Opinion ID: 2167657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Request for Reconsideration

Text: Donovan also contends that Panel A erred in denying her motion for reconsideration because of excusable neglect. The Committee answers that Panel A did not err because Donovan failed to present compelling and cogent evidence for why she did not timely respond to the formal complaint, as required by section 9(C)(4)(a) of the Procedures. Panel A's findings in denying Donovan's petition for reconsideration will be upheld unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. See Lewellen v. Supreme Court Comm. on Prof'l Conduct, 353 Ark. 641, 646, 110 S.W.3d 263, 266 (2003). Moreover, as already noted, a panel of the Committee will grant a petition for reconsideration if the attorney presents compelling and cogent evidence of unavoidable circumstances sufficient to excuse or justify the failure to respond within the required twenty-day period. Ark. Sup.Ct. P. Regulating Prof'l Conduct § 9(C)(4)(c). This court gives deference to the panel's superior position to determine the credibility of the evidence and the weight it is to be accorded. See Lewellen, 353 Ark. at 646, 110 S.W.3d at 266. Donovan's petition for reconsideration in the instant case first alleged that her request for an extension was not untimely. As discussed in the first point on appeal, that argument is without merit. The petition for reconsideration also contained allegations regarding her various personal difficulties during the time in which the formal complaint was served. She states that her home was sold in a non-judicial foreclosure sale on October 2, 2007; that she had a doctor's appointment which resulted in her receiving an MRI; that she was in communication with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program with respect to her depression; that her sister-in-law was diagnosed with terminal cancer; and that her brother was diagnosed with skin cancer. On appeal, she makes a conclusory statement that [s]urely illness requiring a MRI of one's brain, cancer in the family, and other factors of this magnitude will qualify as unavoidable casualty or circumstances, and excusable neglect. While the circumstances in Donovan's life may have given her valid grounds for requesting an extension of the initial twenty-day response period if she had done so within that time period, we agree with Panel A that they do not present cogent and compelling evidence for why she failed to request the extension before the twenty-day period elapsed. We hold that Panel A's finding that Donovan's personal circumstances did not present cogent and compelling evidence for her failure to respond was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. [4]