On June 21, 2021, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 5.4 [Professional Independence of a Lawyer] and 8.4 (d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2017, the attorney was approached by a non-lawyer, who was also a friend and bail bondsman, to assist him in handling a social security disability case. The non-lawyer stated that she had previously worked for an attorney and was experienced in handling social security cases. At the time, the attorney had never handled a social security case to completion. The attorney accepted the non-lawyer’s help and agreed to pay her 25% of the attorney fees in the case. While non-lawyers are allowed to represent social security disability claimants, they must be registered advocates with the social security department. The non-lawyer was not a registered advocate. Rule 5.4, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, prohibits an attorney from sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer.

Athens attorney Morris Hammack Bramlett, II was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective June 17, 2021. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s acceptance of Bramlett’s Conditional Guilty Plea, wherein Bramlett pled guilty to violating Rules 1.15, and 8.1(b), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In ASB No. 2018-757, Bramlett failed to provide requested trust account records. The records were subsequently obtained and a review of the records showed that Bramlett made numerous cash withdrawals from his trust account. In ASB No. 2018-1102, Bramlett pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia in Limestone County, Alabama.

Eustis, Florida attorney Catherine Corrine Griffith, who is also licensed in Alabama, surrendered her license on June 17, 2021. Griffith was issued a Show Cause Order on May 6, 2021, for non-compliance with the 2020 MCLE requirements. On June 1, 2021, Griffith responded to the Show Cause Order voluntarily surrendering her license to practice law in the State of Alabama. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s order accepting Griffith’s surrender of her license to practice law in the State of Alabama effective June 17, 2021.

Scottsboro attorney Frank Brian Rice was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama, effective May 14, 2021. In ASB No. 2019-1025, 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 [Safekeeping Property], 1.16(d) [Declining or Terminating Representation], 5.5 [Unauthorized Practice of Law], 8.1(b) [Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters] and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rice was hired to represent a client on three felony charges in January 2019. The client made down payments of $500.00 and $2,500.00. Rice failed to enter a notice of appearance and failed to appear at court dates in February, March and April 2019. Rice was summarily suspended from the practice on law on April 15, 2019, as a result of his failure to respond to a disciplinary complaint in an unrelated matter. Rice remained summarily suspended until his disbarment in an unrelated matter in October 2019. Rice never informed the complainant of his summary suspension and failed to return the fees paid by the complainant. The complainant filed a Bar complaint against Rice on August 8, 2019. Thereafter, Rice failed to respond to letters and emails from the Office of General Counsel on August 14, 2019, September 24, 2019 and October 28, 2019. In ASB No. 2019-1444, Rice was previously summarily suspended from the practice of law on April 15, 2019, and Rice was disbarred on October 23, 2019. Rice was retained to file a petition for termination of parental rights in order to begin adoption proceedings for the child. The client paid Rice $600.00. Rice cashed the check in May 2019. Rice failed to inform the client that he was summarily suspended. Rice failed to return any of the client’s telephone calls or messages after receiving the payment. On May 16, 2019, while suspended, Rice failed to submit a written response to the client’s complaint filed with the Bar and failed to refund any of the fees. Based on these findings, the Disciplinary Board found Rice guilty of violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], 1.16(d) [Declining or Terminating Representation], 5.5 [Unauthorized Practice of Law], 8.1(b) [Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters] and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

Scottsboro attorney Frank Brian Rice was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama, effective May 14, 2021. In ASB No. 2019-1025, 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 [Safekeeping Property], 1.16(d) [Declining or Terminating Representation], 5.5 [Unauthorized Practice of Law], 8.1(b) [Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters] and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rice was hired to represent a client on three felony charges in January 2019. The client made down payments of $500.00 and $2,500.00. Rice failed to enter a notice of appearance and failed to appear at court dates in February, March and April 2019. Rice was summarily suspended from the practice on law on April 15, 2019, as a result of his failure to respond to a disciplinary complaint in an unrelated matter. Rice remained summarily suspended until his disbarment in an unrelated matter in October 2019. Rice never informed the complainant of his summary suspension and failed to return the fees paid by the complainant. The complainant filed a Bar complaint against Rice on August 8, 2019. Thereafter, Rice failed to respond to letters and emails from the Office of General Counsel on August 14, 2019, September 24, 2019 and October 28, 2019. In ASB No. 2019-1444, Rice was previously summarily suspended from the practice of law on April 15, 2019, and Rice was disbarred on October 23, 2019. Rice was retained to file a petition for termination of parental rights in order to begin adoption proceedings for the child. The client paid Rice $600.00. Rice cashed the check in May 2019. Rice failed to inform the client that he was summarily suspended. Rice failed to return any of the client’s telephone calls or messages after receiving the payment. On May 16, 2019, while suspended, Rice failed to submit a written response to the client’s complaint filed with the Bar and failed to refund any of the fees. Based on these findings, the Disciplinary Board found Rice guilty of violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], 1.16(d) [Declining or Terminating Representation], 5.5 [Unauthorized Practice of Law], 8.1(b) [Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters] and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

