On June 19, 2020, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 7.2 [Advertising] and 7.3 [Direct Contact with Prospective Clients], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney represented a client in a very contentious custody dispute between the client and the client’s ex-wife. The attorney contended that the ex-wife and her new husband had “weaponized” the legal system to prevent the client from exercising his visitation rights with his child. The attorney was removed from the case due to a conflict of interest after the attorney hired a paralegal that previously worked for the ex-wife’s prior counsel. While the custody matter was ongoing, the ex-wife’s grandmother passed away and an estate was opened. The personal representative of the estate was the ex-wife. The attorney subsequently sent solicitation letters to potential heirs of the estate offering to represent them in the matter. The solicitation letters did not fully comply with the requirements of Rule 7.3, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition, the attorney did not file the solicitation letters with the Alabama State Bar as required by Rule 7.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Along with the solicitation letter sent to potential heirs, the attorney also attached another letter in which he informed the individual that the ex-wife and her new husband had “repeatedly failed multiple drug tests”. The attorney then asked the individual to contact him if the potential heir had any information regarding the welfare of his client’s children. While seeking information from potential witnesses is permissible, the letter from the attorney should not have been included with the solicitation letter.

On January 31, 2020, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 7.2 [Advertising] and 8.2 [Judicial and Legal Officials], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In May 2019, the Office of General Counsel of the Alabama State Bar received information regarding a website operated by the attorney. The attorney used the site to disparage various police officers, city attorneys, district attorneys and/or assistant district attorneys. Furthermore, the attorney used the website to advertise their law office and to invite those falsely accused of a crime in the area where the attorney practiced law or in that same judicial district in which it was located, to contact the attorney. However, the website was not filed with the Office of General Counsel and did not contain the disclaimer as required by Rule 7.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

On September 20, 2019, the Disciplinary Commission issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 7.1 [Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services], 7.2 [Advertising], and 7.3 [Direct Contact with Prospective Clients], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. On January 30, 2019, an individual was arrested and charged with multiple counts third-degree burglary. At the time of her arrest, the individual made a full confession of breaking in and stealing items from two separate homes. On February 5, 2019, the individual made her initial appearance, at which time the trial court appointed counsel to represent her on her criminal charges. On February 13, 2019, the attorney sent the individual a solicitation letter offering to represent her on the criminal charges. The letter implied the attorney had already reviewed the individual’s case and made a determination he could “successfully defend” her because the charges may be defective or because insufficient evidence existed in her case. In his written response to the individual’s complaint to the Bar, the attorney stated he reviewed her case on February 8, 2019. The attorney later admitted that, prior to sending the solicitation letter he merely reviewed the case action summary on AlaCourt to determine nature of the charges and whether she had any prior criminal charges. However, the attorney did not review the charges to determine the propriety of the charges or whether there was insufficient evidence to support the charges. In addition, the attorney also failed to file the solicitation letter with the Office of General Counsel as required by Rules 7.2(b) and 7.3(b)(2), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

On October 26, 2018 an attorney was issued a private reprimand for violating Rules 7.2 [Advertising], and 7.3 [Direct Contact with Prospective Clients], Ala. R. Prof. C. In April of 2017, the attorney improperly solicited the City of Union Springs, Alabama. Through the attorney’s assistant, an email was sent with a letter attachment to the mayor of Union Springs. In the email and letter, the attorney solicited legal employment from the city in regards to a civil suit against the manufacturers of opioids. The email and the attached letter did not comply with Rule 7.3, Ala. R. Prof. C. The email and attached letter also did not contain the required disclaimer, as required under Rule 7.2. In addition, the attorney had a Facebook page for her law firm that was not compliant with Rule 7.2 and did not include the required disclaimer.

Tuscaloosa attorney Michael Jay Upton received a public reprimand with general publication on September 14, 2018, for violating Rules 1.5(a) and 1.5(b) [Fees], 1.15(a) [Safekeeping Property], 7.2(f) [Advertising], and 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. C. Upton was hired by the parents of a college student to represent him in a criminal matter. They paid a fee of $4,000. Less than a week after the arrest, the client decided to employ a different attorney. The client’s parents requested a refund and, after Upton refused to provide a refund, the parents retained an attorney who sued Upton in small claims court in order to obtain the refund. Upton agreed to a consent judgment in this matter. With this conduct, Upton violated Rules 1.5(a) and 1.5(b), 1.15(a), 7.2(f), and 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(g) by failing to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct for charging an excessive fee, failing to communicate the basis or rate of the fee in writing, failing to properly safeguard client money, failing to perform advertised services at the advertised fee, engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. Upton was also required to pay any costs taxed against him pursuant to Rule 33, Ala. R. Disc. P, including but not limited to a $750 administrative fee.

