vol.29_n0.2_spring 1995

•c{B...~)

WE5T'5~

FIND OUTMORE ABOUfTHESWEET &SIMPLEOFFER ON WEST

CD-ROM LIBRARIESFOR~.

CALL NON FOR MORE INFORMATIONOR TO ARRANGE A

FREE DEMO(WE'LL KEEP rr 5WEET & 5IMPLE)

1-800-255-2549Ext. 231

A Tenific Idea: ':Jumpability"to INE5TLAW \"Jump"lO \\l'STt.JI\\ \lith the Q'"touch of a button or the - "click of a mouse. Arkal/sas '.L(Ill}'£~: ArRa!/StlS /11l1' He/'ieU',

ani! other periodicals are you",via 1\1"'1'I.JI1\. llpdate your ~l1~search. Authority-check ci~,tions withInsta-Cile', Shepard's and QuickOle'·

Arl<ansas... and Beyond"X'elit i, uniquely qualified to help you buildyour practice noll' and in the future \lithc(lOrdinated state and feder.il resources. GetCD-RO)I case law for aliSO states, plusstatute; formost ,tates.

Build afedemlCD-Rmllibral) \liUl1SCA, Iti<5tsSupreme Court Reporter. Fed"~I{lIe"0I11" ,Fedeml,lilppleml"lt , tt""tsEighth Cirwit Report'" ~ and tti<5tsFedeml Vlstrict Court Report", • -EighthOrwit Or focus on a specific practice areawith topical CD-Rmllibraries such asbanknlptcy or federal taxation.

West Key Number FbwerWe;t Key Numbers are like universal trailmarkers that lead you directly to similar

~lOints of law in Arkansas 'LI lI'ell 'LS_ _ ) evel)' oUler state 'U1d- fedeml jurisdiction. Add

a Key ~umber to your facts for anincreilibly precise word search. You C'U1lave time and get morecomplete results using them'~ter classificationS\stem of U.S. law.

ASWEEt &SiMPLEOffERON WES,

CD-ROM UBRARIESfM

,__ .£OR ARKANSAS

n,~'fll1 11/1,'1'1''1111 1/l1ll/~/III' ,"11/1/!! II~' ft:1 ill 1I"r/,1

01995 WEST PUBliSHING 5·9685·2/4·95 533852

Research AexibilityStart and complete your le~al re;earch'U1)where you choo'" becau", our CI);"\\l"'iTI.JI1V and IXlO\o, all work lo~ether.

Easy to "Cut and Paste"Put I'RF\USE Re>earch S<Jf~\'are,

the only CD·Rm! ~1f~"lre Slll'Ciflc,i!lyde;i~nL,1 for le~al re;earch, to work foryou Search by word or phr.Lse. "Cut 'U1dp'Lste" material to a brid or e1L'Ctl1lnicnOlelxxlk Track re,earch time autOlnatically till' e:Lsy billin~.

But thatf; not all ...Enjoy a ,,,ect60 dar; of FREE WE.'>l'1.AW'rL"iCarch lllin~ We;rs revolutionary CD-ROMconnection. Available to new sul>.>eribe'"with a nne year en sul>.>eription 'U1d nopreviou, \\l'l>llAW ,ul>.>eription. Somere>trictiom '41ply.

0~~

~dJ~

~o ~'.i.J,'li~,.f::-\~'Q'

Associate Editor's Report

Trial FascinationBy Bill Glenn

No matter how many differentareas of law exist in our justice system, one major component connectsthem all - Trials.

Everyone familiar with the judicial system knows the majority ofcases do not even make it to trial.The increase of "out-of-court settlements" over the last twenty yearshas made trials even more obsolete.However, trials, especially thoseinvolving a familiar face. continue tofascinate those of us who are ignorant to the legal world.

Whether it's a bench trial withJudge Wapner. or a sensationalizedjury trial involving a 2.000 yardrusher. the public likes to watch andbe informed.

Sensationalism is not new. Thehorde of reporters following theLindbergh baby case in 1935 overwhelmed the town of Flemington.New Jersey so much. the late-comerswere forced to make a 120-mileround trip to New York City everyday of the trial. Others followed inthe years to come. but the WilliamKennedy Smith rape trial in 1991marked the beginning ofa new era insensationalism. With CNN coveringevery minute of the trial to a worldwide audience. the legal informationage began. It is hard to judge theimpact television had in the Smithcase. On one hand it would seemlegitimate since the sequestered jurysaw none of the television coverage.Yet. the single camera sent everyword. gesture and facial expressionto a jury of over three million. It hasbeen said that body language and

demeanor of those involved are veryimportant aspects of any trial. Howcan this be judged if witnesses knowthey are being watched and analyzedby so many people? The can ofwormsopened by the Smith case has penetrated into one of the most stablevenues of government process laidout by our country's founders.

In this issue of The ArkansasLawyer. different aspects of trialpractice are discussed in detail. Wehave categorized the topics in trialnotebook form and each subject carries two articles. James Swindoll andNicholas Patton start the notebookwith helpful tips on handling evidence. Diane Graham and JohnElrod discuss beneficial ways to useexpert testimonies. Nate Coulter andPaul McNeil cover the area of damages and Jim Moody and Stephen A.Matthews handle suggestions oncourtroom strategy.

Other items in this issue includea photo essay by Ann West. highlighting the newly renovated PulaskiCounty Courthouse; a salute to theWorld War II veterans by PhillipCarroll; an interesting look at thepossible future of trials with VirtualReality by Kirk D. Darbe; an outlineof the Disabilities Act by EugeneHunt; and a special feature on one ofArkansas' most prestigious politicians. Senator J. William Fulbright.

This issue is very lengthy. butinformative.

It will provide helpful information to attorneys, as well as anyoneelse who may be fascinated with trials.

Arkansas BarAssociation's97th Annual

MeetingJune 14-17

Arlington HotelHot Springs

FeaturingU.S. SupremeCourt Justice

Antonin Scalia

Also:The Bill Tillman Band

Rider's in the SkyABOTA'S "Masters in

Trial" program

Choose from 36hours of

possible CLE

1 ARKANSAS LAWYER SPRING 1995

• Experienced graphic designer on-site.

• Free pick up and delivery saves youtime by letting us do tile leg work.

• Confidentiality of your docUl11ent isensured. Your projects are handled ina secure environment by our staff ofprofessional co-workers.

Kinko's is Your Law Finn's Branch Office.

You can depend on Kinko's for services designed specificallyto meet the needs of the leg:t1 profession.

• Discovery docwnents can be done • Instant enlargements up to 24" x36"quickly and accurately while reducing are easier to read and more persuasivestress and oveltime, allOWing your courtroom exhibits.staff to concentrate on legal maners.

• Legal doclUuents and manualsare easier to read witll customizedtabs and bindings that meet yourexact specifications.

• Display evidence in full-colorto add impact and effectivelycommUJlicate legal informationwithin the courtroom.

Ask for Philip MacWilkinsonLegal Communication Consullant

Open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.400 Louisiana Street. 372-0775

CI995 Kinko's, Inc. All riahts reserved. KJnko's is a registered tn.demilrk of Kinko's Graphics CorporatIOn and Is used br permiuloo.


choose kinko'sas your legal partner.

kinko·s~Your branch office

8 THE EVIDENCE9 Scientific Evidence at Trial By James Swindoll

11 Statistical Evidence By Nicholas Patton16 THE EXPERTS

17 Cross-Examining theMedical Expert By Diane Graham

18 The use of documentsthrough expert witnesses By John Elrod

20 THE DAMAGES21 Why Punitive Damages are

Spectacular and Rare By Nate Coulter23 How to talk out of both

sides of your mouth By Paul McNeil

28 THE STRATEGY29 Opening Statement By Jim Moody31 Avoiding the Overkill By Stephen A. Matthews

By Bill Glenn

By Victor A. Fleming

By Robert L. Jones, III

A Thing of Beauty is a Joy Forever By Ann West

Introduction to Virtual Reality By Kirk D. Darbe

Developments in the Law By Eugene Hunt

Executive Director's Report By William A. Martin

Reflections on World War II By Phillip Carroll

Disciplinary Actions

Advisory Opinions

In Memoriam - What might have been:A Tribute to J. William Fulbright By Bill Glenn

The 1995 Pro Bono Honor Roll

In This Issue:1 Trial Fascination

4 Law, Literature and Laughter

5 Letters to the Editor

6 President's Message

3237384041425152

55

EDITORStacey DeWitt

ASSOCIATE EDITORBill Glmn

VOLUME 29, NUMBER 2PUBLISHER

Arkamas Bar Association

OFFICERSPresident

Robert L. Jones HIPresident-Elect

Carolyn B. WitherspoonImmediate Past President

E. Lamar PettusSecretary -Treasurer

Frank B. SewallExecutive Council ChairRobert M. Cearley, Jr.

Young Lawyers' Section ChairSteven W. Quattlebaum

Executive DirectorWilliam A. Martin

Assistant Executive DirectorJudith Gray

EXECUTIVE COUNCILJoe Benson

Mark CambianoCharles L. Carpenter, Jr.

Michael H. CrawfordRobert R. Estes

Wendell L. GriffenDavid K. Harp

Dave W. HarrodCharles L. HarwellDon HollingsworthHenry C. Kinslow

Harry Truman MooreDonald P. RaneyA. Glenn Vasser

Teresa M. Wineland

1ht! ArlcQrfSIlS Lmuyer (USPS 546-(l4() is pub-lished quarterly by the Arkansas Bar Association.Second class postage paid at Little Rock.Arkansas. POSTMASTER; send addn>ss changesto 71w Arbns4s l...auJIpr, 400 West Markham,Little Rock. Arkansas 72201. Subscription price tonon-members of the Arkansas Bar Association$15.00 per year and to members $10.00 per yearincluded in annual dues. Any opinion expressedherein is that of the author, and not necessarilythai of the Arkansas Bar Association or TheArkansAS lAwyer. Contributions to The ArkansasLAwyer are welcome and should be sent in twocopies to EDITOR. n,e Arkans/lS lAwyer, 400West Markham, Uttle Rode, Arkansas 72201.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARDMary L. Broadaway

Thomas M. CarpenterWendell L. GriffenMatthew HoranBrian H. Ratcliff

Robert D. TrammellRuth Ann Wisener


Law, Literature and Laughter

Railroaded,Ramroded &

FiredBy Victor A. Fleming

If you're a regular LLL reader,you'll recall that LLUs retirement inthe summer of 1994 was likened tothat of Michael Jordan. Jordan had,however, retired a full season beforeLLL did, completing only nine yearsin the NBA. LLL went out on its 10thanniversary as a humor column.

Michael Jordan must read theArkansas Lawyer. For, within days ofthe publication of the winter 1995issue, in which LLL began its comeback, Jordan issued a press releasewhich read, "I'm back."

In his first game back Jordan hitabout one fourth of his shots and theBulls lost in overtime. In its firstreappearance LLL lost its footnotesto an optical scanner which placedthem at random throughout thetextJ

In the past I've written abouttypos, word processors, and malaprops. We now need a new word todescribe the process by which scanners garbage up a document.Perhaps "proofreadaprop" wouldwork2

Speaking of proofreading, someone did not do so in a document thatwas handed to me in the halls of thenewly renovated Pulaski Courthouse.Textually, it was quite familiar,pointing out that one party had triedunsuccessfully to move one trial datethat conflicted with another andthus needed a postponement. Thedocument was entitled "Motion forContinence." Seeing it, my trustedand faithful assistant said, "Well,it's better than a Motion forIncontinence."


A closer proofread on a documentrecently received in my office mighthave made matters clearer. I wasdirected to proceed with a foreclosure of a residcntial loan taken outby a mother and her son. The client'sletter to me said, "The mother isdecased and the son lives in the realestate."

Proofreading, like so many mundane tasks, can be a relative matter.Witness a self-typed, self-styled, andotherwise pro se document filed April30,1990, in the Office of the Clerk ofthe U.S. Supreme Court. Giving it aliberal interpretation, I'd call it apetition for certiorari. Quoting therefrom:

"Dear Sirr's,"I want a Motion for Leave to

Proceed; in forma pauperis, withappropriots affidavit.

"I am still in pursute of my Case#81-1753.... I was Railroaded,Ramroded, Harrased and mentallyforced and then Fired. After I wasfired then Blackballed, slandered,character asssinated and condeamedto skid row and never to be resurrected to society of norms and valuesagain."

A sad tale for sure, but there'smore. Under the heading "WRAPPUP," the petitioner wrote:

"It.. makes me ashamed to own myself. I am almost ashamed to becalled a citizen of the U.S. ofAmerica. It is so unbecomming toloose what I have lost and sitU carryon a good livehood and life style.

"Be It Resolve, I thank my God forholding me together; with the love

that I have in me for him and thepepole of this country, and my newfamily. God did it; HE held metogether. My prayer to God in theday time, and the night time is thatthis Case will not be turned down ByThe supreme Court. God is my secretJudge I have lold the truth.

"Thank you'll for your time andconsideration. 'God Bless You all:with your decision. 'Thank You.'"

The petition from which theabove excerpts are taken remindedme of the words of Jim Branton,President of the Texas BarAssociation, who last year said, "Inthe Florida State Bar's lawyer advertising case, we have filed a curiousamigo brief."3

Footnotes1. As I tried to say in a footnote last quarter, footnotes are the quintessence of legalliterature.

2. See, the former editor of this magazinedid not like footnotes in columns. So,when LLL was asked to emerge fromretirement, I negotiated the coveted Ufootnotes? Okay" clause in my contract withthe current editor.

3. I trust said brief was full of footnotes.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Vic Fleming is amember of the Gill Law Firm ofLittle Rock. Mail, call or fax him yourtrue stories about humorous occurrences in law practice - 3801 TCBYTower, Little Rock AR 72201; (501)376-3800/ FAX 372-3359.

Letters to the Editor

When your clients call and you're not in, don't let them hearthat impersonal beep. Let them hear a pleasant Answerfoneoperator. Your clients will appreciate the difference.

"Please wait lorthe beep" is theperlect way torun business all.

Dear Editor.I wanted to take a moment to

express my gratitude to theArkansas Bar Association for itscontinued efforts to make MockTrial Competition available forthe state's high school students.You truly are making a differencein lives and in the choices ofcareers! Nothing else that we canoffer students at the high schoollevel allows them to experiencefirst hand the intensity ofresearch required, the appliedknowledge, the questioning skills,or the verbal and language skillsso particular to a career in law. Iknow it is difficult to find lawyersand judges who are willing to forfeit their Saturdays to hear mockcases, and I know the state coordinator has a very difficult timeorganizing all the details - notto mention dealing with all kindsof questions and situations thatarise in the process!

I understand you are thesupervisor of Jeri Rutledge, whoserves as this year's state coordinator. My students and I thankyou from the bottoms of ourhearts for allowing her the latitude necessary to assume thisresponsibility on top of therequirements of her job. Neitherof you may know it, but you havea hand in changing lives. Let meshare and example: This year Ihave a student who has a historyof falling into the wrong crowd,cutting classes, letting his gradesslip, et cetera. However, he is perhaps one of the brightest youngmen I've seen, and his thoughtprocesses are unchallenged.From the first of the year, he hastaken an intense interest in Mock

Trial as I presented in class - heeven decided he wanted tobecome a lawyer. Because of hispersonal history, however, he vacillates, often selling himself shortas he thinks it is an impossibledream. After state competitionwas over, and we discovered wewere going to national competition, he became a changed youngman. His focus these past fewdays is intense.... his mom tellsme he lives, eats and breathesMock Trial! Somehow, the experience gave him the confidence thathe CAN become a lawyer and theassurance that he WILL do wellat it. For him, Mock Trial was theexperience that changed thedirection of his life! How can thatbe measured in mere words ofgratitude?

Toll-free throughout Arkansas

800·333·6414or in LIttle Rock, call376-312'

We do so appreciate the workof Ms. Rutledge throughout all ofthis. We feel we have begun toknow her as a friend as well as amentor and we sincerely hopeyou can spare her for the national competition so she can travelwith us!

Again, thank you for the partyou played in making this happen! I hope the Arkansas BarAssociation knows how gratefulwe teachers and students are forthe opportunity provided. Wehope it continues for many years!

Sincerely,

Brenda PatenGiftedfl'alented FacilitatorRogers High School

• Archived Messages

• Faxing Services

• 8 or 24 Hour Service

• Voice Mail

• Alpha-Numeric Paging

• Statewide Message Delivery


President's Message

SummationBy Robert L. Jones, III

This issue of The ArkansasLawyer is dedicated to trial practice.I thank the authors who contributedtheir time to share with us theirstrategies for a more successful andefficient trial.

This year has gone by fast. Itseems just like yesterday I waspreparing my first President'sReport. The bar year has beenextremely rewarding, but I mustadmit that I'm looking forward toreturning to the courtroom on a regular basis and spending more timewith my children, David Jones andMichelle Kooi, who live in Colorado.

One of the highlights of this baryear was the passage of the courtfunding bill which provides for astate funded administrative assistantlcase coordinator for every trialjudge in the state. It provides for uniform costs and filling fees statewide.It establishes a reporting systemwhich will allow the GeneralAssembly to obtain accurate data todetermine the cost to the state forthe funding of the judicial system.Past president John Gill of LittleRock, Judge John Lineberger ofFayetteville and Judge BetsyDanielson of Fort Smith and othersspent countless hours drafting andlobbying for this bill. A big thank yougoes to our lawyer legislators.Without their efforts, this bill wouldnot have passed. Special praise goesto Wayne Dowd, chair of the SenateJudiciary Committee, and MikeWilson, chair of the House JudiciaryCommittee. There is more work to bedone in this area, but we are on the


road to uniform justice across thestate.

My personal highlight was meeting and working with bar presidentsfrom across the South. I was fortunate to have attended the Georgia,Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas andthe Southern Conference of BarPresidents annual meetings. I stillhave Florida to look forward to. Wehave many great bar leaders in the

I would like to report to you aboutseveral ongoing programs:Lawyer Advertising - Ablue ribbon committee is in placeready to make recommendations toour Supreme Court immediatelyfollowing the United StatesSupreme Court ruling in theFlorida case. A decision is expectedany day.Three-Point Attack - ThisYoung Lawyers' project raisedalmost $40,000 for cancerresearch. Steven W. Quattlebaum,Chair of the Young LawyprR'Section, did a yeoman's job.LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE- Ann West as chair of this committee has done an outstanding jobin reorganizing this service. We arefortunate to have Theresa Dixon, alawyer. as our new full-time director of this program.Lawyers Helping LawyersCommittee - chaired by mybrother Kenny Jones, ha targetedas a goal by the end of the 1996 baryear to implement a substanceabuse program to provide assis-

South.The first Red Mass, which is an

ecumenical service at the Catherdralof St. Andrew in Little Rock forprayer for our judicial system, washeld on May I, Law Day.

Our Professional Ethics andGrievances Committee chaired byHoward Brill is working on establishing a procedure to voluntarilyresolve fee disputes as well as complaints againRt lawyers that do notrise to the level of a grievance.

The presidents and presidentselect of Arkansas, Louisiana andMis issippi Bar Associations held aregional meeting in Hot Springs during March. A recommendation wasmade to have a joint CLE meetingbetween the three states during thefirst week of Mardi Gras in NewOrleans in 1996. This should be aneducational and fun opportunity forArkansas lawyers.

This year's Annual Meeting at theArlington Hotel in Hot Springs, June14-17, should be the best ever. Ithank Professor Dent Gitchel for hisoutstanding leadership as chair ofthe Annual Meeting.

There are so many people tothank for making this a successfulbar year. I will start wi th theArkansas Bar Association staff Wehave an outstanding bar staff thatseems to get better and better. Thisyear would not have been the successit was without the help of Bill Martinand Judith Gray. I talked to themalmost daily; most of the time severaJ times a day. Bill and Judith are apleasure to work with. I particularly

want to thank Stacey DeWitt, our work they performed this year. I also my partners as it was necessary fornew lohbyist and director of commu- want to thank John Elrod for making me to delegate many legal matters.nications and her assistant, Bill our Legal Education Committee At the June meeting I will beGlenn. I also wish to thank program more active. passing the gavel to our new presi-planner Carol King; CLE secretary A very special and warm thank dent, Carolyn Witherspoon of LittleVirginia Hargrave; membership you goes to my fiancee Niki Cung for Rock. Working with Carolyn hasdirector Barbara Tarkington; admin- her understanding and friendship. been a pleasure. I am confident our

association will continue to grow andistrative assistant Jeri Rutledge; She made this bar year even more get better under her leadership. Ibookkeeper Joyce Bobbitt and recep- enjoyable. predict out new president-elect, H.T.tionist Florence Smith. Appreciation goes to my parents, Moore of Paragould, will make an

Many thanks go to my committee Robert L. Jones, Jr. and Maxine outstanding bar president.and section chairs for their dedica- Jones, for their words of encourage- To you, the members of thetion and service to the profession. ment and advice. Arkansas Bar Association, I giveLet me tell you what a great bar I want to extend a standing ova- thanks for giving me the opportunityassociation we have. I probably made tion to Robert M. Cearley, Jr. of Little to serve our profession as your presi-in excess of 1,000 appointments dur- Rock, who served as chair of the dent this year.ing my bar year. I cannot recall a sin- Executive Council. Bobby unselfisWygle instance where an Arkansas Bar gave of himself Time and time again

FORENSIC TAPE SERVICESAssociation member said no. Special I relied upon him for his advice andthanks go to our hard-working counsel. Bobby is truly presidential

Audio Technologies For TM Legal Profusion

Executive Council and House of material. AUTHENTICATION,Delegates. These people give sub- But most important of all, I want ENHANCEMENT, ANALYSISstantial amounts of time to improve to thank my secretary of over twenty COURTROOM PRESENTATIONour profession and our association. years, Charlotte Pigg, for working Of Audio Evidence

I especially want to thank Jim extra hard this year. She spentJulian, who chaired the Legislation countless hours on Bar Association 518 East Capitol Street #410Committee and David Harp, who work. Without her help and support, Jackson MS 39201

chaired the Jurisprudence and Law this year would have been impossi- 1-800·TAPE-SERVReform Committee, for the good ble. I also appreciate the tolerance of

.8~ 1I-"i.1FE ITHE OLD LINE LIFE Introduces-AFFORDABLE LIFE INSURANCEN

INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA~

~ UNOERWRmEN BY THE OLD LINE LIFE. MILWAUKIE. WISe. 53201 For More Inlorrnallon Call:Houston Ollice: 713-376-6122~ • EstobIlshed 1910 • 0Y9f 30&lion DoIIon 01 IJIe lnumceln Ierc.

Nalional Toll Free: 1-800-421-5692~ • toI9dA +~ b'I tlIA.M.1MI~ based on onadt* oIlrcrd::l1 Cl:I'dbn <rd (lJllIfOIng perbmcn::.