A Tuscumbia attorney received a public reprimand without general publication on May 7, 2021, as ordered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence] and 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In July 2016, an individual consulted with the attorney regarding legal options concerning his minor child. In doing so, the attorney was made aware of prior custody proceedings in Colorado. The attorney suggested the individual retain her to initiate legal proceedings in Alabama in an effort to gain custody. The individual agreed and paid the attorney a $10,000 retainer in July 2016. However, the attorney failed to place the unearned funds into her trust account. A review of the attorney’s trust account by the Office of General Counsel of the Alabama State Bar revealed she placed all unearned fees directly into her operating account. In July 2016, the attorney filed a Petition for Emergency Custody and Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction on the client’s behalf. However, the petition failed to disclose the prior court proceedings that occurred in Colorado concerning custody of the child, as required by § 30-3B-209, Code of Alabama (1975). The circuit court, unaware of the prior proceedings, issued an ex parte Order granting temporary emergency custody to the client. The client’s ex-wife filed an Emergency Motion to Dismiss showing that the Colorado court had exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the custody of the child. The circuit court, upon being informed of the prior and current proceedings in Colorado, issued an Order, granting the Emergency Motion to Dismiss. As a result, the client’s filing for emergency custody in Alabama, the Colorado court suspended the client’s visitation for three months and ordered him to pay all attorney’s fees incurred by the ex-wife in the amount of $26,041.29.

A Scottsboro attorney was issued a public reprimand without general publication on May 7, 2021, as ordered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], and 8.4(d) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In August of 2018, a suit was filed against a company and a person, individually, in a Superior Court in Georgia. The individual previously operated a restaurant in Alabama pursuant to a franchise agreement with the restaurant’s corporation. The suit alleged that the individual had violated numerous provisions of the franchise agreement. Within a few days of service, the individual provided the attorney with a copy of the law suit and retained him to represent him on the matter. On September 20, 2018, with the deadline to file an answer and counterclaim set to expire, the attorney contacted a licensed Georgia attorney to act as local counsel in the matter. The Georgia attorney agreed to sign, as local counsel, the attorney’s request for pro hac vice admission to the Georgia Bar. The attorney’s Verified Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission was filed that same day, September 20, 2018. In addition, the Georgia attorney electronically filed the answer and counter-claim the attorney prepared on the individual’s behalf. The answer and counterclaim was electronically signed by the attorney. The Georgia attorney did not sign the answer and counterclaim as local counsel. At the time of filing, the attorney’s Verified Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission had not been approved by the Court or the Georgia Bar and, in fact, was not approved until December 12, 2018. In the interim, counsel for the restaurant corporation filed a motion to strike the answer and counterclaim because the attorney was not a licensed Georgia attorney at the time of filing. The attorney did not respond to the motion to strike and failed to secure local counsel even after it was clear that the Georgia attorney was refusing to act as local counsel. On February 27, 2019, the Court granted the motion to strike and subsequently entered a default judgment against the restaurant and the individual in the amount of $137,479.48, plus interest. As a result, on April 16, 2019, the restaurant corporation filed the foreign judgment with a Circuit Court in Alabama. Because the attorney failed to diligently monitor the case, he was unaware of the default judgment and collection efforts until June 2019. At that time, the attorney notified the client of what had occurred. With the client’s consent, the attorney entered into settlement negotiations and the matter was subsequently resolved to the client’s satisfaction.

