Disciplinary History

Vestavia, Alabama attorney Chase Tristian Espy, was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective April 12, 2023. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the March 8, 2023, Order of Panel III of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Disciplinary Board’s acceptance of Espy’s Consent to Disbarment, which was based on his recent federal conviction for possession of child pornography.

On April 10, 2023, a private reprimand was issued to an attorney pursuant to Rule 12(c)(1), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The Disciplinary Commission concluded that the attorney violated Rules 1.3 [Diligence] and 1.4 [Communication], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In March of 2022, the Office of General Counsel received a complaint that over a two-year period of time, the attorney failed to be diligent in his representation of a client and failed to timely communicate with a client.

Montgomery attorney William Clay Teague transferred to inactive Status pursuant to Rule 27(c), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, effective March 16, 2023, by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Supreme Court entered its Order based upon the March 16, 2023, Order of Panel III of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar in response to Teague’s petition submitted to the Office of General Counsel requesting he be transferred to inactive status.

On December 14, 2022, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand to an attorney pursuant to Rule 12(c)(1), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure in ASB No. 2019-1217. The Disciplinary Commission concluded that the attorney violated Rules 8.4 (b) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In October 2019, the Office of General Counsel was advised by the Florida Bar Association that the attorney was arrested on September 11, 2019, and charged with three counts of aggravated assault, Second Degree. On April 6, 2018, the attorney was involved in a car accident after driving the wrong way on a four-lane highway. The attorney’s vehicle struck another vehicle and injured the vehicle’s three occupants. On October 4, 2022, the attorney pled guilty to reduced charges of three counts of Misdemeanor Assault, Third Degree. Under the plea, the attorney was given a suspended 12-month sentence and placed on unsupervised probation for a period of two years.

On March 13, 2023, the Disciplinary Board issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 4.2 (a) [Communication with Person Represented by Counsel] and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney admitted to directly contacting an opposing party who was represented by counsel regarding the subject of the litigation and inquiring about confidential communications. The attorney had complete knowledge the client was represented by counsel, but he chose to contact the represented party instead of the opposing attorney. During the course of the investigation, the attorney provided false or misleading information.

On February 23, 2023, the Disciplinary Commission of Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand pursuant to Rule 12(c)(1), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure in ASB No. 2022-885. The Disciplinary Commission concluded that the attorney violated Rules 1.4 [Communication], 1.5 [Fees], 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], 7.1 [Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services], 7.5 [Firm Names and Letterhead], and 8.4(c) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The Disciplinary Commission also ordered that the attorney make a full refund to the client. The attorney was retained in March 2021 by an individual to represent her husband at his parole hearing, including seeking early parole. In 1995, the husband, was convicted of Robbery II and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. The client ultimately paid the attorney $3,000 and according to the fee agreement, the attorney was to represent the husband in seeking an early parole hearing and at any future parole hearing. In the fee agreement, the attorney described the initial payment of $1,000 as “non-refundable”. In Formal Opinion 1993-21, the Disciplinary Commission held that a lawyer may not characterize a fee as non-refundable or use other language in a fee agreement that suggests that any fee paid before services are rendered is not subject to refund or adjustment. The Disciplinary Commission held that a lawyer violates Rules 1.4 [Communication], 1.5 [Fees], and 8.4(c) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct any time the lawyer describes a fee as “non-refundable”. The attorney also admitted during the investigation to failing to place any of the unearned fee into the trust account as required by Rule 1.15, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. According to the attorney, after researching the matter, it was determined that seeking an early parole hearing would be futile. Instead, on June 22, 2021, the attorney filed a motion to allow the husband to be transferred to a community corrections program. The court never took any action on the motion and the attorney did not file anything else on behalf of the husband. The attorney explained to the husband that all had been done all they would have to wait for his parole hearing. Eventually the attorney and the husband came to a mutual understanding that the attorney would no longer represent the husband and, as such, the attorney did not appear for the parole hearing. Also the name of the attorney’s law firm was “The Law Group of ___,LLC.” However, the attorney did not have any associates or staff. In Formal Opinion 1993-11, the Disciplinary Commission held that a solo practitioner may not use a firm name that would lead the public to believe that the law firm has more than one attorney. As such, the attorney’s use of “the law group” violated Rule 7.1 [Communication Concerning a Lawyer’s Services] and 7.5 [Firm Names and Letterhead, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

