Court Opinion

ID: 9680145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:21:36.192171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:25.969212
License: Public Domain

Supplemental Opinion on Denial of Rehearing delivered June 16, 1975 523 S.W. 2d 900 William K. Ball, Special Justice. Each of the parties has petitioned for rehearing, and after carefully considering these petitions we have reached the conclusion that both should be denied. The appellant’s petition for rehearing, which is primarily a reiteration of some arguments he made previously, does not move us to further words. In its petition for rehearing the appellee forcefully urges that nothing short of permanent disbarment will square with the Opinion of this Court handed down February 24, 1975. Agreeing that the appellee’s position in this respect is well taken, we feel compelled to supplement our earlier opinion to explain why we reached the decision to disbar the appellant for three years instead of permanently. Considering the record before us — and it is a good one — we unhesitatingly find that the appellant has been guilty of professional misconduct of a serious nature and adversely reflecting upon his fitness to practice law. Therefore, it is the duty of this Court, as the enforcing agency charged with the responsibility of maintaining the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct by lawyers licensed to practice law in the State of Arkansas, to take appropriate disciplinary measures. It has been proved to our satisfaction that the appellee, in addition to being guilty of conduct prohibited by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 25-401 (Repl. 1962), violated certain of the Disciplinary Rules set forth in the Code of Professional Responsibility prepared by a special committee of the American Bar Association and recently adopted by this Court. In the “Preliminary Statement” prefacing this code it is said, “The severity of judgment against one found guilty of violating a Disciplinary Rule should be determined by the character of the offense and the attendant circumstances.” Certain attendant circumstances not mentioned in our earlier opinion but having relevance tending to mitigate the severity of judgment against this lawyer are (1) the lack of evidence of past professional or personal misconduct on his part, (2) the fact that his professional misconduct which brought on these charges fell short of being criminal in nature, (3) the fact that his clients received all moneys to which they were entitled, and (4) the generally cooperative actions of this lawyer during the course of the investigation by the appellant. In our earlier opinion it was stated that “* * * the actions of the appellant in dealing with his clients was a continuing one of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and dishonesty.” Actually, we are convinced that the appellant’s professional conduct in issue, though inexcusable, resulted in the main from inattention, disregard and neglect, and not from a conscious desire or plan to permanently deprive his clients of their money. Thus, even though this conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law and was improper in several respects, nonetheless it should not have been characterized as “a continuing one of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and dishonesty.” The decision should not be interpreted to indicate that this Court has taken or will hereafter take a “soft” position or a “hard” stance or some middle ground in disciplining wayward members of the bar of the Court. It does evidence this Court’s dedication to requiring that the attorneys on its rolls fulfill their professional responsibilities and maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct. Each disciplinary proceeding stands separate and apart from any other; and what we are saying here in the case of Sam A. Weems is that, while the charges of professional misconduct against him have been satisfactorily proved, and while a persuasive case for permanent disbarment has been presented, considering the character of the offenses and the attendant circumstances justice will be best served by disbarment for a period of three years as ordered in our earlier opinion, with his readmittance to the practice of law being subject to the conditions specified in that opinion. Petitions denied. Charles M. Conway, Special Justice, concurs. Byrd and Holt, JJ., not participating.