala legal Directories Pu~ishing lexis law Pu~ishing lexis路Nexis On-line lOIS, Inc. Medical Experts Referral Serv~e Paul Mixon Morgantl,.u, O'Toole & Co., Inc. Rebsamen Insurance R~hard l. Schwartz Rose law Firm Rowell &Associales Schultze Maeclliing RedPoint Systems UAMS Paternity Testing UPS West Group Caroline l. Winningham

THE LAW FIRM OF JONES, JACKSON & MOLL, PLC is pleased to announce that

J. Scott Hardin has become a member of the firm Robert L. Jones, Jr.

MarkA. Moll

Randolph C. Jackson

J. SCOtt Hardin

Jay Kurchka

M. Chad Trammell

Mark Your Calendars

Mid-Year Meeting Peabody Hotel Memphis, Tennessee January 20-22, 2000

The .lrklOsas Ll~ler

1'01. l1 No. lIFall1'99

PAGE 18 46 14 17 24 11 Back Cover 33 13 17 21 Inside Back Cover 45 25 27 42 22 22 28 Ins~e Front Cover 22

401 North Seventh Street Post Office Box 2023 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-2023 Telephone: (501) 782-7203 Facsimile: (501) 782-9460

acing a legal malpractice is someF thing every lawyer must consider. You need the right insurance coverage and expert claim

legal defense at hand_ For more than 35 years that s what the partnership between the Arkansas Bar Association, the Rebsamen Insurance Agency and CNA has provided. Our superlative combination of coverage and defense has made us the most popular source for lawyers liability insurance in Arkansas. Law linns throughout Arkansas form our network of specialists in legal malpractice, prepared to defend you if a claim arises. Your defense costs are covered in addition to your limits of liability. And you can choose to have no deductible, meaning you pay no legal fees at all should you need defense counsel.

400 W. Markham Liule Rock, AR 72201

Pl'Orcssionai Association Group Division 501-664--8791

1'0 Box 3398

11,e fmancial strength and stability of CNA, one of the country s largest insurers, stands behind you. And the Rebsamen agency, in affiliation with the Arkansas Bar Association, has stood for dedication to the Arkansas legal profession for decades.

More than insurance.

Your best defenseS:'

Liltle Rock, AH 72203-3398

www.rcbsamen.com ThIs program is tnderwntten by one or more of the CNA CNA is afegJSlered service matk and trade name

cunpat'IJIJs.

01 CNA _

CaJ>o<alaO

C'NApRO

It's All About Choices

Every small law firm has its own set of unique research needs. That's why LEXIS"-NEXIS" MVP for small law firms has so many choices. The choice to work at home, at the office, or on the road (we're conveniently accessible on the Web at lexis.com). Your choice of custom packages- at your choice of prices (all at fixed monthly rates). Plus, you have a huge choice of value-added products and services (SHEPARD'S", Matthew Bende Martindale-Hubbell" and more). Sweet.

Choices you can afford. A MEMBER SERVICE Of

1.800.356.6548 mention offer 1262 www.lexis.com

lEXlS and NOJS ;lle reolslered ~iIdImns III Reed Elsevl!l PrOPef1I1!S Inc., used under lame

Tte INFORMATION ARMY logD IS Il!idllmark 01 FIeld EI.. PlopertJes Inc, usecllAleliUlSe 1999l00s-NEXlS a dl.... DI ReId Elsevier In: AII,_ mer..

LEXIS'路 NEXIS' MVP lor Small Law Firms