Title: Douglas H. Cooner v. Alabama State Bar (Appeal from ASB No. 02-150

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 
05/24/2013 
Notice: T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, 
Alabama 
A p p e l l a t e 
C o u r t s , 
300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, 
Alabama 
36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made 
b e f o r e t h e 
o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1111340 
Douglas H. Cooner 
v. 
Alabama State 
Bar 
Appeal from the 
D i s c i p l i n a r y Board of 
the 
Alabama State 
Bar 
(No. 02-150(A)) 
On R e t u r n t o 
Second Remand 
WISE, J u s t i c e . 
On F e b r u a r y 17, 2010, a p a n e l o f 
t h e 
D i s c i p l i n a r y B o a r d 
("the Board") o f t h e 
Alabama S t a t e B a r ("the Bar") 
o r d e r e d 
t h a t Douglas H. Cooner be d i s b a r r e d from t h e p r a c t i c e o f 
law. 
1111340 
Cooner 
a p p e a l e d 
t h e 
Board's 
d e c i s i o n 
t o 
t h i s 
C o u r t . 
On 
October 
8, 
2010, 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
h e l d t h a t 
the 
Board's 
o r d e r 
d i s b a r r i n g Cooner d i d not 
s a t i s f y the r e q u i r e m e n t s of R u l e 
4.2, A l a . R. D i s c . P., because i t d i d not i n c l u d e f i n d i n g s o f 
f a c t as t o each 
a l l e g a t i o n of m i s c o n d u c t 
adequate 
f o r 
t h i s 
C o u r t t o conduct a m e a n i n g f u l r e v i e w t o d e t e r m i n e whether the 
Board's 
c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Cooner had 
v i o l a t e d R u l e s 
1.7(b), 
8 . 4 ( a ) , 8 . 4 ( c ) , and 8.4(g), A l a . R. P r o f . Cond., was s u p p o r t e d 
by 
c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . 
Cooner v. Alabama S t a t e 
B a r , 59 So. 3d 29 
( A l a . 2010) 
("Cooner I " ) .
1 A c c o r d i n g l y , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
r e v e r s e d 
the 
Board's 
judgment 
as 
t o 
those 
v i o l a t i o n s , 
o r d e r e d 
the 
Board 
t o 
v a c a t e 
i t s o r d e r 
of 
d i s b a r m e n t as t o t h o s e v i o l a t i o n s , and remanded t h i s case f o r 
the Board t o e n t e r a new o r d e r t h a t c o m p l i e d w i t h R u l e 
4.2, 
A l a . R. D i s c . P. 
1The Board a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t Cooner had v i o l a t e d R u l e 
1 . 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. P r o f . Cond. 
On a p p e a l , Cooner conceded 
t h a t 
the Board's f i n d i n g s of f a c t r e g a r d i n g i t s 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t 
he had 
v i o l a t e d R u l e 1.8(c) were 
s u f f i c i e n t 
f o r a p p e l l a t e 
r e v i e w . 
Based 
on 
t h a t 
c o n c e s s i o n , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
c o n s i d e r e d 
Cooner's argument t h a t the Board e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t he had 
v i o l a t e d R u l e 1 . 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. P r o f . Cond.; h e l d t h a t Cooner's 
p r e p a r a t i o n 
o f 
the 
t r u s t 
i n s t r u m e n t d i d not 
v i o l a t e 
R u l e 
1 . 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. P r o f . Cond.; and r e v e r s e d the Board's judgment 
w i t h r e g a r d t o the v i o l a t i o n of R u l e 1 . 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. 
P r o f . 
Cond. 
2 
1111340 
On June 27, 2012, the Board e n t e r e d i t s "Report and Order 
(On Remand)" ("the June 27, 2012, o r d e r on remand"). 
Cooner 
then a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t from t h e June 27, 2012, o r d e r on 
remand. 
On March 15, 2013, 
t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t the June 27, 
2012, 
o r d e r on remand d i d not comply w i t h e i t h e r 
R u l e 
4.2, 
A l a . R. D i s c . P., 
or w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s mandate i n Cooner I , 
s u p r a , because i t d i d not i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of f a c t as 
t o each 
a l l e g a t i o n 
of m i s c o n d u c t . 
Cooner v. Alabama S t a t e 
Bar, [Ms. 1111340, March 15, 2013] 
So. 3d 
( A l a . 2013) 
("Cooner I I " ) . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , we 
remanded 
t h i s 
cause 
w i t h 
d i r e c t i o n s 
f o r the Board t o v a c a t e i t s F e b r u a r y 17, 
2010, 
o r d e r of d i s b a r m e n t and the June 27, 2012, o r d e r on remand and 
t o e n t e r a new 
o r d e r t h a t c o m p l i e s w i t h R u l e 4.2, 
A l a . R. 
