Date
Discipline Imposed
Description
2/20/2019
Private Reprimand
On February 20, 2019, an attorney was issued a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], and 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], Ala. R. Prof. C. In August of 2014,…
Read more »
Date: 2/20/2019
Discipline Imposed: Private Reprimand
Description:
On February 20, 2019, an attorney was issued a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], and 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], Ala. R. Prof. C. In August of 2014, the attorney was hired to represent a client’s son who was serving a sentence in prison for a 2009 robbery conviction. The client understood that the attorney was going to file a Rule 32 motion in an attempt to have her son released from prison. The attorney agreed on a flat fee of $7,500.00. The client paid $3,000.00 at the time and then paid the rest of the fee in installments. The client’s son died in prison in December of 2015, sixteen months after the client hired the attorney. During that time, the client received no written communication from the attorney. After the client’s son died, the client picked up her file from the attorney’s office. The file consisted only of the trial transcript and other documents that the client had given to the attorney. The client saw no other memos, research or anything else indicating that any work had been actually done for her son.
2/10/2019
Private Reprimand
On February 20, 2019, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.3 [Diligence] and 1.4 [Communication], 8.4(a), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct] of the Alabama Rules of Professional…
Read more »
Date: 2/10/2019
Discipline Imposed: Private Reprimand
Description:
On February 20, 2019, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.3 [Diligence] and 1.4 [Communication], 8.4(a), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct] of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney was hired to file a negligence lawsuit against a hospital involving her client’s father in February of 2014. Between June of 2014 and June of 2015, she attempted to negotiate with the hospital. The attorney filed civil complaint on November 7, 2015. The client experienced difficulty communicating with the attorney. The court issued three orders directing the attorney to amend the complaint, respond to discovery, and also granted an extension to respond to discovery. The attorney failed to comply with the court’s order and, as a result, the case was dismissed.
2/8/2019
Private Reprimand
On February 8, 2019, an attorney was issued a private reprimand for violating Rules 8.4 (b) and (g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. Conduct. In May 2018, the attorney pleaded guilty…
Read more »
Date: 2/8/2019
Discipline Imposed: Private Reprimand
Description:
On February 8, 2019, an attorney was issued a private reprimand for violating Rules 8.4 (b) and (g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. Conduct. In May 2018, the attorney pleaded guilty to the charge of Harassment.
2/4/2019
Suspended
Millbrook attorney Darren William Kies was suspended from the practice of law in Alabama for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days by the Supreme Court of Alabama effective…
Read more »
Date: 2/4/2019
Discipline Imposed: Suspended
Description:
Millbrook attorney Darren William Kies was suspended from the practice of law in Alabama for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days by the Supreme Court of Alabama effective February 4, 2019, of which Kies was ordered to serve the first ninety (90) days. The remaining ninety (90) days was ordered held in abeyance pending Kies’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 Kies’s guilty plea in one disciplinary matter to violations of Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], and 8.4(a), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. C.
1/18/2019
Suspended
Birmingham attorney Shayana Boyd Davis was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama,…
Read more »
Date: 1/18/2019
Discipline Imposed: Suspended
Description:
Birmingham attorney Shayana Boyd Davis was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective January 18, 2019. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Board’s Order, wherein Davis was found guilty of violating Rules 1.15(a), (e), and (n) [Safekeeping Property], and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. C. Davis was suspended for mishandling client funds. Davis deposited earned fees into trust and used funds from one client to make payment on behalf of another client. In addition, Davis overdrew her trust account on multiple occasions. Davis also failed to maintain all trust account records, as required by Rule 1.15, Ala. R. Prof. C.
