Opinion ID: 2333746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Serious Misconduct

Text: At the close of its brief, the Committee raises a separate issue than those raised by Stilley. Specifically, the Committee argues that, if this court affirms the Committee's decision, then the suspension imposed on Stilley must be considered serious misconduct, under the rule announced in Gillaspie v. Ligon, 357 Ark. 50, 160 S.W.3d 332 (2004), and hereafter use by an attorney of intemperate, strident, and disrespectful language in written submissions to courts will be eligible for the full range of sanctions for either serious misconduct or lesser misconduct, under the Procedures. Section 17(B) of the Procedures explains in part: Serious misconduct is 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: .... (2) The misconduct results in or is likely to result in substantial prejudice to a client or other person[.] Section 17(C) of the Procedures further explains that [l]esser misconduct is conduct in violation of the Model Rules that would not warrant a sanction terminating or restricting the lawyer's license to practice law. Thus, only serious misconduct can be the basis for restricting the practice of law. See P. Reg. Prof'l Conduct § 17(E)(2); Gillaspie, 357 Ark. 50, 160 S.W.3d 332. As an initial point, the use of disrespectful language toward a court or officer of the court is not in and of itself serious misconduct, as defined by Section 17(B). However, in this case, Stilley's repeated and continuous use of strident disrespectful language constituted serious misconduct. Specifically, Stilley engaged in misconduct that resulted in substantial prejudice to a client. See P. Reg. Prof'l Conduct § 17(B)(2). Additional support for the conclusion that Stilley's conduct constituted serious misconduct can be found in examining the Model Rules Stilley violated. For example, the Committee concluded that Stilley violated Model Rule 1.7(b) when he placed his own interests as an attorney in conflict with the interests of his client in this matter. In support of this conclusion, the Committee cited to the stricken brief and Stilley's belief that: over a ten year period the Court had ruled against him five times, and that he was entitled to an opportunity to confront and interrogate the Court about its perceived hostility toward him, possibly as part of an effort by him to get the justices to recuse from this case and maybe future ones. [6] Another example is the Committee's finding that Stilley violated Model Rule 8.4(d) because his conduct: caused his client's brief to be entirely stricken from the record, delaying proper and full consideration of his client's cause, and causing the Court to expend additional resources and time in considering his brief and then entering an order striking it from the record of the case. Thus, it is abundantly clear that Stilley's conduct in using disrespectful language toward this court, causing his client's brief to be struck in its entirety, resulted in substantial prejudice to his client. Because Stilley's conduct is serious misconduct under Section 17(B), his six-month suspension is upheld. Affirmed.