D i s c . P., and w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s mandate i n Cooner I . 
On A p r i l 15, 2013, the Board s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s C o u r t i t s 
"Second R e p o r t and Order 
(On Remand)" ("the second o r d e r on 
remand"). 
S t a n d a r d o f Review 
"'The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o 
an a p p e a l from an o r d e r o f the 
D i s c i p l i n a r y 
Board i s " t h a t the o r d e r w i l l be 
a f f i r m e d 
u n l e s s i t i s not s u p p o r t e d by 
c l e a r 
and 
c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e or m i s a p p l i e s the law 
t o 
the 
f a c t s . " 
N o o j i n v. Alabama S t a t e 
3 
1111340 
Bar, 
577 So. 2d 420, 423 ( A l a . 1990), 
c i t i n g Hunt v. D i s c i p l i n a r y B o a r d o f t h e 
 
Alabama 
S t a t e B a r , 381 So. 2d 52 
( A l a . 
1 n 
o 
n \ 
I 
1980).' 
" D a v i s v. Alabama S t a t e B a r , 676 So. 2d 306, 308 
( A l a . 1996)." 
Cooner I , 59 So. 3d a t 37. 
D i s c u s s i o n 
In t h e second o r d e r on remand, t h e Board s p e c i f i c a l l y 
s t a t e d t h a t i t 
was v a c a t i n g a l l p r i o r o r d e r s . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
t h e 
B o a r d has c o m p l i e d w i t h o u r d i r e c t i o n s 
t h a t i t 
v a c a t e 
i t s 
F e b r u a r y 17, 2010, o r d e r o f d i s b a r m e n t and t h e June 27, 
2012, 
o r d e r on remand. 
In i t s second o r d e r on remand, t h e B o a r d q u o t e d charges 
IV, IX, 
X, and XI from t h e c o m p l a i n t f i l e d a g a i n s t Cooner. 
I n 
i t s 
f i n d i n g s - o f - f a c t s e c t i o n o f t h e second o r d e r on remand, 
the B o a r d s t a t e d : 
" B e i n g 
f u l l y 
c o g n i z a n t o f t h e Alabama Supreme 
C o u r t ' s a d m o n i t i o n i n i t s 
O p i n i o n s o f October 8, 
2010 [Cooner I,] and March 15, 2013 [Cooner I I ] , 
t h e 
same F i n d i n g s o f F a c t as s e t f o r t h i n t h e P a n e l ' s 
June 27, 2012, R e p o r t and Order 
(on Remand) 
w i l l 
once 
a g a i n be s e t f o r t h ; 
however, 
s p e c i f i c a l l y 
numbered F i n d i n g s o f F a c t s h a l l be c o n n e c t e d t o and 
r e c i t e d as t o each Charge i n s u p p o r t o f t h e P a n e l ' s 
C o n c l u s i o n s o f Law." 
The B o a r d then r e c i t e d t h e e v i d e n c e i n 
p a r a g r a p h s 1 t h r o u g h 30 
of t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , w h i c h was a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e 
4 
1111340 
" F i n d i n g s of F a c t " i n the June 27, 2012, o r d e r on remand. 
In 
i t s 
" C o n c l u s i o n s of Law" 
s e c t i o n 
i n the second o r d e r 
on 
remand, the B o a r d s t a t e d : 
"1. Charge IV a l l e g e s a v i o l a t i o n of R u l e 1.7(b) 
of the A l a . R. 
P r o f . C. as s e t f o r t h above. 
T h i s 
a l l e g a t i o n o f m i s c o n d u c t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y based upon 
and s u p p o r t e d by F i n d i n g s of F a c t 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9,  
10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26,  
27, 28, and 30. 
"2. Charge IX a l l e g e s a v i o l a t i o n of R u l e 8.4(a) 
of the A l a . R. 
P r o f . C. as s e t f o r t h above. 
T h i s 
a l l e g a t i o n o f m i s c o n d u c t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y based upon 
and s u p p o r t e d by F i n d i n g s of F a c t 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9,  
10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26,  
27, 28, and 30. 
"3. Charge X a l l e g e s a v i o l a t i o n of R u l e 8.4(c) 
of the A l a . R. 
P r o f . C. as s e t f o r t h above. 
