On May 8, 2023, a Warrior Alabama attorney was issued a private reprimand pursuant to Rule 12(c)(1), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure for violating Rules 1.4 [Communication], 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], 1.16(d) [Declining and Terminating Representation], and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney was also ordered to make a $750 refund to the client. In September 2021, the attorney was hired to represent the client in obtaining a guardianship and conservatorship for the client’s special needs brother after the father passed away leaving the brother without a legal guardian/conservator. The attorney was paid a $2,000 retainer. Thereafter, the attorney failed to diligently handle the matter and failed to communicate with the client. The attorney also failed to place the fee in his IOLTA account.

On May 8, 2023, a Gulf Shores Alabama attorney was issued a private reprimand pursuant to Rule 12(c)(1), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 7.1 [Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Practice], 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals notified the Office of General Counsel that the attorney failed to comply with multiple orders issued by the Court. The attorney failed to file a docketing statement and transcript purchase order. In addition, the attorney failed to pay the docket fee or provide the Court with the Appellee’s information. The attorney also listed on his letterhead that he had offices in Gulf Shores and California when he only had an office in Gulf Shores.

Mobile attorney Darryl Tyrone Blackmon was issued a a public reprimand with general publication on May 5, 2023, by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.3 [Diligence] and 1.4 [Communication], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. On July 2, 2021, Blackmon was retained by clients to file for custody/guardianship of their 16-year-old granddaughter. The clients paid Blackmon $875 on July 2, 2021. The child had been residing with her grandparents since February 2020. The child has a medical condition associated with epilepsy and the grandparents needed a court order permitting them to seek and obtain medical care on her behalf as well as educational decisions. The child’s father abandoned the child with the grandparents. After Blackmon was retained, the grandparents had difficulty communicating with him. Blackmon failed to return calls, emails, text messages and his voicemail was continuously full. Blackmon failed to appear in court on September 25, 2021, and did not answer calls from the grandparents, the GAL, or the court. In court, there were no records of service on the child’s mother. Following the missed court appearance and the continued difficulty reaching Blackmon, the grandparents terminated him. The grandparents learned the case was misfiled in probate court, and they incurred additional expenses and delay of time to file in the appropriate juvenile court.

Meridian, Mississippi attorney, Joseph Anthony Denson, who was also licensed in Alabama, was issued a public reprimand with general publication on May 5, 2023, as ordered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 1.16(d) [Declining or Terminating Representation], 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2016, Denson was retained to represent a client and his trucking company in a breach of contract. The client paid Denson $10,000 at the outset of the representation. Denson failed to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment and failed to notify the client of the dismissal of his lawsuit.

Phenix City, Alabama, attorney Nicholas Andrew Palerino was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama for a period of four (4) years by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective April 24, 2023. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Disciplinary Commission’s order of March 10, 2023, accepting Palerino’s conditional guilty plea wherein Palerino admitted to violating Rules 8.4(b) and (g), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Palerino was indicted by the Lee County Grand Jury for Reckless Manslaughter. The indictment alleged Palerino’s reckless driving caused the death of another person by operating a vehicle in a reckless or grossly negligent manner. Specifically, it was alleged that Palerino was looking at his phone while operating a vehicle resulting in a traffic accident that caused the death of another person. On February 3, 2023, Palerino pled guilty to Reckless Manslaughter and was subsequently sentenced to a prison term of fifteen (15) years, split to serve one (1) year in the Lee County Detention Center. After his release Palerino will be required to serve two (2) years unsupervised probation. [No prior discipline history]

On April 20, 2023, Perrar Aquity Joseph was summarily suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by the Disciplinary Commission, effective April 27, 2023, pursuant to Rule 20(a), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The Disciplinary Commission’s order was based upon Joseph’s failure to respond to a pending disciplinary matter. Subsequently, Joseph filed a response to the pending disciplinary matter and, on May 23, 2023, motioned for dissolution of the summary suspension. As Jospeh had responded to the pending disciplinary matter, the Bar responded to the motion without opposition. On May 31, 2023, the Disciplinary Commission dissolved the summary suspension and corresponding restraining order.

