Disciplinary History

Morrow was suspended from the practice of law in Alabama for a period of ninety (90) days by the Supreme Court of Alabama effective December 4, 2018, of which Morrow was ordered to serve the first forty-five (45) days. The remaining forty-five (45) days was ordered held in abeyance pending Morrow’s successful completion of a two-year probationary period. The Supreme Court entered its notation based upon the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar’s order reflecting Morrow’s guilty plea in four disciplinary matters to violations of Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 1.7 [Conflict of Interest: General Rule], 1.9 [Conflict of Interest: Former Client], 3.3(a)(1) – (3) [Candor Toward Tribunal], 8.1(a) [Bar Admissions and Disciplinary Matters], 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. C.

On December 4, 2018, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence] and 1.4 [Communication] of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The complainant hired the attorney to file a Petition for Letters of Guardianship and Conservatorship (the "Petition") for her minor son, who was the beneficiary of a $100,000.00 life insurance policy issued to his father. The paperwork was completed on October 11, 2013, and the attorney was paid $500.00. On October 25, 2013, the complainant wrote a check for $1,250.00 for a bond application. On November 20, 2013, the complainant wrote a third check in the amount of $500.00 as final payment of legal services. The complainant attempted to follow up with the attorney over the following months about the status of the petition but the attorney failed to communicate with her. The complainant attempted to contact the attorney approximately ten times between October of 2013 and August of 2014. She finally received a letter from the attorney dated August 20, 2014 wherein the attorney apologized for the extreme delay in filing the Petition. The letter included numerous reasons why the Petition was not filed and an assurance it would be filed within two weeks. Thereafter, the complainant was again unable to contact the attorney. The attorney disputed receiving many of the emails, telephone calls, and letters. However, the attorney was unable to explain why she did not receive these communications from the complainant, stated she moved offices during the pertinent time period, and experienced difficulty with her mail forwarding services. The attorney also changed phone numbers in 2014. The complainant sent the attorney written demands firing her and requesting repayment of the $1000.000 in attorney fees and $1250.00 for the bond application. The letters were sent via certified mail but were returned to sender. The attorney explained during this time she was working from home, brought the file home, and placed it on her desk. The file was later mistakenly placed in a "closed file" box. She acknowledged this matter simply "fell through the cracks."

On December 4, 2018, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence] and 1.4 [Communication] of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The complainant hired the attorney to represent her in a custody dispute in early 2016 and paid him $1,500.00 plus filing fees totaling $2,238.00. The attorney failed to respond to the complainant’s repeated phone calls, emails, and social media contacts. The case was reset several times with the final court date of June 26, 2017. Over the course of the representation, the attorney moved his practice and failed to notify the complainant of the move. The attorney admitted he failed to communicate with the complainant until three days before the June 26, 2017 court appearance when he called and advised he was on a business trip. The attorney instructed his client not to appear in court because he was going to file a continuance. A motion was filed on June 23, 2017 asking the case be reset. The complainant learned the case was not continued and appeared in court, aware that the attorney would not. The attorney failed to attend the court appearance due to travel mishaps. While an agreement was reached, the complainant suffered a substantial loss because her opponent obtained a $2,000 credit against back child support.

Homewood attorney Chevene Neel Hill was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama, effective November 16, 2018. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Finding of Fact and Final Order entered November 2, 2017 by Panel I of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar, disbarring Hill after he was found guilty of violating Rules 1.2(a) [Scope of Representation], 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4(a) and 1.4(b) [Communication], 1.5(a) and 1.5(b) [Fees], 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(d), 1.15(e), 1.15(f), and 1.15(g) [Safekeeping], and 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. C. An elderly client retained Hill’s services for a criminal matter and corresponding civil suit. The client instructed Hill to communicate with her niece, who was her Power of Attorney, on all matters. After the criminal matter was dismissed, a contingency contract for the civil matter was executed. The contract did not require payment of fees and costs in addition to the contingency fee. However, Hill requested additional funds which she paid. A few months later the client received a letter with an itemization of time from Hill and he again requested the client pay additional funds. The client and her niece attempted to contact Hill multiple times and set up a meeting due to concerns over the mounting bills. Hill failed or refused to communicate. A year and a half later, Hill contacted the client regarding a settlement offer. The client requested Hill call her niece, but he failed or refused to do so. Hill accepted the settlement offer without his client’s consent. Over the next three months, Hill provided inconsistent itemizations to the client each time claiming she owed a different amount to him and failing to acknowledge the amounts she previously paid. Hill provided the Bar a copy of the front of settlement check payable to the client which the client contended she never received. A copy of the cleared check obtained by subpoena confirmed Hill endorsed and deposited the check into his personal account. [ASB 2015-1640]