A Socorro, Texas attorney also licensed in the State of Alabama, Jimmy Lee Revis, was issued a public reprimand without general publication on March 10, 2023, as ordered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.3 [Diligence], 5.5 [Unauthorized Practice of Law] and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2020, the attorney undertook to represent his niece and her family on immigration matters. The niece and her family came to the United States in November 2019 on a visitor visa which expired on May 27, 2020. Shortly before the visas expired, the attorney attempted to file paperwork which would begin the process of seeking legal residence in the United States. However, the applications were rejected. In the interim, the visas expired after the attorney failed to file for an extension of the visas. As a result, the niece and her family were now deemed to be in the United States illegally, impairing their ability to seek legal residence in the United States. There was no record of the attorney having entered an appearance on their behalf before immigration. Upon receipt of the attorney’s self-report, it was discovered the attorney last held an occupational license in 2017. The attorney was unlicensed in 2018 and 2019, and then held a special membership license for 2020 and 2021. A special membership license does not allow a lawyer to engage in the private practice of law.

Huntsville attorney, John Andrew Watson, III, was issued a public reprimand with general publication on March 10, 2023, for violating Rules 1.2(c) [Scope of Representation], 1.4 [Communication], 1.7(b) [Conflict of Interest: General Rule], and 2.2 [Intermediary], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2013, Watson began representing multiple business entities comprising a multinational enterprise engaged in government contracting to the US Government in support of its Middle East operations. The entities had overlapping ownership and leadership. In September 2016, the clients received notice that the primary US-based client had received a CENTCOM-wide Base Debarment, requiring ejection from a U.S. military base in Afghanistan within ten days absent a solution satisfactory to the US Government. Subsequently, Watson was advised by the clients’ corporate representatives that the deadline was shortened to seven days. The clients also informed Watson that the base debarment threatened catastrophic loss to the business enterprise. Watson presented the clients with several options regarding how to remedy this situation. The clients elected, three days before the deadline, to have one affiliated corporation acquire the assets of its base-debarred affiliate. This decision resulted in Watson having a conflict of interest in handling the transaction but without adequate time to involve outside counsel. Watson explained to the clients that their role in the transaction would be limited to preparing documents to accomplish the clients’ collective decision and objectives and that Watson could not be involved in negotiating the economic terms of the transaction between the clients. Watson proceeded with preparing the transaction documents with the understanding that their clients agreed to the limited scope of our representation. Watson did not fully explain the benefits, limitations, and risks of the joint representation as required by Rules 1.7(b) and 2.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct and did not obtain the clients’ written acknowledgement of the limited scope representation as required by Rule 1.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Further, Watson did not communicate with all the corporate representatives of the client entities on an equal basis as required by Rules 1.4 and 2.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

Huntsville attorney, Jon Davidson Levin, was issued a public reprimand with general publication on March 10, 2023, for violating Rules 1.2(c) [Scope of Representation], 1.4 [Communication], 1.7(b) [Conflict of Interest: General Rule], and 2.2 [Intermediary], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2013, Levin began representing multiple business entities comprising a multinational enterprise engaged in government contracting to the US Government in support of its Middle East operations. The entities had overlapping ownership and leadership. In September 2016, the clients received notice that the primary US-based client had received a CENTCOM-wide Base Debarment, requiring ejection from a U.S. military base in Afghanistan within ten days absent a solution satisfactory to the US Government. Subsequently, Levin was advised by the clients’ corporate representatives that the deadline was shortened to seven days. The clients also informed Levin that the base debarment threatened catastrophic loss to the business enterprise. Levin presented the clients with several options regarding how to remedy this situation. The clients elected, three days before the deadline, to have one affiliated corporation acquire the assets of its base-debarred affiliate. This decision resulted in Levin having a conflict of interest in handling the transaction but without adequate time to involve outside counsel. Levin explained to the clients that their role in the transaction would be limited to preparing documents to accomplish the clients’ collective decision and objectives and that Levin could not be involved in negotiating the economic terms of the transaction between the clients. Levin proceeded with preparing the transaction documents with the understanding that their clients agreed to the limited scope of our representation. Levin did not fully explain the benefits, limitations, and risks of the joint representation as required by Rules 1.7(b) and 2.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct and did not obtain the clients’ written acknowledgement of the limited scope representation as required by Rule 1.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Further, Levin did not communicate with all the corporate representatives of the client entities on an equal basis as required by Rules 1.4 and 2.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

