Birmingham attorney, Bradley Alan Green was issued a public reprimand with general publication on October 29, 2021, as ordered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 1.2 [Scope of Representation], 1.4(b) [Communication], and 8.4(a) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In or around September 2019, Green’s law partner was retained for a divorce proceeding. The wife who filed the divorce provided Green’s law partner with a recorded telephone conversation between her ex-husband and a Blount County Commissioner. In the recording the Commissioner referred to a local Blount County citizen using a racial slur. The divorce became final in October 2019 without the recording being made public. In late June 2020, the ex-husband filed a petition for modification. The ex-wife subsequently hired Green to represent her on the modification. In July 2020 Green spoke with the ex-wife to discuss the recording and use it as a counter-claim. During the conversation the ex-wife agreed to allow the firm to reference the recording in the counter-claim if the matter went to a hearing. Green did not adequately communicate to the ex-wife that once the recording was referenced in the counter-claim it could be made available to the media, elected officials, or other members of the public. In August 2020, an anonymous package was mailed to members of the media, elected officials, judges in Blount County, the Blount County D.A.’s office and the Blount County Sheriff’s Office. The anonymous package included a copy of recordings, copies of lawsuits involving the ex-husband and the Blount County Commissioner and an anonymous letter that accused the Blount County Commissioner and others of misconduct. Green, in fact, mailed the packages at the bequest of a Blount County Circuit Judge. While Green did not know the exact contents of the packages, he suspected the packages contained the recordings.

Locust Fork, Alabama attorney, Brett Ashley King was issued a public reprimand with general publication on October 29, 2021, as ordered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 1.2 [Scope of Representation], 1.4 [Communication], 1.6 [Confidentiality of Information], 3.1(a) [Meritorious Claims and Contentions], 4.4(a) [Respect for the Rights of Third Persons], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In or around September 2019, King’s law partner was retained for a divorce proceeding. The wife who filed the divorce provided King’s law partner with a recorded telephone conversation between her ex-husband and a Blount County Commissioner. In the recording the Commissioner referred to a local Blount County citizen using a racial slur. The divorce became final in October 2019. While the divorce was ongoing the ex-wife and King’s law partner played the recording for King. King subsequently asked the ex-wife for permission to release the recording to the public on numerous occasions both during and after the divorce proceedings. The ex-wife refused to do so. In October or November 2019, without permission from the ex-wife, King informed a Blount County Circuit Court Judge of the existence of the recording and the use of a racial slur. At the time the Judge had a pending defamation suit against the Blount County Commissioner relating to disparaging remarks the Blount County Commissioner made about the Judge. In January 2020, King provided the Judge with a copy of the recording but informed the Judge he could not make the recording public since King did not have the ex-wife’s permission to do so.

Montgomery attorney Beverly Jean Howard was issued a public reprimand with general publication on October 29, 202, as ordered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence], and 8.4(d) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In June of 2020, Howard notifies DHR that her clients were withdrawing from a safety plan that was previously entered into where custody of their children would be placed in custody of a relative. DHR filed a dependency action regarding the children. Thereafter, the Judge ordered the children be placed into protective custody. Howard filed a “Notice to the Court” that informed the Court that her clients gave temporary and legal custody to a relative and therefore could not release the children to custody of DHR. Howard failed to disclose the name of the relative or provide any legal documentation that custody of the children was now held by a relative. Under Alabama law, “legal custody” of a child cannot be transferred absent a court order. The client executed a “Delegation of Powers” under Code of Alabama Section 26-2A-7. Howard, as an experienced domestic relations attorney, should have known that Section 26-2A-27 does not transfer “legal custody of a child” and cannot be used to avoid the jurisdiction of the court in dependency proceedings. As such, Howard erred in notifying the court that “legal” custody of the child had been transferred to another and failed to properly advise the client that Section 26-2A-27 could not be used to avoid the court order placing the children in protective custody.

On October 29, 2021, the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar ordered Lawrence Buford Hammet, II of Nashville, Tennessee to receive reciprocal discipline of a public reprimand with general publication for violating Rules 1.5, and 1.15, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The Disciplinary Board ordered that Hammet receive the identical discipline as that imposed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Hammet charged his client a clearly excessive fee and improperly withdrew funds from his trust account.

On October 29, 2021, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 4.3 [Dealing with unrepresented person] and 8.4 (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney contacted a minor who was involved in a car accident. The attorney was subsequently retained by the opposing party in the car accident. The attorney obtained the minor’s cell phone number from the accident report and called the minor on May 28, 2021. The attorney was aware the minor was only 17 years-old. During the telephone call, the attorney did not inform the minor of the representation of the opposing party or the fact that they were an attorney. Rather, the attorney informed the minor that an investigation was being done regarding the accident and proceeded to ask questions. The minor believed she was speaking with her foster parent’s insurance company and provided detailed information.

On August 11, 2021, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], and 8.4 (d) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In August 2019, the attorney was hired to file a petition for divorce on behalf of a client. The client paid the attorney a $3,000 retainer. The attorney prepared the petition for divorce, which the client signed and returned to the attorney on August 23, 2019. However, the attorney failed to file the petition and failed to take any other action on behalf of the client. On November 13, 2019, the attorney informed the client that time was taken off for a medical issue but the petition for the divorce would be filed the following week. Thereafter, the attorney failed to file the petition. On January 17, 2020, the attorney again promised the client that to file the divorce petition, but again the attorney failed to do so. On November 30, 2020, the attorney encouraged the client not to hire new counsel and to let them finish the case. The client agreed but the attorney failed to file the petition or take any other action. On January 27, 2021, the client terminated representation after the client’s husband retained his own attorney. The attorney failed to refund any of the client’s retainer after being terminated. As a result, the client filed a bar complaint on March 10, 2021. In response to the complaint, the attorney apologized to the client and refunded the entire $3,000 retainer.

