Tarver v. Board of Com'rs of Alabama State Bar
Decision Date | 08 February 1973 |
Citation | 290 Ala. 87,274 So.2d 61 |
Parties | In re John D. TARVER v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ALABAMA STATE BAR. In the Matter of John D. Tarver. SC 20. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John D. Tarver, pro se.
William H. Morrow, Jr., Montgomery, for respondent.
Petitioner, John D. Tarver, an attorney, seeks review of a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar adjudging petitioner to be guilty of Charges TWO and THREE of a complaint heretofore brought against him by the Grievance Committee of the Huntsville-Madison County Bar Association. He was found not guilty of Charge ONE. Petitioner was given a suspension from the practice of law for three months and a public reprimand.
Following are the charges as last amended, viz:
'CHARGE ONE
(Violation of Rule 27, Section A)
'The said attorney acted in bad faith or with fraudulent purpose in wilfully failing to pay over money collected by him for his client in the sum of, to-wit: $200.00.
'The Grievance Committee charge that in doing the above described acts the said attorney was guilty of violating or failing to comply with Rule 27, Section A, of the Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Alabama, said rule providing:
'No person heretofore or hereafter admitted to practice law in Alabama shall:
'CHARGE TWO
(Violation of Rule 33, Section A)
'For Charge Two the Grievance Committee adopts all of the averments of the first paragraph of Charge One, and allege that the above described disbursements of money were made without advising his clients that the payment to Dr. Gilliam was in the amount of $907.00 rather than $1107.00.
'The Grievance Committee charge that in doing the above described acts the said attorney was guilty of violating or failing to comply with Rule 33, Section A, of the Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Alabama, said rule providing:
'No person heretofore or hereafter admitted to practice law in Alabama shall:
'CHARGE THREE
(Violation of Rule 36, Section A)
'For Charge Three the Grievance Committee adopts all of the averments of Charges One and Two, and allege that the said attorney being guilty of a violation of Rule 27, Section A, and/or Rule 33, Section A, of Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Alabama, is guilty of conduct unbecoming an attorney at law.
'The Grievance Committee charge that in doing the above described acts the said attorney was guilty of violating or failing to comply with Rule 36, Section A, of the Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Alabama, said rule providing:
The circumstances out of which these charges arose, as stated in the 'STATEMENT OF THE FACTS' in petitioner's brief, are:
Petitioner's 'STATEMENT OF THE FACTS' suffers from several omissions, particularly as to the dates of various acts mentioned. To better understand the facts, the following dates are supplied, as well as certain other relevant facts.
The auto accident in which the Hortins were injured occurred December 23, 1968. In March or April, 1969, petitioner was employed as their attorney. There was no written contract of employment.
Petitioner advised the Hortins by telephone of the settlement offer of $5,000, and they accepted it. About a week before the checks were written on June 5, 1970, petitioner advised the Hortins by telephone that he had received the settlement check of $5,000. He particularly called to have them come by and sign releases.
Both petitioner and Mrs. Hortin appear to have known that the amount of Dr. Gilliam's bill was $1107 before the settlement was effected. It seems to have been understood between them that Dr. Gilliam's bill was to be paid our of the proceeds of the settlement.
The testimony of petitioner is unclear as to whether or not, at the time of the second telephone conversation, he had already negotiated the $200 reduction in Dr. Gilliam's bill. If not, it appears that he effected this reduction the same day he talked to Mrs. Hortin.
On June 5, 1970, petitioner drew checks on his trust account to Dr. Gilliam for $907, to the Hortins for $2,226.34, and the balance (including the $200 reduction in Dr. Gilliam's bill) to himself. The bank record of his trust account is shown to have been exhausted when these checks were paid, except for the small remainder of $1.02. In petitioner's testimony, he appears to maintain that the $200 never left his trust account.
After Mrs. Hortin received her check, she called petitioner and reminded him that he had told her he would send a list of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Board of Com'rs of Alabama State Bar v. Jones
... ... In re Carroll, 287 Ala. 29, 247 So.2d 350; In re Tarver, 290 Ala. 87, 274 So.2d 61 ... Charge Number II in each Complaint charges that Jones 'was associated ... with ... a disbarred ... ...
-
Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Hurd, 67687
... ... Tarver v. Board of Commissioners of Alabama State Bar, 290 Ala. 87, 93, 274 So.2d ... ...
- Board of Com'rs of the Alabama State Bar v. Tarver