Opinion ID: 1725734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Complaint ThreeASB 93-476, ASB 93-378, ASB 93-379, and ASB 93-488

Text: Complaint Three also arose from Asam's 1992 campaign for circuit judge. Tuscaloosa lawyer Al Vreeland wrote to the lawyers of the 6th Judicial Circuit an open letter in which he asked the lawyers to support Judge Harwood and in which he expressed the opinion that Asam was completely and hopelessly unqualified. Asam sued Vreeland; the trial court granted Vreeland's motion for summary judgment. Vreeland moved for sanctions, and, in a hearing to determine reasonable attorney fees, the trial court heard testimony from several local lawyers. Thereafter, Asam added as defendants those lawyers who had testified and Vreeland's secretary, [15] alleging a conspiracy against her. The trial court dismissed Asam's complaint; made findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Asam's conduct in that action; awarded monetary reimbursement from Asam to Vreeland and one of the co-defendants; and ordered the circuit court clerk to send a copy of the orders in the case to the State Bar Disciplinary Commission. Asam filed three appeals from the orders in that case; as to each appeal this Court affirmed. Asam filed an identical action in a federal district court against all the co-defendants she had sued in the state court action, seeking $10 million in damages. The district court dismissed the complaint and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Based on the allegations Asam had made in her pro se lawsuits against Vreeland and his co-defendants, her conduct during the pendency of those actions, and the result in those actions, the Bar filed five charges against Asam in Complaint Three (ASB 93-476, -378, -379, and -488): Charge Iviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) [16] ; Charge IIviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 [17] ; Charge IIIviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1(a) [18] ; Charge IVviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) [19] ; and Charge Vviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). [20] Asam was found guilty of Charges I, III, and V, and not guilty of the remaining charges in Complaint Three.