Disciplinary History

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]

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.

On April 11, 2018, the Disciplinary Commission determined Dothan attorney Tracie Tawana Melvin
should receive a public reprimand with general publication for violating Rules 1.6, 3.4(c), 4.1(a), 4.4, 8.2(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. Melvin appeared in District Court and was using her cellular telephone during the docket call. When her case was called she approached the bench while continuing her call. The judge ordered her to end her telephone call, however she failed to follow the order. When her case was called, she continued the call and advised the Court her client would proceed without Melvin. The judge informed her that was unacceptable and ordered her to leave the courtroom. After the client was unsuccessful in negotiating a settlement on her own behalf, Melvin completed her phone call, re-entered the courtroom, and notified the Court she would represent her client. Melvin called her client as the witness, asked a few questions, and rested. She did not cross examine witnesses or call additional witnesses. Her client’s case was dismissed for failure of proof. After the hearing, the judge spoke with her regarding her conduct in the courtroom and she accused him of dismissing her client’s case in retaliation. Later that evening, Melvin posted derogatory and untruthful statements about the judge and the incident in his courtroom on social media. Melvin is also required to pay any costs taxed against her pursuant to Rule 33, Ala. R. Disc. P, including but not limited to a $1,000 administrative fee.

On October 26, 2018 an attorney was issued a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.6 [Confidentiality], and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. C. In 2017, the attorney was appointed by a Judge to represent a client in a custody modification case. Another attorney was and is a long-time friend of the client’s family. The client gave the attorney permission to speak with the other attorney concerning the case. In July of 2017, the other attorney sent an email regarding the client’s case. In the email, the attorney stated that she did not practice family law. Thereafter, the other attorney and the client’s attorney exchanged a number of emails regarding the client’s case, which was subsequently completed in October of 2017. In January of 2018, the other attorney announced her intention to run against a Judge for his judicial seat. On May 2, 2018, the attorney gave a copy of the other attorney’s July of 2017 email to the Judge for use in his judicial campaign. The email was published on Facebook and used by the Judge to show the other attorney did not practice family law and was therefore, unqualified for the judicial position.

On October 26, 2018 an attorney was issued a private reprimand for violating Rules 7.2 [Advertising], and 7.3 [Direct Contact with Prospective Clients], Ala. R. Prof. C. In April of 2017, the attorney improperly solicited the City of Union Springs, Alabama. Through the attorney’s assistant, an email was sent with a letter attachment to the mayor of Union Springs. In the email and letter, the attorney solicited legal employment from the city in regards to a civil suit against the manufacturers of opioids. The email and the attached letter did not comply with Rule 7.3, Ala. R. Prof. C. The email and attached letter also did not contain the required disclaimer, as required under Rule 7.2. In addition, the attorney had a Facebook page for her law firm that was not compliant with Rule 7.2 and did not include the required disclaimer.

On October 26, 2018 an attorney was issued a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 1.15(a) [Safekeeping Property], 3.2 [Expediting Litigation], 7.3 [Direct Contact with Prospective Clients], and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. C. In the fall of 2016, the attorney approached an individual at her business and offered his legal services regarding an expiring lease for a cell tower on her property on which the cell tower was located. The attorney convinced the individual to hire him to locate a cellular company who was willing to pay more to lease the property and cell tower. The individual agreed with the understanding that the attorney would be paid a legal fee should he be successful. Thereafter, the individual had sporadic contact with the attorney. In October of 2017, the attorney, in need of money, approached the client and requested payment of $750.00. The client agreed and also requested that the attorney undertake to represent her friend an unrelated legal matter. The attorney agreed to represent the client’s friend for a flat fee of $750.00. The matter was set for trial on November 20, 2017. As such, the client issued a check for $1,500.00 on October 4, 2017. The attorney failed to place any of those funds in trust as required by Rule 1.15(a), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney did not enter a notice of appearance in the friend of the client’s civil case. However, the attorney did appear for trial on November 20, 2017 on her behalf. Rather than hold a trial in the matter, the trial court directed the parties to depose a third party, directed the attorney to enter a notice of appearance, and directed the attorney to amend the complaint. After the hearing, the attorney collected an additional $250.00 from the client in order to pay for the cost of the deposition ordered by the trial court. The attorney did not place the funds in trust as required by Rule 1.15(a), Ala. R. Prof. C. After collecting the $250.00, the attorney failed to enter an appearance, failed to schedule and hold the deposition, and failed to amend the complaint as ordered by the court. In addition, the attorney failed to communicate with the client’s friend or the client regarding their legal matters. As a result, the client’s friend hired other counsel after the defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the attorney’s failure to comply with the court’s order.

Jasper attorney Brian Speegle Royster 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 October 24, 2018. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s acceptance of Royster’s Conditional Guilty Plea, wherein he pled guilty to violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 1.16(d) [Declining and Terminating Representation], 8.1(b) [Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters], and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Ala. R. Prof. C. Royster has been summarily suspended from the practice of law effective November 3, 2014. In a series of matters, Royster failed to take any substantive action on behalf of the client, failed to adequately communicate with the client, and failed to refund any portion of the unearned fee.