Elba attorney, Alyse Phillips Fowler was issued a public reprimand with general publication on March 10, 2023, as ordered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 8.4(b), (c), and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. On November 8, 2022, Fowler pled guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge of Providing False Information to Register to Vote, a violation of Alabama Code § 17-17-46. Fowler knowingly provided a false address when registering to vote in the Elba, Alabama municipal election. Fowler was given a suspended six-month jail sentence, 12 months unsupervised probation, fined $1,000 plus court costs, and ordered to complete 50 hours of community service.

Birmingham attorney Thedric Brackett, Jr. is currently disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama. He has received another disbarment, effective March 10, 2023, to run consecutively to his current disbarment from the practice of law. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Report and Order of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar, disbarring Brackett after he was found guilty of violating Rules 1.2(d) [Scope of Representation], 3.4 [Fairness to Opposing Parties and Counsel], 4.1 [Truthfulness in Statements to Others], 8.1(b) [Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters], and 8.4(a), (c), (d), and (g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. C. In 2016, Brackett was retained by a client to sue an individual regarding possession or title of a vehicle. Brackett provided copies of pleadings to the credit union that held the loan on the vehicle. Subsequently, when the individual attempted to pay off and obtain title to the vehicle, the payment was not accepted due to the purported lawsuit. The individual insisted she had never been served with a lawsuit. Corporate counsel for the credit union researched the AlaCourt filing system and discovered the case number on the purported pleadings were for another lawsuit. The Jefferson County Clerk confirmed that the case number provided by Brackett was fictitious or incorrect. No such lawsuit was filed and the pleadings provided to the credit union were fraudulent. Additionally, Brackett failed to respond to multiple requests from the Office of General Counsel of the Alabama State Bar for a written response to the client’s complaint.

New Orleans attorney Larue Haigler, III, also licensed in Alabama was transferred to Disability Inactive Status pursuant to Rule 27(c), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, effective February 28, 2023, by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Supreme Court entered its Order based upon the February 28, 2023, Order of Panel I of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar in response to Haigler’s petition submitted to the Office of General Counsel requesting he be transferred to disability inactive status.

Dallas, Texas, attorney Parrish Scott Nordan was summarily suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama, pursuant to Rule 20(a), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, effective February 9, 2023, for failing to respond to multiple formal requests that he provide a substantive written response concerning a disciplinary matter. Nordan subsequently submitted a substantive written response and on February 27, 2023, effectively motioned for dissolution of the summary suspension. On March 1, 2023, the Disciplinary Commission granted the motion and ordered the summary suspension dissolved.

On November 4, 2022, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rule 1.1 [Competence], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The pertinent facts are that the attorney prepared an Option to Purchase Agreement for the sale of an immediate family member’s homestead giving the right to purchase the homestead for a sum certain within a specified time frame upon the death of the immediate family member to a second family member. The probate judge presiding over the estate of the immediate family member found the attorney, either deliberately or ineptly, prepared the Option to Purchase Agreement without consideration to cause the agreement to not be a valid contract and not enforceable.

On January 18, 2022, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar ordered a private reprimand be issued to an attorney for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence], 4.1 [Truthfulness to Others], 5.3 [Responsibilities Regarding Non-Lawyer Assistants], and 8.4 (c) and (g) [Misconduct], of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney was retained by a purchaser to close a real estate transaction. The attorney admitted he failed to obtain confirmation from the buyers as to their agreement to a slight price change. Also, the attorney admitted that the attorney and/or attorney’s staff indicated an incorrect sales price on the closing documents. The attorney acknowledged a correct sales price is one of the most important pieces of information to verify when handling a real estate closing and admitted responsibility for their own actions as well as the actions of non-attorney employees. Further, the attorney admitted to failing to take action to correct the incorrect sales price after the buyers brought the error to the attorney’s attention, aside from suggesting the buyers contact the sellers.