Opinion ID: 2540310
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Thirty-Day Suspension

Text: Mr. Ligon argues as his first point on appeal that the Committee's thirty-day suspension of Mr. Rees's law license was disproportionate to his conduct. He contends that the Committee properly dealt with many of the allegations, but urges that Mr. Rees's unwanted sexual advances against Ms. Mooney should be an ethical violation as well. Mr. Ligon then proceeds to develop for this court two matters that he considers to be further evidence of Mr. Rees's past sexual exploits. While acknowledging that this court did not adopt a specific prohibition against a lawyer having sexual relations with a client until May 1, 2005, and that Mr. Rees's conduct in the instant case had to be charged using a combination of several then-existing rules, Mr. Ligon contends that Mr. Rees's conduct requires a much more substantial sanction than he received to deter him and other attorneys from engaging in such egregious behavior with vulnerable clients. Mr. Ligon concludes that this court should impose a more appropriate sanction based on Mr. Rees's sexual exploits and suggests a sanction in line with jurisprudence from another jurisdiction. Mr. Rees responds that as to the conflict-of-interest violations, there was plenty of evidence to show that his conduct was done mistakenly, rather than intentionally. He further asserts that the Committee's finding that he did not sufficiently explain the conflicts of interest to his clients does not require a longer suspension, as there was no evidence that his failure to do so caused any harm to either client. Mr. Rees contends that the alleged sexual-harassment incident presented the Committee with a significant factual conflict, which he claims it resolved on the credibility of the witnesses. He further maintains that his compassion for Ms. Mooney led to his financial-assistance violations and that he was required to defend against stale allegations, due to the length of time between his conduct and the filing of the complaint against him. He urges that his violations may have been the product of mistake, negligence, and poor judgment, but they did not involve intentional misconduct. He finally submits that this court should deem Mr. Ligon's presentation of matters outside of the record as improper and disregard them, as neither of the matters raised by Mr. Ligon in his brief were presented to the Committee. As an initial matter, we will not consider those matters outside of the record and raised by Mr. Ligon regarding alleged prior sexual exploits of Mr. Rees, as those matters were not before the Committee. [5] This court has previously held that an invitation by Mr. Ligon to this court to look outside the record to matters not before the factfinder was improper argument. See Ligon v. Walker, 2009 Ark. 136, 297 S.W.3d 1. While Mr. Ligon attempts to circumvent our prior holding by asking this court to take judicial notice of the alleged prior incidents, we decline to do so. This court's review, as set forth above, is of the Committee's decision, which was based on the evidence presented to the Committee by Mr. Ligon. Had he wished to present such evidence in support of the allegations against Mr. Rees, the time to do so was at the hearing before the Committee. This court will not consider new evidence merely because it was not previously known or became available to Mr. Ligon after the Committee's decision. Accordingly, we reject Mr. Ligon's attempts to increase Mr. Rees's sanction based on such evidence. That being said, we cannot say that the Committee's sanction of a thirty-day suspension takes into account the seriousness of Mr. Rees's conduct in the instant case. Pursuant to the Procedures, [s]uspension [of a lawyer's privilege to practice law] is appropriate when a panel of the Committee finds that the lawyer has engaged in `serious misconduct,' and, consonant with the pertinent factors enunciated in Section 19, the nature and degree of such misconduct do not warrant disbarment. P. Reg. Prof'l Conduct § 17(E)(2) (2009). Serious misconduct is defined by the Procedures as conduct in violation of the Model Rules that would warrant a sanction terminating or restricting the lawyer's license to practice law. Conduct will be considered serious misconduct if any of the following considerations apply: (1) The misconduct involves the misappropriation of funds; (2) The misconduct results in or is likely to result in substantial prejudice to a client or other person; (3) The misconduct involves dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation by the lawyer; (4) The misconduct is part of a pattern of similar misconduct; (5) The lawyer's prior record of public sanctions demonstrates a substantial disregard of the lawyer's professional duties and responsibilities; or (6) The misconduct constitutes a Serious Crime as defined in these Procedures. P. Reg. Prof'l Conduct § 17(B). Section 19 of the Procedures sets out the factors that the Committee shall consider in imposing a sanction and includes: A. The nature and degree of the misconduct for which the lawyer is being sanctioned. B. The seriousness and circumstances surrounding the misconduct. C. The loss or damage to clients. D. The damage to the profession. E. The assurance that those who seek legal services in the future will be protected from the type of misconduct found. F. The profit to the lawyer. G. The avoidance of repetition. H. Whether the misconduct was deliberate, intentional or negligent. I. The deterrent effect on others. J. The maintenance of respect for the legal profession. K. The conduct of the lawyer during the course of the Committee action. L. The lawyer's prior disciplinary record, to include warnings. M. Matters offered by the lawyer in mitigation or extenuation except that a claim of disability or impairment resulting from the use of alcohol or drugs may not be considered unless the lawyer demonstrates that he or she is successfully pursuing in good faith a program of recovery. P. Reg. Prof'l Conduct § 19(A-M). Weighing these factors, it is clear to this court that the Committee's decision to suspend Mr. Rees's license for thirty days was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. We agree with the Committee that Mr. Rees's actions constituted serious misconduct. Indeed, the Committee found that Mr. Rees committed twelve separate violations of six Rules, specifically, Rules 1.4(b), 1.7(a), 1.7(b), 1.8(e), 1.8(h), and 8.4(d), involving Mr. Rees's failure to explain matters to Ms. Mooney and Mr. George to the extent reasonably necessary for them to make informed decisions regarding their representation; his representation of Mr. George where that representation was directly adverse to his representation of Ms. Mooney; Mr. Rees's representation of Mr. George being materially limited by his responsibilities to Ms. Mooney and without Mr. George's consent to the representation; a lack of consent by Ms. Mooney to the representation of both her and Mr. George; Mr. Rees's provision of financial assistance to Ms. Mooney in connection with her pending litigation; Mr. Rees's agreements with Ms. Mooney in exchange for money and without independent representation that limited his liability for malpractice; and Mr. Rees's nonsuit with prejudice of Mr. George, a key defendant in Ms. Mooney's suit, that was prejudicial to the administration of justice. Clearly, these actions by Mr. Rees were misconduct that resulted in or were likely to result in substantial prejudice to both Ms. Mooney and Mr. George, thereby constituting serious misconduct. See P. Reg. Prof'l Conduct § 17(B)(2). In determining the appropriate sanction, it is further evident that such conduct was not of a minor degree and was of a serious nature. See P. Reg. Prof'l Conduct § 19(A). The seriousness of the misconduct was indeed high, where Mr. Rees took actions to dismiss a key defendant in Ms. Mooney's lawsuit even after he realized a conflict. See P. Reg. Prof'l Conduct § 19(B). Such conduct damaged Ms. Mooney to the extent that her subsequent attorney had to remedy such damage to preclude a dismissal of her lawsuit. See P. Reg. Prof'l Conduct § 19(C). In addition, Mr. Rees's conduct clearly requires a sanction sufficient to assure that any future clients would be protected from such conduct, avoid repetition of such conduct, deter other members of the Bar from engaging in such conduct, and maintain respect for the legal profession. See P. Reg. Prof'l Conduct § 19(E, G, I, J). In light of all of these considerations, we hold that his sanction should be modified to a one-year suspension, with credit for the thirty days he has already served. We turn, then, to the claims of Mr. Ligon regarding the Committee's failure to find certain violations.