~ NON·TOBACCO RATES Fax 713-444-0604Clip & "," ,,'a t" Houslon Insurance Group

SMONTHLY RA1fS MONTHLY RA1fS

P. D. BOl691486- $10.0:0 S!lO.COO $100.000 $250.0ll ""', $lIUIOO $50.(01 $100,000 $250,COO Houslon, TX 77269-14860 ... -- -- -,.- -- ... -- -- -- --i20 710 '.00 10.90 '.ro 11.50 lUO 18.75 18.55 .. 11.30 11.92 19.30 15.34 1925 15.67 37.50 31.05 r-APPUcArtOii R£QUESTFORM- ..,21 710 '.00 10.90 '.ro 11.50 lUO 18.75 18.55 .. 11.98 10141 20.46 16.09 20." 16.92 ".00 32.7122 71' '.00 10.90 .ro 11.50 l'.<tO 18.75 18.55 " 12.63 10.84 21.67 16.88 72." ",. ..." 33." 1M nlofmolionyou~ wi bekepl nl1riclconlklence. I" 710 '.00 10.90 '.70 11.50 11.40 18.75 18.55 " 13'" 11.16 22.92 11.11 24.67 19.67 45.84 36."

" 71' '.00 10.90 '.ro 11.50 11.40 18.15 18.55 52 13.86 11.43 24.11 18.63 ,.., 21.00 49.17 ..." ,=- Iw 25 710 '.OS 10.90 '.70 11.50 11.40 18.75 18.55 53 14.49 11.68 25.50 1959 ",. 22.67 57." ..."~ 76 713 '9' 10.90 '.ro 11.50 11.40 18.75 18.55 54 15.14 1U18 V.OO 2055 ".. 2H2 55.67 45.42 Ic"' ... ..~

77 71' 6.91 10.90 '.70 "" 11.40 18.15 1855 55 ".8< 12.38 28.75 2146 "... 7625 61.88 <e." 0.... 0_179 724 7.03 10.90 '.70 11.50 11.40 18.75 18.55 55 16.52 12.86 30.55 22.21 ",. 7925 67." 57.>1 Doleof8lrlh

~ " 1.31 1.11 10.90 '.70 11.50 11.40 18.75 18.55 57 11.11 '''' 32.38 22.80 41.61 ",. 73.55 55." IAmI. oflnl. DetlIed Olobocco 0_'_"'1'" ., 74' 7.20 10.95 .70 11.50 11.40 18.15 18.55 58 11.89 14.01 34.50 23.046 "50 32." 01" 6U6 Home I'!'oo<1e Watl'!'oo<1e::l 31 7" 731 11.05 '.OS 11.50 lUO 18.75 18.55 " 18.18 14.70 31.09 24.46 "." 36." "" 67.>1 1-"'" I:! 32 76' 74' 1116 1010 11.50 lUO 18.15 18.55 00 ".., 15.50 40.42 26.05 5567 37." 97.71 73.55

=: 33 1.16 758 "25 10.35 11.50 11.40 18.75 18.55 61 21.39 16.40 ....50 28.11 62.50 ..,. 109.17 SJ.42 I Wa phone earweoolon II nNded. It. bet! trne toc~me II:

I" 792 7.73 11.50 10.65 11.50 11.<tO 18.15 18.55 62 23.11 11.39 49.21 30.11 ",. 43.34 '71" "." LMcrilg LAJIImaon U ...riIg lUHomeOWoftJl 35 '" 790 11.80 11.00 11.50 11.40 18.75 18.55 63 25.00 18.41 54.50 3367 n." ..." 1~.42 ".55

'- P'lWE SEt()AOOlIlC:lfW. ArftJCAllON FOt:36 8.31 ,.... 10.21 11.40 11.80 11.60 19.38 18.96 .. 26.91 "" 60.34 31.05 81.15 ",. 150.84 109.80 I~ 37 '54 '79 1063 11.80 10.25 11... 20.42 19.59 " 79.92 20 .. 66.61 40.84 .... 56,11 168.13 121.11838 '" 8.49 11.13 10.21 10.61 10.09 21.46 20.21 .. 30." 22.39 13.00 ... 96 106.17 00." 181.:1) 131.46 100.~"" Ma. '_Iz 39 .OO .,. 1111 10.63 11.11 10.59 22.11 21.'6 67 32.85 23.91 79.34 49.42 115.11 "50 201.:1) 141.46

I""'~"'''''''0 .. .... ,... 12.34 1105 11.61 11.34 23.96 23.13 .. 34.88 25.55 86.48 54.38 125.11 ".67 229.59 152.09 ,-'" ""'Joboc:co I!; " 973 '" 13.00 11.046 12.25 11.61 25.21 23.96 .. 36.96 V.31 95.11 59.92 137.17 "''' 251.:1) 161.61

IC""""""0 .. 10.01 .... 13.11 11.88 12.84 12.25 26.25 25.21 70 39.09 29.11 108.25 66.25 '57." 15.42 292.50 110.42

I.., 1044 .." 14.50 12.30 13.59 12.61 V.1l 26.25 71 NfA NIA N/A NfA 111.34 "... 332.92 181.30 01"", tocO'lel mvctti......'i .. lO.88 .... 15.34 12.80 14.25 13.00 29,38 21,30 ,. NfA NJA NJA NfA ''''<0 91.00 37115 207.9:2

I FOR ADOIlIOPW. HOAMAJION ON 1H(Sf PIlOOUCYS CHECK:~ .. II.~ 10.30 1625 13-" "" 13.34 31.05 28.13 73 NIA NJA N/A NIA 215.50 104.17 430.21 234.311 ,~

~.. lO.04 10.n 11.21 13.96 ,." 14.00 33.13 28.96 " NjA N/A N/A NIA 241.42 115.75 486.88 266.46

" 10.65 11.32 15.21 14.63 11.84 14.61 35.00 3000 75 NjA NJA NfA N/A 2'69.92 131.42 549.17 XTl.92 I 0 FM YlARl£VU fERM OWHOUUFE.. at..__<dI___...___..~•••_tl..__IIo""""'~."""",_"",ftw OTENflARLMl fEIM o UNMRS,lLLlFE IQ ,,__._.....IIo...-...........-... _tl-.f/Iooft4_110.COI'*'..... a-IWl,Gl'~_......~ .....,.,.........Io~__ 1o

l..!lfW~fY~E~RM_ ~~s~~~ J.1IS_I3O.COI...,..... -..a.IWl,S,l ____Io.,.IIO___S_..""""",....$IIIO.OOO..._CW2""' ......._ -.atf.7lD_-'___Io.IIS"-_.... _ ..CXN ....._....-.....



mEEVIDENCE

Scientific EvidenceBl" James Swindoll

at~

Trial

As trial lawyers are aware, inDwberl u Mmr!l Dew Pharmaceuticals,Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993) the U.S.Supreme Court ruled that theFederal Rules of Evidence, specifically Rules 402, 702 and 403, controlthe admissibility of scientific evidence. This replaced the "generallyaccepted in the scientific communitystandard" enunciated in Frye u.United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923)with what has been called a "relevancy based standard" of admissibility.

Essentially, Justice Blackmoninterpreted the Federal Rules ofEvidence to impose two prerequisites on scientific evidence. First, theproffered evidence must be reliable;that is, the underlying methodologyfrom which the evidence is drawn(not just the conclusion) must bebased upon scientific knowledge.Second, it must assist the trier of facteither in understanding other evidence or in determining a fact in

issue without being confusing ormisleading. Note that the Court'sdiscussion in Daubert is confined toscientific expert evidence as opposedto "technical or other specializedknowledge". Daubert, 113 S.Ct. at2795 N.8.

While these two principles seem"simple enough", Justice Renquist'sseparate opinion questioned the"helpfulness" of the new standard,Daubert, 113 S.Ct. at 2796, wondering if this new formulation of admissibility of scientific evidence helpedthe judge with his new role as gatekeeper.

The relevancy based standardadopted by the U.S. Supreme Courtin Daubert was adopted two yearsearlier by the Supreme Court ofArkansas in Prater u. State ofArkansas, 307 Ark. 180,820 S.W.2d429 (1991). A "relevancy based"approach derived from the ArkansasRules of Evidence was adopted and a"gatekeeper" role was imposed upon

the presiding trial judge. This newrole required that when scientificevidence was produced, the Judgewould conduct a preliminary hearingunder Section § 104 of the ArkansasRules of Evidence and examine thatevidence under a relevancy basedstandard using Rules 402 (relevancy), 702 (expert opinion) and 403(probative vs prejudicial) to determine its admissibility. The opinion isvery similar to Daubert. In fact, sincePrater, Daubert has been cited withapproval by the Arkansas SupremeCourt. See Jones u. Arkansas, 314Ark. 289, 862 S.W.2d 282 (1993).

A Review of the RulesPrater and Daubert use essential

ly the same rules of evidence to setup the review of the proposed scientific evidence. The trial lawyer, if theexpert is qualified, will use the sameinquiries that were used in the pastto establish the relevance and reliability of the proposed evidence.

-II Arkansas Rules of Evidence

Rule 402 - Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence InadmissibleAll relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by statute or by these rules or by other rulesapplicable in the courts of this State. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

Rule 403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion or Waste of TimeAlthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger ofunfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, orneedless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Rule 702 - Testimony by ExpertsIf scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or todetermine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

Federal Rules of Evidence I

Rule 402 - Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence InadmissibleAll relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Actof Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

Rule 403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion or Waste of TimeAlthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger ofunfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, orneedless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Rule 702 - Testimony by ExpertsIf scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or todetermine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.


John T. Bates - 1-800-299-5950

TRAFFIC ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION

meets the preponderance of the evidence test for the admission but thatit does so in a way that gives the"gatekeeper" plenty of information touse in explaining why the evidenceshould be for the jury.

Accidents on highways, streets, railroads,highway construction zones. Computergraphics and animated simulations onvideo tape prepared for exhibits. Over38 years engineering experience.

ion met a generally accepted scientific standard in the communityfrom which the opinion arose.

A review demonstrates thatDaubert is not a significant changefrom the Frye standard. It is important to realize the rationale used toevaluate the evidence or exclusion ofthe evidence is different.

It is still the trial judge whomonitors, controls and if necessary,makes a preliminary decision. Thetrial lawyer offering the scientificevidence must insure that it not only

Practically SpeakingIn trial practice the "liberalized"

approach of Daubert and Prater, andthe Frye approach used in the pastreach practically the same results. Itis the still the trial judge who monitors and controls the admission ofthe opinion, and it is this "gatekeeper" who makes the preliminary decision. Since this is so, it is incumbentupon the lawyer proffering the scientific opinion to insure that this "gatekeeper" be apprised not only of theopinion, but of its basis in scientifictheory, the methodology and technique used to arrive at the opinionand finally the impact of the opinionon this dispute or controversy.

ConclusionIn the days before Daubert and

Prater, trial lawyers focused uponthe reliability of the evidence andhad to prove by a preponderance ofthe evidence that the proffered opin-

The Relevancy StandardApplying a Suggested Checklist

1. Rule 401 - determine relevancy•

2. Rule 702 - determine evidentiary reliabilitybased on whether the expert's testimony is "scientificknowledge". Consider the following:

a. whether it is "knowledge," grounded in themethods and procedures of science;

b. "knowledge," must be more than a subjectivebelief or unsupported speculation;

c. can it or has it been tested;d. has the theory or technique been subjected to

peer review and publication;e. what is the known or potential rate of error;f. does the methodology have "general acceptance"

in the relevant scientific community.

3. Rule 703 - The expert's opinions must be "of atype reasonably relied upon by experts in the particularfield in forming opinions or inference upon the subject"

4. Rule 403 - The probative value of the expertopinion must substantially out-weigh the danger ofunfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleadingthe jury.


Statistical EvidenceBy Nicholas H. Patton

Statistical information which canbe introduced at trial exists in manydifferent formats. For example, statistical information can appear: asscientific statistics such as publicopinion surveys (also known as consumer surveys), as mathematicalstatistics involving the population(census), as medical statistics involving percentages of the populationwith various blood types, and as vitalstatistics involving births, deathrates, and marriages to name just afew. Purely statistical compilationsmay be admitted at trial, in somecases by judicial notice.I With theexception of evidence of vital statistics which may easily be authenticated and admitted into evidence underArkansas Rule of Evidence 901(7)2,practitioners will encounter problems admitting their statisticalinformation into evidence at trial ifobjected to by their adversarybecause certain pitfalls and procedures were not followed. Due to thelimited space of this article, I willcover the pitfalls and proceduressurrounding the admissibility of statistical evidence in the form ofpublicopinion surveys.3 Readers are theninvited to analogize these points tothe specific type of statistical evidence they will be using at trial.

Public opinion surveys are of agrowing importance to practitionersin various cases such as anti-trust,trademark infringement, unfaircompetition practices as well ascases involving breach of contract orthe safety of a working place to namea few.4 Surveys are a practical wayto introduce evidence on a particulartopic without the necessity of havingnumerous individuals testifY at trialin order to establish the point madein the survey. Great care must betaken in conducting surveys in order

to insure the court will allow theirintroduction as evidence at trial. Theforemost point practitioners shouldnote before they attempt to havetheir expert either gather statisticalevidence or testifY as to evidencealready completed by an independent third party is statistical evidence such as records, reports, statements or data compilations must beboth reliable and trustworthy as wellas the obvious point of being relevant to an issue at bar before thecourt will allow it to be introduced attrial.s

Modern decisions have held thatcase-specific surveys are generallyadmissible if they are conductedaccording to principles accepted bysocial scientists and statisticians forgathering and analyzing surveydata.6 To qualifY a study or opinionpoll for admission into evidence,there must be a substantial showing

)

of reliability. There must be someshowing the survey was conducted inaccordance with generally acceptedsurvey principles and the resultswere used in a statistically correctmanner.7 Once a survey has beenshown to conform to "conventionalmethodology," its arguable deficiencies usually are said to affect itsweight rather than its admissibility.8Courts examine whether the conclusions of the survey researchers reston sample data collected in such away as to permit fair inference aboutthe relevant factual questions.9

Before conducting a survey, thepractitioner must establish severalcriteria with which he will be working, namely, the "universe" and thetype of "sampling" that will beemployed. A "universe" is the portionof the population which is selectedbecause its characteristics are relevant to the proposition in question.


AI-l.J<ANSAS <. .. I:NI:TICS PI~<."}<"RAM

THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE

UNIVERSITY Of ARKANSAS fOR MEDiCAl SCIENCES

4301 West Markham . Slot S06 . little RDck, Arbnw 72205

Strong Mdicin<ftrArkamar•

• The Future of DNA TYPing Technology.

There will be time allowed fordiscussion, questions and answers foreach topic. Cost: $60 per participant.Call (50 I) 296-1 700 for reservations.

missible. A proper method for conducting a survey would include thefollowing points: 1) an unbiasedquestionnaire which would elicitanswers regarding the state of mindof the interviewee; 2) the interviewers followed n uniform pattern ofasking questions and recording theanswers accurately; 3) proper selection of persons to be interviewed toinsure a proper sampling from thedefined universe; 4) proper tabulation of the data; and 5) an acceptedscientific interpretation of theresults and evaluation of the accuracy of the data.J7

Historically speaking, publicopinion surveys rejected by trialcourts for various reasons, mostnotably, that the survey itself washearsay, the method used to conductthe survey was improper, or the findings and conclusions lacked probative value or were not relevant to theissue at bar,18 Of these three, thehearsay objection is the primaryobjection which rendered surveysinadmissible at trial since the proponent was attempting to introduce

Join us on Friday, June 9. 1995 for animportant workshop and seminar on theuse of DNA testing in both Criminal andPaternity Cases. The seminar Is beingconducted by the Arkansas GeneticsProgram of UAMS Medical Center, andwill feature these topics:

• Chemical Aspects of DNAfor Human Identification.

• The Technology of DNA Typing.• Chromosomal Markers.• Population Genetics and Probability.• The Impact of DNA Typing

on Criminal and Civil Trials.• Prosecutor & Defense Strategies on

DNA: What Works? What Doesn't?

DNA Testing for Crintinal& Paternity Cases: A Sentinar.

tical evidence to be introduced attrial is to insure its relevancy to theissue at bar. Before courts will allowsurveys to be introduced as evidence,the proponent has the burden ofproving that the survey is both reliable and trustworthy. Therefore,practitioners desiring to introducesurveys at trial must prove: 1) therelevancy and adequacy of the universe; 2) the relevancy and adequacyof the sample; 3) the qualifications ofthe person(s) conducting the survey;4) the absence of bias in the methodof interviewing; 5) that the questionsasked were simple and unequivocal;and 6) the interviewees could answerthe questions in their own terms,15

Many methods exist for conducting public opinion surveys. Of anymethod used, the practitioner mustbe able to convince the court that thesurvey to be introduced as evidencewas conducted properly and theresults obtained are impartial,16 Ifthe techniques used in gathering theopinions indicate that they arebiased or unfair, the court will likelydeem the statistical evidence inad-

Examples of an universe mightinclude: everyone located in Pulaskicounty, all registered voters in a certain area, or all individuals with certain characteristics (such as being acollege graduate). The samplingtechnique used is only taken fromindividuals who compromise the universe. Note that neither the size northe location of the universe shouldaffect the admissibility of the surveyat trial as long as the sample selected was proper and the survey itself isrelevant as probative for establishing the point to be proved,10

Practitioners should contrast thepoint of size not being a factor in theadmissibility of surveys againstcases such as age discrimination,where the size of the universe selected in determining the statistical evidence is highly relevantJ1

After offering proof that the universe selected was proper, the practitioner must next satisfy the courtthat the "sample,"- that is, the persons questioned for the survey, wereproper persons since each person'sviews will be considered representative of the entire universe,12 Variousforms of sampling exist: "Random"(or "probability") sampling giveseach person in the universe an equalchance of being questioned. In theory, the persons to be interviewed areselected in a way which insures thatall of the individuals in the universehave a mathematical chance of beingselected. "Representative" (or "purposive") sampling is used in selectingan accurate cross section of the universe. The cross section is determined by selecting characteristicswhich the practitioner believes willaffect the answers given, and thenchoosing those individuals who possess the characteristics selected.J3

The following criteria should beutilized to insure the admissibility ofyour sample: 1) the sample is at leastlarge enough in numerical terms toinsure that its accuracy will fallwithin normal limits; 2) the sampleis representative of the populationbeing studied, e.g., sex, age, race, etc.;and 3) the sample is free of any biasin the manner the survey was implemented.14 Perhaps the single mostimportant aspect in gathering statis-


statements of individuals who wouldnot be cross-examined by the adversary's attorney since the intervieweewill not be in court to testify. Thatpoint notwithstanding, there are several ways to work around thehearsay objection. First, argue thatthe statements are "original evidence." That is, the statements arenot being introduced to prove thetruth of the matter asserted, but arebeing introduced to show that thestatement was made ("the wordswere uttered"). Second, argue thatthe statement falls under the state ofmind exception as proof of the interviewee's state of mind when thestatement was made. Lastly, sincethe statements which make up thesurvey are documents which are regularly relied on by experts in formingtheir opinions, use the statements asfoundation for your expert's testimony at trial.19

In Arkansas State HighwayComm'n u. ScheU!O the ArkansasCourt of Appeals held that ArkansasRule of Evidence 702 concerning theadmission of expert testiroony doesnot depend on the relative certaintyof the subject matter of the testiroony, but focuses on whether or not theexpert's testimony will assist thetrier of fact on a point at issue. Thus,an expert can incorporate the surveyevidence into his or her opinions. The

Federal and Uniform Rules ofEvidence allow the expert to testifyas to the survey if it is reasonablyreliable since it will serve as thebasis of the expert's opinion. Rule703 allows the expert to testify to anopinion based on evidence which isnot admissible in evidence as long asit is "of the type reasonably relied onby experts in the particular field."The Advisory Committee's Note toRule 703 notes survey evidencespecifically, "The rule also offers amore satisfactory basis for rulingupon the admissibility ofpublic opinion poll evidence. Attention is directed to the validity of the techniquesemployed rather than to relativelyfruitless inquiries into whetherhearsay is involved."21

Readers should use the followingchecklist to overcome the hearsayobjection; 1) the testimony is offerednot to show the truth of what wassaid, but siroply to show their stateof mind; 2) there is no impeaching ofthe interviewers' sincerity, narrativeability, perception, and memory; 3)there is no showing that the interviewees were influenced by leadingquestions, the environment in whichthe questions were asked, or the personality of the investigator; and 4)there is showing that other ways ofgetting evidence on the same pointare either iropractical or burden-

some.22

With regard to experts, it isessential to the admissibility of thesurvey that the survey, itself, be conducted by an expert. Practitionersshould not attempt to conduct theirown type of statistical evidence during their investigation of the matter.10 addition to the expert used to conduct the survey, the practitionerneeds an expert who can evaluatethe information obtained by the survey. This expert who evaluates thedata should be a different expertthan the one used to conduct the survey.

If the proper procedures are followed by the proponent seekingintroduction of the public opinionsurveys or poll, courts should admitthat statistical evidence into evidence. Those procedures include; 1)laying a proper foundation for thesurvey's introduction; 2) disclosing tothe adverse party the fact of the survey and its result; 3) offering evidence supporting the interpretationand verification of the results of thepoll; 4) and in most instances, 5)making available for cross-examination at least some of the interviewerswho conducted the questioning of thepersons interviewed.23 Once admitted into evidence, a public opinionpoll or survey should be entitled toreceive probative value. Of course,

John E. McAllister, P.E.Graduate Electrical Engineer, 34 Years Industrial Experience.Specialist in Industrial Machine Guarding and Safety.• Born 1921. B. Sc. in Electrical Engineering 1947.• 14 Years experience with General Electric Co. in engineering and industrial sales.• II Years President of company involved with repair and rewinding of ele~tric motors and

the manufacture, sales, installation and servicing of electrical control panels for industry.• 9 Years President of large distributor specializing in the sales, manufacture, installation

and servicing of all types of safety equipment for industry with major emphasis on metalforming and stamping.Registered Professional Engineer in 3 states.Curriculum vitae and references on request.

John E. McAllister, 9 Sierra Lane, Hot Springs Village, AR 71909·3214Phone: (501) 922·1709 Fax: (501) 922·4177


the way in which the survey wasconducted has a direct influence onthe weight it should receive by thetrier of fact. If the results are inconclusive or the survey was flawed inthe way it was conducted or bias isshown in the questions asked, courtscould deny the survey any probativeweight.24

Readers should note that a proper founda.tion must always be madebefore the evidence will be admitted.With respect to surveys, one writersuggested the following procedure befollowed:

1) The individual in charge of thesurvey should testify as to themethod by which the survey was conducted and the purpose for conducting the survey; 2) The individual(s)who conducted the survey shouldtestify as to how they conducted thesurvey and identif'y and verif'y thecompleted questionnaires; 3) theindividual who tabulated the surveyshould testif'y qualifications to conduct the survey, the method he used,and how he made the statisticalresults ofhis tabulation; 4) an expertshould testif'y as to the appropriateness of the sample and universe ofthe individuals surveyed in additionto testimony regarding the reliabilityof the survey and its margin of error;and finally, 5) all of the documentsand relevant exhibits used in conducting the survey should be offeredinto evidence.25

By disclosing to the adverse partyyour intent to use statistical evidence in advance of trial, practitioners will likely stave off many of theobjections which would come at trial.For example, many jurisdictionsrequire that as a condition to theadmissibility of survey evidence, theadversary must have been given reasonable notice with respect to thesurvey. That point notwithstanding,sometimes it just makes sense to letthe other side know of your intent togather statistical evidence to beintroduced at the trial since youradversary might then ask to assist indetermining the proper sample, universe, and questions to be asked. Thecourt could thereafter enter anappropriate order. Similarly, practitioners can formulate their own sam-

pIe, universe and questions for thesurvey interviews, provide same inadvance to their adversary, and thenlet the court rule on any objections ina pre-trial hearing before the surveyis actually conducted.26

In conclusion, introducing statistical evidence at trial through yourexpert is an excellent way of assisting the trier of fact in determiningan issue in your favor. Statistical evidence in the form of surveys isalways beneficial because the trier offact is able to hear the opinions ofmany people who were not actuallycalled to testify at trial. In conjunction with your expert's testimonyregarding the inferences to be drawnfrom the survey, practitioners willhopefully find that the time, effort,and expense used in gathering thestatistical evidence resulted in a verdict in their favor.