1/18/2019
Public Reprimand Without Publication
On November 20, 2018, the Disciplinary Commission determined that an attorney should receive a public reprimand without general publication for violating Rules 1.5, 1.7(a), 1.7(b), 1.8(a), 1.14(a), 3.4(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(d),…
Read more »
Date: 1/18/2019
Discipline Imposed: Public Reprimand Without Publication
Description:
On November 20, 2018, the Disciplinary Commission determined that an attorney should receive a public reprimand without general publication for violating Rules 1.5, 1.7(a), 1.7(b), 1.8(a), 1.14(a), 3.4(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney was hired by an elderly couple to assist them with an ongoing dispute with the wife’s daughter. The couple expressed they wished to update their estate planning to disinherit the daughter. The wife also wished to file a petition to set aside the guardianship previously established to protect her and revoke the Power of Attorney her daughter held. The attorney failed to execute a fee contract with the clients showing they agreed to his hourly rate or they were reasonably informed of said rate. Both clients executed various estate planning documents and a deed for their home, held jointly with right of survivorship, into the husband’s name only and granted a life estate only to the wife, even though the wife was still deemed incapacitated and her daughter was still her Power of Attorney. Thereafter, the wife also executed a new Last Will and Testament. A revocation of the wife’s Power of Attorney was filed in the Probate Court. However, the Probate Court previously held the wife was not able to revoke her Power of Attorney due to her incapacitation. Thereafter, the attorney filed a Motion for Emergency Petition for Removal of Guardianship Proceedings into Circuit Court. The petition for removal was granted and an Order of Limited Guardianship was issued. The Circuit Court’s order did restrict the daughter’s contact with the wife, found the wife had the ability to manage her monies and bank accounts and transact other business, and ordered the wife should pay fees and costs in such amount and under such terms as the attorney and the husband should agree. A month later, the husband executed a new Last Will and Testament. That same day, he also executed an open-ended second mortgage on the marital home in the attorney’s favor for legal fees. The attorney prepared both wills and the mortgage. On the day of the execution of the documents, the client slipped into a coma and never regained consciousness. The wife was still living in the home and did not sign the mortgage. The terms of the second mortgage provided no payment was required until the clients were either unable to live in the home or upon the husband’s death. The husband died one week after the execution of the will and mortgage. Thereafter, the attorney filed a claim in the amount of $46,544.07 against the husband’s estate. The attorney represented not only the husband’s estate, but also the husband’s niece in the will contest which questioned the validity of the wife’s Last Will and Testament. With the attorney’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. The attorney is also requir
1/18/2019
Public Reprimand With Publication
On August 15, 2018, the Disciplinary Commission determined Birmingham attorney Frederic Lamar Washington, I should receive a public reprimand with general publication for violating Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(a)(1), 3.3(a),…
Read more »
Date: 1/18/2019
Discipline Imposed: Public Reprimand With Publication
Description:
On August 15, 2018, the Disciplinary Commission determined Birmingham attorney Frederic Lamar Washington, I should receive a public reprimand with general publication for violating Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(a)(1), 3.3(a), 5.5(a)(1), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. While Washington was employed with the Legal Aid Society of Birmingham, the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Court issued an order and made multiple findings of fact regarding his representation of a client and detailed reservations about Washington’s credibility. He failed to fully advise his client regarding a plea agreement and the possibility to receive a lesser sentence, he was unfamiliar with the consecutive mandatory sentencing requirements, and he had no prior experience with a multiple count indictment. Furthermore, Washington informed the Court he would talk to his client about the possibility of settlement but failed to do so. As a result, the Court granted the client’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence based upon Washington’s ineffective assistance of counsel and the government was ordered to re-offer the plea agreement to the client. Additionally, Washington engaged in the private practice of law with a special license. With Washington’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. Washington 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. 2017-1152]
1/11/2019
Suspended
Athens attorney Morris Hammack Bramlett, II was summarily suspended pursuant to Rule 20a, Ala. R. Disc. P., from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by the Supreme…
Read more »
Date: 1/11/2019
Discipline Imposed: Suspended
Description:
Athens attorney Morris Hammack Bramlett, II was summarily suspended pursuant to Rule 20a, Ala. R. Disc. P., from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective January 11, 2019. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s order that Bramlett be summarily suspended for failing to respond to formal requests for information concerning a disciplinary matter.
