Disciplinary History

On November 1, 2019, the Disciplinary Commission issued the respondent attorney a public reprimand without general publication for violating Rules 5.5 [Unauthorized Practice of Law], and 8.4 (d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In January 2018, the respondent attorney was involved in a dispute with the complainant involving the respondent attorney's employer in the State of Texas. The complainant advised the Bar that the respondent attorney submitted an affidavit in the complainant's divorce case in which the respondent attorney averred he was an attorney providing legal services to his employer in the State of Texas. However, the respondent attorney was not actually licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. Further, Texas does not have a rule allowing lawyers licensed in other states to serve as in-house counsel for a Texas based company. Additionally, the respondent attorney identified himself on his LinkedIn page as General Counsel for his employer in the State of Texas.

A Mobile attorney was issued a public reprimand without general publication on November 1, 2019, as ordered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 5.5 [Unauthorized Practice of Law], and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. On January 15, 2019, the attorney was officially listed as inactive after failing to renew his occupational license. Prior to being listed as inactive, the attorney received several notifications from September 1, 2018 to January 15, 2019, reminding him to renew his occupational license. On January 30, 2019, the presiding municipal judge for the City of Mobile reported the attorney had been engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. On January 30, 2019, the attorney approached the judge ex parte and asked him to continue a case to allow him and the prosecutor additional time to negotiate an agreement. The judge agreed to do so and then subsequently engaged in small talk. After a few minutes of small talk, the attorney asked the judge to keep the conversation private and to not put anything on the record regarding the continuance because the attorney had an ongoing issue with the Bar. The attorney then informed the judge he had failed to renew his license timely and was not authorized to practice law.

Irvington attorney, Paul Ricky Kornis received a Public Reprimand with General Publication on November 1, 2019 for violating Rule 3.5 [Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2017, Kornis was retained by Huntsville International Research Institute (“HIRI”) and its principals on federal claims involving an alleged fraudulent attempt by a third-party to obtain insurance for HIRI, to steal money from HIRI, and to steal a government subcontract. During this time period, HIRI was represented by another attorney on related claims in state court. While not counsel of record for HIRI in the matter pending in state court, Kornis improperly communicated ex parte with the judge presiding over the state court matter. On or about April 9, 2018, Kornis emailed the state court judge a letter in which Kornis attempted to argue the merits of the matter involving HIRI and pending before the judge. In doing so, Kornis accused one of the parties and their attorney of various criminal acts.

Mobile attorney John Walter Sharbrough, III was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama, effective October 23, 2019. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Report and Order of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar, disbarring Sharbrough after he was found guilty of violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence] and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. On January 27, 2017, the appellant, Health Options Plus, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court in Case No. CV-14-86. Sharbrough represented the appellee in the appeal, Winfred Petrey. The case was subsequently selected for mediation screening by the Appellate Mediation office on February 16, 2017. Sharbrough failed to return the mediation materials as directed. On March 20, 2017, the Appellate Mediation Office issued an order to Sharbrough requiring the forms to be completed and returned no later than March 2, 2017. Sharbrough failed to return the materials as directed. On March 20, 2017, the Appellate Mediation Office issued an order to Sharbrough requiring the forms to be submitted no later than March 27, 2017. Sharbrough subsequently failed to comply with the order. As a result, the Appellate Mediation Office reinstated the appeal to the active docket of the Supreme Court on March 28, 2017. Sharbrough subsequently failed to file an appellee’s brief on behalf of his client, Winfred Petrey. As such, the matter was submitted to the Supreme Court of Alabama on the appellant’s brief. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court’s judgment, without opinion, on September 15, 2017. On October 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Alabama voted to impose a monetary sanction of $500.00 against Sharbrough as a result of his failure to respond to and comply with the Appellate Mediation Office. Sharbrough failed to pay the sanction or respond to the order. As a result, on December 14, 2017, the Supreme Court of Alabama issued a Show Cause Order to Sharbrough based on his failure to pay the sanction or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. The Show Cause Order warned that Sharbrough’s failure to respond would result in the matter being reported to the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar. Sharbrough failed to respond and the Court reported the matter to the Bar. Thereafter, the Office of General Counsel made repeated attempts to contact Sharbrough and obtain a written response to the Court’s complaint. Sharbrough failed to respond. As a result, Sharbrough was summarily suspended from the practice of law on July 23, 2018, for failing to respond to a disciplinary matter.