T h i s 
a l l e g a t i o n of m i s c o n d u c t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y based upon 
and s u p p o r t e d by F i n d i n g s of F a c t 5, 6, 8, 9, 11,  
12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 
30. 
"4. Charge XI a l l e g e s a v i o l a t i o n of R u l e 8.4(g) 
of the A l a . R. 
P r o f . C. as s e t f o r t h above. 
T h i s 
a l l e g a t i o n o f m i s c o n d u c t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y based upon 
and s u p p o r t e d by F i n d i n g s of F a c t 1 t h r o u g h 30. 
"The P a n e l f i n d s t h a t based upon the F i n d i n g s of 
F a c t a s s i g n e d and 
r e l a t e d t o each Charge 
as s e t 
f o r t h 
above, 
t h a t 
t h e r e 
i s c l e a r 
and 
c o n v i n c i n g 
e v i d e n c e t h a t Mr. Cooner i s g u i l t y o f v i o l a t i n g each 
of t h o s e Charges o f m i s c o n d u c t . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
In the second o r d e r on remand, the B o a r d has once a g a i n 
f a i l e d 
t o 
i n c l u d e 
s p e c i f i c 
f i n d i n g s 
of 
f a c t 
as 
t o 
each 
5 
1111340 
a l l e g a t i o n of m i s c o n d u c t . 
I n i t s c o n c l u s i o n s 
of law, the 
B o a r d d i d not i n c l u d e a summary of the s p e c i f i c conduct i t 
found c o n s t i t u t e d a v i o l a t i o n of each R u l e of P r o f e s s i o n a l 
Conduct 
Cooner 
was 
c h a r g e d w i t h 
v i o l a t i n g , 
and i t d i d not 
i n c l u d e any e x p l a n a t i o n as t o why such conduct c o n s t i t u t e d a 
v i o l a t i o n o f the p a r t i c u l a r r u l e . 
R a t h e r , the B o a r d m e r e l y 
c i t e s l a u n d r y 
l i s t s o f the v a r i o u s p a r a g r a p h s i n c l u d e d i n the 
" F i n d i n g s of F a c t . " 
R e f e r e n c e s t o p a r a g r a p h numbers a l o n e do 
not 
c o n s t i t u t e f i n d i n g s of 
f a c t as t o each 
a l l e g a t i o n 
o f 
m i s c o n d u c t . 
A l s o , w i t h r e g a r d t o Charge X I , the Board s t a t e s 
t h a t i t s 
f i n d i n g of m i s c o n d u c t i s "based upon and s u p p o r t e d by 
F i n d i n g s o f F a c t 1 t h r o u g h 30," w h i c h i s m e r e l y a r e f e r e n c e t o 
the e n t i r e " F i n d i n g s of F a c t . " 
Thus, i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e 
B o a r d i s s t i l l r e l y i n g s o l e l y on the g e n e r a l r e c i t a t i o n of the  
e v i d e n c e t h a t i s i n c l u d e d i n the " F i n d i n g s of F a c t " p o r t i o n of 
the 
second 
o r d e r 
on 
remand. 
However, 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
has 
p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t t h a t g e n e r a l 
r e c i t a t i o n of f a c t s a l o n e 
was not s u f f i c i e n t t o comply w i t h R u l e 4.2, A l a . R. D i s c . P. 
See Cooner I , 59 So. 3d a t 39; Cooner I I , s u p r a . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , the Board 
s t i l l has not c o m p l i e d w i t h 
t h i s 
C o u r t ' s 
s p e c i f i c 
mandates 
i n 
Cooner 
I 
and 
Cooner 
I I . 
6 
1111340 
T h e r e f o r e , we a r e a g a i n c o m p e l l e d t o remand t h i s cause w i t h 
i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t t h e 
Board v a c a t e t h e second o r d e r on remand 
and e n t e r a new o r d e r t h a t c o m p l i e s w i t h R u l e 4.2, A l a . R. 
D i s c . P., and 
w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s p r i o r mandates i n 
Cooner I 
and 
Cooner I I . The Board s h a l l make due r e t u r n t o t h i s C o u r t a t 
the e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e time and w i t h i n 30 days a f t e r t h e date 
of t h i s 
o p i n i o n . 
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 
S t u a r t , B o l i n , P a r k e r , Main, and B r y a n , J J . , concur. 
Moore, C.J., and Murdock, J . , d i s s e n t . 
7 
1111340 
MURDOCK, J u s t i c e 
( d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
As t h e main o p i n i o n n o t e s , i n Cooner v. Alabama S t a t e 
Bar, [Ms. 1111340, March 15, 2013] 
So. 3d 
, 
( A l a . 