Mobile attorney Steven Lamar Terry was suspended from the practice of law in Alabama for a period of two (2) years in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama effective November 13, 2018. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar’s order reflecting Terry’s guilty plea to violations of Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.2(c), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(b), 3.2, 8.1(b), 8.4(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. in ASB No. 2017-1287. Terry admitted he failed to timely notify his client of the final order issued in her matter and, as a result, the client lost approximately eighteen (18) days to prepare either her appeal or motion to alter, amend or vacate. Terry further admitted his client requested he file a motion to correct errors in the judge’s order and he requested additional fees in order to complete this task and continue representing the client. Terry also failed to attend a hearing and failed to file a motion to withdraw. Terry admitted he violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 8.1(d), 8.4(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. in ASB No. 2017-1316. Terry admitted he was hired to represent a client in accessing her mother’s bank account, the only asset of the estate. Terry opened the estate and arranged for a bond for the client to serve as administrator. The client experienced difficulty communicating with Terry over the course of two and a half years. Terry also failed to file various pleadings by the deadlines established by the Court forcing his client to file them on her own. As a result, the Court revoked the client’s appointment as administratrix and joined the surety into the proceedings. The surety field a Petition of Removal of Estate from Probate Court due to Terry’s failure to properly administer the estate and the surety received a judgment against the client for fees and expenses. Terry admitted he violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.2, 8.4(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. in ASB No. 2017-1018. Terry was hired to represent a client in an employment discrimination matter. Terry failed to file a response to the employer’s Motion to Dismiss and the case was dismissed. Terry filed a second lawsuit and the employer again filed a Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for a More Definite Statement and the court ordered Terry to respond. Terry’s complaint was dismissed for failure to properly state discrimination claims in the complaint. [ASB Nos. 2017-1018, 2017-1287, and 2017-1316]

On November 8, 2018, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.4 [Communication], 5.1(a) [Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer], and 8.4(a) [Misconduct] of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent attorney failed to conduct a diligent inquiry into the legal and ethical propriety of the business model employed by her firm and relied on their representations concerning its policies before contracting with it. The respondent attorney failed to communicate with clients by failing to explain matters reasonably necessary to allow them to make informed decisions. The respondent attorney also failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm had measures in place assuring the conduct of all the firm’s attorneys conformed to the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. With the conduct in this matter, the attorney violated Rules 1.4 [Communication], 5.1(a) [Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer], and 8.4(a) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, failing to explain the client’s matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit him to make an informed decision, failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm had in effect measures giving reasonable assurance it’s attorneys conformed to the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, and engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his or her fitness to practice law.

On November 1, 2018, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 3.2 [Expediting Litigation], 3.3 [Candor Towards the Tribunal], 5.1 [Responsibility of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer], 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent attorney was hired to represent a client in removal proceedings before the Executive Office of Immigration Review. Other than two letters, the respondent attorney failed to communicate with the client during a two-year period. The respondent attorney notified the client by letter his 2014 hearing was postponed until 2016 and instructed the client to make an appointment with another attorney in the firm. The client believed the respondent attorney and the his staff were properly handling this matter. The client contacted the office several times by phone to follow up with the respondent attorney and the firm, but no one was ever available to speak with him. Prior to the 2016 hearing, the client traveled to the respondent attorney’s office to discuss what to expect during the hearing and was told no one was available to speak with him. At the 2016 hearing the respondent attorney submitted a Motion to Withdraw in open court. The judge granted the motion and ordered the client removed. Other than the initial meeting at the time of engagement in 2012, the 2016 hearing was only the second time the client was able to meet with the respondent attorney. With the respondent attorney’s conduct in this matter, he violated Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 3.2 [Expediting Litigation], 3.3 [Candor Towards the Tribunal], 5.1 [Responsibility of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer], 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to provide competent representation, neglecting a legal matter entrusted to the attorney, failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of his matter, failing to explain the client’s matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an informed decision, failing to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client, knowingly making false statements to the tribunal, failing to disclose material facts to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid in assisting in a fraudulent act by the client, or offering evidence the attorney knew to be false, failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly violating the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on the attorney’s fitness to practice law.