SOURCES1. Courts generally take judicial notice ofstatistical facts of general and commonknowledge. For example, statistical factsderived from census, rules of arithmetic,and weights and measures. See 29 AmJur 2d, Evidence § 112, 113 (judicialnotice of statistical facts). See alsoMetropolitan Life Ins. Co. u. Fry, 41S.W.2d 766 (1931) (judicial notice of population of states and towns); Board ofTrustees, Uniu. ofArk. u. Pulaski County,315 S.W.2d 879 (1958) (judicial notice ofcensus figures).2. ARE 901(7) provides: The requirementof authentication or identification as acondition precedent to admissibility issatisfied by evidence sufficient to sup·port a finding that the matter in questionis what its proponent claims. (b)Examples...(7) Public records or reports. Evidencethat a writing authorized by law to berecorded or filed and in fact recorded orfiled in a public office, or a purportedpublic record, report, statement, or datacompilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature arekept.3. 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 447 dealswith public surveyor polls.4. See76 ALR2d 619, §§ 3-7 (statisticalevidence is also used in immigration,naturalization, deportation cases, as wellas in administrative agency proceedings,food adulteration cases and false advertising or misbranding cases, and injunction suits).5. See 18 Am Jur POF 2d 305(Admissibility of Opinion Survey); seealso 36 ALR 4th 405 (a record, report,

statement, or data compilation must betrustworthy to be admissible under thepublic records exception to the hearsayrule). Advocates have relied on pre-existing research involving sample data inproduct liability, food and drug, environmental and other cases. For a generaldiscussion of the admissibility of evidence of experiments, demonstrations,and tests, see 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §818 et seq.6. See McCormick, 3d Ed., § 208; see also76 ALR 2d 619 (Admissibility and weightof surveys or polls of public or consumers'opinion, recognition, preference, or thelike).7.C.A. May Marine Supply Co. u.Brunswick Corp., 649 F.2d 1049 (5thCir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1125 (1981).8. See e.g., Squirt Co. u. Seuen·Up Co.,628 F.2d 1086, 1091 (8th Cir. 1980)9. See McCormick, supra note 6, at § 208for a discussion of the factors indicatingthat surveys are accurate as opposed toonly being misleading estimates.10. See 18 Am Jur POF 2d 305, § 4.1. For cases wherein the court rejected asunreliable statistical evidence based onsample size being too small, see, e.g....Birkbeck u. Maruel Lighting Corp., 30F.3d 507, 511 (4th Cir. 1994) and Palmeru. United States, 794 F.2d 534, 539 (9thCir. 1986).12. See 8 Am Jur Trials, § 360.13. See 18 Am Jur POF 2d 305, § 5. Seealso Note, Public Opinion Surveys asEuidence: The Pollsters Go to Court, 66Harv. L. Rev. 498 (1953).14. 18 Am Jur 2d POF, § 5.15. Id., at § 1316. See 76 ALR 2d 619, §§ 26-37.17. See 18 Am Jur 2d POF, § 3.18. See 76 ALR 2d 619, §§ 3-7.19. See 18 Am Jur 2d POF, § 9; see also19 ALR 3d 1008 (Admissibility, asagainst hearsay objection, of report oftests or experiments carried out by independent third party). With regard to ahearsay objections given for reports prepared by independent third parties, anexception exists for those records orreports that are made in the usual andregular course of business. Courts haveallowed the admissibility of those recordsor reports which are relevant in situations where the actual preparer isunavailable as a witness for trial or is nolonger living. 19 ALR 3d 1008 § 2.20. 13 Ark. App. 293, 683 S.W.2d 618(1985).21. McCormick, supra note 6, at § 208and n.5.22. 18 Am Jur 2d POF 305, § 9.23. Id., at § 724. See29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 1102.25. 18 Am Jur 2d POF 305, § 7.26. Id., at § 12.



THEEXPERTS

c·~

The purposes of cross-examination of a medicalexpert are no different from the purposes of cross-examination of any witness. The objectives are to obtain favorable admissions, discredit unfavorable testimony, andimpeachment. The most important tool in an effectivecross-examination of the medical expert is preparation.That preparation begins when the file is opened.

Preparation means knowing the facts of your case,the law which will be applied to those facts, the area orareas of medicine the expert will address and the background of the expert.

Know the facts. Know not only the facts relating tothe events involved, but the medical facts. Immediatelyafter opening and acknowledging the file, send a medicalauthorization to opposing counsel. Obtain copies of allmedical records before and after the event. Occasionally,you will uncover some surprising information that willbe critical to your defense. Know the law which will beapplied to those facts. Knowing the law will help youfocus on the relevant information to be obtained.

Become knowledgeable about the particular area orareas of medicine the expert will address, and the background of the expert. There is no substitute for adequatepreparation in this regard. Your expert can and shouldbe consulted in this preparation stage. He can suggestmedical literature, assist you in understanding, help youdevise a blueprint of how to get where you need to gowith the expert and help you prepare for the expert'sdeposition.

An essential part of this preparation is your pre-trialdiscovery. Prior to taking the expert's deposition, youshould obtain information through interrogatories,informal discovery or deposition notes.

The expert's bias is something you will not want tooverlook. Obtain the details of the financial arrangements in your case. Obtain information about prior testimony, deposition and trial and prior review and consultation even though testimony was not involved. Youwill be interested in discovering which "side" the experttypically leans toward.

The qualification of the expert or lack thereof shouldbe explored. Also, determine what literature the expert

considers authoritative and obtain copies of that literature. Determine what person or persons he considersauthorities in the particular field. You may want to contact those authorities as your potential expert.

Much of this preparation will be done before theexpert's deposition is taken; however, you will discoversome of the information at the deposition. The depositionwill not only provide you the expert's opinions, the facts,assumptions and deductions that support those opinions, but also will allow you to assess the type of witnessthe expert will make at trial. The objectives of crossexamination, obtaining favorable admissions, discrediting unfavorable testimony, and impeachment, should bekept in mind as you prepare for the deposition.

You can expect to obtain favorable admissions onuncontroverted or non-controversial matters. In someinstances, you may actually be able to turn the opposingparty's expert into your own during the discovery deposition. However, if you are too successful in this endeavor, expect the opposing party to drop that expert andacquire another.

Discrediting unfavorable medical testimony may beattempted by showing there is honest room for differences or medical opinion or that differing methods ofdiagnosis and treatment are recognized and followed.The opinion may also be discredited by focusing on areasof weakness in qualifications of the witness or mistakesin factual information upon which the opinions arebased.

Impeachment of a medical expert can be accomplished through several techniques: bias, interest andmotive, prior inconsistent statements, contradictoryfacts and the use of treatises, periodicals and pamphlets.

The foregoing is offered as a general guide in preparing for the cross-examination of a medical expert. Youractual practice will no doubt vary from this guide inmany instances and may be governed by the type of caseyou are handling and the amount in controversy.However, your goal will remain the same. With the proper preparation, you should be able to achieve your goalof effective cross-examination.

Guidelines to Pre-trial Discovery1. The expert's complete file on your case, including all correspondence, documents, notes, test results, examinations, medical records and films reviewed.2. Any and all reports, either preliminary or final, authored by the expert in the case.3. Copies of all items, documents or reports provided to the expert for the purpose of providing background orinformation on the case in order for the expert to prepare an opinion or opinions to testilY in the case.4. Copies of all documents and materials which may be used by the expert as demonstrations, exhibits or an aidin testifying in the case.5. Copies of all items, documents or reports, articles, treatises and manuals on which the expert relies in formingconclusions and opinions in the case.6. His curriculum vitae or statement of professional background.7. The style of each case in which the expert has testified to review materials related to that prior testimony.


The Use ofDocuments Through

Expert WitnessesBy John Elrod

Hoist them on their own Petard

E vidence Rule 703 is wellknown. It provides that thefacts or data of the case upon

which one's expert hases an opinionmay be those perceived by or madeknown to him at or before the hearing and that if they are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in aparticular field in forming opinions,the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. Rule 705 then permits the opposition to force disclosure of the underlying facts or datarelied upon by the expert on crossexamination. However, we are nottold the permissible boundaries ofdocument introduction within thefour corners of either rule.

Consider that you will typicallyhave two choices for the introductionof the other side's damaging internaldocuments, confidential engineeringstudies, product marketing evaluations and the like. First, you can callan officer or manager of the opposition and make introduction throughan unfriendly sponsor or second,from a strategic standpoint, youshould always assess the possibilityof introducing the same documentsthrough your own friendly expertwho has reviewed them and reliedupon them as a basis for opinion formation.

Traditional notions say thatlawyers only have two opportunitiesto speak directly to the jury, duringopening statement and closing argu-

ment. But in reality, through the ere·ative utilization of experts to sponsorthe opposition's damaging internaldocuments, the attorney will effectively have a third opportunity.Throw them on the screen, passthem to the jury and then throughdialogue with your expert massagethem, give thorough consideration tothe most harmful passages, thinkabout them, dawdle over them andgenerally utilize your expert to hammer home the concept that what youare looking at is the opposition talking to itself, presumably confidentially. You may thus demonstratethat the decisions which causedharm to your client were conscious,considered decisions.

Any good expert witness is, bydefinition, a good teacher. Considerusing those teaching skills to show tothe jury a well planned demonstra·tion of what the opposition was saying to itself. At the same time, don'tbelieve that you can satisfy a primafacie case solely through expert witness document introduction. Forinstance, in American Uniuersal Ins.Co. u. Falzone 644 F.2d 65 Ost Cir.1981), the court instructed the jurythat a report introduced and accepted into evidence through an expertwas admitted 2Ill.Y to show the basisof the expert's opinion and not forthe truth of the report and the reportitself did not therefore become substantive evidence for all purposes.

Therefore, while Rule 703 may operate as essentially an additionalexception to the rule againsthearsay, and the original writingrule (Rule 1002) or may serve as analternative method of satisfyingauthentication requirements, differences do remain and the cautious Ht·igator should therefore view document introduction through an expertas an effective strategy tool asopposed to filling a gap in one'sprima facie case.

There is also a line of thoughtwhich holds that the facts, data, oropinions otherwise admissible in evidence as forming a part of the basisof an expert witness' opinion may beexcluded under Rule 403 if the trialcourt determines that the probativevalue of such facts or data is substantially outweighed by the dangersof unfair prejudice, being misleadingor confusing or a waste of ti me.People u. Coleman, 38 Cal. 3d 69, 211Cal. Rptr. 102, 695 P.2d 189 (1985).Even if certain data contained indocuments is excluded under Rule403 from evidence introduction, theexpert may still render his opinion ifan adequate basis remains otherwise.

For a meaty discussion of thiswhole area see Zenith Radio Corp. u.Matsushita Elec. Inc. Co., Ltd., 505F.Supp. 1313 (E.D. Pa. 1980),reversed on other grounds 723 F.2d238 (3d Cir. 1983).


The Whole Truthand othing But...115 vears of theOnicial U.S. Supreme CourtReports for just $50

There's no catch, no hidden fees andno network charges. The price is only $50no matter how many users you have.

If you want to keep it up-to-date with the SupremeCourt's latest decisions, we also offer a $200subscription service that entitles you to one year ofquarterly CD updates plus weekly electronic updatesthrough our exclusive N-Linee service.

If you already subscribe to theArkansas CD Law Library for$600 a year, the U.S. Reportsservice is only $150.

All LOIS products come with ourunconditional 30-day guarantee.Should you decide to returnthe product for any reason, yourpayment will be fUlly refunded.

The LOIS U.S. Reports. They're45 years of official decisions fromthe U.S. Supreme Court.

They're affordable and guaranteed.

And that's the truth.

Yes! I want the LOIS U.S. Reports(1950-1995) on CD-ROM.NameAddress------------

City St/ZIPPhone(~ FAX ( -:-)----

Here's what I want:l-time CD ROM for $50Annual CD-ROM service for $200I am already a LOIS subscriber so I quality for

the special $150 annual service.My LOIS customer ID# IsMethod of payment: _-;V1c;;;SA;-;--~~Mc::C;:::--_-~C::::h-=-ec:-;-k:-Card Number _Expiration Date _Signature _Date.......=.,...=....==..=0_==-=.=h+ d PD"/fTlrI nwItlodH 0fderI wi be tf'lIPPId I,.p:It'l~n u.

To order call 1·800,364-2512,10 expedite your order FAX 10 501-471·5635.


THEDAMAGES


___________________________I

Why PunitiveDamages are

Spectacular and RareBy Nate Coulter

Before he took his cowboy bootsand mules to the federal judiciary,Judge William R. Wilson, Jr., wrote aglowing review of a local attorney'sFourth Amendment treatise. Giventhe Fourth Amendment views heldby federal judges being appointed atthe time by President Reagan, JudgeWilson noted that he feared the talented author had written "a masterpiece on the art of dinosaur hunting."]

Addressing the role of punitivedamages in trial practice today maybe a similarly academic exercise.Congress is brimming with bills tocap or otherwise limit the impositionof punitive damages by juries, primarily in product liability cases.2

Over half of the states already havesome type of punitive damage limitation or cap.3

The concept of punitive damageshas been around for a long time - atleast since Hammurabi's code calledfor punishing wrong-doers twelvefold in 2000 B.C.4 English co=onlaw first recognized punitive damages in the 13th century.5 The obvious purpose in all traditions is to discourage future wrongdoing. Thenotion is so ingrained in our law thatthe Arkansas Supreme Court longago upheld "send a message" arguments to the jury even in the contextof a claim for compensatory damages.' As the plaintiff's lawyerargued in that 1914 Drumright case,it is incumbent on juries from time totime to "call a halt" to the deploredactivities. That duty will remain,regardless ofwhat elected legislatorsmay do.7

In spite of the recent congression-

al exploitation of the subject, punitive damages are not a co=on factor in litigation, according to theNational Center of State Courts.More and more pleadings mayinvoke punitive damage claims, butpunitive damages are awarded infewer than 1% of all cases.8 Onepundit last year likened a multi-million-dollar punitive damages verdictto a lightning bolt - "spectacularbut rare."9 Among other restrictions,the United States Constitutionimposes a substantive limit on theamount of punitive damages, givinga flexible basis for appeal in largeverdict cases."10 According to onestudy, over half of the punitive damages awards in the country areappealed and half of those arereduced for one reason or another.J 1

The law requires that a punitivedamages award be reduced if theappellant court concludes that theamount of the award suggests thatthe jury acted on the basis of prejudice or passion.12 In short, in the rareevent that a jury awards punitivedamages, chances are strong thatsome judge is going to lop off a portion of the punitive award if theaward is out of line with the compensatory damages.

Notwithstanding the statisticalevidence that punitive damages arerarely awarded and often reduced,there is still skepticism about theconcept of punitive damages in theabstract. People hear about high profile cases like the McDonaids' coffeespill and perceive that juries everywhere are wildly awarding punitivedamages with nothing to checkthem. Perception is more important

than reality here. Even in a casewhere there is no prayer for punitivedamages, the public belief thatgigantic jury awards are handed outlike lottery tickets must be a factorin evaluating the case, picking thejury and making your argument oncea jury is seated. An experience ofmine last fall brought this home.

My client had a relatively smallproduct liability claim against themanufacturer of a small kitchen fireextinguisher. We contended the product was defective and sued in federalcourt. During voir dire it was obviousthat most of the people in the boxhad read or heard about the award afew weeks earlier of 2.7 million dollars in punitive damages to a womanin New Mexico who was burnedwhen McDonald's coffee spilled in

Introducing..MIKE TSCHIEMERINVESTIGATIONS

9210 Pell Road.Little lWck, AR 72206OfficelFax: (501) 888-4006

Pager: (501) 558-2941

Arkansas P.I. License'O 95·10

-PRIVATE INVESTIGATIONS-

-VIDEO DEPOSITIONS-

-PROCESS SERVICE-

Over 11 years experience


(501) 376-2843

Arkansas Legislalive Digest Inc.1401 West Slxlh SI,eet, unle Rock, Mansos 72201

The

r...-::=::::=========-DigestON LINE

Arkansas legislative infonnation at your fingertips and onyour desk, when you need it, twenty-four hours a day.

Basic Service: Dial in and go on-line for up-to-the minutebill status, committee and floor calendars, and more directly from our computer to yours.

Custom Bill Tracking: Choose your own priority list ofbills for a custom on-line report of their latest status andpending actions.

Download Data or Reports: Want to save information?Want a printed copy of a report? Download to your computer, re-read or print at your convenience.

Call your experienced legislative service for a free demo:

there is very inflammatory behaviorby the defendant.

In Arkansas the punitive damageinstruction, AMI 2217, contains twoalternative descriptions of conductwhich can justify an award of punitive damages if proven.J5 The plaintiff has the burden of showing thatthe defendant knew or should haveknown that his conduct was "naturally and probably" going to causeharm and that he kept up this conduct in reckless disregard of theresults; OR that the defendant intentionally injured the plaintiff.Punitive damages claims predicatedon the intentional injury grounds arefar more likely to get the jury'sattention. For example, cases offraud are more likely to provokepunitive damages awards than casesof product liability, even when personal injuries are extreme and consumer safety has been callously disregarded.

Punitive damages claims in fraudcases are the easiest to justify withthe jury and run the least risk ofdamaging the lawyer's credibility on

when a defendant's behavior hasbeen egregious is to diminish theeffectiveness of basic market incentives.

The policy and legislative debateaside, lawyers already have a "pow_erful incentive" of their own to becautious in leveling punitive damages charges. Juries can smell atrumped-up claim for punitive damages and they will invariably rejectit. Lawyers who foolishly assert itmay bring down the ire of the jury ontheir clients.

In short, to be effective a lawyermust maintain credibility with thejury by conservatively pleading andarguing punitive damages. A lawyerwho stands in front of the jury andclaims punitive damages are in orderwhen they are not, or asks for anexorbitant amount of punitive damages in view of the facts is certainlygoing to undermine her credibilitywith the jury on a number of otherissues where they may be with her.She's also likely to get reminded ofthis basic truth: jurors are reluctantto award punitive damage unless

her lap. The potential jurors hadformed definite opinions about theMcDonald's case, opinions that didnot bode well for me and my client.Stella Leiback's award was a symbolof the jury system run am uck.Missing from most of the early mediaaccounts of the McDonald's coffeecase were the details of this anecdote. Never mind that these were thedetails that surely inspired the punitive award. Few if any of my potential jurors knew that the 81-year-oldMcDonald's customer had sufferedburns serious enough to require skingrafts and put her in the hospital aweek; that McDonald's served its coffee hotter than other fast food institutions because it believed the coffeesmelled better, enticing more customers; that prior to this accidentover 700 McDonald's customers hadcomplained of burns from coffeespills; that McDonald's had settledclaims for coffee burns and on oneoccasion paid $500,000 to do so; andthat the judge reduced the NewMexico jury's 2.7 million-dollaraward to $480,000.13

Without this background information, it is easier to see why myjury pool saw the coffee spill as amonument to the greed of modernlitigants and lawyers and proof thatthere are too many lawsuits filed bypeople who refuse to take responsibility for their own mistakes. Beyondmy problems, the McDonald's caseand the perceptions that have grownup around it have strengthened thehands of those political forces seeking to diminish the authority of thejury. This explains in part whyCongress is soon probably going tofollow those states that have decidedto cap punitive damages at threetimes the compensatory damages.

I happen to side with the statement of the group that publishesConsumer's Reports: "the threat ofdamages is a very powerful incentivefor companies to make sW'e they produce the highest quality and safestproducts, and act reasonably."14 Thejury's seldomly exercised authorityto impose punitive damages is animportant part of this threat. Toreduce that threat by diminishingthe prerogative of the jury to decide


CLECONTINUINGLEGALEDUCATION

UM THE UNIVERSITY

~SSISSIPPI

Rock LJ. 473 (1982).2. New York Times, April 3, 1995, p. A8.3. Id.4. John D. Kitch, "Proving andDisproving Punitive Damages,'" ABALitigation Section Journal, Vol. 21, No.21995, P. 13.5. Id. (1914).6. St. Louis, I.M. & S.Ry.Co. v.Drumright, 112 Ark. 4527. Id. at p.466.8. Los Angeles Times, March 10, 1995,p.D1.9.Los Angeles Times, November 28,1994, p.A17.10. Honda Co., LTD. u. Oberg, - U.S., 114S.Ct. 2331, L.Ed. 2d 336 (1994), p. 2335.11. Rustad, In Defense of PunitiveDamages in Products Liability; TestingTort Anecdotes with Empirical Data, 78Iowa L.Rev.1 (1992).12. Honda Co., LTD v. Oberg, -U.S.-,114 S.Ct. 2331, L.Ed.2d 336 (1994). Ford,Inc. u. Dauie, 299 Ark. 45, 770 S.W.2d 656(1989).13. Atlanta Constitution, March 7, 1995,p.A6.14. Los Angeles Times Friday, March 10,1995, p. D1.15.Walt Bennett Ford u. Keck, 298 Ark.424,768 S.w. 2d 28 (1989).

A Seminar on International Law with an Emphasis onRepresenting Legal Interests within the European Union

Cambridge, England - July 2-7, 1995For more in/ormation contact:

Cambridge Studies ProgramThe University of MississippiP.O. Box g79University, MS 38677-0879Telephone: 601-232-7282Telefax: 601-232-5138

Tenth Anniversary, 1985 - 1995

Downing andMagdalene

College,CambridgeUniversity,

England

award them.In the name of reform, Newt

Gingrich threatens to tilt theAmerican civil justice systemagainst consumers. Particularly dangerous are his advocacy of "loserpays" rules and limits on pain andsuffering. But seeking to cap punitive damages at three times the compensatory damages, or $250,000,whichever is greater, may be likedecreeing that jurors breathe andeat. We don't need caps on punitivedamages in any context because oncein a while, like that rare, but spectacular lightning bolt, punitive damages at more than threefold the compensatory damages are needed. Butthe likely imposition of those caps byCongress in the near future may nothave as great a bearing on litigationas proponents of the caps hope andopponents fear. Juries and judgesalready know how to restrict thescope of punitive damages inArkansas. They do it all the time.

Footnotes1. Wm. R. Wilson, Jr., 5. U. Ark. Little

other issues for a simple reason.Jurors can understand that it is notenough to require the defraudingdefendant to give back what heextracted from his victim. The defendant must be punished to create theproper disincentives for repeatingthis conduct and to show others anexample of what happens if you seekto take advantage of people.

Jurors instinctively know that itis not right to force the bank robberonly to give back the money he took.If the worst thing that could happento a convicted thief were that he hadto return the fruits ofhis crime, bankrobbers and would-be bank robberscould reason that the windfall theymight receive in a bank heist is wellworth the risk of prosecution.