2013) ("Cooner 
I I " ) , 
t h i s C o u r t remanded t h i s case a second 
time because t h e o r d e r o f t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y 
Board 
o f t h e 
Alabama 
S t a t e Bar 
("the Board") on remand 
f o l l o w i n g 
t h i s 
C o u r t ' s r e v e r s a l and d i r e c t i o n s on remand i n Cooner v. Alabama  
S t a t e B a r , 59 So. 3d 29 ( A l a . 
2010) ("Cooner I " ) , s t i l l " d i d 
not i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of f a c t as t o each a l l e g a t i o n of 
m i s c o n d u c t . " 
A l t h o u g h not r e c i t e d i n t h e main o p i n i o n i s s u e d 
t o d a y , our o p i n i o n i n Cooner I I a l s o n o t e d 
t h a t a 
second 
remand was n e c e s s a r y a t t h a t time because t h e Board had not 
" v a c a t e d i t s F e b r u a r y 17, 2010, o r d e r as we 
i n s t r u c t e d i n 
Cooner I . " 
So. 3d a t 
. 
I agree w i t h the main o p i n i o n t h a t t h e Board has 
now 
v a c a t e d 
i t s F e b r u a r y 
17, 
2010, 
o r d e r 
o f d i s b a r m e n t 
and 
t h e r e f o r e has c o m p l i e d w i t h t h a t a s p e c t of our mandate i n 
Cooner I I . I d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e main o p i n i o n , however, as t o 
i t s d e c i s i o n t h a t t h i s case needs t o be remanded f o r a t h i r d 
time f o r t h e Board t o e n t e r s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of f a c t . 
8 
1111340 
There have been two problems a l l a l o n g w i t h the 
p u r p o r t e d 
f i n d i n g s of f a c t i n t h i s case. 
F i r s t , as e x p l a i n e d i n b o t h 
Cooner I and Cooner I I , t h e r e have not been a c t u a l f i n d i n g s of 
f a c t 
by 
the 
Board 
as 
opposed 
t o 
g e n e r a l 
r e c i t a t i o n s of 
e v i d e n c e h e a r d by the Board. 
The main o p i n i o n i n the 
p r e s e n t 
case s t a t e s t h a t 
" t h i s C o u r t has 
p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t 
t h a t 
g e n e r a l r e c i t a t i o n of f a c t s a l o n e was not s u f f i c i e n t t o comply 
w i t h R u l e 4.2, 
A l a . R. D i s c . P." 
So. 3d a t 
(emphasis 
added). 
T h i s 
s t a t e m e n t , 
however, 
a c t u a l l y 
r e c a s t s 
our 
p r e v i o u s h o l d i n g s i n a way 
t h a t , I t h i n k , i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 
an 
i n c o r r e c t c o n c l u s i o n 
t h a t we must remand t h i s case once 
a g a i n . 
In 
p o i n t 
of 
f a c t , what we 
s a i d 
i n 
our 
p r e v i o u s 
o p i n i o n s 
i n 
t h i s 
case 
i s 
t h a t 
a 
g e n e r a l 
r e c i t a t i o n 
of 
" e v i d e n c e " 
i s not 
s u f f i c i e n t 
t o 
c o n s t i t u t e the 
r e q u i s i t e 
f i n d i n g s of " f a c t s . " 
As we s a i d i n Cooner I : 
"'The 
Bar acknowledges t h a t [ i n ] S e c t i o n I I 
of 
the 
o r d e r 
... 
the p a r a g r a p h s are 
not 
 
p r e c e d e d 
by 
the 
s t a t e m e n t , 
"The 
D i s c i p l i n a r y B o a r d f i n d s as f o l l o w s . " ' 
"We have r e v i e w e d the Board's o r d e r and c o n c l u d e 
t h a t the o r d e r does not s a t i s f y the r e q u i r e m e n t s of 
R u l e 
4.2, 
A l a . R. 
D i s c . 
P. 
A 
r e c i t a t i o n 
of 
the 
9 
1111340 
e v i d e n c e does not c o n s t i t u t e a f i n d i n g of f a c t as t o 
each a l l e g a t i o n of 
m i s c o n d u c t 
Cooner I , 59 So. 3d a t 38-39 (emphasis added). 
And as we 
s a i d 
i n Cooner I I : 
"[T]he 
' f i n d i n g s of f a c t ' i n c l u d e d i n the o r d e r 
on 
remand are n o t h i n g more than a g e n e r a l r e c i t a t i o n of  
the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t the h e a r i n g . " 
Cooner I I , 
So. 3d a t 
(emphasis 
added). 