Oneonta attorney, Harold Jerome Colley was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama for a period of ninety-one (91) days effective October 14, 2021. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the Disciplinary Commission’s acceptance of Colley’s Conditional Guilty Plea, wherein Colley pled guilty to violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], and 1.16 [Declining or Terminating Representation], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Because of Colley’s previous transfer to inactive status, in ASB Nos. 2010-1963; 2011-215; 2011-218; 2011-508; 2011-640; 2011-683; 2011-971; 2011-142 and Rule 27(c) 2010-1819, Colley was unable to perform legal work for which he had been paid and failed to refund clients the unearned portion of the fees paid.

Birmingham attorney Barry Wayne Walker was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama, effective October 14, 2021. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Disciplinary Board’s Order, wherein Walker was found guilty of violating the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In ASB No. 2019-1414, Walker was found guilty of violating Rules 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In ASB No. 2019-1498, Walker was found guilty of violating Rules 1.5(c) [Fees], 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], and 8.4(c), (d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In both cases, Walker either failed to deposit settlement funds into his trust account and/or failed to properly disperse settlement funds to the clients.

Montgomery attorney Samuel L. Masdon, III, was transferred to Inactive Status, effective September 27, 2021, by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Supreme Court entered its Order based upon the September 27, 2021, Order of Panel II of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar in response to Masdon’s petition filed with the Office of General Counsel requesting he be transferred to inactive status.

Birmingham attorney Sidney James Hughes was transferred to Inactive Status, effective September 21, 2021, by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Supreme Court entered its Order based upon the September 27, 2021 Order of Panel II of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar in response to Hughes’s petition filed with the Office of General Counsel requesting he be transferred to inactive status.

On September 18, 2020, the Disciplinary Commission determined that an attorney should receive a public reprimand without general publication for violating Rule 3.5(c) [Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The violation arose at a hearing wherein the presiding judge described the attorney’s behavior as mocking, belligerent, grandstanding, bullying, heavy-handed, intimidating, and threatening. The attorney admitted frustration and being loud. The presiding judge expressed she was frightened, uncomfortable, and afraid of the attorney and his behavior at the hearing. Moreover, she felt disrespected and scared. Additionally, opposing counsel described the attorney’s behavior as outrageous and very inappropriate. He stated the attorney raised his voice a number of times, disrespected the court, and threated to mandamus the judge if she ruled against him. Moreover, he stated the judge told the attorney his behavior was highly inappropriate and he should not speak to her in that manner. The attorney is also required to pay any costs taxed against him pursuant to Rule 33, Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, including but not limited to a $1,000 administrative fee.

On November 4, 2019, the Disciplinary Commission ordered Hamilton attorney Oliver Frederick Wood to receive a public reprimand with general publication and ordered to pay any and all costs taxed against him pursuant to Rule 33, Ala. R. Disc. P, including but not limited to a $1,000 administrative fee for violating Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. C. In November 2018 Wood was hired to represent a husband in a divorce. The client was unsure of his wife’s whereabouts but mentioned she was released from prison in 2011. Wood and his secretary told the client you would serve his wife by publication. The client checked the newspaper over the next several weeks but never saw the publication notice. During the course of the representation, the client experienced difficulty communicating with Wood. Five days after the client filed a bar complaint, and seven months after he was retained, Wood filed the divorce case. Wood did not attempt service by publication until May 15, 2019. Service was perfected by publication on May 29, 2019. On June 10, 2019, Wood met with his client’s wife and had her sign a waiver of service and an answer. The court records reflect that he did not file these documents. In his response to the bar complaint, Wood stated that the case was progressing; that the divorce was now contested because of a property dispute; and that the client was satisfied. However, his client indicated he was anything but satisfied and that he does not have any more money to retain a subsequent lawyer. The client is still having trouble communicating with Wood. The court record reflects nothing has been done in the case since Wood filed the complaint and that no answer or default judgment has been filed. With this conduct, Wood failed to provide competent representation to his client, willfully neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his matter and promptly complying with request for information, engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, and engaged in conduct that adversely reflects in his fitness to practice law.

On October 13, 2020, the Disciplinary Board ordered Fultondale attorney Huel Malone Carter to receive a public reprimand with general publication and ordered to pay any and all costs taxed against him pursuant to Rule 33, Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, including but not limited to a $1,000 administrative fee for violating Rules 1.15(b) [Safekeeping Property] and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The pertinent facts are in 2010 Carter represented an individual as it pertained to a motorcycle accident. During the course of litigation, Carter received two checks via hand delivery from opposing counsel. One check was to satisfy a Medicare lien. Carter continued negotiating with Medicare and held the check hoping Medicare would agree to further reduce its lien. The check ultimately went stale, and in 2017, a debt collection agency sent a letter to Carter’s client indicating they were collecting the Medicare debt. Due to Carter’s failure to deliver the check to Medicare, his client’s social security disability payments were later garnished in an effort to satisfy Medicare’s lien.