On September 14, 2018, the Disciplinary Commission determined Millbrook attorney Darren William Kies should receive a public reprimand with general publication for violating Rules 5.2(a) [Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer], 5.4(a) [Professional Independence of a Lawyer], 7.2(c) [Advertising], 7.3(a) [Direct Contact with Prospective Client], and 8.4(a) and (g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. C. Kies impermissibly solicited clients involved in a car accident. A representative of Kies’s firm urged the clients to cancel an appointment with another attorney and retain Kies. Kies also impermissibly initiated contact with the passenger in this accident and coerced him to sign a contract with his firm. With this conduct, Kies violated Rules 5.2(a), 5.4(a), 7.2(c), 7.3(a), and 8.4(a) and (g) by failing to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct despite actions taken at the direction of another person, sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer, compensating a person for recommending Kies’s services, soliciting professional employment for a prospective client with whom he had no familial or current professional relationship for pecuniary gain, and engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law. Kies was also required to pay any costs taxed against him pursuant to Rule 33, Ala. R. Disc. P, including a $750 administrative fee.

The attorney received a public reprimand with general publication on September 18, 2015, for violating Rules 7.1(a), 7.2(c), 7.3, and 8.4(a), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney was a partner in a law firm While a partner, the attorney unknowingly, but negligently participated in an improper solicitation scheme involving payment of “advanced referral fees” to two lawyers. These advanced referral fees were used by these lawyers to generate additional cases in violation of Rule 7.3, before the matters were referred to the attorney's firm. The attorney participated as a contact person at the firm, violating the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, through this improper solicitation. The attorney's law firm also paid other attorneys and/or law firms to advertise for cases with the understating that such cases were to be referred to the firm but the arrangement was not disclosed in the advertising conducted by the attorneys or firms enlisted by the attorney's law firm.

On August 12, 2015, the attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 7.1(a), and 7.2(c), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney was a managing partner in a firm which engaged in local advertising campaigns where the firm paid another attorney and/or law firm to advertise for cases which were to then be referred back to the firm. The advertisements did not include the firm’s name, as required by the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

An attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama for a period of ninety (90) days by Order of the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, effective February 20, 2014. The suspension was ordered held in abeyance and the attorney was placed on probation for two years and ordered to obtain six hours of additional CLE in Ethics and Professionalism by December 31, 2014. the attorney was also ordered to receive a Public Reprimand with General Publication. The Order of the Disciplinary Commission was based upon the attorney's Conditional Guilty Plea to violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(b), 7.1(b) and (c), 7.2(e), 7.5(a), and 8.4(c), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney was retained by a seller’s agent to conduct a real estate closing. At closing, the attorney failed to obtain an executed Acknowledgement of Non-Representation from either the seller or the buyer, and failed to discover a second mortgage on the property. Therefore, the sellers were given excess funds at closing, the second mortgage was not paid off, and title insurance could not be issued. the attorney failed to disclose to the purchaser the failure to satisfy the second mortgage. It was also discovered during the investigation that the attorney had violated other rules regarding advertising and firm names and letterheads.

In 2013, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 4.2, 7.3(b), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney sent bankruptcy solicitation letters to several clients of another attorney, informing the clients that their bankruptcy petition had been dismissed, and offered to represent the clients and seek a “second chance at a successful bankruptcy”. The clients’ bankruptcy petitions had not been dismissed and the clients were still being represented by counsel. The attorney admitted that the letters were sent as a result of “faulty information gathering”, contained false information, and failed to contain the advertising disclaimer.

On January 28, 2013, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 7.3(a) and (b), Ala. R. Prof. C. In May of 2012, the respondent attorney’s firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of a client alleging that the client’s home builder improperly constructed the client’s home. After suit was filed, an expert was engaged to inspect the client’s home, and reported that the home builder improperly compacted the fill dirt which later led to cracks and shifting of the home’s foundation. As a result, the respondent attorney wrote a letter to the other homeowners in the area notifying the homeowners of potential problems with their homes’ foundation. In sending out the letters to the homeowners, the respondent attorney failed to label the letters as advertising, did not include the advertising disclaimer, and did not file copies of the letters with the Alabama State Bar, thereby violating Rules 7.3(a) and (b), Ala. R. Prof. C.

On August 30, 2012, the attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 7.1(a), 7.5(a), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. In May of 2011, the respondent attorney purchased two web domains using the names of two other bankruptcy attorneys in the area. Whenever a potential client clicked on links to these domains, the client would be directed to the respondent attorney’s webpage, luring the clients away from the other two bankruptcy attorneys. The respondent attorney denied any attempt to mislead or confuse potential clients, and acknowledged that he purchased both web domains after hiring a consulting firm that specializes in internet advertising and searches.