Disciplinary History

On June 16, 2017, the Disciplinary Commission ordered Birmingham attorney Samuel Ray Holmes to receive a public reprimand with general publication upon successful completion of a three (3) year probationary period and ordered to pay any and all costs taxed against him pursuant to Rule 33, Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, including but not limited to a $1,000 administrative fee for violating Rules 1.2 [Scope of Representation], 1.4 [Communication], 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The pertinent facts are Holmes was paid for legal services and filing fees by his client, and he cashed both checks. Holmes failed to file a civil action for his client. The client terminated Holmes’s services and requested a refund. Holmes failed to return the money his client paid him for the filing fees.

Cullman attorney Michael Allen Stewart, Sr., was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective February 17, 2022. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the February 17, 2022 Order of Panel II of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Disciplinary Board’s acceptance of Stewart’s Consent to Disbarment, wherein Stewart admitted to inappropriate conduct with a client.

On February 9, 2022, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. On March 17, 2021, the Office of General Counsel received an insufficient funds notice regarding an attorney’s IOLTA account. According to the insufficient funds notice, the attorney overdrew their IOTLA account by approximately $1,200. Thereafter, the Office of General Counsel attempted to contact the attorney at the address provided to the membership department of the Alabama State Bar. While attempting to locate the attorney, the Office of General Counsel received a second insufficient funds notice regarding the IOLTA account. The attorney was eventually contacted and informed the Office of General Counsel they had not used the IOLTA account in several years and were in the process of closing the account. The attorney submitted a response and stated that they were going through a divorce that left the attorney with debts of the ex-spouse. In order to avoid those debts, the attorney began placing all personal funds into the IOTA account so the ex-spouse and creditors could not access the funds. The attorney was unable to produce a general ledger or records of deposit. After a review of trust account records it did not appear the attorney deposited client funds in the trust account or misappropriated client funds. However, the attorney did commingle personal funds in the trust account in violation of Rule 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

Pike Road, Alabama attorney Robert Lyndieth Humphries, was transferred to Inactive Status, effective January 24, 2022, by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Supreme Court entered its Order based upon the January 24, 2022, Order of Panel II of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar in response to Humphries’ petition filed with the Office of General Counsel requesting he be transferred to inactive status.

On January 18, 2022, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication] and 8.4(d) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2014, the attorney was hired to probate an estate. The estate only had two heirs, and neither were able to be bonded as the administrator of the estate. As a result, and by agreement with one of the heirs, an associate with the attorney’s firm as was appointed as administrator of the estate. Thereafter, a petition for sale of real property was filed on October 10, 2014, and granted on November 20, 2014. No further action was taken on the estate until after a complaint was filed by one of the heirs in 2020. In November 2014, the associate appointed as administrator left the firm. After the associate’s departure there was no further activity in the case. When the heir contacted the firm, the attorney insisted that the associate was solely responsible for handling the estate as the administrator. As a result, no action was taken on behalf of the estate in violation of Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], and 8.4(d) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

Huntsville attorney Patrick Allen Jones was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by order of the Alabama Supreme Court, effective January 10, 2022. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Disciplinary Board’s order accepting Jones’s Consent to Disbarment, wherein Jones' consented to disbarment based on allegations he commingled personal and client funds. Moreover, Jones is alleged to have assisted a client in creating sham transactions to hide assets.

Huntsville attorney Patrick Allen Jones was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by order of the Alabama Supreme Court, effective January 10, 2022. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Disciplinary Board’s order accepting Jones’s Consent to Disbarment, wherein Jones commingled personal and client funds. Moreover, Jones assisted a client in creating sham transactions to hide assets.

Huntsville attorney Patrick Allen Jones was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by order of the Alabama Supreme Court, effective January 10, 2022. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Disciplinary Board’s order accepting Jones’s Consent to Disbarment, wherein Jones commingled personal and client funds. Moreover, Jones assisted a client in creating sham transactions to hide assets.

Huntsville attorney Patrick Allen Jones was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by order of the Alabama Supreme Court, effective January 10, 2022. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Disciplinary Board’s order accepting Jones’s Consent to Disbarment, wherein Jones commingled personal and client funds. Moreover, Jones assisted a client in creating sham transactions to hide assets.

On January 5, 2022, the Disciplinary Commission issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rule 8.4(g), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney violated a court order by contacting a person with whom he was involved romantically.

On January 6, 2022, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rule 1.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney was hired to represent an individual as it pertained to a misdemeanor charge of soliciting prostitution. The attorney’s client also retained the services of an immigration attorney for the purpose of advice and counsel on the effect of the criminal charge on his immigration status. The client’s immigration attorney advised the attorney to make her aware of any agreements with the prosecutor prior to the resolution of his criminal case. The client, who believed the attorney had communicated with his immigration attorney, pleaded guilty to a solicitation charge and received deferred prosecution. Subsequently, the client discovered the attorney failed to advise his immigration attorney of the settlement agreement and its potentially negative impact on his immigration status.

On January 5, 2022, the Disciplinary Commission issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.3 [Diligence], and 1.4 [Communication], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney was hired to prosecute a medical malpractice claim. The attorney made an erroneous assumption that when his client died five months after he was hired, the medical malpractice claim was extinguished. Moreover, the attorney failed to properly calendar the statute of limitations in Mississippi involving a state entity and failed to properly communicate with his client.

The Alabama Supreme Court issued an order suspending Auburn attorney Samuel Andrea Masdon from the practice of law in Alabama for a period of forty-five days, effective January 1, 2022. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s Order, accepting the Conditional Guilty Plea submitted by Masdon wherein he plead guilty to violating Rules 1.4 [Communication], 1.16 [Declining and Terminating Representation], 5.3 [Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants], 5.5 [Unauthorized Practice of Law] and 8.4(d) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Masdon attempted to assist his father and his father’s paralegal, after his father became ill, with the father’s immigration clients. When necessary, Masdon would attend immigration hearings on his father’s behalf. Masdon believed at the time that he was making a one-time appearance on behalf of his father. Masdon did not intend to undertake representation of the client beyond the hearing. Masdon failed to recognize that, due to his father’s health, the father’s non-lawyer paralegal had essentially taken over his father’s practice and was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law without any oversight by Masdon’s father. By agreeing to appear on Masdon’s father’s behalf, Masdon also enabled the non-lawyer paralegal to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Masdon also failed to properly notify his father’s clients, the immigration courts, and the Department of Justice of his limited scope of representation.

On August 11, 2021, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], and 8.4 (d) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In August 2019, the attorney was hired to file a petition for divorce on behalf of a client. The client paid the attorney a $3,000 retainer. The attorney prepared the petition for divorce, which the client signed and returned to the attorney on August 23, 2019. However, the attorney failed to file the petition and failed to take any other action on behalf of the client. On November 13, 2019, the attorney informed the client that time was taken off for a medical issue but the petition for the divorce would be filed the following week. Thereafter, the attorney failed to file the petition. On January 17, 2020, the attorney again promised the client that to file the divorce petition, but again the attorney failed to do so. On November 30, 2020, the attorney encouraged the client not to hire new counsel and to let them finish the case. The client agreed but the attorney failed to file the petition or take any other action. On January 27, 2021, the client terminated representation after the client’s husband retained his own attorney. The attorney failed to refund any of the client’s retainer after being terminated. As a result, the client filed a bar complaint on March 10, 2021. In response to the complaint, the attorney apologized to the client and refunded the entire $3,000 retainer.