1/11/2019
Private Reprimand
On January 11, 2019, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 8.4(b) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. On April 25, 2018, the attorney was arrested…
Read more »
Date: 1/11/2019
Discipline Imposed: Private Reprimand
Description:
On January 11, 2019, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 8.4(b) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. On April 25, 2018, the attorney was arrested and charged with Criminal Mischief 3rd Degree (Domestic Violence). The charges stemmed from a domestic dispute between the attorney, the attorney’s ex-boyfriend, and a third-party. During the dispute, the attorney used a garden tool to cause approximately $2,000.00 in damage to the ex-boyfriend’s car. After the attorney’s arrest, the attorney was ordered by the court to have no further contact with the ex-boyfriend. On June 15, 2018, the attorney was arrested and jailed for violating the court’s no-contact order. The attorney subsequently filed a PFA regarding the ex-boyfriend following the arrest. On July 10, 2018, the attorney pled guilty to the charge of Criminal Mischief 3rd Degree (Domestic Violence) as part of a plea agreement for deferred prosecution. As part of the agreement, the attorney was ordered to make restitution, have no contact with the victim or his family, attend counseling, and enroll in the Alabama Lawyer’s Assistance Program. Further, as part of the agreement, the criminal charge for violating the court’s no contact order was nolle prossed.
1/9/2019
Disbarred
Birmingham attorney Richard Charles Frier was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective January 9, 2019. The…
Read more »
Date: 1/9/2019
Discipline Imposed: Disbarred
Description:
Birmingham attorney Richard Charles Frier was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective January 9, 2019. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the January 9, 2019 Order of Panel III of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar. Frier was found guilty of violating Rules 1.16(a) [Declining or Terminating Representation], 3.4(a) [Fairness to Opposing Parties and Counsel], 8.1(b) [Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters], and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. C. Frier was found guilty of violating the terms and conditions of a prior disciplinary order by engaging in the private practice of law.
1/7/2019
Private Reprimand
On December 4, 2018, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 8.4(a), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct] of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The Office of General…
Read more »
Date: 1/7/2019
Discipline Imposed: Private Reprimand
Description:
On December 4, 2018, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 8.4(a), and 8.4(g) [Misconduct] of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The Office of General Counsel received a copy of an order issued by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals removing the attorney as appointed counsel due to his failure to file an appeal brief. The attorney stated he was unaware the brief he prepared was not filed until he received the Court’s order on September 23, 2016. He also stated as soon as he received the September 23, 2016, order, he filed a motion requesting the order be set aside as well as the appellate brief. He contended he previously worked diligently on this brief and assumed it was uploaded and filed properly but, in fact, it was not. He stated, in pertinent part, “…I accept that the failure was my fault…I had left the brief to be proofed and then I assumed it had been uploaded…I failed to follow up on the matter.” The brief at issue was initially due June 29, 2016. After the June 29, 2016 deadline passed, he received a letter from the Court advising he had seven days to file the brief or risk being removed. Thereafter, he filed two motions for enlargement of time, both which were granted, making the final deadline to file the brief August 19, 2016. Nevertheless, he still failed to file the brief by the deadline as described above. At this point, the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals again attempted to contact him at his office by telephone but no one answered the call and there was no answering service with which to leave a message. The attorney also noted he is a solo practitioner and had 72 cases pending in one criminal term in his county in addition to a capital murder case and another murder case and, as a result, he failed to verify the brief uploaded and was filed properly.
12/4/2018
Suspended
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…
Read more »
Date: 12/4/2018
Discipline Imposed: Suspended
Description:
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.
12/4/2018
Private Reprimand
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…
Read more »
Date: 12/4/2018
Discipline Imposed: Private Reprimand
Description:
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."
12/4/2018
Private Reprimand
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…
Read more »
Date: 12/4/2018
Discipline Imposed: Private Reprimand
Description:
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.
11/16/2018
Disbarred
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…
Read more »
Date: 11/16/2018
Discipline Imposed: Disbarred
Description:
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]