The 
l a t e s t o r d e r i s s u e d by the Board, 
e s p e c i a l l y when 
r e a d i n i t s e n t i r e t y , w h i l e not a model f o r f u t u r e o r d e r s , 
s u f f i c e s . 
To b e g i n w i t h , the r e c i t a t i o n of f a c t s b e g i n s w i t h 
the statement t h a t " [ t ] h e P a n e l made the f o l l o w i n g F i n d i n g s of 
F a c t . " 
(Emphasis 
added.) 
In 
a d d i t i o n , 
gone 
from 
the 
d i s c u s s i o n t h a t f o l l o w s are many of the r e f e r e n c e s t o what a 
w i t n e s s s t a t e d i n h i s or her t e s t i m o n y and i n p l a c e of 
such 
r e f e r e n c e s 
are 
d e f i n i t i v e 
s t a t e m e n t s 
of 
f a c t 
a p p a r e n t l y 
a c c e p t e d 
by 
the Board 
as 
such. 
To 
t a k e 
one 
example, i n 
d e s c r i b i n g 
the 
e v i d e n c e 
r e c e i v e d from 
L e s l i e 
B a r i n e a u , 
a 
g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f o r one 
of Douglas Cooner's c l i e n t s , 
the 
Board's 
o r i g i n a l 
o r d e r 
c o u l d be 
r e a d 
as 
s i m p l y 
r e c i t i n g 
B a r i n e a u ' s 
t e s t i m o n y : 
"Ms. 
B a r i n e a u 
e x p l a i n e d she 
had 
a 
d i f f i c u l t time o b t a i n i n g an a c c o u n t i n g or i n f o r m a t i o n from Mr. 
10 
1111340 
Cooner" 
and 
" [ s ] h e 
i d e n t i f i e d 
the 
p r e v i o u s l y 
d i s c u s s e d 
a c c o u n t i n g 
but 
s t a t e d 
i t was 
not 
complete." 
(Emphasis 
added.) 
T h i s same i n f o r m a t i o n i s now 
framed as 
d e f i n i t i v e 
f a c t s : 
"Ms. 
B a r i n e a u 
had 
a 
d i f f i c u l t 
time 
o b t a i n i n g 
an 
a c c o u n t i n g " and " [ t ] h e a c c o u n t i n g r e f e r e n c e d ... above was 
not 
complete." 
The B o a r d thus has done enough i n my 
o p i n i o n t o 
c o n v e r t 
what p r e v i o u s l y were mere " g e n e r a l 
r e c i t a t i o n s " of 
t e s t i m o n y 
and 
o t h e r e v i d e n c e i n t o s e r v i c e a b l e , i f not 
i d e a l , 
f a c t u a l 
f i n d i n g s . 
The second p r o b l e m a l l a l o n g has been the f a i l u r e of the 
B o a r d 
t o 
a l i g n 
d i f f e r e n t 
f a c t u a l 
f i n d i n g s w i t h 
d i f f e r e n t 
c o n c l u s i o n s of m i s c o n d u c t . 
The 
t e c h n i q u e 
t h a t the B o a r d has 
f i n a l l y employed i s t h a t of numbering p a r a g r a p h s 
and 
t h e n 
l i s t i n g the c o r r e s p o n d i n g numbers as p a r t of the c o n c l u s i o n as 
to each charge. 
A t the c o n c l u s i o n of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , the 
o r d e r s t a t e s : 
"The 
P a n e l f i n d s t h a t based upon the 
F i n d i n g s 
of 
F a c t 
a s s i g n e d 
and 
r e l a t e d t o each Charge as 
s e t 
f o r t h 
above, 
... 
t h e r e 
i s 
c l e a r 
and 
c o n v i n c i n g 
e v i d e n c e 
t h a t 
Mr. 
Cooner i s g u i l t y of v i o l a t i n g each of those Charges 
of 
m i s c o n d u c t . " 
A g a i n , 
t h i s approach i s not recommended; i t 
11 
1111340 
makes t h e o r d e r more d i f f i c u l t f o r t h i s C o u r t t o r e v i e w and 
a s s e s s . 
That 
s a i d , I cannot go f u r t h e r and say t h a t i t 
w a r r a n t s a t h i r d remand. 
Based on the f o r e g o i n g , I d i s s e n t from the r e v e r s a l o f 
the Board's c u r r e n t o r d e r . 
I would p r o c e e d t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n 
of t h e m e r i t s o f t h e Board's f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s i n t h a t 
o r d e r . 
12