Similarly, dishonest and fraudulent predators in the marketplacewould have less incentive to play bythe rules if the only consequence ofgetting caught were that they had todisgorge what they had extractedfrom their duped prey. Juries knowbetter and are more inclined to "senda message" in these contexts. Aninformal, unscientific survey amonglawyers will confirm this jury preference. And whatever the context, Iventure that the rare punitive awardin Arkansas will have some strongcorrelation to and be co=ensuratewith the underlying compensatorydamages that the jury found.

Last fall - right after beingsnuffed out by the fire extinguisherdefendant - my partners and I trieda four-week case involving allegations of fraud and kickbacks againstour grocer client's former employeesand brokers who sold to our client.The jury returned punitive damagesawards against only the formeremployees, although the brokers andnon-employees were all found liablefor fraud and assessed compensatorydamages. The level of punitive damages we won for our client was large,1.5 million dollars, but this was substantially less than the compensatory damages of 5.35 million dollars,proving to me that juries are (1)instinctively skeptical about punitive damages claims and (2) quitecapable of exercising restraint in therare instance when they do decide to


How to talk out of both sidesof your mouth

By Paul McNeil

It is seasoned defense lore thatyou cannot talk dollars to the juryand defend liability. There's goodreason for this. People presume ifyou suggest a dollar figure as a fairand reasonable amount of compensation, that even though you have stated your client does not owe anymoney, you're just hedging your betand you really don't believe you havea worthy defense. However, thechange ofthe legal climate, the ability of juries to understand, and theincreasing pressures on defensecounsel from excess exposure claimsmandate that experienced trial counsel be skilled at actively defendingdamages in addition to liability,including, if necessary, suggesting adollar amount. Different situationsrequire different tactics.

Catastrophic Damages - NoLiability - Excess ExposureIn this situation, there are huge

damages if the jury finds against thedefendant, although the plaintiff hasa tough case of liability which isbeing vigorously defended on liability and proximate causation. A plaintiff's verdict could easily be in excessof policy limits, exposing theinsured's personal assets.

The insurer typically does notwant to settle this case because of noprobable liability, so what must thedefense lawyer do to protect hisinsured against a "run-away" verdict? Several options exist. Eachoption must be decided on its ownbased upon the particular facts; however, strong consideration must begiven to calling defense damage witnesses. These include, but are notlimited to (1) a defense independent

medical examination; (2) a defensevocational rehabilitation expert; (3) adefense economist; (4) a defenseannuitant; and (5) a defense life careplanner.

This article does not discuss thesedifferent areas of expertise by thesespecialties, nor the nuances of whenyou would want to use tbem in eachparticular case; however, these needto be in the defense arsenal. Defensecounsel must decide before the trialbegins which, if any, ofthese particular areas are going to be presented.As early in the trial as possible (usually voir dire), counsel must emphasize to the jury that there are threeessential elements to the plaintiff'scase: one, is fault; two, is proximatecause; and three, is damages.Defense counsel should outline thatthe plaintiff must prove all three elements; and explain that the defenseis going to vigorously defend lillll callwitnesses on~ of these three elements; and get a co=itment fromthe jury that by vigorously defendingall three elements, including damages by calling damage witnesses,that the jury will not lessen thedefense's position on liability issues.This needs to be reiterated in opening statement and reminded in summation.

I have experienced this. I was likemany of you, stating, "I am nevergoing to call defense damage witnesses in a case where there is noliability."

Since making that statement, I'vecalled defense liability witnesses inthree jury trials. In two of those, thejury returned with a defense verdict.It can be done; however, the ground

work needs to be laid out from juryselection to maintain the defenselawyer's credibility.

The presentation of a damage figure under this scenario is reallyquite easy. If, in fact, the defense hascalled a defense economist or adefense annuitant to talk about the"special" damages, as well as a lifecare planner and/or vocational rehabilitation expert, then, tell the jurythat although your client doesn't oweanything, if, in fact, they decide forthe plaintiff, the dollar amountawarded as fair and reasonable isthe dollar figure that you have presented during.YQJn: case, and not thenumber presented during the plaintiff's case.

Probable Liabilityof the Defendant

These are situations where thedefense is going to lose on liability,but there is a chance of some sort ofcomparative negligence or affirmative defense. While you are notadmitting liability, the main purposeis to "control" damages.

These cases are tough. Thedefense lawyer, is "the fish in thebarrel." Consideration must be givento calling defense witnesses specifiedearlier. Again, the jury needs to betold in voir dire, opening statement,and closing argument, that all threeelements are being contested. Thetough issue here is closing argument.What amount do you suggest to thejury? There are no rules, but severalsuggestions:

1. Straight Face ArgumentIf you can't suggest a dollar

amount to the jury and keep astraight face, then that number is too


low. The tough part is going to bewhat number you do suggest.Obviously, you have to suggest anumber that you can live with as adefendant if, in fact, the case comesto that, but it must be credible. Itmust consider each realistically com·pensable element of damage beforethe jury and have some logic andreason to it, as opposed to being "outof the air."

2. Doubling RuleWhatever number you suggest

needs to be enough that your clientcan live with it if that number is dou·bled. Most plaintiff's lawyers (afterthe administration of truth serum)in closing "ask for more than whatthey really expect," and figure thatmost jurors are at least going to cutit in half. Likewise, the rule appliesto the defendant in suggesting anumber as well. whatever numberyou suggest, ifyou would not be con·tent with a verdict of twice that, thenyour number is probably too low ll.l:you don't need to be trying that case.

3. There Should Be a NumberIn a case of probable liability, you

should give the jury a number. Mostof the time, it should be a numberthat you can arguably support to thejury that considers every reasonablycompensable element. There havebeen times when I've stood up tomake closing argument, was going to

suggest a number, and decided notto. There have been times when I'vestood up to make closing argumentand was not going to suggest anum·ber, and did. (On some of those occa·sions, I made the right choice.) Youmust stay flexible, depending on theopening summation by the plaintiff.

4. Plaintiff Has theLast Chance

Whatever number you suggest,the plaintiff can rebut. If your number will not withstand critical analysis. For example, if you've not takeninto consideration lllI. elements ofdamage, or if you have not rebuttedsome element of damage by proofwith proof, then your number willnot withstand scrutiny.

An example illustrates this point.Assume you are defending a probable case of liability. The plaintiff isclaiming total disability and lostfuture wages of $150,000. If at closing, you don't suggest any numberfor lost future wages, then whatevernumber you suggest is not going towithstand scrutiny upon a properrebuttal. It doesn't necessarily meanthat you had to suggest a number tothe jury during the proof. In otherwords, it is not mandatory that youcall a defense economist. The$150,000 can be attacked otherways, but this must be explainedduring your close. For example, if the

plaintiff's physicians themselves didnot testify that the plaintiff wastotally disabled, you could attack thenumber and argue that there is nobasis in the proof, Therefore, you'venot considered the plaintiff as totallydisabled. If the defense vocationalrehabilitation expert has testifiedthat plaintiff is not totally disabled,that would give you some plausibleexplanation of why you've not considered that in your number. If the$150,000 is not a present value figure, and you can show that to thejury, then you could argue what thepresent value would be. (In that case,you would have to suggest throughevidence what that present value is.)Or, if, in fact, the defense proved thatthe $150,000 figure was not reason·able or rational, based on the evidence, then you could argue that noconsideration should be given to lostwages.

5. Rule of PrimacyIf the jury hears a defense num·

ber for the first time in closing argument without any foundational support for that number, you are in trou·ble. If the jury has no clue until clos·ing of the basis for that number, thenthat number is going to be subject tomuch juror scrutiny. This gets backto the ground work that needs to bedone in telling the jury why you aredefending damages. Furthermore,

200 \\",-"t ('apllo!. SuiI<' 2200LIttl" Hod,- Arkall""" 72201

1:,0 I , :371-0:-i0:-it"<LX: 1:,01, :17()·~·1·12

Setde your business case before court?

David M. PowellAttorney - Mediator

• Over 20 years Commercial, Construction, Real Estateand Franchise transaction, litigation and arbitration experience

•American Arbitration Association,Panel ofArbitrators - Since 1978

• Graduate - American Arbitration AssociationMediator Training Program


when you have your defense damagewitnesses on the stand, you can preface your questions to remind thejury that you are still defending liability. For example, you can ask thedefense vocational rehabilitationexpert, "Mr. Smith, assuming thatthe jury were to rule against thedefendant on the issue of liability,and to consider the issue of damages,have you reviewed the plaintiff'svocational history records, to reachopinions as to his employability?" Ofthe defense economist or annuitant,you can ask, "Dr. Jones, assumingthat the jury rules for the plaintiff,have you reviewed the plaintiff'searnings history and wage losses toreach opinions that would assist thejury on the issue of the present valueof future wage loss or earnings?"

Another primacy issue is whatorder do you argue these matters inclosing? I have argued damages firstand last. It depends on the strengthof your liability defense. I usuallyargue damages first. This fits neatlywith AMI 203, which lists in orderthe elements that the plaintiff has toprove as (1) damages, (2) negligence,and (3) causation. In state court andin most federal diversity cases, thejury will be instructed prior to closing. Therefore, you can show or readthe elements of proof. It makes senseto take them in the order the courthas instructed as opposed to mixingthem up. This allows you to end yourargument on liability, suggestingthat nothing should be awarded.

6. Find The Silver LiningDuring the damages argument, it

is important to stress the positives.Usually, if you look close enough,~here will be some posi~ive aspects ofthe damages that can be noted.These can include (a) the plaintiffhas made a good recovery; (b) theplaintiff has had excellent medicalcare; (c) the plaintiff's surgeries weresuccessful; (d) the plaintiff is now offany pain medication; (e) the plaintiffhas been able to marry or have children since the accident; (f) the plaintiff has a strong family supportgroup; and (g) the plaintiff has beenable to go back to work. These aresome examples to give you "something to talk about" during the dam-

ages phase, without just talkinggloom, doom, and despair. That willbe the plaintiff's closing. If you lookclosely enough, there will be something positive that you can talkabout that probably has beenignored by plaintiff's counsel.

7. Never Use thePlaintiff's Charts

Many times plaintiff's counsel,during closing, will use a chalkboard,blackboard, or an artist pad to listthe various components of damageshe is submitting to the jury, and tolist dollar amounts with a total. Forconvenience sake, a defense lawyerwho is going to argue damages maythink, "Well, I'll just use his poster, oruse his chalk board, and/or follow thesame format." Don't do this! First, ifboth lawyer follow the same format,then the jury most likely is going todo it as well. Second, it gives credibility to the plain~iff's attorney andhis numbers if, in fact, you use hisexhihit. Third, plaintiffs commonlywill list pain, suffering, and mentalanguish as separate elements ofcompensable damages. In the juryinstruction, they are listed as oneelement of damage (AMI 2201). Forthe defense, they need to be listedtogether, perhaps with hyphenationbetween them.

8. Loss of ConsortiumOne last item is arguing loss of

consortium as a defense. This obviously depends on the type of injuriesa plaintiff has suffered; the testimony that has come in on that elementduring the course of the trial; andthe make-up of the jury. We are basically a rural state ,vith pretty common folk that sit in jury trials. Mostmarried people promised traditionalwedding vows, which included thestatement "for richer, for poorer, forbetter or worse, in sickness and inhealth."

Those vows effect some jurors'perspectives on the weight to begiven to a loss of consortium claim.Again, it depends on the age of theplaintiffs and the type of injury.

The most common case probablyinvolves a sore back or neck, or evena back or neck surgery.

These usually are not particularly strong loss of consortium.

SummaryJuries can understand that you're

not giving up on liability when youdefend damages. You can do yourinsured and insurer better service byvigorously defending those damagesby knowing that if, in fact, an excessverdict comes in, the jury at leastbad a number suggested by thedefense that was inside availablecoverage. That fact would go miles towithstand the scrutiny of a later badfaith claim for excess exposure.

Hopefully these suggestions willbe of some assistance to help you notexperience the "college of hardknocks" in this area.

LAWYER'S MART

Job Opening: Major Little lWckDefense Law Firm seeking experiencedlitigator. Salary Commensurate withexperience and ability. Jury Trial experience required. Responses strictly confidential. Send Resume and Salaryrequirements to LITIGATION, ArkansasBar Associa~ion, c/o Bill Glenn, 400 W.Markham, Little Rock, AR. 72201.

Attorney needed: Hot Springs LawFirm seeks associate with 2-5 years ofexperience. Litigation backgroundstrongly preferred. Competitive salaryand benefits. Confidential response. P.O.Box 1120, Hot Springs, AR 71902-1120.

Supreme Court: Applications arenow being accepted for the position ofReporter of Decisions for the ArkansasSupreme Court. The salary is negotiable.Statutory range for Grade 24 is $27,846to $53,376.

Applicants must be licensed attorneys who are able to type. An English orwriting background and a familiaritywith WordPerfect would be helpful.Knowledge of printing and bindingwould also be helpful. WordPerfect training can be provided.

Inquiries should be made as soon aspossible and addressed to J.D. Gingerich,Director, Administrative Office of theCourts, Justice Building, 625 MarshallStreet, Little lWck, AR 72201. The phonenumber is (501) 376-6655. Aresume anda writing sample are requested.Interviews will be conducted.


- --------

3 12000f 3

OO[5l[ b, theorIllI:.

um emBell & Company, PA is a strong local firm that gi ves

major-accounting firm expertise with smail-firm

personal service. The company founder, Richard

Bell, is an accountant and a lawyer. He knows that

the law is seldom a simple matter of black and

white. There are nuances and shades that require

interpretation.

When your case involves questionable figures, you

need solid answers and explanations. Bell &

Company is prepared to trace the numbers, reveal

the patterns and paint the picture for you.

Bell & Company, P.A.CERTIFIED PlJ8llC A<"<:OUSTA"-T<i

4508 Burrow Drive· North Little Rock, AR 72116· (501) 753-9700· FAX (501) 753-3794



THESTRATEGY

By Jim Moody

pening Statetnent

1. Introduce yourself and your client and make sure the jury identifies the lawyer with the client during the progress of the case.Personalize the client so jurors can more easily identify with them.

2. Get to the point of the case and avoid long explanations of whatthe judicial system is all about or the purpose of an opening statement.

3. Give the jury enough information to understand the case without overwhelming them with details. By the end of the opening statement, the jury should have enough information to understand yourclient's position.

4. Confront problems and weaknesses in your own case. To avoidthe opposition exposing your own Achilles heel, diffuse those areas byaddressing them directly in opening statement.

5. Emphasize the weaknesses in your adversary's case. If there is avital weakness, point it out but avoid the temptation to flag someunattractive fact which may seem petty and of no significance.

6. Emphasize vital pieces of evidence or witness testimony onwhich you want the jury to focus and forewarn the jury about conflictsin the testimony. Tell the jury why the conflicts exist and why the evidence will support your client's version.

7. Finish the opening statement expressing confidence that thejury will return the verdict you want.

8. The opening should be delivered confidently and without anydoubt as to your view of the case and your expectation of the outcome.

Suggested

The opening statement in a trialmust graphically portray counsel'stheme of the case with force and efficiency. As is true in every aspect oflitigation, the key is to carefullyselect and define goals and to diligently prepare for those goals in bothbreadth and depth. The goal of theopening statement should be toestablish with clarity and logic theproper tone and mood of the caserather than merely to communicatethe substantive aspects of one side ofthe case or to discuss the evidentiarydetails.

Studies show that 80 percent ofjurors decide who should win thecase during opening statement.When the opening is finished, thejury should have a clear understanding of the facts, the theory of the caseon which you are prosecuting ordefending and why your client isentitled to a verdict.

Why is it so critical to thorougWyprepare the opening statement? Theopening places the lawyer for plaintiff or defense in a precarious position. During presentation of witnesses and closing argument, the lawyercan be mOQl expansive without fearof exposing his own position.However, every inference made inthe opening statement can be scrutinized closely by opposing counseland his witnesses and evidence andargument presented in rebuttal.Even the best trial lawyer hasregretted his own lack of circumspection in an opening statement afterbeing needlessly "nailed" by a witness for something said in openingthat was not fully accurate and probably not crucial to the presentationof the case.

During preparation, consider theopening to be a mine field in whichyour objective is to get across without something blowing up. If you

don't take care to avoid the pitfalls,you will remain exposed for theremainder of the trial for opposingcounselor witnesses to punish youfor your mistake.

Make the opening statement anopportunity to establish in the mindof each juror how evenhanded andfair you are in the characterizationof the case. This is your best chanceat getting the undivided attention ofevery juror. Take advantage of it. Themost likely thing a juror will remember during the trial or while deliberating on a verdict is the first two orthree sentences of the opening statement. For a lawyer to talk too longduring closing argument is forgivable, but to talk too long duringopening is to invite disaster. While

too short is not good, too long isworse.

If a lawyer can make the following points in the opening, he hasgone a long way to accomplishing theobjectives mentioned above:

(a) Condition the jurors to thetheme of the case.

(b) Instill in the jurors' mindsthat you are confident in your caseand well prepared to present it.

(c) Portray basic models or analogies for the jury to use in mentallycategorizing the evidence to bereceived during trial.

(d) Defuse the weakness in yourown case.

The following is a suggestedformat:

Format


ATTORNEY-MEDIATOR SERVICE

WINSLOW DRUMMOND711 West Third StreetPost Office Box 3457

Little Rock, Arkansas 72203Telephone (501) 376-3021Telecopier (501) 374-5118

DISPUTE RESOLUTION THROUGH SETTLEMENT

PRACTICE LIMITED TO LITIGATED MATTERS

c '-' E SE~rN.A.RS

THE HIDDEN DISABLERS

-Learn to reoogni2lC the often overlooked c:han.es associated wiIh Tmnatic BraiD Injury (TBI). ~'Iion,OJronic Pain Syndl'OlDe.,Developnental Diubilitie., and ocher c:mocional Unpm,rmmts.

'Thi, seminar is desi&ned to help you roc:osnize, develcp, and ""'..... cvidena: 10 enhance !he IUccet' and prollobility cl your cue.·Twel•• boul'S ....enJ ...tdlt llIld Ihr.......... etIlla credliladudtd wllIo _ -... LuDdllllnduded ..Thursday.DeI Friday.

Tan Gaima, M.G.A.J"~, M.A. Ed.Iddi..""

r....1IyDouaJu S-, P!LD.N~

Guy S;po., E.lD.Vocatiooal Evaluator

Robert E. Brabhun. Ph.D.~

Robert E. FrmciI,ID.U..,...

MEMPHIS, TENN, JUNE &, 9, 10

1!l9S LOCATION AND DATES

PADUCAH, KY, APRIL 20, 21, nRi••rboat G."blinl, UaJlUd Doawood Tnil, One clthe Wor\d"1A>llest Quih Displays, and AntiqueShopping_ Airline service on Amcricm, Northwut. andT.W.A.

lams B. Adana. M..A. Ed.Vo<otiooo1 CoonooIor

r---------------------------------------------------,IRiverboat Gambling, Beale Street and MuchM~ I Tuition II only $300 la advaace and $.US at Ibe door, Including two lunches.

PAWLEYS ISLAND, (Myrtle IIudl), sc, JUL 6, 7,Il CLE Appro." for most .......ThiJ is traditionally one of the ,lowest weeki ci the I Cau I 800 939-6600 01' 502 554·0636 for. brochu~or return the form below.year, 10 spend • week at the beach and pick up yoo.r Iyear's Cl..E requirc:mcnts. H<Ul Rocms, Coocb, and : a Enclosed is my registration fee for Seminar,Beach Cottages Available. t a Please send me a complete program.

WILLIAMSBUIlG, VA, AUGUST 10, II, 1Z :Rcsumd Copiul oCYUJirWo, Busdl GardeN, World : Nune: _

Addre..:O1ampionship Golf, and Near Our Nation's Capilal. I --:::-------------------- :I City, SCale, lip: I

LAS VEGAS, NY, NOVEMBER 9, 10,11 I IWill be held only if 40 partici~ts read&cr beI~ July L .J

30,1995 Send to: Endeavour, Inc., P,O. Box 7671, Paducah, Ky 42002


By Stephen A. Matthews

----- ---_. - - ~ -

Avoiding the Overkill

j

J

T here are times in the trial ofcases where the temptation tooverkill or over-try the case is

almost irresistible. Sometimes failure to resist such temptations canturn out to be costly, possibly evenresulting in the loss of a case whichought to be won, on reversal andremand of a case which ought tohave been won and wiped out at thefirst trial.

Sometimes an attorney is soimpressive and persuasive that thetrial judge may admit evidencewhich is inadmissible, or exclude evidence which is admissible, or give aninstruction which is erroneous, orrefuse to give an instruction which isproper, all over the objection of theopposing counsel. The result may bethat the case, which was a winner all.'- - --y, winds up with reversible

. it. After the expense of anincluding payment of the

"I'i"'u...ot's costs, the matter windsup being retried, and finally won,when it would have been concludedat the first trial, with no reversibleerror, but for the overkill tactics ofcounsel in pressing for advantages inthe form of trial court rulings whichwere not really necessary to win thecase.

Trial counsel should develop aknack for being attuned to the waythe case is going and the way thejury is leaning and learn to discernwhen a case is clearly in the processofbeing won. When this is so, counselshould not mess it up by requesting,or permitting, the trial court to commit reversible error simply to add alittle momentary fire power which isreally not needed.

Ofcourse it is always necessary tomake a proper record, and in allcases where the opposing side's evidence is weak, counsel will ask for adirected verdict to protect the record.If the motion is pursued with vigor,the trial court may grant it and maybe right or may be wrong. If the case

is weak to the point that the juryobviously has no intention of returning an adverse verdict, counselwould be better served to let the jurymake this decision than to press for,and obtain, a directed verdict, whichmight cause a problem on appeal. Aswe all know, appellate courts aremuch more prone to sustain the findings of a properly instructed jurythan a directed verdict by the trialcourt. It is best not to argue vigorously in favor of a directed verdict ona questionable call.

Other areas where trial counsel issometimes led to commit overkill arethe cases where a party representshimself or herself, pro se, or if thelawyer on the other side is so inept,or ill prepared, or both, that the jurydecides it needs to help the poordown-trodden and oppressed underdog. While the temptation for counsel to demonstrate greatly superiorskills, knowledge of the law andultra skillful trial techniques may begreat, such tactics may reach thepoint where the jury will punish anattorney (and the client) for belittling and ridiculing the pro se opponent who cannot afford a lawyer, orfor showing up and embarrassingthe opposing lawyer for the simpleton that he is.

We know the public does not likelawyers. Jurors consist of membersof the public. A lawyer who subjectshis pro se opponent or less than brilliant lawyer opponent to ridicule orembarrassment is not going to bepopular with the jury, and may windup losing a case which would be wonif counsel had just exhibited a littlecompassion or gentleness toward aninferior opponent. There is no needto kick an opponent who is down andnot going anywhere. The jury mayrise up and strike a blow againstarrogant or mean-spirited counsel,and in favor of the party who reallyhas no business winning the case butevokes sympathy because of what is

perceived to be an unnecessarilycruel onslaught against him.

The foregoing principles alsoapply to the cross-examination ofwitnesses. Once the credibility of awitness is destroyed, there is no needto continue an overkill with browbeating and oppressive tactics whichmay cause the jury to feel sorry forthe witness and to resent what itconsiders unnecessarily mean crossexamination of a "little dog" by a "bigdog." Such tactics may lead to a verdict favorable to the "little dog" anddisastrous to the "big dog" who clearly had the upper hand and shouldhave won the case but frittered itaway by continuing to beat on anobviously whipped witness.