On November 1, 2018, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 8.4(a) and 8.4(g) [Misconduct] of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. On July 21, 2017, the respondent attorney was appointed to represent the complainant. Between the date of the appointment on July 21, 2017 and November 28, 2017, the respondent attorney failed to meet with the client. The respondent attorney failed to inform the client he was indicted on November 3, 2017. The respondent attorney failed to communicate with the client during the representation. With the respondent attorney’s conduct in this matter, the attorney violated Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 8.4(a) and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to provide competent representation, neglecting a legal matter entrusted to the attorney, failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of his matter, failing to explain the client’s matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an informed decision, knowingly violating the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, and engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on the attorney’s fitness to practice law.

Morris attorney Keith William Veigas, Jr. was transferred to Inactive Status, effective November 8, 2018, by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Supreme Court entered its Order based upon the November 8, 2018 Order of Panel II of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar in response to Veigas’s petition submitted to the Office of General Counsel requesting he be transferred to inactive status.

On February 14, 2019, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar determined Florida attorney Christopher Tracy Fulmer should receive reciprocal discipline in the form of a five year suspension. On October 4, 2018, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered a five (5) year disciplinary revocation be imposed against Fulmer for misappropriating funds totaling $75,000 while employed by two title insurance companies. Fulmer is also required pay any costs taxed against him pursuant to Rule 33, Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, including but not limited to a $1,000.00 administrative fee. [Rule 25A, Pet. 2018-1221]

Clanton attorney Angie Avery Mayfield was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama for a period of 91-days with the suspension to be held in abeyance. Mayfield was placed on a two-year probationary period, effective October 30, 2018. The suspension was based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s acceptance of Mayfield’s Conditional Guilty Plea, wherein she pled guilty to violating Rules 1.4 [Communication], 1.15(a) and (e) [Safekeeping Property], and 1.16(d) [Declining or Terminating Representation], Ala. R. Prof. C.

Birmingham attorney Richard Glynn Poff, Jr. was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective October 30, 2018. The Supreme Court entered its order affirming the Disciplinary Board’s order of disbarment, finding Poff guilty of the unauthorized practice of law.

On July 24, 2018, the Disciplinary Commission determined Haleyville attorney Jerry Dean Roberson should receive a public reprimand with general publication for violating Rules 1.15(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(g), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Roberson admitted he paid his Occupational License and Client Security Fund Assessment with a check drawn from his trust account. He also admitted he wrote several checks out of the trust account for both personal and business expenses. With this conduct Roberson violated Rules 1.15(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(g), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, for failing to keep client property separate from his own property and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. Roberson 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 July 24, 2018, the Disciplinary Commission determined Bessemer attorney Jon Batton Terry should receive a public reprimand with general publication for violating Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 5.3(a), 5.3(b), 5.3(c)(2), 8.4(a), and 8.4(g), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Terry admitted he held property of a client in his trust account which was not in connection with his representation of the client, he failed to hold property in his possession in which he and a third-party claimed an interest until severance of that interest, he failed to supervise and institute reasonable measures to ensure a non-lawyer employee’s conduct complied with the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct in handling his firm’s trust account, and failed to take reasonable remedial action to correct said conduct. With Terry’s conduct in this matter, he violated the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct and engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. Terry 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. [ASB No. 2016-1378]

On August 15, 2018, the Disciplinary Commission determined Hamilton attorney Oliver Frederick Wood received a public reprimand with general publication for violating Rules 1.8(a) [Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transaction], 8.4(a) and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. C. The pertinent facts are Wood represented his second cousin in a divorce and a related lawsuit. In addition to the attorney’s fees, the client made loans to Wood and executed promissory notes in his client’s favor. Wood never advised his client he should seek independent counsel prior to making the loans or that entering into the loans could be a conflict of interest. With this conduct Wood violated Rule 1.8(a), 8.4(a),and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C., by failing to advise his client to seek independent counsel prior to entering into a business transaction with Wood. Wood is also required pay any costs taxed against him pursuant to Rule 33, Ala. R. Disc. P, including but not limited to a $1,000 administrative fee.