On May 7, 2021, James Joseph Eufinger received a public reprimand with general publication, as ordered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 1.1 [Competency], 4.1 [Truthfulness in Statements to Others], 5.1 [Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer], and 8.4 (c), (d), and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2007, Eufinger was licensed to practice law in Missouri and joined the law firm of Faber and Brand, LLC, located in Columbia, Missouri in 2011. Faber and Brand, LLC is a debt collections law firm and represents numerous hospitals across the country. In or around 2017, Eufinger became licensed to practice law in the State of Alabama in order to represent several Alabama hospitals on debt collection matters. An individual contacted the Department of Public Examiners and advised that Eufinger was impermissibly attempting to collect funds from her employer after a previous garnishment issued against her was paid and released. Eufinger was sending letters to employers seeking additional funds above and beyond what was allowed for the garnishment entered by the court. On numerous occasions Eufinger attempted to collect or did collect amounts beyond what was allowed by the court. Eufinger provided an accounting showing that his firm received overpayments in 27 different cases after sending out the improper letter. Eufinger stated that all overpayments have been returned to the defendants or their employers and that he has ceased any further collection attempts in these matters.

On May 7, 2021 , Cynthia Rena Wright received a public reprimand with general publication, as ordered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 1.2 [Scope of Representation], 1.4 [Communication], 1.8(a) [Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions], 1.16(d) [Declining or Terminating Representation], and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. On June 14, 2016, Wright was retained to represent a client on two separate patent applications. The first was an invention for the identification of contaminants in aviation fuel. The second invention was to assist doctors in prescribing prescriptions for patients. On July 5, 2016, Wright filed a provisional patent application on behalf of the client in one of the matters. The client then had one year to file a non-provisional utility patent application to secure the rights to his invention. At this time, Wright suggested to the client he may want to consider pursuing the pharmacogenetics invention to include HIV detection. In the interim, Wright was paid an additional $600.00 to incorporate the clients company. On August 29 and October 25, 2016, the client emailed seeking legal advice on behalf of his company regarding Non-Disclosure Agreements. At that time, Wright undertook representation of the client’s company pursuant to Rule 1.13 [Organization as Client]. On May 4, 2017, Wright met with the client to review the HIV detection invention application. Wright informed the client that to file the application he would need to formulate coatings for the HIV sensors. According to the client, he agreed to pay Wright $3,000.00 at the time to research possible coatings for the sensors because she had a master’s degree in BioChemistry. On September 27, 2017, Wright sent the client a draft of the HIV detection patent application. The draft of the patent application included Wright as a co-inventor. Without the client’s express permission, Wright subsequently filed the patent application in which she named herself as a co-inventor.

Clanton attorney Angie Avery Mayfield was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective April 27, 2021. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Board’s Order accepting Mayfield’s Consent to Disbarment,
which was based on pending disciplinary matters involving allegations that Mayfield mishandled client funds, failed to diligently represent clients, failed to adequately communicate with clients and failed to respond to disciplinary complaints.

Clanton attorney Angie Avery Mayfield was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective April 27, 2021. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Board’s Order accepting Mayfield’s Consent to Disbarment,
which was based on pending disciplinary matters involving allegations that Mayfield mishandled client funds, failed to diligently represent clients, failed to adequately communicate with clients and failed to respond to disciplinary complaints.

Clanton attorney Angie Avery Mayfield was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective April 27, 2021. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Board’s Order accepting Mayfield’s Consent to Disbarment,
which was based on pending disciplinary matters involving allegations that Mayfield mishandled client funds, failed to diligently represent clients, failed to adequately communicate with clients and failed to respond to disciplinary complaints.

Clanton attorney Angie Avery Mayfield was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective April 27, 2021. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Board’s Order accepting Mayfield’s Consent to Disbarment,
which was based on pending disciplinary matters involving allegations that Mayfield mishandled client funds, failed to diligently represent clients, failed to adequately communicate with clients and failed to respond to disciplinary complaints.

Clanton attorney Angie Avery Mayfield was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective April 27, 2021. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Board’s Order accepting Mayfield’s Consent to Disbarment,
which was based on pending disciplinary matters involving allegations that Mayfield mishandled client funds, failed to diligently represent clients, failed to adequately communicate with clients and failed to respond to disciplinary complaints.

Clanton attorney Angie Avery Mayfield was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective April 27, 2021. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Board’s Order accepting Mayfield’s Consent to Disbarment,
which was based on pending disciplinary matters involving allegations that Mayfield mishandled client funds, failed to diligently represent clients, failed to adequately communicate with clients and failed to respond to disciplinary complaints.