Ligon v. Walker, 06-1493.

• Decision Date: 12 March 2009
• Docket Number: No. 06-1493.,06-1493.
• Parties: Stark LIGON, Executive Director of the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, Petitioner, v. Woodson D. WALKER, Respondent.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

297 S.W.3d 1

2009 Ark. 136

Stark LIGON, Executive Director of the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, Petitioner, v. Woodson D. WALKER, Respondent.

No. 06-1493.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 12, 2009.

Stark Ligon, Executive Director, Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, Little Rock, for petitioner.

Woodson D. Walker, Little Rock, pro se respondent.

ELANA CUNNINGHAM WILLS, Justice.

[1]

This is an original action in a disbarment proceeding. See P. Reg. Prof'l Conduct § 13(A). Respondent Woodson D. Walker was licensed to practice law in Arkansas on April 4, 1976. For many years, Walker maintained a successful practice in Little Rock; however, in the late 1990s, he began experiencing personal and professional difficulties. In April of 2003, he was suspended from the practice of law for one year.¹ On December 8, 2006, Panel A of the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct ("the Committee" or "CPC")

[2]

entered an order of interim suspension as a result of a complaint filed against Walker by a former client, Andre Stephens.

Following the order of interim suspension, the Executive Director of the Committee, Stark Ligon, filed a petition for disbarment against Walker on December 29, 2006. The petition for disbarment listed ten counts that alleged various violations of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct and noted "other matters regarding [Walker's] fitness to hold a law license, or aggravating factors to be considered." Walker filed a response to the petition for disbarment on January 16, 2007. On January 29, 2007, this court appointed the Honorable John Lineberger as a special judge to preside over the proceedings. See Ligon v. Walker, 368 Ark. 605, 248 S.W.3d 482 (2007) (per curiam).

On July 6, 2007, Ligon filed a first amended petition for disbarment. In this petition, Ligon alleged that, upon further investigation into the matters that formed the basis for the initial petition, new and additional facts had been discovered that also constituted violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The first amended petition raised fifteen new counts against Walker. Two of the new counts pertained to the Andre Stephens matter, including Walker's failure to report a malpractice claim and his failure to maintain professional liability insurance coverage for the benefit of a client. In addition, several of the new counts arose from Walker's alleged mishandling of the affairs of Jarvis Rodgers, another client who complained to the Committee about Walker. Other counts involved

[3]

allegations of improper use of Walker's IOLTA trust account. Three other new counts stemmed from Walker's alleged violations of restrictions placed on the activities of attorneys whose licenses have been suspended. Finally, the first amended petition added one new aggravating factor. Walker filed a response to the first amended petition on July 24, 2007.

Ligon filed a second amended petition on October 31, 2007, after the Committee received trust account records from Walker's law partner, Larry Dunklin, in September 2007. The second amended complaint added thirty-nine new counts that alleged additional violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct with regard to the Jarvis Rodgers matter, as well as additional allegations of violations concerning Walker's IOLTA account. On the same day, Ligon filed a third amended petition for disbarment that alleged three new and additional counts.

On November 15, 2007, Walker filed a motion to strike the amended petitions. In his motion, Walker contended that the amended petitions included new, previously unraised allegations that encompassed "different clients and totally unrelated issues from the original petition." He further alleged that the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law ("the Procedures") do not permit the Executive Director to file amended petitions that raise "new allegations not previously mentioned."

[4]

Judge Lineberger entered an order on November 19, 2007, denying Walker's motion to strike the amended pleadings. The judge found that, as to the first amended petition, Walker filed a timely response to it and did not raise any of his procedural or jurisdictional issues and was thus deemed to have waived those arguments. The judge generally denied the motion to strike the second and third amended petitions² and directed Walker to file an answer or response within the time provided by the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Walker filed neither an answer nor a response to the second and third amended petitions, and Ligon filed a motion for default judgment on these two amended petitions on November 29, 2007. When no answer was filed by December 18, 2007, Ligon filed a renewed motion for default judgment on the second and third amended petitions. In response, Walker attempted to take an appeal from the judge's November 19, 2007, order denying his motion to strike the amended petitions. Ligon responded to Walker's notice of appeal on December 26, 2007, asserting that the order was not a final, appealable order under Ark. R.App. P.-Civ. 2. This court granted Ligon's motion to dismiss Walker's appeal on January 24, 2008.