Scottsboro attorney Frank Brian Rice was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama, effective October 23, 2019. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Disciplinary Board’s Order, wherein Rice was found guilty of violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 1.15(a), (b), (e), and (n) [Safekeeping Property], 8.1(a) and (b) [Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters], and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Rice was hired by a client to draft and file an uncontested divorce on her behalf. The client paid $400 to Rice as his legal fee in the matter. On September 14, 2018, the client and her husband signed all of the paperwork and paid Rice $225 for the filing fee. Rice informed the client he would file the paperwork on September 17, 2018. Rice failed to do so. The client attempted to communicate with Rice as to why the uncontested divorce had not been filed. Rice failed to respond until November 19, 2018, when he informed the client, via text message, that he would file the paperwork the next day. However, Rice failed to do so. On November 26, 2018, the client learned the paperwork had not been filed and demanded a refund of her fee and the filing fee. Rice responded he would file her paperwork the next day. Again, Rice failed to do so. After the client filed a Bar complaint, Rice represented to the Bar that the filing fee and legal fee were still being held in his trust account. However, Rice did not deposit either in this trust account as required by Rule 1.15, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Rice had already spent both the legal and filing fees paid by the client. Additionally, Rice was ordered to provide the Bar with all trust account records required to be maintained under Rule 1.15, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. However, Rice failed to produce any of the trust account records.

Scottsboro attorney Frank Brian Rice was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama, effective October 23, 2019. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Disciplinary Board’s Order, wherein Rice was found guilty of violating Rules 3.4 [Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel], and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In a separate disciplinary proceeding, on July 24, 2017, the Disciplinary Commission ordered Rice to receive a Public Reprimand with General Publication. In addition, as part of his discipline, Rice was ordered to “participate and complete the Practice Management Assistance Program six (6) months from the date of the Commission’s Order.” Rice failed to do so. Rice was also taxed all costs of the disciplinary proceedings and assessed an administrative fee of $750.00. Rice was allowed to make a payment plan in order to satisfy the costs and fees. However, Rice subsequently failed to submit payment.

Birmingham attorney Robert William Hensley, Jr. was summarily suspended pursuant to Rule 20a, Ala. R. Disc. P., from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective October 21, 2019. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s order that Hensley be summarily suspended for failing to make restitution as previously ordered by the Disciplinary Commission in a prior disciplinary matter.

Birmingham attorney Theodore Richard Pearson was transferred to Inactive Status, effective October 21, 2019, by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Supreme Court entered its Order based upon the October 21, 2019 Order of Panel II of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar in response to a Pearson’s petition filed with the Office of General Counsel requesting he be transferred to inactive status.

The Alabama Supreme Court issued an order suspending former Florence attorney Barry Neal Brannon from the practice of law in Alabama for a period of thirty-three months, retroactive to the effective date of Brannon’s transfer to inactive status on November 22, 2016. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s Order, wherein Brannon admitted to violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 1.15(a) [Safekeeping Property], 1.16(d) [Declining or Terminating Representation], and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Brannon admitted to accepting unearned fees. Brannon subsequently transferred to inactive status, effective November 22, 2016. As a result, Brannon was unable to perform the work for which he was paid, failed to timely refund the unearned fees, and failed to timely notify his clients of his inability to continue his representation of them.

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 September 20, 2019, the Disciplinary Commission issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 8.4(b) and (g), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In July 2018, an attorney was arrested for DUI and was found to have a BAC of .17. On August 28, 2018, the attorney pleaded guilty to DUI and was allowed to enter into pre-trial diversion. At the time, the attorney admitted to drinking alcohol and driving under the influence. Under the terms of the pre-trial diversion program, the DUI charge would be dismissed if the attorney successfully completed a probationary term of 24 months. In addition, the attorney was ordered to complete CRO and to use the interlock ignition system prior to driving. In April 2019, the attorney was arrested again for DUI. This time, however, the attorney was found to have a BAC of .00. As a result, a search warrant was executed and blood was drawn from the attorney. However, the attorney pleaded guilty to the second DUI before knowing the results of the blood sample. The attorney later admitted to have smoked marijuana prior to the second DUI arrest. The participation in the pre-trial diversion program for the first DUI was subsequently terminated and the attorney was found guilty of both DUIs. The attorney was issued a one-year suspended sentence, ordered to perform 30 days of community service, ordered to complete additional levels of CRO, and to continue to use the interlock ignition system prior to driving.

Birmingham attorney Stephen Judson Bailey was summarily and intermily suspended pursuant to Rule 20a, Ala. R. Disc. P., from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective September 16, 2019. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s order that Bailey be summarily and interimly suspended for failing to respond to formal requests for information concerning a disciplinary matter and for engaging in conduct that is causing or likely to cause immediate and serious injury to a client.

On February 13, 2019, the Disciplinary Commission determined that an attorney should receive a public reprimand without general publication, for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), and 1.15(f) [Safekeeping Property], 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In two separate matters, the attorney failed to use a trust account for two years, accepted client retainers over the phone, deposited funds into his personal account without passing the funds through the firm's operating account, arrived late or failed to appear in court appearances, and failed to pay 2016 payroll taxes after he withheld the taxes from employees’ paychecks. The attorney also mishandled a custody dispute in which he represented his former employee, failed to appear in court, and failed to communicate with opposing counsel. In another matter, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals issued an order removing the attorney as appellate counsel in an appeal from the Juvenile Court. The attorney requested five extensions to file the appellant’s brief, all of which the court granted. The attorney thereafter filed a motion to transmit original items from the trial court and a motion to stay the briefing schedule. The Court granted the attorney an additional five days. Nevertheless, the attorney failed to file proof on time and received yet another deficiency notice. The Court ultimately removed the attorney from the case. With this conduct the attorney violated Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), and 1.15(f) [Safekeeping Property], 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to provide competent representation, failing to hold client property in connection with representation separate from his own property, making a disbursement of uncollected client funds, failure to properly deposit and withdraw client funds from a client trust account, and engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law. The attorney is also required to pay any costs taxed against him pursuant to Rule 33, Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, including but not limited to a $1,000 administrative fee.

On November 14, 2018, the Disciplinary Commission determined that an attorney should receive a public reprimand without general publication for violating Rules 8.4(d) and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney was appointed personal representative of an estate. One of the heirs petitioned the probate court to remove the attorney as personal representative citing his failure to communicate with the heirs, the fact that the estate was pending for four years, and that the attorney’s license was suspended. The probate judge ordered the attorney to respond and appear at a hearing. The attorney filed an emergency continuance, which the court denied. He failed to file a response or appear as ordered. The court removed him as personal representative and revoked his letters testamentary. The court also issued a deadline for him to file a final settlement for the estate, which he failed to meet. As a result, the court sanctioned the attorney.

On October 26, 2018, the Disciplinary Commission determined an attorney should receive a public reprimand without general publication on September 6, 2019, for violating Rules 3.3(a) [Candor Toward the Tribunal], 5.3 [Responsibilities Regarding Non-Lawyer Assistance], 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. An attorney was hired to probate an estate in 2016. His secretary initially notarized and filed consents and waivers dated September 12, 2016. Because the administrator died, the probate court appointed a new administrator, after which the attorney obtained new consents and waivers from the heirs at law. His secretary allegedly notarized the new consents and waivers in December 2016. There was only one piece of real property in the estate, and the attorney filed a petition for sale, along with consents and waivers from the two heirs, dated August 21, 2017. Again, the attorney’s secretary notarized these documents. The probate court granted the petition for sale on December 18, 2017. On January 5, 2018, the widow of one of the heirs called the probate court and spoke with the clerk, who informed her that she would receive the money from the sale. In that conversation, the widow advised the clerk that her husband passed away in February 2017, seven months before the attorney’s secretary notarized his signature. As a result, the clerk contacted the attorney and forwarded the matter to the Chief Clerk and the Probate Judge. The judge immediately issued a show cause order, cancelled the order for the petition for sale, and suspended letters of administration. After investigating, the attorney believed the deceased heir signed the consent and waiver in December 2016, but it was not notarized. When his secretary was filing the petition for sale, she observed that the consent and waiver were not dated or notarized, and took it upon herself to notarize and back-date them to August 21, 2017. At the show cause hearing, the attorney testified he thought the deceased heir signed the consent and waiver in December 2016, but it was not notarized until August 17, 2017, and attributed this to "an administrative oversight." His secretary admitted the deceased heir was not present on August 21, 2017, when she notarized his signature. On January 30, 2018, the probate court issued an order noting there was no evidence offered that the heir was ever present when he signed the consents and waivers. The court offered the attorney’s secretary an opportunity to resign her notary, which she did at the conclusion of the hearing. The attorney is also required pay any costs taxed against him pursuant to Rule 33, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, including but not limited to a $1,000 administrative fee.