Although difficult to achieve inpractice, counsel should strive todevelop the ability to accurately analyze the flow of the lawsuit, andwhen things are going well to acceptit graciously. Under such circumstances, to consciously set out todegrade and utterly humiliate thecounselor a witness on the otherside is not only bad manners, butsuch lack of civility may so alienatethe jury that it is persuaded to findagainst the side which clearly oughtto win, and would win, except for bullying tactics and arrogant behaviorby counsel.

The above comments suggestingthat sometimes counsel should relaxand go with the flow and not worktoo hard at winning should not beconstrued to suggest anything lessthan complete, thorough, leave-nostone-unturned preparation for trial.An attorney should always be thoroughly and completely prepared fortrial, even when the other side is represented by inept counsel, or is proceeding pro se. But once painstakingpreparations for trial have been completed, the trial is in progress and itbecomes apparent which way thewind is blowing, counsel should notkick away or diminish the winningedge by conduct amounting to anoverkill.


A Thing of Beauty...

Special thanks to Chris Dimon, Project ArchitectBurt Taggart & Associates, Inc.

Tommy JamesonBorne & Jameson Architects, P.A.

Ray Wagoner, III and Susanna McSpaddenThe Darkroom


• • ••IS a Joy Forever

By Ann West

The original Pulaski CountyCourt House at the comer of Springand Second Streets, designed andbuilt by Maximilian A. Orlopp at afinal cost of $100,000, was begun in1887 and completed in 1889. The1887 or "South" building isRomanesque Revival coupled withaspects of Queen Anne style.

Previously the court house washoused in a log house, a privatehome, a series of rented houses, andfrom 1840 to 1882 in the East Wingof the Old State House.

The rugged exterior of the OldCourt House is of Little RockFourche granite with bands ofBatesville limestone. The use oflargescale stonework, arches, columnsand towers contrasts with intricateQueen Anne detailing in the pediments and terra cotta work aroundcornices and gables. Intricate interior detailing on the stairs, doors, floor,and moldings also reflect the QueenAnne Style.

The clock tower located at thesoutheast comer of the building rose65 feet from the foundation to the topof the steeple and housed four clockfaces. Over the years the clock towerwas damaged by water and termites,and in 1961 it was removed after asevere storm blew sections of thetower roof onto the sidewalk causinga safety hazard.

A new steeple, custom built fromold photographs and a line drawing,arrived in Little Rock April 28, 1995.After installation of slate shingles bythe contractor, the six-ton structurewill be lowered into place atop theclock tower by helicopter. This installation will take place duringRiverfest weekend.

By 1912 the 1877 courthouse wasovercrowded. A new four-story addition to the old courthouse wasdesigned by architect George Mann

who was also the architect for theArkansas State Capitol. Work on theannex (or "North" building) wasbegun in 1913 and completed in 1915at a cost of $565,987.

The design for the annex hasbeen labeled Italian RenaissanceRevival and displays Mann's knowledge of Beaux Arts classic design.The central hall houses 12 statuesthat represent art, justice, agriculture, and machinery. Marblecolumns outline a two-story rotundacovered by a stained-glass dome litfrom above by a skylight whichserves as part of the fourth floor roof.The building's exterior is Batesvillemarble; the interior walls and pillarsare imported marble.

In 1979 a master plan for restoration of the two courthouses was compiled and in 1994 renovation began.Three architectural firms worked onthe project as a joint venture.

Extensive renovations costapproximately $7 million. Morecourtrooms were added; electrical,mechanical, and plumbing alongwith heating and air conditioningsystems were completely replaced;better access for people with disabilities was provided; ornamentaldetails were restored; wood workwas cleaned; the clock tower wasredone; new elevators were installed;and usable space was added in thebasement.

Awnings, window air conditioningunits, and asbestos were removed aswas a smokestack; a chiller unit wasrelocated, and water lines and electrical and telephone cables wereplaced underground.

At the same time the integrity ofthe building was maintained. Thecourthouses were put back as nearlyas possible in the original condition,but wbat could not be reinstalledwas replaced. For example, tiles on

the first floor were used to repair thefloor on the second floor in the OldCourthouse. Bronze entry gates,missing from the east side werelocated and reinstalled. Every lightfixture was shipped off to be rebuiltand rewired, hardware was cleanedand polished, door hardware was disassembled, repaired, cleaned, andreassembled. The stained glass inthe dome was cleaned.

When the Old Courthouse (Southbuilding) was built, electric lightingdid not exist. Ventilation was provided by opening a window. Walls of theSouth building are solid brick orrock, which necessitated chiselingchannels in the walls to hide conduits for wiring and plumbing.

The court moved back into thecourt house in January, 1994, but finishing work has been done since thattime. The renovation will concludewith erection of the steeple.

On the following pages, Ann Westchronicles the renovation of thePulaski County Courthouse.

VALUATIONSCLOSE CORPORATIONS

UNIQUELY QUALIFIEDCONSULTANTSAnalysls & Appraisal

Expert Witness

\t1luatlon Arbffratlon

Owne~pTransnlon Planning& Implementation

Estate Planning Asslstance

SCHULTZE, MAECHLING aASSOCIATES

31~ N. Broadway. Suite 1921St. Louis. MO 63102

(31~) 621·1211REQUEST OUR BROCHURE


•

I

North entry door with arched transomand beveled glass sidelights lookingthrough the logia to entry glass.

Custom cast bronze knob and escutcheonwith "PC" (Pulaski County) logo andcounty seal.

•••••••••••••••••~~~~:.il.

•••••••••Center medallion on bronze entry gates.

Stained glass dome in the rotunda. Thestained glass dome is the largest in the stateand the rotunda is second in scale only to theArkansas State Capitol.

"The Courthouse is a finely crafted building that will be around forever. It is one ofthe finest buildings in the state. »

--Tommy Jameson, architect on the Joint Venture Team.


Massive panel entry doors marking thesouth entrance with decorative terra cottapanels and cut limestone arch framed inlocally quarried granite.

Richly detailed Beaux Arts limestonefacade showing two of the many windowforms used throughout the Courthouse.

•••••••••One of four statue niches in the rotunda. •

••••••••••First floor arched window showing decora- •tive stone work.

•

"There is a fine line between restorationand rehabilitation. Restoration is puttinga building back as close as possible to theoriginal. Rehabilitation is taking an oldstructure and preserving as much as possible, but bringing it up to code and making it workable for current every dayactivities. Our goal was to make theCourthouse functional into the nextcentury."

--Chris Dimon, Project architect


Detail of statues and stained glassdome. Here a woman holds a sculptor'smallet in the "Art" statuary.

••••••••••••••Example of classical Beaux Arts detailing, painted plaster ornament, at secondfloor rotunda arches.

"Our intent was for people who came to the Courthouse to say, "It doesn't lookany different, except that you painted everything and cleaned it. " Of the $7 million spent on renovation, three-fourths is hidden behind the walls.»

-- Chris Dimon, Project architect

Bronze entry gates, first floor entry(north side), with gargoyles guardingthe entrance.


••••••••••••••Massive scale bronze light fixture,north side.

Introduction to Virtual RealityBy Kirk D.Darbe

The time is the near future. The sceneis of a room devoid of furniture except fortwo tables where the defense and prosecution are sitting. A bailiff stands behindthe defendant. All present except thebailiff are wearing Darth Vader lookinghelmets. Witnesses are in a separateroom also in helmets. There is no judge orjury, only computer generated imagesseen in the visors. Virtual Reality hascome to the courtroom.

Virtual Reality. The phrase conjuresup images from the movie TheLawnmower Man or the holodeck fromStar Trek: The Next Generation. Whilethe technology for the holodeck is nothere yet, technology is making rapidadvances in both price and capabilityand may be closer than you think. In thisarticle, it is not my intent to give adetailed discussion of virtual reality butto give an introduction to the subject.

Virtual Reality, abbreviated YR, isone of the most exciting uses of advancing computer technology. The persongiven credit for creating the phrase isJaron Lanier who used the phrase to distinguish between the digital worlds hewas creating and the usual computersimulations of the day. The term is sometimes used synonymously with 'cyberspace' but 'cyberspace' is most often usedto describe the internal world of computer networks, like the Internet, or computer generated worlds. 'Cyberspace' is theterm given by William Gibson to the computer worlds described in his novel

There are two primary categories ofYR, immersive and non-immersive.Nonimmersive VR is relatively inexpensive, can be done with a minimal amountof equipment, and is already in the marketplace in a big way. It asks the user tosuspend his or her belief in the scene surrounding the monitor, even though thescene is very visible to the user.

Immersive YR, on the other hand,seeks to substitute its computer generated reality for the reality in which theuser exists. How expensive it is willdepend on how real the user wants theVR to be.

A listing of the available equipmentfor VR shows an overlap between the twotypes. Most desktop VR relies on thestandard keyboard, mouse, trackball,joystick, and pilot yoke to act as the inputdevice to the virtual world. Though theseitems will still work in immersive YR,

they are not frequently used. An additional item of equipment used in nonimmersive VR that is also used inimmersive VR is the dataglove, a glovewith multiple sensors linked to the computer that relate the hand's position inthe real world to the virtual world.

When people think of immersive VRequipment, the one item most often mentioned are the are the goggles, or headmounted display writ, abbreviated HMD.The HMD is best described as two littledisplay units in a eyeglass type frame.The newer versions include stereo sound.At one time the HMDs were so heavy andcumbersome they were mounted in agimbals arrangement, swinging on anarm as the user moved his or her head.Now, the more advanced models are completely portable to the extent of a shortdistance wireless connection with thecomputer. When combined with a glovethe user can not only see and hear butmove objects as well, thus giving analmost total escape into the computergenerated reality.

Another piece of equipment used inVR was highlighted in the movie TheLawnmower Man. This was the bodysuit. A thin suit loaded with sensors COD

nected to the computer system, it doesfor the body what the glove does for thehand. It registers the position and movement of the entire body inside the virtual world.

A much larger and more expensivepiece of equipment is the current class ofsimulators making its way into thearcades. Totally enclosed capsules, podson the end of hydraulic arms, move inresponse to the commands of the personinside. Similar to the video rides atamusement parks, it differs in size andcontrol the passenger has over its movements.

Technology invariably moves on and,in its wake, lowers prices. Equipmentthat cost tens of thousands of dollars justa few years ago now costs in the hundreds. Several companies such as VirtualI/O, Forte Technologies, and Victormaxxare introducing HMDs costing less thana thousand dollars in time for thisChristmas. These are designed to workwith personal computers or video gamemachines like Sega or Nintendo.

Of course, all this technology wouldbe useless without the underlying software that incorporates it. Like equip-

ment, software comes in a variety ofcapabilities. The lower end of the scaleallows the user to build simple buildingsor objects and will interface to some VRequipment. The higher end of the scaleallows complete VR worlds to be built,walk through capabilities, and totalmanipulations of objects in those worlds.This software will interface to almost allVR equipment without modifications.Although some software will run on anaverage personal computer setup, someof the more enhanced software useseither a special machine or a large personal computer (something like aPentium with 32 megabytes of memory).It goes without saying the price goes upwith capability.

YR is currently used in games, simulations, education, almost everything isbeing tried. Surgeons are being trainedon virtual bodies. Children and adultsalike are enraptured by the games coming on the market. NASA is experimenting with telepresence, the control ofrobots from a central location. Volvo isoffering potential customers the opportunity to take a slow motion crash insideone of its cars. Architects are constructing buildings and making modificationsbased on customer feedback from virtualexperiences. As this article is being written NBC is using non-immersive virtualreality to give viewers a look at theNicole Simpson murder scene. The futureis limited only by the imagination.

Virtual Reality may soon join othertechnology issues on the legal battlefield.For example, will copyright law coverartificially generated worlds? Or, analogous to biotechnology, would virtualworlds be treated as a new invention andbe covered under patent law? How muchshould Virtual Reality be allowed to beused in the courtroom to prosecute ordefend raises additional concerns such asaiding indigent defendants and interpretstion of available data

Aside from the legal issues, whatfuture does virtual reality have for thelegal commwrity? Is it really such areach to see the scene described at thestart of this article actually taking place?Virtual Reality offers a possible way torelieve the current overcrowding and togive speedier justice to all. For that tohappen though, the current state of artificial intelligence would have to greatlyimprove. But that's another article.


Developments in the Law:An Outline of the Americans with Disabilities Act

By Eugene Hunt


In passing the Americans withDisabilities Act, the congress foundthat some 43,000,000 Americans hadone or more physical or mental disabilities and that historically, societytended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities. (42 USCSection 12101)

The EEOC Technical AssistanceManual states that an individualwith a disability is a person who has:

1. a physical impairment thatsubstantially limits one or moremajor life activities;

2. a record of such an impairment;or

3. is regarded as having such animpairment.

The Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA) requires private employers, state and local governments,employment agencies, labor unionsand joint labor-management committees to comply with the terms ofcoverage of the ADA. Title I of theADA, 42 USC Sec. 12111, refers tothe foregoing as "covered entities".Employers are prohibited from discriminating against qualified applicants or employees on the basis ofdisability. The ADA became applicable to employers on July 26, 1992and subjected all employers with 25or more employees to coverage.Effective July 26, 1994, employerswith fifteen 15 or more employeesfell within ADA coverage. The twostep phase of coverage was designedto provide smaller employers moretime to prepare for compliance.Employer is given a restrictive definition in the ADA and it definesemployers as those companies thathave 25 or more employees as ofJuly26, 1992 working for them for 20 ormore calendar weeks in the currentor preceding calendar year.

The ADA prohibits discrimination against "qualified individuals

with disabilities." A qualified individual with a disability is:

"An individual with a disabilitywho meets the skill, experience, education, and other job related requirements of a position held or desired,and who, with or without reasonableaccommodation, can perform theessential functions of a job." [See 42USC Section 12111(8)]

One of the first cases litigatedunder the ADA was EEOC v. AlCSec. Investigations. Ltd., 820 F.Supp.1060 (N.D. Ill. 1993). The AlC Sec.Case, Supra, focused on the questionof whether the employer's executivedirector, who suffered from cancer,was "qualified" to perform his jobwithin the meaning of the ADA. Theemployer, apparently believing theemployee was not a qualified individual within the meaning of ADA, terminated the employee after missingwork due to surgery and cancertreatment. The evidence in the case,which was tried to a jury, indicatedthe employee was able to work longhours and profits in the executivedirector's division increased whilethe employer's overall profitsdecreased. The jury's finding of discrimination exposed the employer toa damage range of $50,000 to$300,000 to compensate the employee for wage loss, compensatory andpunitive damages, reinstatementand counsel fees.

The ADA has a tripartite definition of disability based on the definition under the Rehabilitation Act,which reflects the specific types ofdiscrimination experienced by peoplewith disabilities. It is not the samedefinition used in other laws, such asstate workers' compensation laws orother federal or state laws that provide benefits for people with disabilities and disabled veterans.

Persons who currently use drugs

illegally are not protected by theADA. In the case of Wormely v. Arkla.Inc.• PB-C-94-1, Wormley had beenterminated by Arkla during his participation in a company sponsoreddrug rehabilitation program.Wormley had undergone drug rehabilitation before the effective date ofthe ADA and after completing thedrug rehabilitation program returnedto work. As a condition precedent tohis continued employment, Wormleyhad signed a ''CoOOitiooaJ Reino1Jlta:nffiAgreement" that provided, inter alia,he would be subject to dischargeshould he resume illegal drug use orfail to participate in periodicdrug screens at the request ofArkla.

In deciding whether summaryjudgment was proper, the court identified the pivotal issue as turning onthe definition of "current drug user."The court found that persons engaging in the current illegal use of drugsare not "individuals with a disability" when the covered entity (Arkla)acted on the basis of such use withinthe meaning of 42 USC Sec.12210(a). The court found that anemployer may discharge a personwho is currently illegally usingdrugs on the basis of the drug usewithout incurring liability for discrimination under the ADA.

However, a person who is a drugaddict but who is "no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs", is aprotected individual under thestatute. 42 USC Sec. 12210(b). Thecourt stated the policy objective is toprevent employers from firing persons solely on the basis of their pastdrug use.

It is a violation of the ADA if anemployer treats an employee as ifthat employ,ee suffers from a disability. In the case of EEOC v. Potlatch Doris Scott Intervenor, PB-C-93-647,

-

American Arbitration Association

Middle names.

AAA

Respect for the past.Confidence for the fulure.

seeks to return to work, he discoversthat due to a disability or perceiveddisability, the employer will notallow the employee to return to thework force.

Violations of the ADA are notactionable unless an EEOC charge isfiled within 180 days of the allegeddiscrimination. An attorney's failureto advise an injured employee of thatemployee's right under the ADA maybe an act of malpractice.

They honor, preSCrl'C and distinguishoffering a link to the IJast.u hOIJe for the fulure.

Dispute Resolution ServicesTwo Galleria Tower

Suite 1440Dallas, TX 75240-6620

(214) 702-8222 FAX (214) 490-9008

At the <.'Ore is an enduring idealsynonymous WitJl resolution. Yet. our

complete identity is built on u wider-renehingnmge'of senices which includes education & training,

provision of eXr)cn ncutnlls and adnlinistmtion

of mediation, minj-trials lmd other voluntary

means of dispute settlement.

AlvaDelanoGrahaInWenJell

tial physical impairment.Many employees who suffer

residual disability of 15 percent ormore to the body continue to havethe ability to perform the "essentialfunctions" of the job held by thatemployee prior to injury. However,many of such employees do notreturn to work or it is implicit in thejoint petition process that theemployee will not return to work.Quite often, when the employee

the employee was regarded as having a disability. In EEOC u. Potlatch,Supra, Doris Scott, Intervenor, a probationary employee, worked as autility employee for 58 days at whichtime her probation was extended.During the period of extended probation, Scott, while working the nightshift, became faint in the productionarea and went into the break roomwhere she lost control sitting on astool and fell to the floor. A fellowemployee went to her aid and concluded Scott had momentarily lostconsciousness. The plant nurse rendered emergency assistance andScott finished her shift of duty. Plantmanagement learned about the incident in the break room involvingScott and refused to allow Scott toreturn to work before getting a diagnosis from a physician. After examination by two physicians, one ofwhich regularly conducted physicalsfor the company and had performedthe employment physical on Scottthree months earlier, could not find amedical reason for Scott's momentary loss of consciousness. The company characterized Scott's conditionas syncope and refused to allow Scottto return to work without a medicalexplanation for the episode in thebreak area of its plant. Scott filed anEEOC charge and the EEOC subsequently filed suit in which Scottintervened.

Upon trial of the case, the juryfound that Scott had been the victimof disability discrimination in violation of the ADA and awarded$20,000 in compensatory damages.The court then ordered the reinstatement of Scott, back pay and counselfees.

An employer's refusal to allow aninjured employee to return to workmay be a violation of the ADA.Attorneys handling workers' compensation cases should proceed cautiously in the advice given an injuredemployee after settling cases on jointpetitions or after litigating caseswhere there is evidence of substan-


Executive Director's Report

Murphy's Law, Ginn'sCorollary and the Mini Brief

By William A. Martin

"If anything can go wrong it willand at the most inconvenient time,"is a summation of what has come tobe known as Murphy's Law. Any ofus who try cases know it can certainly apply to trials as well as to everything else in life.

When 1 was legal advisor to theCommander, U. S. Forces Japan, Lt.General William Ginn, he taught thestaff a corollary to Murphy's law thathas served me well in planning: "Itwill go wrong, now how are you goingto recover from it?" This question isperhaps a more colorful way of stating the Boy Scout motto of: "Be prepared."

The message that preparation isessential to success in the courtroomis transmitted in many ways throughlaw students, new lawyers and experienced lawyers. We know it is trueand still it may not be impressed onus sufficiently to cause us to changeour behavior.

When I entered the Air Forceright after I was admitted to practice, I was fortunate to have a mentor who was a hard taskmaster. Formy first trials he insisted I prepare atrial brief and bring it to him forreview, criticism and suggestions.One of his frequent questions was:"What if opposing counsel does .... l'It might be said it was the opposition's job to give Murphy's law everyopportunity to work. This challengegot me to thinking about what surprises the other side might be planning and how to counter them. Sureenough, at my first court martial oneof the motions suggested came upand I was ready. Although I had notat that time heard General Ginnexpress his corollary, I was able to

recover when something wentwrong.

Over the years I found takingtime to let my imagination run wildand list both seemingly legitimateand far fetched motions, objections,arguments, offers of evidence andother challenges which might comefrom opposing counsel turned out tobe time well spent. Most of theunusual ones were not presented,but just enough were that havingthought through and written downpotential responses gave me the ability to counter many efforts which theother side expected to use to catchme off guard.

In my trial briefs I always liked tohave ready citations to rules andcases to support each position I needed to advocate-especially why theevidence I wanted was admissibleand why my opponents anticipatedevidence was not admissible. Specificrules and decisions were vastly moreeffective than just logic in persuading a judge to rule in my client'sfavor.

The structure ofhaving a detailedwritten trial bricf mcant I hadalready phrased much of what Iexpected to say. Although I workfrom notes in order to avoid readingand often said things a bit differently from what I initially composed,having once selected what words Ishould use to articulate my questions, motions, arguments andresponses helped greatly in my beingable to speak clearly and confidentlyduring the heat of a trial. I alwaysfelt I wanted enough written down soif I blew up I could still muddlethrough by reading from my trialbrief. With that back up I had the

assurance that prevented such problems.

While I was stationed inWashington I got to know MarkDumbroff who was Chief of theAviation Litigation Branch of theDepartment of Justice. He gave mean additional variation that I nevergot to use in the courtroom, butwhich should be a valuable additionto recovering when "it" goes wrongthe mini brief

Even with today's discovery andmotion practice, there are alwaysgoing to be some issues that will notbe resolved by pretrial conferenceand motions in liminie. Counsel cananticipate such issues that maycome up at trial. Instead of relyingon oral presentations, the thing to dois prepare a mini brief-a one pagesummary of the rules and cases thatsupport your position. This minibrief has to be broadly enough written to summarize the law on the general point you suspect might beraised. Then when opposing counselmakes a move you can respond:"Your Honor, I have a memorandumon that point. " You then present acopy to the judge, opposing counseland the court reporter and add orally whatever is necessary.

Although you may have many youdo not use, if you can whip two orthree out during a trial you not onlymake your points with the judge andincrease the odds of a favorable ruling, but you also have your opponentwondering:

"How many more of tbose thingsam I going to bave to face?"

You have anticipated "it" will gowrong and you have recovered from"it."


Reflections on World War IIBy Phillip Carroll

It was a good war. Obviously, Imean this figuratively and only in alimited sense. It was a war that mostof us who were of age and healthywould not have missed even if wehad been given a choice. The sneakattack at Pearl Harbor was personal.The hand that held the dagger hadstuck it into the back of its neighbor.Our enemies were evil and our survival as a free nation was at risk.Hollywood, the newspapers, and theradio pumped adrenaline into ourglands by the gallon.

A congenital spinal curvaturedestroyed my dreams of being a navyfighter pilot, and for a time I feared Iwould miss the action. That wasunthinkable. I was ecstatic when, atage 18, I was drafted into theinfantry. "That crooked spine willsupport a full field pack, soldier,"they said. I was an expert typist, butI purposefully flunked the army'styping test to avoid being placed

behind a desk. The possibility that Iwould be killed never entered mymind - until later when it nearlyhappened.