[5]

On January 16, 2008, the special judge entered an order noting that Walker had "failed to file any answer or response to the Second Amended Petition for Disbarment and Third Amended Petition for Disbarment or to the two motions seeking default judgment on these pleadings." Accordingly, the judge granted default judgment on these two petitions against Walker "as to all allegations, charges of misconduct, and other substantive matters set out [in the amended petitions] without the need for [Ligon] to establish same by proof at trial."

On January 18, 2008, Ligon filed a fourth amended petition for disbarment setting out eight new counts. In this petition, Ligon alleged that, on July 27, 2007, the Committee had served on Walker a second motion to produce in which copies of Walker's 2002-2006 tax returns were requested. After repeated orders directing Walker to divulge the information, Walker finally submitted an affidavit on January 17, 2008, in which he stated that he had "made appropriate inquiry" with the Internal Revenue Service and had been informed that he had filed no income tax returns for the years 2002-2006. The eight new counts in the fourth amended petition all arose from Walker's failure to file tax returns or pay taxes for these years and alleged violations of Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) and 8.4(c).

Walker filed a motion for continuance on February 5, 2008, in which he asserted that the late filing of the fourth amended petition prevented him from mounting a proper

[6]

defense. Ligon responded on February 7, 2008, countering that the delay in filing the fourth amended complaint was due to Walker's failure to timely comply with the judge's orders to provide his tax returns. Ligon also asserted that Walker could hardly claim to be prejudiced by the addition of claims concerning his failure to file taxes when he had already admitted failing to file them.

On February 11, 2008, Walker filed a motion to strike the fourth amended petition or, in the alternative, a response to the fourth amended petition. Judge Lineberger entered an order on February 19, 2008, denying Walker's motion to strike the fourth amended petition, noting that the primary cause for the shortened time for trial preparation was Walker's own failure to timely provide his tax returns. The case then proceeded to trial on February 19-22, 2008.

On June 28, 2008, Judge Lineberger entered his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of an appropriate sanction. After reviewing the facts presented at trial and considering the factors for imposing sanctions set out in section 19 of the Procedures, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors set out in Wilson v. Neal, 332 Ark. 148, 964 S.W.2d 199 (1998), Judge Lineberger recommended the sanction of disbarment. The judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation were filed with the clerk of this court on July 1, 2008, pursuant to section 13(D) of the Procedures. Both Walker and Ligon have

[7]

submitted briefs according to section 13(D), and the matter is now before this court for resolution.

Section 1(C) of the Procedures provides that disciplinary proceedings are neither civil nor criminal in nature but are sui generis, meaning of their own kind. See Ligon v. Dunklin, 368 Ark. 443, 247 S.W.3d 498 (2007); Ligon v. Newman, 365 Ark. 510, 231 S.W.3d 662 (2006); Neal v. Hollingsworth, 338 Ark. 251, 992 S.W.2d 771 (1999). The special judge's findings of fact are accepted by this court unless they are clearly erroneous. Dunklin, supra; Ligon v. Price, 360 Ark. 98, 200 S.W.3d 417 (2004). This court imposes the appropriate sanction as warranted by the evidence. Newman, supra; Price, supra. There is no appeal from this court except as may be available under federal law. Newman, supra; Price, supra.

In this particular case, Walker does not challenge or contest the special judge's findings of fact. Rather, he raises legal arguments concerning three separate matters: 1) the judge's denial of his motions to strike the amended petitions for disbarment; 2) the denial of his motion for continuance; and 3) the judge's consideration of the testimony offered by Dr. Sarah Cearley, one of Walker's witnesses.

In his first argument to this court, Walker argues that, under the procedural rules of the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, the Executive Director does not have the authority to amend a petition for disbarment and bring further charges in a

[8]

disbarment proceeding without first resorting to a vote of the Committee. Walker contends that Ligon's repeated amendments to the disbarment petition were improper and ultra vires because there is "no provision in [the Procedures] for amendment absent...