In 2013, an attorney received a public reprimand without general publication for violating Rules 4.2, 7.3(b) and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. In November of 2012, a complaint was filed against the attorney by an attorney alleging that he had sent improper bankruptcy solicitation letters to the attorney’s clients, offering to represent the individuals and seek a “second chance at a successful bankruptcy”, when in fact, the bankruptcy petitions had not been dismissed and the individuals were still being represented by counsel. The solicitation letters also failed to comply with Rule 7.3, Ala. R. Prof. C., in that the letters did not contain the required disclaimer.

In 2013, an attorney received a public reprimand without general publication for violating Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. In June of 2011, the attorney was hired by a client for $1,300.00 to enforce and modify the client’s divorce decree. After several months, the attorney informed the client that her paperwork had been filed with the court and he was awaiting a court date. In January of 2012 the client tried contacting the attorney, but his phone had been disconnected and his office was closed. Thereafter, the client contacted family court and was advised that nothing had been filed with the court by the attorney on her behalf.

On September 10, 2013, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a certification of judgment affirming the disbarment of an attorney. The Alabama Supreme Court entered its order based upon the June 20, 2013 Report and Order of Panel III of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar disbarring the attorney. The attorney was found guilty of violating Rules 1.7(b), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney started taking care of his client after the client’s wife died, and assisted him with his finances and property. Shortly thereafter, the attorney denied his client access to his own home by taking his keys; sold his client’s home without the client’s knowledge; and drafted an “Irrevocable Living Trust” appointing himself as beneficiary of the trust’s residual assets. The attorney also refused to provide his client an accounting of the trust or copies of documents for an extended period of time. The attorney mismanaged, misappropriated, and wasted at least $38,032.09 of his client’s trust assets. The attorney refused to provide explanations for questionable expenditures noted by his client’s guardian ad litem. The attorney filed a lawsuit on his client’s behalf but without his client’s knowledge and utilized his client’s trust monies to fund the defense of the lawsuit filed by his client. Finally, the attorney forged the signature of his client when he settled the lawsuit.

An attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama for a period of ninety-one (91) days, by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective September 1, 2013. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s acceptance of the attorney's Conditional Guilty Plea, wherein the attorney pled guilty to violating Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney was ordered to serve forty-five (45) days of the suspension, and the remaining forty-six (46) days to be held in abeyance. In addition, the attorney was placed on probation for a period of two (2) years. the attorney deposited personal funds and earned legal fees into her client trust account, and repeatedly made personal payments directly from her client trust account.

An attorney was suspended from the practice of law in Alabama for one-hundred eighty (180) days by order of the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, effective August 21, 2013. The suspension was ordered held in abeyance and the attorney was placed on probation, with conditions, for a period of one year. The order of the Disciplinary Commission was based upon the attorney's conditional guilty plea to violations of Rules 1.15(d), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. In April 2012, the attorney issued two checks to clients totaling $25,333.24 that were later returned for insufficient funds. The attorney informed the Office of General Counsel this was merely an oversight and the matter was resolved. The attorney admitted that at the time he made these representations to the Office of General Counsel the matter was not resolved. Finally, the attorney admitted he endorsed a settlement check in the amount of $55,000.00 that was not properly deposited into his IOLTA trust account.

On August 9, 2013, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.5(b), 1.8(a), and 1.15(a), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney was hired to represent a client regarding a real estate purchase and variance. The client was unable to complete the real estate transaction due to an ongoing divorce, and agreed to reassign her purchase interest in the property to the attorney’s wife. In doing so, the attorney failed to advise the client of her right to independent representation prior to assigning the purchase interest to the attorney’s wife. Later, the purchase interest was reassigned back to the client, and the client assigned her purchase interest to the complainant. During this time, the attorney continued to work on obtaining a variance for the property on behalf of the client, and did so, but failed to enter into a fee agreement with the complainant for obtaining the variance. The attorney requested a fee of $10,000.00 for obtaining the variance, but later reduced the fee to $750.00. The attorney also represented the complainant in a divorce, and accepted approximately $2,300.00 in fees. Thereafter, the complainant terminated the representation and asked for an accounting of the $2,300.00 fee. The attorney was unable to provide an accounting of the funds.

An attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in Alabama by order of the Supreme Court of AL effective August 7, 2013. The Alabama Supreme Court entered its order based upon the July 8, 2013 Report and Order of Panel II of the Disciplinary Board of the ASB disbarring the attorney. In one case the attorney was found guilty of violating Rules 4.1(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), & 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. the attorney represented the plaintiff on a contingency fee basis in a lawsuit. After filing suit, the opposing party filed a counter-claim. As a result of the counter-claim, the attorney's client sought coverage by their insurer. The insurance company retained the respondent attoreny to defend his client on the counter-claim at a rate of $200 per hour. the attorney misrepresented a settlement amount to the insurance company’s in-house counsel & convinced the insurance company to settle the case for $455,000. In fact, the attorney had already negotiated a settlement of $125,000 with the opposing counsel. The $455,000 was deposited into the attorney's trust account. The attorney disbursed the $125,000 settlement. The attorney then disbursed $214,500 to his client & $115,000 to himself. The attorney was later sued by the insurance company. The attorney authorized a settlement of approximately $400,000. The attorney's malpractice insurer paid the settlement. Other testimony demonstrated the attorney previously sought assistance of opposing counsel in defrauding the insurance company by refunding the excess funds after settlement.

An attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in Alabama by order of the Supreme Court of Alabama effective August 7, 2013. The Alabama Supreme Court entered its order based upon the July 8, 2013 Report and Order of Panel II of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar disbarring the attorney. In one case, the attorney was found guilty of violating Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. the attorney admitted much of the misconduct in that he represented the plaintiff on a contingency fee basis involving injuries from an automobile accident and failed to respond to any discovery propounded by the defendant or the subsequent motions to compel. The attorney also admitted to a failure to notify his client the case was dismissed due to his repeated failures to respond to discovery requests and to prosecute the case. The panel determined that both disbarments are to run concurrently.

An attonrey was summarily suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by order of the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, pursuant to Rules 8(e) and 20(a), Ala. R. Disc. P., effective August 6, 2013. The Disciplinary Commission’s order was based on a petition filed by the Office of General Counsel evidencing that the attorney failed to respond to requests for information during the course of a disciplinary investigation. On August 9, 2013, after responding to the Bar’s request for information, the attorney filed a Petition to Dissolve Summary Suspension. On August 15, 2013, the Disciplinary Commission granted the attorney's request that the summary suspension be dissolved and entered an order to that effect.

On August 1, 2013, an attorney received a private reprimand for violations of Rules 1.4(a), 1.4(b) and 5.3, Ala. R. Prof. C. The respondent attorney failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of her non-lawyer assistants was compatible with her professional obligations. In one case, the respondent attorney allowed her non-lawyer assistant to hold himself out as a lawyer to Spanish speaking clients. In another case, the respondent attorney allowed her non-lawyer assistant to communicate with clients with little or no supervision, and in another case the respondent attorney allowed her non-lawyer assistant to distribute business cards bearing the assistant’s name that did not designate the assistant as a non-lawyer employee. Additionally, the respondent attorney failed to reasonably communicate with her clients concerning the status of the representation.

On July 24, 2013, an attorney received a private reprimand for violations of Rules 1.3 and 8.4(a) and (g), Ala. R. Prof. C. The respondent attorney was retained by a client to file a lawsuit for him. The respondent attorney failed to file the lawsuit prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

In 2013, an attorney received a private reprimand for violating Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), and 8.4(a), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney failed to diligently represent and communicate with a client and failed to attend court on the date of trial. As a result, the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution. The attorney filed a Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate, stating the “plaintiff failed to appear for the status hearing based on excusable neglect”, when in fact, it was not a status hearing but the trial setting for which he failed to appear, and the motion was denied by operation of law. The client re-filed his complaint pro-se, obtained a default judgment, and the matter was set for a hearing on damages. The attorney offered to assist the client and entered a notice of appearance and filed a motion to continue, incorrectly referring to the hearing on damages as a hearing on “default judgment”. The motion to continue was granted and in the interim the opposing party filed a motion to vacate the default judgment and to dismiss the case on the basis of res judicata. After a hearing on the motion, the court granted the motion and dismissed the client’s case based on res judicata due to the prior dismissal of the suit.

In 2013 the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the Disciplinary Commissions’ order accepting the conditional guilty plea of an attonrey to a one-hundred eighty (180) day suspension, effective July 9, 2013. In 2013, an attorney entered a conditional guilty plea to violations of Rules 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(c), 1.15(e), 1.15(j), 8.4(a), 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C., wherein the attorney admitted he used his IOLTA Trust Account for personal business and also received several insufficient funds notices from his bank regarding his trust account.

An attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama for a period of sixty days, by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective July 9, 2013. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s acceptance of the attorney's Conditional Guilty Plea, wherein the attorney pled guilty to violating Rules 5.1(a), and 5.3(a) and (b), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney was ordered to serve thirty days of the suspension, and the remaining thirty days to be held in abeyance. In addition, the attorney was placed on probation for one year and ordered to obtain an additional nine hours of CLE Ethics and Professionalism. The attorney failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of both lawyer and non-lawyer employees were in compliance with the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Both lawyers and non-lawyer employees engaged in the improper solicitation of potential clients.

An attorney was suspended from the practice of law in Alabama by order of the AL Supreme Court for a period of 91 days on 11/1/13, retroactive to 7/1/13. The attorney was already suspended as of the effective date of this suspension as a result of discipline imposed in other cases. On 11/1/13, the Disciplinary Commission of the ASB accepted the attorney's Conditional Guilty Plea to violations of Rules 1.2(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(c), 1.15(a), (e), and (j), 8.1(a) and (b), and 8.4(a), (c) and (g), Ala. R. Prof. C. The attorney pleaded guilty to charges that he settled a case without his clients’ authority and failed to abide by his clients’ decisions regarding their case; that he failed to counsel his clients regarding settlement offers and failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation; that he failed to provide his clients with a written contingency-fee agreement; that he failed to hold property of is clients separate from his own; that he failed to keep complete records of his account funds; that he failed to produce trust account records at the request of the Office of General Counsel; that he failed to respond to requests for information from the Office of General Counsel; that he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and that he engaged in other conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. The attorney was ordered to make restitution to the complainant for $18,500.