Disciplinary History

In 2013, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.15(a) and 1.16(d), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney admitted to taking possession of two insurance packets and agreeing to review the packets on behalf of the complainant and give his legal opinion on the documents. When the complainant heard nothing further from the attorney, he requested the return of the documents. The attorney was unable to locate the documents and admitted that he had lost them. The attorney then suggested that the complainant contact the insurance company to obtain another copy of the documents.

On June 19, 2013, an attorney received two separate private reprimands for violating Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) ,3.1 , 3.3 and 3.4(c) Ala. R. Prof. C. The respondent attorney represented a client whose appeal rights were lost as his case was dismissed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. The client’s case was dismissed because the respondent attorney failed to open a notice from the Court advising her of a deficiency in the appeal. Moreover, she failed to advise both the Court and her client that she withdrew as counsel of record. In a separate matter, the respondent attorney filed a request for a temporary restraining order premised on information she knew to be false and failed to notify opposing counsel of the filing.

An attorney was summarily suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama, by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective June 14, 2013. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s Order finding that the attorney had failed to respond to a request for information concerning a disciplinary matter. In 2013, after responding to the Bar’s request for information, the attorney filed a Petition to Dissolve Summary Suspension. In 2013, the Disciplinary Commission granted the respondent attorney's request that the summary suspension be dissolved, and entered an order to that effect.

An attonrey was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by order of the Alabama Supreme Court for a period of 90 days in 2013. On September 18, 2013, Panel I of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar accepted the attorney's Conditional Guilty Plea to violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 8.1(b) and 8.4(c) and (g), Ala. R. Prof. C., as follows: In one case the attorney admitted the allegations of the formal charges and plead guilty to violations of Rules1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b) and 8.1(b), Ala. R. Prof. C., by virtue of his failure to file suit on behalf of his client during the limitations period, then failing to respond to the complaint upon the request of the Alabama State Bar as charged in the formal charges.

On May 31, 2013, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rule 1.8(m) and Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(e), and 8.4(g) of the Ala. R. Prof. C. The respondent attorney represented a client in a case involving the complainant wherein the respondent attorney text-messaged her inappropriately, requested inappropriate in-home personal visits with her, and made inappropriate comments and sexual advances. Additionally, the respondent attorney led the complainant to believe he possessed the ability to improperly influence a government agency or official. With this conduct, the respondent attorney violated Rule 1.8(m), Ala. R. Prof. C., by entering into or attempting to enter into a sexual relationship with a client that is presumed to be exploitive. The respondent attorney violated Rule 8.4(a), Ala. R. Prof. C., by violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent attorney violated Rule 8.4(c), Ala. R. Prof. C., by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The respondent attorney violated Rule 8.4(e), Ala. R. Prof. C., by stating or implying he possessed the ability to improperly influence a government agency or official. Finally, the respondent attorney violated Rule 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C., by engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

An attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in Alabama by order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective May 30, 2013. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the April 18, 2013, order entered by Panel I of the Disciplinary Board imposing reciprocal discipline by disbarment. In October 2012, the Supreme Court of another state disbarred the attorney due to his representation of clients in three divorce cases, wherein he failed to file appropriate documents, failed to communicate, failed to appear in court and, withdrew from the case without notifying his client. Finally, the attrney filed a petition on behalf of his client containing numerous false statements. [Rule 25a]

An attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in Alabama by order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, in 2013. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the 2013, order of consent to disbarment entered by Panel I of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar. The attorney consented to disbarment after being convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Southern Division of coercion or enticement of a minor utilizing interstate commerce, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and two counts of utilizing interstate commerce to possess child pornography, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). In 2013, the attorney was found guilty of all three counts. [Rule 23a]

In 2013, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 4.2, 7.3(b), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney sent bankruptcy solicitation letters to several clients of another attorney, informing the clients that their bankruptcy petition had been dismissed, and offered to represent the clients and seek a “second chance at a successful bankruptcy”. The clients’ bankruptcy petitions had not been dismissed and the clients were still being represented by counsel. The attorney admitted that the letters were sent as a result of “faulty information gathering”, contained false information, and failed to contain the advertising disclaimer.

An attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama in 2013 by order of the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the decision of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar accepting the respondent attonrey's consent to disbarment, Rule 23a, Ala. R. Disc.P. , the respondent attorney consented to disbarment based on pending investigations into his ethical conduct as a lawyer that concerned allegations that he knowingly made false statements to the Bankruptcy Court, misappropriated client filing fees, failed to attend hearings, and engaged in practice in an area in which he lacked competence.

In 2013, an attorney who is also licensed to practice law in another state, received reciprocal discipline in the form of a public reprimand with general publication, pursuant to Rule 25(d), Ala. R. Disc. P. The Board of Professional Responsibility of another state imposed discipline upon the attorney in the form of a public censure, for failure to abide by an order of the court requiring the attorney to comply with discovery requests in a civil proceeding in which the attorney was a party.

An attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama for a period of 90 days effective May 1, 2013. On March 5, 2013, the Disciplinary Commission accepted the attorney's Conditional Guilty Plea to violations of Rules 1.4(b), 1.15(b), and 8.4(a), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney admitted that he failed to reasonably communicate with his client regarding the status of her case and the terms, conditions, and amount of her settlement; that he collected a fee in excess of the amount allowed by statute; and that he failed to promptly notify his client upon receipt of settlement funds and promptly disburse the amount to which his client was entitled.

In 2013, an attorney received a private reprimand for a violation of Rule 1.4(b), Ala. R. Prof. C. The respondent attorney settled a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case for $50,000.00 but failed to explain to the client her resulting tax obligations. In failing to inform the client of these tax consequences, the respondent attorney violated Rule 1.4(b), Ala. R. Prof. C.

On August 14, 2013, an attonrey received a private reprimand for violations of Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(g) Ala. R. Prof. C. The respondent attorney issued an insufficient funds check to the Alabama State Bar for payment of his dues. The respondent attorney did not respond to the Bar’s numerous written requests for replacement funds nor did he timely respond to requests for information once a formal investigative file was opened in the matter.

In April 2013, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 5.3(b), and 8.1(b), Ala. R. Prof. C. In one case, the respondent attorney violated said rules when she failed to return her client’s telephone calls and failed to keep a previously scheduled appointment with the client, failed to properly supervise her non-lawyer assistant resulting in the discovery of unopened documents pertinent to the client’s case being discovered in her desk, promise to obtain corrected tax documents for her client but failed to do so, was late to her client’s sentencing, and failed to respond in a timely manner to the Office of General Counsel regarding this case.

On June 13, 2012, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar determined that an attorney should receive a public reprimand without general publication plus make a total refund to the client for his violations of Rules 1.3 and 1.4(a), Ala. R. Prof. C. On June 12, 2009, the client hired the attorney to assist her in collecting back alimony from her ex-husband. The client paid the attorney $1,400.00 via cashier’s check. After numerous unreturned phone calls made by the client between the date she hired the attorney and June 18, 2010, she sent him a letter demanding action be taken on her case or a refund of the retainer be made in full. Thereafter, the attorney acknowledged sending emails to the wrong email address but failed to communicate with her via other communication methods. Moreover, after receiving this letter from the client the attorney mailed correspondence to the wrong mailing address for the client. The attorney failed to communicate with the client after June 30, 2010 and refused to provide a refund. The attorney was not diligent in pursuing this matter and failed to properly communicate with the client.