I was one of the lucky ones. About400,000 of us never came home. Ifyou want to know more about what itwas like, read "The Good War" byStuds Terkel.

Uncle Sam sent me to college onthe G.!. Bill. Three months aftergraduation and admission to the Bar,I received my orders to return toactive duty as an infantry platoonsergeant. North Korean forces wereswarming down into South Koreaand they had to be stopped. But thistime, things were different. I was nolonger just a dog face - I was alawyer! We reservists who wererecalled grumbled that we had discharged our duty. Let someone elsedo it this time. No sacrifices werebeing asked of our contemporarieson the home front. They were getting

rich. My innocence had disappeared.This was not a good war!

Friends, there hasn't been a goodone since.

Again, I survived. 25,604 otherAmerican GI's did not. They say it'sjust a matter of being in the rightplace at the right time. All I know isthat the Lord has been good to me.

A half century after VE Day, I amenjoying the golden years. What awonderful experience it has been tohave lived during these times and inthis great nation. I weep for my fallen comrades whose luck ran out. Wemust never forget the enormity oftheir sacrifice. They were so young.God bless them.

Editor's note:The author of this reflection on the

occasion of the 50th anniversary ofthe end ofWorld War II leaves out theinformation he was a prisoner ofwar,following capture by the Germans.



EZRA EARL MAGLOTHIN, JR.Upon recommendation of the

Supreme Court Committee onProfessional Conduct, on December12, 1994, the Arkansas SupremeCourt granted the Committee's petition and ordered that Ezra EarlMaglothin, Jr. of Fayetteville,Arkansas be barred from the practice of law in the State of Arkansasand directed that Mr. Maglothin'sname be removed from the list ofattorneys authorized to practice lawin this state.

In July, 1994, the Committeecaused a disbarment action to befiled against Mr. Maglothin in theWashington County Circuit Court.Among other things, the complaintalleged misuse of trust accountfunds, assisting another in the violation of the Model Rules, making falsestatements to third parties, dishonest conduct and commission of acriminal act. Subsequently, theCourt granted summary judgmentagainst the attorney and found thatMr. Maglothin had violated Rules1.15,4.1, 8.4(a), 8.4(b) and 8.4(c).

GENE E. MCKISSICGene E. McKissic, Pine Bluff, was

issued a letter of reprimand for violation of Model Rules 1.3 and 1.4(a)as a result of a complaint filed byWillie Lee Rich.

Mr. Rich alleged that he retainedGene McKissic to assist him inobtaining workers' compensationbenefits. The day follo\ving Mr. Rich'sinitial interview with Mr. McKissic,Mr. McKissic wrote to Mr. Rich'smedical providers seeking medicalreports. As time continued on, Mr.Rich did not hear from Mr. McKissic,and, messages to his office were notreturned. A Prehearing Conferencewas requested by Mr. McKissic andscheduled for November 30, 1993.Mr. Rich was unaware of this requestand setting. A questionnaire wasrequired to be completed prior to thehearing. Mr. McKissic never contacted Mr. Rich about this questionnaire.Mr. Rich first became aware of the

questionnaire when he was providedhis file from Mr. McKissic's office onMarch 28, 1994. Mr. Rich's questionnaire was evidently never completedsince his claim was returned to theCommission's general file' section.On March 11, 1994, an Order ofDismissal was entered in the matter.

Mr. McKissic said he conductedan interview of Mr. Rich about hisworkers' compensation claim onApril 29, 1992. He stated that Mr.Rich provided him \vith his versionof the facts surrounding the injury,and, advised Mr. McKissic that compensability was being denied. Mr.McKissic said that he had deep concerns about accepting Mr. Rich's casebecause of the length of time sincehis injury and the notification ofdenial of his claim. He also statesthat he advised Mr. Rich that hewould make no decision on representing him until he received andreviewed pertinent medical records.Mr. McKissic stated that he informedMr. Rich it would be four to six weeksbefore he would receive all medicalrecords and that Mr. Rich shouldcontact him if he had not heard fromhim \vithin that period of time. Mr.McKissic said that he considered theclaim as dead once he received themedical records. In his opinion, Mr.Rich's credibility was seriously indoubt. To the best of Mr. McKissic'sknowledge, Mr. Rich came to hisoffice on a Saturday morning, atwhich time Mr. McKissic explainedhis opinion of the matter in detailand the reasons he felt the claimcould not be won. He also stated thatMr. Rich understood, and was alsoaware he was free to obtain othercounsel. Mr. McKissic believed therewas a possibility of Mr. Rich filing afraudulent claim based upon hisseeking social security benefits. Hestated he did not hear from Mr. Richagain until October, 1993, at whichtime Mr. McKissic requested a hearing solely to preserve Mr. Rich's rightto proceed if he so chose. Afterrequesting the hearing, he stated heonce again advised Mr. Rich that he

would not take any further actionbut would try to maintain his rightto proceed should additional evidence develop. There was a prehearing conference on November 30,1993, during which Judge AndrewBlood instructed Mr. McKissic to filea pre-hearing information questionnaire as soon as possible. The attorney said he told Mr. Rich thatbecause of the long periods of inactivity he thought it was Mr. Rich'sintent not to pursue this matter. Mr.McKissic stated even though he hadnot heard from Mr. Rich, he wrotethe Commission on Fehruary 16,1994, asking them to set this matterfor a hearing to try to preserve theclient's right to proceed. He statedthat as of a telephone conferencewith Commission personnel onMarch 8, 1994, he still had not heardfrom Mr. Rich. He said it was apparent to the Court that Mr. Rich had noclaim, so it was dismissed for failureto prosecute. Mr. McKissic deniedhaving received messages from Mr.Rich. He also stated that Mr. Rich'sclaim that he "neglected [the client'slcase is as hogus and non meritoriousas [the client's] claim that he injuredhimself on the joh." The attorney concluded his response by stating thathe considered it his responsibility asa member of the Bar not to pursuethis claim without additional evidence

PHll..IP N. WILSONPhilip M. Wilson, Little Rock, was

issued a letter ofcaution for violationof Model Rule 7.3(c) as a result of acomplaint filed by James K Fraser.

Mr. Fraser's wife, Beverly JoFraser, died as a result of injuriessustained in a motor vehicle accidenton June 6, 1994. On June 14, 1994, aletter addressed to Mr. Fraser'sdeceased wife was received by Mr.Fraser. This letter was signed by Mr.Wilson and its purpose was to solicitrepresentation. The outside envelopefailed to contain the language"Advertising Material." Neither Mr.,nor the late Mrs. Fraser, had any



family relationship with Mr. Wilson,nor had either of them had any priorprofessional relationship with Mr.Wilson. Mr. Fraser stated that thissolicitation was most inappropriatesince it was directed to his wife,based on the accident report, and thereport clearly indicated her death.

In his response, Mr. Wilsonadmitted causing the letter to besent, and that it appeared the complainant's exhibits were correct. Hestated that his firm does send thetype of letters sent to Mrs. Fraser,but that his office does not request toreview accident reports on fatalities.Mr. Wilson noted that his letter wassent without knowledge of a fatality,because the report he obtained wasfiled in the non-fatality section andlater amended to reflect a fatality.He acknowledged his awareness ofthe requirement of placing the words"Advertising Material" on the outsideof the envelope. The attorney statedthat for a time there was a personnelchange within his office which couldhave caused some confusion, butadmitted that the responsibility washis.

JOHN SKYLAR TAPPJohn Skylar Tapp, of Hot Springs,

was issued a letter of reprimand fora violation of Model Rules 1.1, 1.3,1.5(c) and 8.4(d) as a result of a complaint filed by James H. Kelloms.

Mr. Kelloms said he hired Mr.Tapp in or around March, 1991, torepresent him in relation to a motorvehicle accident which occurred inJanuary 1991. A verbal agreementwas reached whereby Mr. Tappwould handle Mr. Kelloms' case for25 percent of the total recovered, butno written agreement was ever executed. In June of 1991, Mr. Kellomsmet with Mr. Tapp to discuss thedeath of B.D. Meredith, the driver ofthe other automobile. Mr. Kellomswas concerned about how this matter would be handled since the deathof Mr. Meredith. Mr. Tapp instructedMr. Kelloms not to worry becausethere were three years in which to

file a claim against the Estate of B.D.Meredith. He also told Mr. Kellomsthat the Estate could not be settled,and on one occasion even told Mr.Kelloms it was against the law forthe family to settle and close theEstate, and if they did so Mr.Kelloms could sue the attorney handling the Estate. Mr. Kelloms laterdiscovered that the Estate wasclosed and all assets distributed. Mr.Tapp filed a cause of action againstthe Estate on December 30, 1993.This allowed Mr. Kelloms to receivethe insurance proceeds, but he wasbarred from recovering against theEstate.

Mr. Tapp denied representation ofMr. Kelloms began in March 1991.He stated his representation beganin March 1992, after Mr. Kellomsbecame disenchanted with his firstattorney. Mr. Tapp said he did visitwith Mr. Kelloms in 1991, but he wasnot hired at the time. Mr. Tappasserted Mr. Kelloms' statementabout his verbal fee agreement is nottotally correct. He stated he agreedto donate his one-third attorney'sfees to Mr. Kelloms so he wouldrecover more and not have to turnover the majority of his recovery tothe Public Employee ClaimsDivision. The attorney also statedthat over the course of time, Mr.Kelloms became increasingly hostileto him and his staff. He acknowledged that not every telephone callwas returned. He acknowledged noclaim was filed with the MeredithEstate, because in his opinion itwould have been pointless because ofthe lack of assets. The attorneymaintained, that after Mr. Kellomsbecame extremely hostile, he filedthe lawsuit on December 30, 1993,and, subsequently provided Mr.Kelloms with his file in late January1994.

Tapp was also issued a letter ofreprimand for a violation of ModelRules 1.3 and 1.8(h) as result of acomplaint filed by Jimmy L.Ducharme.

Mr. Ducharme hired Mr. Tapp in

September of 1992 to represent himin a divorce action. On several occasions, Mr. Ducharme was the subjectof contempt motions. Numeroustimes he was not informed of hearings scheduled upon these motionsuntil immediately prior to the same.Various of the motions were basedupon Mr. Ducharme's actions directly resulting from information andadvice provided by Mr. Tapp. Mr.Ducharme also complained of hisinability to make contact with Mr.Tapp and Mr. Tapp's failure torespond to his questions about thecase. After the Court entered itsOrder regarding the property division, Mr. Ducharme requested thatMr. Tapp file an appeal. A Notice ofAppeal was filed by Mr. Tapp on May19, 1993, however, Mr. Tapp failed tofile a new Notice after the Courtentered its Order related to theopposing party's Motion For NewTrial. This failure resulted in Mr.Ducharme's appeal being dismissed.The dismissal left Mr. Ducharmewith no method to challenge theCourt's property division decision.Following the dismissal, Mr. Tappprovided to Mr. Ducharme an agreement without advising him to consult with another attorney prior tosigning it. The agreement containedcertain obligations to be performedby Mr. Tapp, and Mr. Ducharmeagreed not to bring a malpracticeaction against the attorney as longas the obligations were satisfied. Mr.Ducharme also stated that Mr. Tappis in breach of the agreement.

Mr. Tapp admitted being hired byMr. Ducharme. He stated he represented Mr. Ducharme through conclusion of the divorce. He also admitted the decision was made to appealthe Court's ruling concerning anAnte-nuptial Agreement. The NoticeofAppeal was filed on May 19, 1993,eight days prior to the Judge's Orderdenying the opposing party's MotionFor New Trial. Mr. Tapp admittedfailing to file a second Notice ofAppeal, which resulted in the dismissal of Mr. Ducharme's appeal. Mr.



Tapp denied every other allegationmade by Mr. Ducharme. He specifically denied that Mr. Ducharme wasnoL informed of pending motions aswell as that Mr. Ducharme wasunable to make contact with him.The attorney also denied that Mr.Ducharme was denied copies ofdocuments pertaining to hjs mvorceaction. Mr. Tapp further reiteratedhe filed the Notice in what he feltwas a timely fasmon, only to be metby a rule of law that he considers tobe "nothing but a trap for lawyers."He denied that Mr. Ducharme wasnot adyjsed to consult wjth anotherattorney regarding the agreement.He stated after he drafted the agreement, Mr. Pucharme took the agreement to another attorney to reyjew. Aday or so later, according to Mr. Tapp,Mr. Ducharme returned withchanges he wanted made. After thechanges were made, he stated Mr.Ducharme again took it to hereyjewed by another lawyer and then

it was signed. The attorney statedthat he represented Mr. Ducharmefor free before the Supreme Courtrelated to Mrs. Ducharme's appeal,and that he was successful in hayjngthe former spouse's appeal msmssed. He also denied breaching theagreement and asserted that he haspffid in excess of $10,000.00 in accordance with the agreement.

G. GREGORY NIBLOCKG. Gregory Niblock, of Stuttgart,

was issued a letter of reprimand foryjolation of Model Rules 1.1, 1.3 and8.4(d) as a result of a complaint filedby Dora Lee McDaniel.

Mrs. McDaniel llired Mr. Niblockto represent her on October 17, 1991,in connection with an accident shewas involved in on December 21,1990, in Mempms, Tennessee. Mr.Niblock filed a Complaint on Mrs.McDaniel's behalf in St. FrancisCounty, Arkansas, on December 11,1991. After mscovering that one of

the defendants had med, Mr. Niblockfiled an Amended Complaint duringMarch, 1992. Later in March, 1992,Mr. Niblock served the remffiningdefendant, City of Memprus, withthese pleamngs. After receiyjng theCity of Memphis' SpecialAppearance Contesting Jurismction,Mr. Niblock filed a Motion ToTransfer in an effort to have Mrs.McDaniel's action transferred toTennessee. An Order To Transferwas never entered. After several conversations in whjch Mr. Niblock indjcated Mrs. McDaniel should withdraw her file from him, she did so onSeptember 17, 1993. On February28, 1994, the St. Francis CountyComplaint was msmSSed for lack ofprosecution. The statute of liInitations had expired in Tennessee bythe time the Complaint andAmended Complaint were served.The fajjure to file the action in theproper jurisdiction left Mrs.McDaniel wjth no recourse or reme-

Professional MediationArbitration Service

• An Arkansas private mspute resolution company providing me&ation and arbitration services throughoutthe State of Arkansas

• Serving the legal profession, business community and insurance industry• Mediations are scheduled to occur within 30-40 days• A referral to mediation or arbitration is at no cost to the parties if the session does not take place• Statewide Arbitration Panel of Retired Judges



dy in this matter.Mr. Niblock admitted Mrs.

McDaniel retained him on October17, 1991. Based upon his knowledgeof the one year statue oflimitation inTennessee, he stated efforts weremade to hurriedly file a complaintprior to expiration of the statute oflimitation. He also stated that in therush of filing the Complaint, hefailed to consider the issue of jurisdi.tion. Mr. Niblock states that afterreceiving the Special AppearanceContesting Jurisdiction from theCity of Memphis, he consulted aTennessee attorney regarding Mrs.McDaniel's claim and about the possibility of intervening in a companion case arising out of the same accident. Mr. Niblock also indicated thatit was Mrs. McDaniel who initiatedconversations about dropping hercase. He further averred that he forwarded to the Tennessee attorneyMrs. McDaniel's medical index and a

demand for settlement to be forwarded to counsel for City of Memphis inMay of 1993. The attorney's responsealso contained the information relating to his request of Judge Oily Nealto enter an Order transferring Mrs.McDaniel's action to Tennessee. Mr.Niblock continued to correspondwith the Tennessee attorney until hereceived Mrs. McDaniel's September17, 1993, letter relieving him of anyfurther responsibility. His responseconcluded with an apology to Mrs.McDaniel, the Committee and theBar, along with a statement concerning his embarrassment over filingthe cause of action in the wrongjurisdiction and being unable tobring Mrs. McDaniel's legal matterto an acceptable resolution.

THOMAS JOHNPENDOWSIDThomas John Pendowski, North

Little Rock, was issued a letter ofcaution for violation of Model Rules

7.2(d) as a result of a ComplaintBefore The Committee.

The Complaint Before TheCommittee alleged that Mr.Pendowski's advertisement forJuvenile Law contained in the 1994Southwestern Bell Yellow Pagesfailed to include the name of at leastone lawyer responsible for its content. Mr. Pendowski stated in hisresponse that he was ignorant of therequirement of the Model Ruleswhen he prepared the complainedabout advertisement in August of1993. He further stated that when hebecame aware that it was a violation,it was too late to do anything sincethe yellow pages went to press inOctober of 1993.

ROBERT J. JOHNSONUpon recommendation of the

Supreme Court Committee onProfessional Conduct, on January17, 1995, the Arkansas Supreme

Ronald E. Bumpass, J.D.

Areas of Applicable LawProfessional malpractice of accountants, attorneys

physicians, nurse hospitals andnursing homesContractIWarranty disputes

PrivatePlacements

•••

ConfidentialProceedings

ARBITRATIONEmployee benefits, EEOC/discriminationSales commission disputesBroker-Dealer-ManufacturerRepresentatives litigationArchitectlEngineeringlContractor/Developer disputesContract interpretation of laborgrievancesDiscipline procedure arbitrationTrustee liabilityEmployee pension and disabilityentitlementsLaborlManagement ArbitrationLay-offs, reduction in force, seniority and compensation entitlements

Professional Associations1) Arbitration Panel of the

Department of Labor'sFederal Mediation andConciliation Service

2) Labor Panel and CommercialPanel of the AmericanArbitration Association

3) National Health LawyersAssociation's Dispute

ResolutionService panel

4) U.S. Postal Service - APWU,AFL-CIO, Southernand Southeastern Panel

Law offices of Ronald E. Bumpass2241 North Green Acres Road • Fayetteville, AR 72703

(SOl) 521-3172 or 1-800-400-3172 • FAX: (501) 521-5928



Court accepted the surrender of thelicense of Robert J. Johnson,Cro sett, to practice law in the Stateof Arkansas and directed that Mr.Johnson's name be removed from thelist of attorneys authorized to practice law in this State.

Based upon a formal complaintagainst the attorney arising out of abankruptcy proceeding in which theBankruptcy Court found that Mr.Johnson, through legal representation and business association,defrauded a client of certain funds,and upon Mr. Johnson's entry of aplea of guilty in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District ofTexas to a felony charge - conspiracyto commit bank fraud, he elected tosurrender his law license in lieu offormal disharment proceedings. Mr.Johnson's petition for surrenderadmitted violation of Rules 1.4(a),(b),1.8(a)(b), 1.15(a)(h), 5.3(c) and8.4(a)(bXc)(d).

G. ROBERT DITI'RICHG. lWbert Dittrich, Stuttgart, was

issued a letter ofcaution for violationof Model Rule 3.4(c) following a public hearing on January 20, 1995,upon the complaint of Jill Barber.Based on the affidavit of Mrs. Barberand from her testimony at the hearing, it was learned that Mr. Dittrichand Mrs. Barber had a working relationship as well as a social relationship stemming from her formerem ployment with the circuit courts.In 1986, Mrs. Barber developedTemporal Mandible Joint Syodrome(TMJ) as a result of a car accident.Mr. Dittrich agreed to write a letterto the insurance company in aneffort to negotiate a settlement.When the statute of limitations wasclose to expiring Mr. Dittrich filed alawsuit. Later, interrogatories werefiled and served on Mr. Dittrich.Over a year later the interrogatorieshad not been answered and a MotionTo Compel was granted. Another setof interrogatories were served on Mr.Dittrich, but neither set was everanswered in spite of the judge's

order. Finally, in 1993, settlementnegotiations began. Mrs. Barber testified that she never discussed feeswith Mr. Dittrich and she thoughtMr. Dittrich was pleased to do thiswork for her free of charge since, as acourt reporter, she had done so muchfor Mr. Dittrich. Eventually, a settlement amount was negotiated and inMarch of 1993, Mrs. Barber receivedher releases. However, they were notcorrect and she refused to sign them.On April 6, corrected releases weresigned and executed. Two monthspassed and Mrs. Barber had notreceived the proceeds and in midJune Mr. Dittrich asked Mrs. Barberwhat she thought about him retaining ten percent as a fee. Mr. Dittrichwas referred to her husband, butcontact with him was not made. OnJuly I, a check was received by Mrs.Barber, but it appeared to her thatMr. Dittrich had, in fact, deductedten percent. Mrs. Barber was concerned because she had never seenor endorsed the drafts. She statedthat Mr. Dittrich had no authority toendorse the drafts on her behalf.

Mr. Dittrich testified that Mrs.Barber had told him that she wantedpolicy limits and his fee paid. Heaverred that he told the Barber's hewould not charge a fee, only costsand expenses, if the only offerreceived was unacceptable, to whichthey agreed. In January of 1993, hetestified he had a verbal agreementto accept a particular amount ifoffered. Subsequently, a larger settlement offer was received and accepted. He testified he did have thedrafts for approximately threemonths because he was decidingwhat to do about a fee. Eventually, heunilaterally decided to retain tenpercent as a fee and did endorse thecheck, "Jill Barber, by her attorneyRobert Dittrich." Mr. Dittrich did thisbelieving that Mrs. Barber hadagreed in January to accept a certainminimum settlement.

With respect to the interrogatories, Mr. Dittrich testified that following a discussion with Mrs.

Barber, a decision not to file responses was made because she needed toprevent a trial setting for as long aspossible in order to allow for maximum healing time. It was felt thatwhen responses to the interrogatories were filed, an early trial settingwould be forthcoming. Therefore, thestrategy was to avoid any trial setting by failing to submit answers inan effort to assess Mrs. Barber'spast, present and future mediealexpenses.

GUY HAMILTO JONES, JR.Upon the recommendation of the

Supreme Court Committee onProfessional Conduct, on Fehruary13, 1995, the Arkansas SupremeCourt accepted the surrender of thelicense of Guy Hamilton Jones, Jr., ofConway to practice law in the Stateof Arkansas and directed that Mr.Jones' name be removed from the listof attorneys authorized to practicelaw in this State.

Upon a formal complaint againstMr. Jones arising out of his bankruptcy proceedings in which theBankruptcy Court denied the bankrupt's discharge upon a finding of aclear pattern of untruthfulness,fraudulent conversion and violationof federal law on his part, Mr. Joneselected to surrender his law licensein lieu of formal disbarment action.His petition for surrender admittedviolation of Rules 3.3(aX1) and (4),8.4(c) and 8.4(d).

DAVIS HENRY LOFfINDavis Henry Loftin, West

Memphis, was issued a letter of reprimand for violation of Model Rules1.3 and 8.4(d) following a publichearing on March 17, 1995. The complaint was a result of a per curiamopinion.

The per curiam opinion issuedSeptember 19, 1994, related back tothe Supreme Court curiam of July18, 1994, wherein Mr. Loftin wasordered to appear before the Court toshow cause why he should not beheld in contempt for failing to file a



record and brief in the appeal ofRobert Lee Jones. In Mr. Loftin'sresponse to the Supreme Court, heconceded he had filed a notice ofappeal, but, he never filed a motionto withdraw, nor took any furtheraction to perfect or lodge a record inthe matter.

Therefore, the Court held that heremained attorney-of-record andresponsible for representing appellant on appeal. The ArkansasSupreme Court found Mr. Loftin incontempt and, in fixing the fine, theCourt stated that they considered,among other factors, his previousfailure to lodge a record after havingfiled a notice of appeal in anothermatter.