Vestavia, Alabama attorney Chase Tristian Espy, was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective April 12, 2023. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the March 8, 2023, Order of Panel III of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Disciplinary Board’s acceptance of Espy’s Consent to Disbarment, which was based on his recent federal conviction for possession of child pornography.

Vestavia, Alabama attorney Chase Tristian Espy, was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama, effective April 12, 2023. The Supreme Court entered its order based upon the March 8, 2023, Order of Panel III of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar. The Supreme Court entered its order based on the Disciplinary Board’s acceptance of Espy’s Consent to Disbarment, which was based on his recent federal conviction for possession of child pornography.

On April 10, 2023, a private reprimand was issued to an attorney pursuant to Rule 12(c)(1), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The Disciplinary Commission concluded that the attorney violated Rules 1.3 [Diligence] and 1.4 [Communication], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In March of 2022, the Office of General Counsel received a complaint that over a two-year period of time, the attorney failed to be diligent in his representation of a client and failed to timely communicate with a client.

Montgomery attorney William Clay Teague transferred to inactive Status pursuant to Rule 27(c), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, effective March 16, 2023, by Order of the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Supreme Court entered its Order based upon the March 16, 2023, Order of Panel III of the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar in response to Teague’s petition submitted to the Office of General Counsel requesting he be transferred to inactive status.

On December 14, 2022, the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand to an attorney pursuant to Rule 12(c)(1), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure in ASB No. 2019-1217. The Disciplinary Commission concluded that the attorney violated Rules 8.4 (b) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In October 2019, the Office of General Counsel was advised by the Florida Bar Association that the attorney was arrested on September 11, 2019, and charged with three counts of aggravated assault, Second Degree. On April 6, 2018, the attorney was involved in a car accident after driving the wrong way on a four-lane highway. The attorney’s vehicle struck another vehicle and injured the vehicle’s three occupants. On October 4, 2022, the attorney pled guilty to reduced charges of three counts of Misdemeanor Assault, Third Degree. Under the plea, the attorney was given a suspended 12-month sentence and placed on unsupervised probation for a period of two years.

On March 13, 2023, the Disciplinary Board issued a private reprimand to an attorney for violating Rules 4.2 (a) [Communication with Person Represented by Counsel] and 8.4(g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney admitted to directly contacting an opposing party who was represented by counsel regarding the subject of the litigation and inquiring about confidential communications. The attorney had complete knowledge the client was represented by counsel, but he chose to contact the represented party instead of the opposing attorney. During the course of the investigation, the attorney provided false or misleading information.

On February 23, 2023, the Disciplinary Commission of Alabama State Bar issued a private reprimand pursuant to Rule 12(c)(1), Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure in ASB No. 2022-885. The Disciplinary Commission concluded that the attorney violated Rules 1.4 [Communication], 1.5 [Fees], 1.15 [Safekeeping Property], 7.1 [Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services], 7.5 [Firm Names and Letterhead], and 8.4(c) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. The Disciplinary Commission also ordered that the attorney make a full refund to the client. The attorney was retained in March 2021 by an individual to represent her husband at his parole hearing, including seeking early parole. In 1995, the husband, was convicted of Robbery II and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. The client ultimately paid the attorney $3,000 and according to the fee agreement, the attorney was to represent the husband in seeking an early parole hearing and at any future parole hearing. In the fee agreement, the attorney described the initial payment of $1,000 as “non-refundable”. In Formal Opinion 1993-21, the Disciplinary Commission held that a lawyer may not characterize a fee as non-refundable or use other language in a fee agreement that suggests that any fee paid before services are rendered is not subject to refund or adjustment. The Disciplinary Commission held that a lawyer violates Rules 1.4 [Communication], 1.5 [Fees], and 8.4(c) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct any time the lawyer describes a fee as “non-refundable”. The attorney also admitted during the investigation to failing to place any of the unearned fee into the trust account as required by Rule 1.15, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. According to the attorney, after researching the matter, it was determined that seeking an early parole hearing would be futile. Instead, on June 22, 2021, the attorney filed a motion to allow the husband to be transferred to a community corrections program. The court never took any action on the motion and the attorney did not file anything else on behalf of the husband. The attorney explained to the husband that all had been done all they would have to wait for his parole hearing. Eventually the attorney and the husband came to a mutual understanding that the attorney would no longer represent the husband and, as such, the attorney did not appear for the parole hearing. Also the name of the attorney’s law firm was “The Law Group of ___,LLC.” However, the attorney did not have any associates or staff. In Formal Opinion 1993-11, the Disciplinary Commission held that a solo practitioner may not use a firm name that would lead the public to believe that the law firm has more than one attorney. As such, the attorney’s use of “the law group” violated Rule 7.1 [Communication Concerning a Lawyer’s Services] and 7.5 [Firm Names and Letterhead, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.

