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

Heading: Complaint OneASB 92-254

Text: Complaint One involved a civil action filed by Asam on behalf of Jessie Edward Williams. Williams was injured on the job in 1973 and, represented by counsel (not Asam), settled a personal injury claim and a workers' compensation case in 1974. Sixteen years later, Williams attempted to reopen his case with newly discovered evidence; however, this Court, holding that the newly discovered evidence had been generated during the discovery period of Williams's original lawsuit, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Williams's complaint. See Williams v. Capps Trailer Sales, Inc., 589 So.2d 159 (Ala.1991). Thereafter, Asam filed an action for Mr. Williams in a circuit court seeking $5 million in damages, again claiming to have newly discovered evidence. She sued all of the original defendants, as well as two insurance companies that had not insured any of the parties. The trial court dismissed the complaint and imposed sanctions against Asam. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed and imposed additional sanctions against Asam. See Williams v. Capps Trailer Sales, Inc., 607 So.2d 1272 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). This Court denied certiorari review. Asam's separate appeal from the award of additional sanctions was resolved against her in Asam v. Capps Trailer Sales, Inc., 631 So.2d 251 (Ala.Civ.App.1993). This Court again denied certiorari review. Asam then filed an identical action on behalf of Williams in a federal district court again claiming newly discovered evidence, but adding the State of Alabama as a defendant. The district court dismissed the complaint; the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal; and the Eleventh Circuit imposed sanctions against Asam. Over $32,000 in sanctions were imposed against Asam in those two cases. Complaint One contained nine charges against Asam: Charge Iviolation of DR 1-102(A)(5) [1] ; Charge IIviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) [2] ; Charge III violation of DR 7-102(A)(2) [3] ; Charge IV violation of DR 7-102(A)(5) [4] ; Charge V violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 [5] ; Charge VIviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1(a) [6] ; Charge VIIviolation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) [7] ; Charge VIIIviolation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6) [8] ; and Charge IX violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). [9] Asam was found guilty of Charges II, III, V, and VI, and not guilty of the remaining charges of Complaint One.