Mr. Loftin testified he previouslywas employed by the CrittendenCounty Public Defender's officewhere he was subjected to a substantial and practically unmanageableworkload. It was through that officethat Mr. Jones became his client, butthe lawyer left the office after theentry of the judgment of conviction.Mr. Loftin testified that, followingMr. Jones' conviction, he discussedwith him all the possible consequences of an appeal and suggestedthat he should take some time todecide whether or not to pursue anappeal, The notice of appeal was filedto protect the client's rights. In themeantime, Mr. Loftin left the publicdefender's office, and by special contractual arrangement with thatoffice took some cases with him,including this appeal. He learnedthat Mr. Jones was no longer beingheld in the county jail, but did notknow whether he was out on bond orin the Department of Correction.However, he took no steps to determine whether or not to pursue theappeal, to withdraw as counsel ofrecord or to dismiss Mr. Loftin apologized to the Committee for his failure to file a written response to thecomplaint and stated that he hadimproved his calendaring system toavoid recurrence of this situation.

FRANK E. SHAWFrank E. Shaw, Conway, was

issued a letter of reprimand for violation of Model Rules 1.3, 1.4(a) and8.4(d) following a public hearing onMarch 17, 1995, as a result of a complaint filed by Charles T. Swafford.

In his affidavit of complaint, Mr.Swafford stated that he and his wifefiled a complaint in Small ClaimsCourt. When the defendants hiredcounsel and had the case transferredto the civil division, the Swafford'shired Mr. Shaw to appear in court ontheir behalf. The Swafford's agreedto do all the administrative work andthey paid Mr. Shaw for any necessary court appearances. TheSwafford's prepared interrogatoriesand responded to interrogatoriesserved on them. On October 13,1993, they delivered a copy of theirresponses to Mr. Shaw and requestedan early court date. However, theydid not know and Mr. Shaw did not

tell them that one week earlier, onOctober 6, 1993, their complaint wasdismissed without prejudice. InDecember, 1993, motivated by a lackof communication, Mr. Swaffordaverred that he insisted on a meeting during which Mr. Shaw statedthat he would determine how to reopen the case or would make financial compensation. However, twomonths and four letters later, theSwafford's had no communicationfrom Mr. Shaw.

At the hearing Mr. Shaw testifiedthat he had financially compensatedthe Swafford's and that they were"still friends." Mr. Swafford corroborated those statements and indicated if permitted, he was willing towithdraw his complaint. Mr. Shawstated the court date was missedbecause of an inadequate calendaring system that had since beenupdated. His testimony was that hedid respond to Mr. Swafford's letters,



but verbally, not in writing. Finally,he stated procedures are now inplace to avoid this type of situationin the future.

ZACHARY P. MUNCYUpon recommendation of theSupreme Court ProfessionalConduct, on March 27, 1995, theArkansas Supreme Court acceptedthe surrender of the license ofZachary P. Muncy of Searcy to prac·tice law in the State ofArkansas anddirected that Mr. Muncy's name beremoved from the list of attorneysauthorized to practice law in thisState.

Upon a formal complaint allegingthat Mr. Muncy had mishandled certain estate funds, made false state·ments to a tribunal, disobeyed anobligation to a tribunal, and engagedin conduct involving dishonesty,fraud, deceit or misrepresentation,Mr. Muncy elected to surrender hislicense in lieu of formal disbarmentaction. His petition for surrenderadmitted violation of Rules1.15(aXb), 3.3(aXll and (4), 3.4(c)and 8.4(c).

WEBSTER LEE HUBBELLUpon recommendation of the

Supreme Court Committee onProfessional Conduct, on April 24,1995, the Arkansas Supreme Courtaccepted the surrender of the licenseof Webster Lee Hubbell to practicelaw in the State of Arkansas anddirected that Mr. Hubbell's name beremoved from the list of attorneysauthorized to practice law in thisState. Mr. Hubbell elected to surrender his law license in lieu of disbarment proceedings following his entryof a plea of guilty in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Eastern District ofArkansas to felony charges of use ofthe mails to defraud and an attemptto evade taxes. In his petition for surrender, Mr. Hubbell admitted violation of Rules 8.4(h) and 8.4(c).

A . WAYNE DAVISA. Wayne Davis, Little Rock, was

issued a letter ofcaution for violationof Model Rules 1.3 and 8.4(d) as aresult of a per curiam opinion by theArkansas Supreme Court.

The Complaint before theCommittee arose out of informationprovided in a per curiam orderentered by the Arkansas SupremeCourt on December 5, 1994. Mr.Davis' client, Mark Thomas Stout,was convicted on January 24, 1994.The next day Mr. Davis filed a noticeof appeal. At the time he filed thenotice, the transcript had not beenordered. Six months after Mr. Stout'sconviction Mr. Davis ordered thetranscript. The transcript was thencompleted on August 16, 1994, butMr. Davis did not send payment for ituntil October 11, 1994. After receiving the transcript he did not file themotion for rule on the clerk untilNovember 18, 1994, resulting inanother delay in Mr. Stout's appealprocess. Although Mr. Davis didreceive the formal complaint fromthe Committee and was granted anextension of time within which torespond, he failed to do so.

Davis was also issued a letter ofreprimand for violation of ModelRules 1.3, 3.4(c) and 8.4(d) as aresult of a per curiam opinion by theArkansas Supreme Court.

Mr. Davis' client, Ivan FloydPipkin, sought to appeal his criminalconviction. Mr. Davis failed to timelyfile a brief. A Master was appointedby the Arkansas Supreme Court todetermine whether he had a meritorious defense to his failure to file abrief. This hearing was on December21, 1994. At the hearing Mr. Davisadmitted being the attorney ofrecord and being solely responsiblefor filing the brief. He stated that hewas out of town the date the briefwas due, July 5, 1994, but that hehad dictated a petition for an extension of thirty (30) days with instructions that the brief be filed on thatdate. However, the petition for anextension was not timely filed. Mr.Davis presented no further evidenceof any effort to tender or obtain per-

IOlsslon to file an untimely brief.Further, he admitted receipt of thenotice from the Clerk advising himthat no brief was filed and requesting a response. Mr. Davis testifiedthat he did call the Clerk, who wasout, but he did not call again. His testimony was that the briefwas almostcomplete and it would be tendered tothe Clerk on December 27, 1994. AsofJanuary 9, 1995, no brief had beentendered. Mr. Davis accepted fullresponsibility and added thatbecause he was a sole practitioner he"simply could not get it prepared."

The Court found that Mr. Davismismanaged his client's affairs anddemonstrated an inability to fulfillhis obligations to the Court as wellas his commitment to the Masterthat he would have the brief filed byDecember 27. Consequently, Mr.Davis was held in contempt of courtfor failure to comply with the Court'sorders. Mr. Davis failed to respond tothe Committee after being dulyserved.

G. LEROY BLANKENSHIPG. Leroy Blankenship, Batesville,

was issued a letter of reprimand forviolation on Model Rules 1.5(c), 1.9(a)and 8.4(d) following an evidentiaryhearing as a result of a complaintfiled by Stu Brown.

In his affidavit of complaint, Mr.Brown stated that he began receiving chiropractic treatment followinga car accident in which he wasinjured. He hired Mr. Blankenshipbecause he was not receiving timelycompensation from the insurancecompany for his medical treatments.According to the client, Mr.Blankenship received a settlementdraft which Mr. Brown did notendorse. Mr. Brown did not believethe check was depo ited to a trustaccount. He stated further that whenhe went to Mr. Blankenship's officeto collect his share of the settlement,he was advised by Mr. Blankenship'ssecretary that the doctor had beenpaid directly by the insurance company. Mr. Brown averred that,



although he believed the matter wasconcluded, he was served with a WritOf Garnishment because the doctorhad not been paid. He stated thatthis was his first notice that the doctor had not been paid and that ajudgment for the unpaid balance hadbeen obtained.

His surprise was compounded bythe fact that Mr. Blankenship andhis firm represented the doctor inthis colIection matter.

Mr. Blankenship's affidavit andtestimony at the hearing took issuewith the accuracy of Mr. Brown'sallegations. Mr. Blankenship's testimony as well as the affidavit of hissecretary stated that Mr. Brown didendorse the settlement draft whichwas deposited into the attorney'strust account. At that time Mr.Brown told Mr. Blankenship's secretary he preferred to pay the doctorhimself. Mr. Blankenship's secretaryaverred that she did not tell Mr.Brown that the insurance companyhad directly paid the doctor. Mr.Blankenship recognized that, perhaps, the use of a settlement statement would have prevented this misunderstanding. However, testimonyat the hearing revealed that therewas no settlement statement provided to tbe client as contemplated bythe Rules. Rather, one year later in aletter to another attorney, Mr.Blankenship handwrote the amountof the settlement and the balanceafter subtracting his fee and expenses.

Mr. Blankenship testified thatMr. Brown should not have believedthe matter was concluded. Followingcompletion of the personal injuryaction, the attorney's secretary madeefforts to have the doctor paid bysending letters on his letterhead toMr. Brown. Later, Tim Weaver, anattorney in his office, sent a colIection letter to Mr. Brown. However,the copies he provided to theCommittee were not on his letterhead. Mr. Blankenship explainedthat was because Mr. Weaver stilluses carbon paper and the retained

copy is not on letterhead stationery.When Mr. Brown failed to respond tothe collection letter, a Complaint andAffidavit Of Service was filed.Subsequently, a Judgment wasobtained. Following the issuance ofthe Writ Of Garnishment, Mr.Blankenship obtained an Orderallowing him to withdraw as counselfor the doctor. In the Motion To BeRelieved As Counsel, he cited hisprevious representation of Mr.Brown in a related matter asgrounds for withdrawal.

PAUL MARK LEDBE'ITERPaul Mark Ledbetter, Memphis,

Tennessee, was issued a letter ofcaution for violation of Model Rules7.5(a) and 8.4(c).

In the course of an investigationby the Board of ProfessionalResponsibility of the Supreme CourtofTennessee, it was learned that Mr.Ledbetter's name appeared on a lawfirm letterhead whose address is inMemphis, Tennessee. Two asterisksappeared next to Mr. Ledbetter'sname denoting that he is "alsolicensed in Arkansas." By his nameappearing on the letterhead, thelocation of the firm in Memphis andthe use of the word "also" in denotinghis licensure in Arkansas, Mr.Ledbetter implied he was licensed topractice law in Tennessee, as weII asin Arkansas. However, Mr. Ledbetteronly recently applied for admissionto the Bar of Tennessee. The appearance that he was practicing law inTennessee has existed for severalyears.

For Mr. Ledbetter's response, hestated that the wording on the letterhead could have been misleadinggiven the location of his office; however, the letterhead has been corrected, although it should have been corrected much earlier. He added thathe had procrastinated in obtaininghis license in Tennessee, but hasalways been a qualified candidate.Finally, he stated that the allegations made in the complaint are similar to the allegations made in

Tennessee which had been resolvedby agreement.

BERT N. DARROWBert N. Darrow, Cabot, was issued

a letter of caution for violation ofModel Rules 1.3 and 1.4(a) as aresult of a complaint filed by RobertJ. McCullough.

In his affidavit, Mr. McCulloughaverred that Mr. Darrow was hiredbased on his advertisement statingthat he handled Social SecurityDisability Claims. During the representation Mr. Darrow was sent aNotice of Reconsideration on boththe Disability Insurance BenefitsClaim and the SupplementalSecurity Income payments claim bythe Social Security Administration.These were notices denying Mr.McCulIough's claim and advisinghim of the time limitation forappeals. Mr. McCulIough and hiswife phoned Mr. Darrow severaltimes for a status report on theappelIate hearing only to be told thathe had not yet heard anything.Finally, after about one year, theycontacted the Social Security officeand learned that Mr. Darrow neverrequested a hearing and the file hadbeen "closed." When Mr. McCulloughnext contacted Mr. Darrow he wasunable to determine why Mr. Darrowfailed to request a hearing, terminated his services and had his wiferetrieve his file. Mr. McCullough isattempting to pursue an appeal.

Mr. Darrow stated in his responsethat although the appropriate formswere completed and mailed, he neverreceived any notice of denial. Headded that, to the best of his knowledge, he first learned of the NoticesOfReconsideration when he read Mr.McCullough's affidavit. Additionally,he stated that during no phone conversations with the McCulIough'sdid they mention that they hadreceived any notices denying benefits and/or payments.

Finally, Mr. Darrow stated that,with hindsight, he could have beenmore diligent, but denied any viola-



tion regarding commurrication.

THOMAS A. POTIERThomas A. Potter, Texarkana,

Texas, was issued a letter of reprimand for violation of Model Rules1.3 and 8.4(d) as a result of a percuriam from the Arkansas SupremeCourt.

The complaint was based on a percuriam delivered by the ArkansasSupreme Court on October 31, 1994.Related to this per curiam was theOctober 3, 1994, per curiam whichordered Mr. Potter to appear andshow cause why he should not beheld in contempt for failure to file anabstract and brief for appellant,Frank Williams, Jr. The SupremeCourt granted his Motion To File ABelated Brief, and he filed the samesubsequent to the show cause hearing. At the hearing, Mr. Potterentered a plea of guilty to the contempt order. After hearing his offerof mitigating circumstances, theCourt imposed a fine of $250 for failure to timely file an abstract andbrief.

In Mr. Potter's response, he beganby explaining that he was one of thePublic Defenders for Lafayette andMiller Counties. He also explainedhis responsibilities as such. Heacknowledged that it was in hiscapacity as Lafayette County PublicDefender that he was appointed torepresent Frank Williams, Jr. Hestated that following Mr. Willjams'convictions, he filed a timely NoticeOf Appeal and obtained an Orderfrom the trial judge extending thetime to file the trial court record. Heasserted that because of his extensive caseload, he was required torequest numerous extensions, andwas given a final deadline of July 29,1994, which he admittedly did notmeet. He continued his responsewith the various mitigating circumstances offered to the Court. Herelated not only the caseload of thePublic Defender's office in both counties but also all the measures he tookwith respect to Mr. Williams' appeal,

as well as the time spent on theappeal. He then discussed his hecticwork schedule. Additionally, Mr.Potter asserted that he did act withdiligence on behalf of Mr. Williams,but he was stretched to the limit inhis capacity as an attorney. In concluding his response, Mr. Potter stated that in reviewing the final draft ofMr. Willjams' brief, he discovered anomission ofa portion of an argument.He stated he was unable to locatethis portion of his argument so hecanceled his charter flight to LittleRock thereby failing to meet the timedeadline.

DAVID M. CLARKDavid M. Clark, Batesville, was

issued a letter of reprimand for violation of Model Rules 1.3 and 8.4(d)as a result of a complaint by GregoryW. Nail.

Mr. Nail stated that in March of1990 he was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to ten years inthe Arkansas Department ofCorrection. Mr. Clark was his attorney at trial and advised the court ofhis intent to appeal. For three yearsMr. Nail believed that Mr. Clark waspursuing the appeal. Mr. Nailaverred that Mr. Clark made suchstatements as, "I'm working on it"and "I'm waiting on an answer now."Mr. Nail eventually contacted theClerk's office and learned that noNotice Of Appeal was ever filed. Hethen petitioned for a Writ Of HabeasCorpus in federal court and has beenappointed an attorney who is appealing his conviction.

Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Nailwas charged with first degree murder, that he did represent him attrial and he was convicted ofmanslaughter. Following his conviction, Mr. Nail's probation of anothersentence was revoked. Mr. Clarkaverred that the revocation was of anillegal sentence. Mr. Clark and Mr.Nail decided that Mr. Nail, acting prose, would appeal the conviction uponwhich the revocation was enteredrather than the manslaughter con-

viction. Mr. Nail was successful inhaving the earlier conviction setaside. Mr. Clark stated that heassumed, at that point, that Mr. Nailno longer needed his services andclosed his file. He stated, in conclusion, that had he understood Mr.Nail wanted to appeal hismanslaughter conviction, he wouldhave filed a Motion For Rule On TheClerk.

CLAUDELL WOODSClaudell Woods, Magnolia, was

issued a letter of reprimand for violation of Model Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a),3.4(c) and 8.4(d) as a result of a percuriam order.

The complaint which was beforethe Committee arose out of two percuriams delivered by the ArkansasSupreme Court. The initial per curiam was based on Undra Sumlin'sPro Se Motion For Rule On TheClerk. After his conviction January13, 1993, Mr. Sumlin informed Mr.Woods that he wished to file anappeal. Mr. Sumlin stated that Mr.Woods informed him his duty wasover and he was not required to filean appeal for him. Mr. Sumlin wasalso told by Mr. Woods that ifrequired to file a brief, he would fileonly a "No-Merit" Brief. Mr. Woodsdid file a Notice Of Appeal two daysprior to the expiration of time fordoing so. Mr. Sumlin repeatedlyrequested information about hisappeal as did his parents. On oneoccasion, Mr. Woods told Mr.Sumlin's parents that it was a failure on the part of the trial courtwhich led to the delay of the appeal.At a subsequent show cause hearingbefore the Arkansas Supreme Court,Mr. Woods assured the Court that hewould file a petition for Writ OfCertiorari and Brief within 60 days.Instead of filing this pleading, hefiled a Motion For Belated Appeal.During further investigation of thismatter, the court reporter affirmedthat no transcript had been orderedas of August 17, 1994. In a secondper curiam on this matter the Court


Disciplinary Actions/ Advisory Opinions

treated his Motion For BelatedAppeal as a Writ Of Certiorari so asto not cause any further delay for Mr.Sumlin. The Court also removed Mr.Woods from the case.

In Mr. Woods' response, he admitted having been appointed to represent Mr. Sumlin in February 1993.He stated that he informed Mr.Sumlin he would file an appeal onhis behalf He further acknowledgedthat the Notice Of Appeal which hefiled contained a statement that acopy of the transcript was beingordered. In addressing the matterscontained in the per curiams, hestated that he relied on informationfrom the criminal law handbook intaking action on this matter. He alsostated that over 90 days had elapsedbefore he realized he had to personally request a trial transcript. Healso admitted his failure to closelyread the appellate rules. Further, heacknowledged his failure to actpromptly before the ArkansasSupreme Court. Additionally, headmitted to not responding to all ofMr. Sumlin's letters. He also statedthat he did advise Mr. Sumlin's parents that it was his duty to file thenecessary papers to perfect theappeal. He concluded his responsewith assuring the Committee that henow has a better understanding ofappellate procedures.

Woods was also issued a letter ofreprimand for violation of ModelRules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and 8.4(d) as aresult of a complaint by Brenda J.Young.

In her affidavit, Brenda J. Youngstated that on May 11, 1993, she wasconvicted of aggravated robbery andtheft. Mr. Woods told her, on thatdate, that he would file a Notice OfAppeal for her. Beginning in June1993, Ms. Young and her parentsattempted numerous times to obtaininformation from Mr. Woods aboutthe appeal. After a year withoutinformation from Mr. Woods, MS.Young filed a Pro Se Notice OfAppeal and a Pro Se Motion forBelated Appeal. The response by Mr.

Woods in relation to Ms. Young's ProSe Motions contained his admissionof neglect. Ms. Young's affidavit alsoaverred that it was his admittedneglect which had led to the unnecessary and lengthy delay in processing her appeal.

In his response, Mr. Woods admitted representing Ms. Young in May1993. He also admitted filing aNotice OfAppeal and stating thereinthat a copy of the transcript wasordered. He also stated that his mistake was in relying on proceduresfound in a criminal law handbook.He also asserted that over 90 dayshad elapsed before he discovered itwas his responsibility to request thetrial transcript from the courtreporter. A request by him for anextension of time was denied by thetrial judge. He acknowledged hiserror in not reading the appellateprocedures closely, and, in failing toact promptly in obtaining necessaryrelief from the Arkansas SupremeCourt. He further admits his actionsprevented a timely appeal.Additionally, he acknowledged notresponding to all correspondencefrom Ms. Young, but asserted that hedid inform Ms. Young's parents of hisduty to file necessary papers to perfect an appeal.

Judicial Ethics, Advisory Opinions

Advisory Opinion #94-05April 7, 1994

In an advisory opinion, theArkansas Judicial Ethics AdvisoryCommittee stated that, where anattorney appearing before a judge isan announced candidate for the position of the judge, the judge mustrecuse even if no one before the courtobjects.

Advisory Opinion #94-08September 12, 1994

In an advisory opinion, theArkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory

Committee stated that a judge isnot disqualified from a case in whicha subsidiary of AT&T is a party bythe fact that the judge is the executor and one of the three beneficiariesof an estate that holds approximately 1,000 shares of an equity incomefund about 18% of which is investedin AT&T. The issue before the courtwas whether a city had appropriately levied a franchise tax or fee.Noting that AT&T has one billion,three hundred million outstandingshares, the Committee concludedthat the judge's relatively smallshare of the fund's relatively smallinvestment in one of the world'slargest corporations was a de minimis interest that did not require disqualification.

Advisory Opinion #94-09January 20, 1995

In an advisory opinion, theArkansas Judicial Ethics AdvisoryCommittee stated that a judge maynot serve on the ad hoc fund-raisingcommittee of a local boys/girls clubwhere the fund-raising will involvelobbying government officials.

Advisory Opinion #95-1February 14, 1995

In an advisory opinion, theArkansas Judicial Ethics AdvisoryCommittee stated that judges maywrite letters of recommendation butmust do so on personal stationeryand that judges may permit theirnames to be used as references andmay respond to an inquiry usingjudicial letterhead.

Advisory Opinion #95-3March 16, 1995

In an advisory opinion, theArkansas Judicial Ethics AdvisoryCommittee stated that a judge mayserve on the advisory committee of apublic technical college where thecommittee recommends changes inthe college curriculum, assists inplanning, supports the program atthe local level, and offers suggestionsto the college authority, and wherepolitical activity is not anticipated.


James William Fulbright


J

In Memoriam

What might have been: A tributeto J. William Fulbright

By Bill Glenn

On February 9, 1995, Arkansaslost one of its most influential politicians of the 20th Century. SenatorJames William Fulbright passedaway in Washington D.C., leaving alegacy built of insight and idealism.

This man, who was born inSumner, Missouri on April 5, 1905 toJay and Roberta Fulbright, enteredpolitics for the reason our foundingfathers had in mind when this country began. Fulbright's philosophyinvolved straight-forward, honest,tell-all tactics that set him apartfrom all other statesmen during hisreign as U.S. Senator.

The first of many Fulbrightprophecies came in 1959 when hespoke about the growth of the SovietUnion.

"The public opinion of the worldwill cause the Russian people torelinquish their control of the oncefree people of Poland and EastGermany...... he said. "I do notbelieve that the Soviets desire todominate the world as the Germansdid... and I can see no reason why wecannot get along peaceably."

It was Fulbright who votedagainst appropriations for anotheryear of Joseph McCarthy's investigating committee. Fulbright stoodalone in the 85-1 vote, while othersenators skipped the vote, afraid tolet their voices be heard.

Fulbright's voice rose again during the deliberation of the Bay ofPigs operation. Fulbright said, "TheCastro regime is a thorn in the flesh;but it is not a dagger in the heart."Once again, Fulbright's suggestion tostay away, proved to be correct.

