Opinion ID: 1385256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: improper solicitation and false testimony

Text: The complaint alleges that Mr. McCorkle improperly solicited clients [12] by using a runner who worked in a local hospital, fabricated evidence, and testified falsely before the Committee in regard to this charge. The evidence indicates that Mr. McCorkle was acquainted with Richard (Rick) Scott, who worked in the emergency room of Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). CAMC and the Committee received complaints that Mr. Scott approached accident victims in an attempt to solicit business for Mr. McCorkle's personal injury practice. [13] More specifically, testimony from Aleta Scarbro shows that she and her son were involved in a car accident on Saturday, February 13, 1993, and were treated at CAMC. Mrs. Scarbro did not return to her home until Sunday afternoon. A call was made from Mr. McCorkle's office to Mrs. Scarbro's home at 1:10 p.m. on Sunday. [14] The following Tuesday, February 16, 1993, Rick Scott called Mrs. Scarbro and asked her to consider retaining Mr. McCorkle if she wanted to file a lawsuit. Two days later, Mrs. Scarbro then received a call from Mr. McCorkle. He asked her to come to his office to discuss her case. Mr. McCorkle admitted that he attempted to call Mrs. Scarbro on the Sunday following her accident. He claimed to be returning her call. He produced a phone message dated Sunday, February 14, 1993, that was supposedly taken by his receptionist. After admitting that the receptionist did not work on Sunday, he claimed she may have been mistaken about the date and that it could have been the preceding Friday or Saturday. This explanation is not plausible because Mrs. Scarbro would not have called prior to the accident. Margaret Hudnall testified that Mr. McCorkle called her residence to inquire about her husband after he had been treated at CAMC for injuries sustained in a car accident that occurred in February, 1993. The call was an attempt to solicit business. Mr. Hudnall was unable to take the call, but he later returned the call. He was very agitated and wanted to know how Mr. McCorkle received his telephone number and information regarding his accident. Mr. Hudnall reported this incident to the hospital. Mr. McCorkle contends that he placed the call to Mr. Hudnall after he received a phone message that stated call Mr. Hudnall, re: referral Dave. However, he could not remember who Dave was and no other evidence concerning Dave's identity was introduced at the hearing. Eunice McClanahan testified that on November 25, 1992, she was waiting in the emergency room at CAMC as her son underwent emergency surgery for serious injuries he received in a car accident. She was approached by a hospital worker who advised her to talk to a lawyer. The hospital worker told her I work for attorneys and if I need help, they will help me. The man gave her a lawyer's business card. She remembered the card had the name McCorkle on it, but she no longer had the card. She notified the hospital of the incident and, after looking at several pictures presented to her, identified Mr. Scott as the man who handed her the card. Furthermore, the evidence shows that Lisa Addington was approached by Rick Scott while she was in the emergency room at CAMC. They discussed her accident and whether she would like to meet with Mr. McCorkle. Mr. Scott later transported Ms. Addington from her apartment to Mr. McCorkle's office. He remained in the office during the consultation. Mr. Scott explained that Ms. Addington was the sister of a fellow friend and co-worker and he was just trying to help. Despite the foregoing, Mr. Scott and Mr. McCorkle denied that any client solicitation agreement had been discussed or reached. However, the evidence shows that during this period of time, Mr. Scott was laid off from the coal mines and was earning substantially less than he received when he worked as a miner. He frequently would drop in Mr. McCorkle's office to see if any coal mining jobs were available. [15] Based on this direct and circumstantial evidence, we agree with the Committee that Mr. Scott solicited clients on Mr. McCorkle's behalf in an attempt to receive help from Mr. McCorkle in finding a new job. We find that the Committee has met its burden of proof regarding the charges of improper solicitation. A pattern and practice of improper solicitation was clearly established. We also find that Mr. McCorkle presented false testimony to the Committee when he claimed he was returning phone calls to Mrs. Scarbro and to the Hudnall residence. Furthermore, we agree with the Committee's finding that the phone message he produced was manufactured to support his claim. These violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility are very serious. Even if we did not consider the drug charges, these charges would warrant Mr. McCorkle's suspension from the practice of law.