Opinion ID: 1382112
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Motion to Conform

Text: Ligon argues to this court that Judge Lessenberry erred in denying a motion to conform the petition for disbarment to the proof adduced at trial, and that ruling should be reversed. We disagree. Ligon contends that his evidence at trial fell into four (4) basic divisions: That developed and known by December 10, 2002, when the Petition for Disbarment was prepared and filed; That which came into knowledge of Petitioner up to February 20, 2003, the date of the lengthy deposition of Price, which information was explored with him in detail there, e.g. Carolyn Elliott's two matters; Information that Petitioner received or developed from February 20 to March 31, 2003, when Price dumped two boxes of his client files on Petitioner, e.g. Dr. Culpepper's unpaid medical liens in three client cases; and, Information received or developed from March 31 through trial, e.g., the contents and details of many of Price's client files and Ms. Littles' revelation at trial of her financial arrangement with Price. Ligon contends that he made a prompt and good faith effort to give Price notice of whatever information and documents that came into his knowledge and possession at each of these stages. According to Ligon, one must understand and recognize that new complaints often continue to come in to the Office of Professional Conduct on attorneys against whom formal complaints have been filed, and especially against attorneys who the public learns are the subject of disbarment proceedings. Ligon goes on to say that his office could have spent time and energy filing amended petition after amended petition, but to do so would put form over substance. At the end of Ligon's case, Ligon moved, as provided by Rule 15, to amend the pleadings, the petition for disbarment in this case, to conform to the proof that's been placed into the record. Price objected. Judge Lessenberry did not err in denying petitioner's motion to conform the petition for disbarment to the proof adduced at trial. During the course of the proceedings, a prosecution witness would be called to testify about an incident not set out in the petition for disbarment, and Price would object. Failing to include incidents in the petition for disbarment, then moving at the conclusion of testimony to amend the petition to conform with the proof appears to be a strategy this court finds improper. It is essential that an attorney be given fair notice in a disciplinary proceeding of the charges to be brought against him in order to achieve due process. 7 Am.Jur.2d., Attorneys at Law § 106. The judge found that [i]f there was only one instance and the respondent was given an opportunity to talk with the witness, granting the motion might be proper. Here there were several new issues interjected in the prosecution. Therefore, the motion to amend to conform with the evidence must be denied. There was sufficient time for petitioner to amend the petition for disbarment to include the information provided by these witnesses.