Fulbright's intellectual wayswere found in Oxford, England,where as a Rhodes scholar, he graduated in 1928 and earned a Master'sDegree in 1931. It was at Oxford

where Fulbright said he first became"intellectually curious." FromOxford, Fulbright entered law schoolat George Washington Universitywhere he graduated second in hisclass in 1934. He then spent time asa law professor at GeorgeWashington and at the University ofArkansas School of Law. In 1939, atage 34, he became the youngest university president in the UnitedStates at the University ofArkansas.His political career began in 1943 inthe House of Representatives. Fromthere he became the most famoussenator in Arkansas history, and onethat chaired the Foreign RelationsCommittee for 15 years.

Fulbright's only problem was hishome state. His continued support ofstate's rights and segregation costhim any chance of moving into theWhite House.

In fact, John Kennedy wantedhim to be his Secretary of State, butRobert Kennedy knew that even ifFulbright never mentioned civilrights during his tenure, his brother's administration would alwayshave to answer to Fulbright's position.

The plain fact is Fulbright wouldhave never been elected in Arkansashad he chosen to speak against thistouchy subject.

It was Fulbright who, at a WhiteHouse dinner party one monthbefore the assassination of PresidentKennedy, voiced concern about thePresident's trip to Dallas.

Perhaps Fulbright's strongestopposition came with the VietnamWar. He tried to persuade the leadersof all countries involved to meet anddiscuss a way of peace. LyndonJohnson and Secretary of State DeanRusk said no. It was shortly afterthis that Johnson announced he

would not run for re-election.The fall ofcommunism; the Bay of

Pigs failure; the Kennedy assassination; and the Vietnam War. Majorcomponents of this country's historymight have been different if ourcountry's leaders had followed thelead of James William Fulbright.

•••James M. McHaneyJames M. McHaney, of Little

Rock, died in April at the age of 76.He was president of the PulaskiCounty Bar Association from 196898. He served as chief counsel to theArkansas Department of PollutionControl and Ecology for 25 years. Hewas secretary of the Little RockCommittee on Foreign Relations,president of the Country Club ofLittle Rock, president of the LittleRock Club, and a member of theboard of trustees of RoselawnCemetery.

He is survived by his wife,Marilyn Newsom McHaney; adaughter, Frances M. Allen; a brother, Col. Gailon McHaney; two sisters,Virginia Thayer and Bette Bennett;and four grandchildren.

John C. FinleyJohn C. Finley, Jr., of Ashdown,

died in August. He graduated fromthe College of the Ozarks in 1935,and the University of Arkansas LawSchool in 1938. He practiced law inAshdown for 56 years and was thesenior partner in the Finley andFinley Law Firm.

He served as StateRepresentative from Little RiverCounty in 1947-50, deputy prosecuting attorney in 1938-40 and secretary of the Little River CountyDemocratic Committee from 195368. Mr. Finley was veteran of WorldWar 11, a member of the ArkansasBar Association, SouthwestArkansas Bar Association, AmericanLegion, Ashdown Masonic Lodge andFirst Baptist Church ofAshdown.

He is survived by one son, John C.Finley, III, of Ashdown, and one sister.


In Memoriam

303 Guaranty Building. 120 South Olive Avenue. West Palm Beach, FL 33401

(407) 833-0454

William Purifoy

William Irving Purifoy, of LittleRock, died in January. He was aretired lawyer who practiced inArkansas, Loillsiana and Tennessee.He was an Air Force veteran ofWorldWar II.

He is survived by two sons,Wayne Purifoy and Bill Purifoy; onedaughter, Dana Purifoy; one niece,Linda Greenlee; four great-niecesand nephews; and four great-greatnieces and nephews.

Mrs. Birdie Stotts.

LANDTECHCORPORATION

LANDTECH86Real Estate Settlement System

For Laser or Matrix Printers

• HUD 1 Automatic Calculations• Checks & Escrow Accounting• Word Processor - Spell Check

Policies & CommitmentsDeeds & Mortgages

• Data Base Reporting (SQU

• On Site Training Available r-~·=5·:~iiiiiiiiii~l

$1,495.00

Harrisburg, died in February.Mooney was a graduate of ArkansasState University and the UniversityofArkansas School of Law.

As a member of the Henry andMooney firm, he was serving as public defender for Poinsett County andwas a member of the Church ofChrist. He was a member of thePoinsett County Bar Association.

He is survived by his wife,Mrs. Connie Mooney; one daughter,Lauren Mooney; one son, TaylorMooney; his mother, Mrs.Glenna Mooney; one sister, Mrs.Faith Coles; and his grandmother,

Henry M. "Hank" Britt

Dennis Berry

Former Garland County CircilltCourt Judge Henry M. "Hank" Brittdied in February. Britt graduatedfrom the University of Illinois in1947 and began his law practice inHot Springs in 1948. After a stint asan assistant U.S. attorney for theWestern District of Arkansas in FortSmith for five years, Britt returnedto Hot Springs to continue his private practice.

Britt made an unsuccessful runat governor against Gov. OrvalFaubus in 1960. He worked asGarland County Circillt Court Judgefor 16 years.

He also served in the U.S. Armyfrom 1941 until 1946.

Dennis L. Berry, of Pocahontas,died in January. Mr. Berry graduatedfrom the University ofArkansas LawSchool in 1958, earning his juris doctorate degree.

He went immediately to the officeof the General Counsel, U.S.Department of Agriculture in LittleRock.

He moved to Corning in 1959where he practiced law for 11 years,served as deputy prosecuting attorney of Clay County and was a member of the Board of Directors ofCorning School District.

He is sumved by a son, ClayBerry; two daughters, Mrs. AmyBoyd, and Miss Eve Berry; his mother, Mrs. Annis Spangler; a brother,Roy Berry; and two grandchildren.

Joe C. Boone

Joe C. Boone, of Jonesboro, died inFebruary. He graduated from theUniversity of Arkansas in 1960, andwas a member and past president ofthe Northeast Arkansas andCraighead County bar associations.

Plaintiff's Personal Injury Trial LawyerMcDaniel & Wells. PA.. Jonesboro. Arkansas. is seeking an

attorney to join our firm as a plaintiffs' pel'sonal injury triallawyer. Minimum 1 to 5 years experience. Income will be

commensurate with experience.

G. Wayne Mooney

Gwindle Wayne Mooney, of

Contact Bobby McDaniel or Phillip Wells at 932-5950(All Contacts will be kept confidential.)


1995 Pro Bono Honor Roll

Obviously, no price tag can be placedon the good works contributed by private attorney volunteers who providepro bono legal assistance to those persons in need. However, in 1994, thevalue of services and contributionsprovided by private attorneys to lowincome clients through the state'sorganized pro bono programs exceeded $1,000,000.

There is a great need for the provision of legal assistance to individualswho financially cannot afford to hirean attorney. Through the committedwork of the seven legal services programs serving the state in conjunctionwith the dedication and pro bonoefforts of the private bar, increasingnumbers of single parents, children,working poor, physically and mentallychallenged persons and elderly individuals living on extremely limitedincomes are provided access to justice.

Effective March 24, 1995~Iy ljll8Arkansas-licensed attorneys wereenrolled as members of an organized probono program. Our warm gratitude andappreciation are extended to the following attorneys who are active members ofthe state's established pro bono programs.

By this Honor Roll the Arkansas BarAssociation recognizes the followinglawyers for their participation in organized pro bono programs across thestate. Those programs represented bythis Pro Bono Honor Roll are: TheArkansas Volunteer Lawyers for theElderly, AVLE; VOCALS (Volunteers'Organization for Central ArkansasLegal Services) for Pulaski County,Jefferson County, Lonoke County,Faulkner County, Garland County,Saline County, Hot Spring County andClark County; Pro Bono Panel ofOzark Legal Services; Legal Servicesof Northeast Arkansas Conflict Panel;and Twelfth Judicial District ProBono Program.

Funding for these pro bono efforts isprovided by the Arkansas Interest onLawyers' Trust Accounts, 10LTAFoundation; the Department ofHuman Services, Division of Agingand Adult Services; and six ArkansasLegal Services Programs.

In addition, some of the attorneysand law firms are fLnanciaJ contribu~

tors to CALS through their pro bonoprogram.

1995 ProBono Honor

Roll

ARKANSAS COl JNTYRussell BenyRobert DittrichJ. W.GreenDavid HenryCarl MadsenDavid J. ManleyDenni.8 MoLock~Wcolm SmithNorman Smith

Asm,Ey COIINTYWilliam ArnoldJames Barker, Jr.Gary DraperHerman HamiltonJames HamiltonReid HarrodBiJI HubbeUWilliam JohnsonSam PopePaul SelbyTimothy TarvinGayle Zimmerman

BAXTER COUNTYJodi CarneyLeo "Bud" CarneyMark CarneyKerry ChismMark CooperRick CooperRoy DammerDavid EthredgeVan A. GearhartPrice HarnedFrank HuckabaJamoo C."Jimmy"JohnoonRonald KincadeDeborah A. KnoxRoger MorganRichard NelsonDavid OsmonTerry PoynterTed SandenRick SpencerJudith StrolherLane Slrotber

BENTON COUNTYWayne AckermanOliver Adam.sWilliam AlleyBruce BennettJohn BlairRonald BoyerDebbie BradleyRay BunchUoyd BUlTOWCraig CampbellMichael ChaseGreg ClarkJim ClarkCurtis D. Clements1'amra CochranVictoria CochranJeff ConnerMax G. CooperMark CorleyWesley A. CottrellWarren CoulterTerry CrabtreeEldon CrippsCa.sey Croxton

Dena C. DicltinaonJohn DodgeJerry DosseyDaniel ElrodGeo"pa ElrodJohn ElrodDan FordMark FryaufAnthony FullerDavid FullerDavid B. FullerAlliBon GarrettStephen GeigleAnne Gibbons GeorgeDavid GeorgeCharles L. GocioScott GreearC. J. HardcastleWilliam T. HaasRiWnl HoodDeborah HudsonDonald HuffmanBlaine JacksonJim JohnsonLewis B. Jones, Jr.Brad KarrenDonald B. KendallEugene KelleyErnest LawrenceTerry LeeBarbara LingleJim LingleBen LipscombMartha LondaginElla Maxwell LongRick LorenceJames LufImanDavid MatthewsMark W. McBethMichael McCauleyEdwin McClureRon McLaughlinJay C. MinerTom MorrisCarrie MyersDoug NorwoodJ. Robin PaceSam ReevesGeo~ RhoadsRobert. RhoadsChris !loge",Stephen SawyerJay SaxtonMary M. SchneiderDougSchnmtzJohn ScottJohn SkaggsHoward L. Sli.nk.ardMike SpiveyRichard J. StockerRobert TeagueStephen ThomasLarry ThompsonThurston 'MlompsonCyntb.ia UnderwoodSallie VarnerBill WatlrinaTimothy Monroe WeaverRalph C. WilliamsStephen Wood

BOONE COl TNTYDonald Adam.sDon BishopDan Bowel"8Gail Inman CampbellGene CampbellScott CovingtonBrad Crawford

Doug DanielSteve.n DaviaPeter DeStefanoBill DoehierDeanna S. EvansGarvin FittonBuford GardnerJim GoldieJame. GreshamClaude JonaFred C. KirkpatrickThomu D. LedbetterJohnny NicholsRichard ParkerJerry PinsonJohn PutmanKen ReevesJim SprottMichael StubblefieldKandyWebbDonald WestErnie WrightVan C. Younes

BRADLEY COl TND"Bruce AndenonMurray ClaycombBiU G. Wells

CAI/HOllN COllND'Mary Thomason

CARROl ... COlINTYRuss AtchleyKenneth CastleberryKent ConeyGerald K. CrowWilliam F. DouglasAlan EpleyLewis EpleyConnie FranceGary HolmanScott JacksonStevan VowellWade Williams

CHICOT COUNT)"Robert AveryLaurie BridewellRobert BridewellThomu DeenDon GloverJames HaddockKimberly J . KellerJoeeph Mauanti

CLARK COUNTYRae Rice Perry

CLAY COUNTYGuy BrinkleyGue CampDavid CopelinGary GarlandRobert HallC. W. Knaul8John LingleRick Rodery

CI.EBIJRNE COlINTYStephen ChoateBeverly ClaunchPatrick GardnerJeffery HanceMichael IrwinRebecca LynnTerry LynnJohn PurtleCarl McSpadden

Leon ReedLynn SkinnerTommy E. SmithBryan Tilley

CI/EVELAND COl JNT'iSanford Be8hear, Jr.

COI.IJMBIA CQIJNT'(Ronny BellDavid ButlerCarolyn J. CleggFrancia CrumplerW.A. EckertMichael EpleyMike KinanIJed MollestonDavid PriceDavid Talley, Jr.

CONWAy COIJNTYScott AdamsMichael AllisonMark CambianoBen CaruthJeannie L. DennistonSteve KirkDale LipsmeyerLynn PlemmonsStephen RalphJim RankinBart VirdenHoward Yates

CRAIGHEAQ COUNTYJoe BarrettAnthony BartelsJohn BartteltJohn BeasonKeith BlackmanJim BurtonKeith CarleJon ColemanMike ConePhlllip CregoMalcolm CulpepperJ. David DanielWilliam DavidsonBrent DavisMichael DeLoacheBarry DeaconWarren DupweScott EmersonBill EtterPaul FordRobert J. GibsonMichael CottBarl>ara Hal8eyLeifHammanWilham L. HowardP. Sanders HuckabeeCurt HuckabyChristopher JesterBarry LaFarletteGlenn LovettRichard LuebyJames McCauleyLucinda McDanielPaul McNeillBryant MarshallPrice MarshallC. D. MitchellDonn MixonMike MullallyCh.risPaulBrant PerkinsVal PriceJeff PuryearDavid Rees



Jeannette Robertson Sara Sawyer Jerry M. Rephan Paul Hopper Tim Parker Broce HarlanBed Smith FAW,J{NER COlTNTY Bryon Rhodes Michael Wayne Loggins Joe Perry Guy LongPaul Waddell William C. Adkisson Donald R. Roberts David Miller Brent MartinRalph Waddell Matthew Adlong Charlie Rudd Tim Weaver LINCOLN COUNTY John MaysRobin Wadley D. l"ranklin Arey Richard L. Slagle Mark Binns Mite-hd MooreMike Walden Richard W. Atkinson Stephany R. Slagle JACKSON COlJNTy Odell Carter Janet Moore-HartPhillip Wells Rita B. Atkinson Eddie Spitzer Richard Allen Victor Harper Richard ReidTodd William.s Amy Brazil Michelle Strause Ed Boyce Veletta P. Smith Daniel RitcheyArion Woodruff William Clay (Bill) Bnu.il J. Sky Tapp Henry Boyce Bill Ross

Charles E. (Ed) Clawson William R. Wisely Sam Bo,..,. LITTLE BNER 00lIN'IY Hunter WilliamsCRAWFORD COl JNTY Kenneth Fuchs Wayne Boyce Eric. T. Bishop Ralph Wilson, Sr.Phillip Bagby Helen Rice Grinder GRANT COUNTY Phil Hout Mickey BuchananFines Batchelor Steve M. Harper Eddy Easley Steve Howard Jay Metzger MONROE COUNTYGary Cottrell George F. Hartje Robert Jeffrey Joe James Raymond AbramsonChRrlea R nyPr, .Jr. Paul Clifford J. Henry Joseph Swaty James McLarty LOGAN COUNTY David CarruthCant Robert W. Henry Leon Nicholson Kevin Barham Steve ElledgeZed Gaot Casey Jones GREENE COUNTY Marvin Thaxton Herschel Cleveland Baxter SharpMartha Harriman Michael A. Maggio Jeffrey T. Branch Tim Watson David CravensRay H. Hodnett Michael L. Murphy Robert Branch Ronald Winningham R. H. Hixson MONTGOMERYMarvin Honeycutt Pamela S. Osment Mary Broadaway Wendy Wofford Johnson COUNTYRoger T. Jeremiah Kimberly M. Pavelko Roger Colbert .JEFFERSON COUNTY C. Richard Lippard Bill McKimmMichael J. Medlock Lynn Frank Plemmons Gregory Crow Kenneth Baim Brian MuellerJan Nielsen Jack L. Roberts Don Denton David Bridgforth Coy Rush NEVApA COl JNTYThurman Ragar, Jr. Boyd L. Tackett Andrew Fulkerson William C. Bridgforth David Rush Danny Rodgers

Robert L. Thacker Joe Holifield William M. Bridgforth John Wtlliams Glen VasserCRrITENPeN COUNTY JeMe Thompson H. T. Moore Kenneth E. Buckner Paul x.. WilliamJlWilliam Ayers Friuie Vammen John F. Muller Patrick A. Burrow Ernie Witt NEWfON COl JNTYMarcBaretz Kim Kelley Wiedower Randy Philhours F. Wilson Bynum Thomas A. MartinKathleen Caldwell Tim D. Williams Daniel Stidham Othello Cross LONOKE COl JNTY George StoneBen Cole Robert Thompson Michael Dennis Lori HoggardJerry Coleman FRANKLlN COUNTY Mike Todd Judith DeSimone Stephen Lamb OIJACH1TA COUNTYChadd Durrett Stephen White Jon Williams Don A. Eilbott Howard Martin Eugene BramblettJohn Fogleman Ernie Witt Robert E. Young Horace J. Fikes James Rankin Ralph GoUlDonald Forrest Neva Witt Sharon Fortenberry William Reed Searcy HarrellTimothy Ginn HEMf$]EAD COUNTY David Gunti Edward C. Swaim DanielIvesJames C. Hale FID,TON COUNTY Kathleen Bird William J. Harrelson Edwin KeatonJim Johnson John Belew Al Graves Sandra Y. Harris MADISON COUNTY Robert LaneyDavis Loftin David Blair Jim Pedigo Kyle Havner Bill All.-.d Paul LindseyJulie Menke Leroy Blankenship Charles Walker Ann Hill Joanna P. Boyles James PrattTom Montgomery Tom Garner Willia.m Randal Wright Zenola M Hilliard W. Q. Hall Allen RobertsCecil B. Nance, Jr. Adam Harkey Tony Yocom Stephen A. Matthews Jeff RogersElton Rieves, IV John Norman Harkey James C. Moser, Jr. MARION COUNTY Benton RollinsKent Rubens Bill HIl58 HOT SPRiNG COlJNTY Wm Kirby Mouser Judith Bearden Hamilton SingletonDavid Shelton Paul Hopper Phyllis J. Lemons Rosalind Mouser Christopher CarterJ. Michael Stephenson Mark Johnson Willie E. Perkins C. Mac Norton Kcnford O. Carter PERRy GOlJNTYJan Thomas Larry Kissee G. Christopher Walthall J. Slocum Pickell Kenneth Hall Randolph BaltzRichard R. West nRn Orr Leisa Pulliam Michael Kelly Herby BranscumRonald Wilson DeWayne Plumlee HOWARpCOUNTY Phillip A. Raley Kenneth R. Smith Lisa GeorgeStephen K. Wood John Purtle Peter Darling Greg RobinsonMargaret Woolfolk Keith Rutledge Melinda Gilbert Spencer Robinson MILLER COUNTY PHllJJps COUNTY

Jim Short James Graves Jan Scussel LeRoy Autrey Charles AllenCROSS COIIN1j" Robert D. Stroud Terry Smith John T. Starling Charles Decker Barnette Kathleen BellJoseph Boeckmann Tom Thompson Joseph Strode Donald Capshaw Louis EtochRobert Ford Tim Weaver INDEPENDENCE Zachery Taylor James E. Davis Charles E. HalbertKyle Hunter = Vashti Varnado Richard Dodson Durwood KingJim Luker GARI.AND COlrNTY Tom Allen Terry Wynne David Folsom Jesse PorterJim Shaver Margaret. Beam John Belew Gregory Giles Charles B. RoscopfTom B. Smith Danjel Becker Steve Bell .JOHNSON COlINTY John GoodBon ChSTles David Roscopf

Kenneth Breckenridge Leroy Blankenship Len Bradley Demaris Hart Danny SchiemerPALI.AS COlIN1j" Janet L. Burtness Eric Hance Iva Nell Gunn Thomas Johnson Edward SchiemerMark Klappenbach David P. Cann Jeffrey Hance Jeffrey Levin Matt Keil David SolomonRonnie Phillips Michael H. Crawford Josephine Hart William Pearson Raritan Kemp Sam Whitfield

Kathy Cruz Wesley Ketz Roderick Weaver Mary Helen MitchellpESHA COUNTY Jack W. Dickerson John Purtle Bruce Wilson Thomas Potter PIKE COlINTYMark Drake Terry P. Diggs Keith Rutledge William Roberts Charles YearganLarry Dunklin Janie M. Evans J. T. Skinner I.AFAYE'ITE COlTNTI Charles TilmonTeresa French Lance B. Garner Chaney Taylor William Magee POfNSETI COl JNTYKenneth Johnson Morse U. Gist Tommy Thompson MISSISSIPPI COUNTY Jimmie DunlapDavid Stubbs W. David Goldman Gary Vinson LAWRENCE CO! INTY Walter Barton L. D. Giblwl1

Richard L. Henry Bill Walmsley Larry Hayes Mike Bearden Steve InbodenpREW COlJNTY D. Scott Hickam Vickie Warner Dick Jarboe Tom A. Bennett Larry JenningsWilliam Ball Gary M. Lax Tim Weaver Harry Ponder BiU Bracey Kelley WebbDavid Chambers Dan McCraw J. F. Sloan John BradleyWilliam Daniels C. Burt Newell IZARD COl JNTY Larry Steele Leon Burrow POLK COUNTYKatharine Day Charles R. Padgham C. B. Barksdale Marvin Childers Judy BakerCliff Gibson T. B. Patterson J. Scott Davidson LEE COITNTY Robert Coleman Joe HardegreeHani Hashem Neil V. Pennick L. Gray Dellinger Dodd Daggett Charles Ellis Bob KeeterDavid D. Hoffman Donald Pullen Eric Hance Jesse Daggett Oscar Fendler David Maddoxnon Rn~~ Bryan Reis Jeffery Hance Robert Donovon Lee Fergus Pal Page


L~

-~------~~_ ... - ~-~-------- --- - - - ~~~~-~~~~~- .-----

1 9 9 5 P r 0 B 0 n 0 H 0 n 0 r R 0 I I

Jerry Ryan Coleen M. Barger Jana K Brown-Ch.ristian Lisa Ferrell John D.Garnett Richard A. GrantDanny Thrailkill J. Madison Barker Andrew L. Clark Jack D. Files Garland J. Garrett. Kathlyn GravesTim Williamson Don K. Barnes James C. Clark John W. Fink Deb Garrison O. Jerome Green

Marcia Barnes W.DaneClay Hugh Finkelstein Tammy B. Gattis Gena H. GregoryPOPECffiJNTy W. Chris Barrier Charles T. Coleman B. Dewey Fitzhugh Anna Hirai Gibson H. Watt Gregory, IIISusan Allen Thomas L. Barron Barry E. Coplin Victor A. Fleming Melinda Gilbert Joseph W. GregoryBunny Bullock Sherry P. Bartley Dorty K. Corbin Scott D. Fletcher John P. Gill William M. Griffin, IIIKeith D. Coker Steve Bauman M. Gayle Corley John A. Fogleman W. Dent Gitcbel Ann Bilheimer GrimesKen D. Coker, Jr. Samuel R. Baxter Garry J. Carrothers Judy R. Forester Roger A. Glasgow Audrianna GrishamJames Coutts W. Tom Baxter Robert R. Cortinez, 11 Grant E. