Disciplinary History

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.

On September 6, 2019, Denver, Colorado attorney David Jeffrey Furtado, who is also licensed in Alabama, received reciprocal discipline of a public reprimand with general publication, as ordered by the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rule 8.4(c) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Furtado’s misconduct was related to his representation of medical marijuana dispensaries. Furtado failed to disclose to Wells Fargo Bank that he opened two accounts in 2013 on behalf of medical-marijuana companies. At the time, Wells Fargo did not allow accounts to be opened for medical-marijuana businesses.

On November 14, 2018, the Disciplinary Commission determined Haleyville attorney Jerry Dean Roberson should receive a public reprimand with general publication, for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence]; 1.3 [Diligence]; 1.4 [Communication]; 8.4(a), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, in ASB No. 2016-334. A client hired Roberson to represent her in an appeal in a child-custody matter and was paid $3,000. The court scheduled and continued three separate court dates. The client experienced difficulty contacting Roberson, and he failed to respond to her attempts. Additionally, Roberson allowed the time to file the client’s appeal to lapse. In ASB No. 2016-334, Roberson violated Rules 1.1 [Competence]; 1.3 [Diligence]; 1.4(a) [Communication]; 1.4(a), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Here, a client hired Roberson to represent her son on a rape charge and paid Roberson a $5,000 retainer. Roberson failed to communicate with the client and her son for a year. He eventually visited the client’s son in prison and indicated he would attempt to move the case forward. Many court dates were continued. However, another attorney informed the client that Roberson was suspended. In ASB No. 2016-334, Roberson violated Rules 3.3(a)(1) [Candor Towards the Tribunal]; 3.4(c) [Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel]; 4.1(a) [Truthfulness in Statements to Others]; 5.5(a) [Unauthorized Practice of Law]; 7.3(a) [Direct Contact With Prospective Clients]; 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d) and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. A potential witness informed opposing counsel that Roberson contacted him regarding a matter; Roberson advised the witness that he was on inactive status, stated he was about to get his license back, and that he was assisting counsel of record. Roberson confirmed he spoke with the potential witness but explained it was only to make an appointment for new counsel who was very busy at the time. Additionally, he admitted participating in a telephone hearing with Judge Scott Coogler, United States Federal District Court Judge, in this matter on January 9, 2017, but failed to identify himself on the phone call. At the close of the hearing, opposing counsel notified Judge Coogler that Roberson was on the line. When the court questioned Roberson about his licensure status, he advised it was inactive but anticipated it would be restored later that week.

On September 6, 2019, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued a public reprimand with general publication to John Tracy Fisher, Jr., for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 1.15(a) and (e) [Safekeeping Property], and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2015, a client retained Fisher to represent her in seeking a court order allowing her to relocate with her minor child. Fisher failed to adequately communicate with the client regarding the date of the hearing, her alleged request to dismiss her request to relocate, and the issue of fees in the matter. Fisher also failed to timely and diligently forward the final order in the matter to the client. The client paid Fisher an initial retainer of $4,500 to represent her in the matter. Fisher failed to place the unearned portion of the retainer in trust and failed to maintain individual client ledgers as required by Rule 1.15(e), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Additionally, Fisher deposited personal funds into his trust account on multiple occasions and made personal payments directly from that account.