A Socorro, Texas attorney also licensed in the State of Alabama, Jimmy Lee Revis, was issued a public reprimand without general publication on March 10, 2023, as ordered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar, for violating Rules 1.1 [Competence], 1.3 [Diligence], 5.5 [Unauthorized Practice of Law] and 8.4(d) and (g) [Misconduct], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2020, the attorney undertook to represent his niece and her family on immigration matters. The niece and her family came to the United States in November 2019 on a visitor visa which expired on May 27, 2020. Shortly before the visas expired, the attorney attempted to file paperwork which would begin the process of seeking legal residence in the United States. However, the applications were rejected. In the interim, the visas expired after the attorney failed to file for an extension of the visas. As a result, the niece and her family were now deemed to be in the United States illegally, impairing their ability to seek legal residence in the United States. There was no record of the attorney having entered an appearance on their behalf before immigration. Upon receipt of the attorney’s self-report, it was discovered the attorney last held an occupational license in 2017. The attorney was unlicensed in 2018 and 2019, and then held a special membership license for 2020 and 2021. A special membership license does not allow a lawyer to engage in the private practice of law.

Huntsville attorney, John Andrew Watson, III, was issued a public reprimand with general publication on March 10, 2023, for violating Rules 1.2(c) [Scope of Representation], 1.4 [Communication], 1.7(b) [Conflict of Interest: General Rule], and 2.2 [Intermediary], Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2013, Watson began representing multiple business entities comprising a multinational enterprise engaged in government contracting to the US Government in support of its Middle East operations. The entities had overlapping ownership and leadership. In September 2016, the clients received notice that the primary US-based client had received a CENTCOM-wide Base Debarment, requiring ejection from a U.S. military base in Afghanistan within ten days absent a solution satisfactory to the US Government. Subsequently, Watson was advised by the clients’ corporate representatives that the deadline was shortened to seven days. The clients also informed Watson that the base debarment threatened catastrophic loss to the business enterprise. Watson presented the clients with several options regarding how to remedy this situation. The clients elected, three days before the deadline, to have one affiliated corporation acquire the assets of its base-debarred affiliate. This decision resulted in Watson having a conflict of interest in handling the transaction but without adequate time to involve outside counsel. Watson explained to the clients that their role in the transaction would be limited to preparing documents to accomplish the clients’ collective decision and objectives and that Watson could not be involved in negotiating the economic terms of the transaction between the clients. Watson proceeded with preparing the transaction documents with the understanding that their clients agreed to the limited scope of our representation. Watson did not fully explain the benefits, limitations, and risks of the joint representation as required by Rules 1.7(b) and 2.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct and did not obtain the clients’ written acknowledgement of the limited scope representation as required by Rule 1.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. Further, Watson did not communicate with all the corporate representatives of the client entities on an equal basis as required by Rules 1.4 and 2.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.