Opinion ID: 1725734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Complaint FourASB 94-176

Text: Complaint Four involved Asam's filing a medical malpractice action on behalf of Ms. Mary H. Stokes. After Stokes had developed a post-operative infection in mid-1989, she consulted a lawyer in Selma about a possible medical malpractice claim. After 10 months, the Selma lawyer returned Ms. Stokes's file to her. Stokes consulted another lawyer in Selma, who referred her to a lawyer in Birmingham. The Birmingham lawyer informed Stokes of the difficulty of proving medical malpractice without the testimony of a medical expert and refused to take her case. A friend of Stokes recommended that she see Asam. Asam agreed to represent Stokes for a fee of $1,000; however, Stokes signed a 50% contingent fee employment contract with Asam. That contract also contained the notation $1,000 research in medical and legal non-refundable money to file lawsuit. Asam filed a medical malpractice action for Stokes, but filed no documents with the court except Stokes's medical records. The circuit court twice warned Asam that the defendants' motion for summary judgment would be granted unless Asam could provide expert medical testimony. Asam then tried to qualify herself as a medical expert in the case and filed an affidavit in which she purported to be a medical expert. However, Asam's affidavit did not refute the affidavit of the defendant doctor. The trial court also pointed out that the articles authored by Asam and offered as proof of her expertise were over 30 years old and that Asam's claimed expertise was in a field not related to the defendants' specialty of obstetrics surgery. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment; it later denied Asam's post-judgment motion to alter, amend, or vacate the summary judgment. Asam billed Stokes for a total of $4,168. On appeal, this Court affirmed the summary judgment without opinion. 622 So.2d 939 (Ala.1993) (table). Then, without Stokes's knowledge, Asam appealed this Court's decision to the United States Supreme Court. That Court denied certiorari review. Stokes v. Hatch, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1063, 127 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Complaint Four (ASB 94-176) contained five charges against Asam: Charge Iviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) [21] ; Charge IIviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 [22] ; Charge IIIviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1(a) [23] ; Charge IVviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) [24] ; and Charge Vviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). [25] The Board found Asam guilty of Charges I, II, III, and IV, and not guilty of Charge V.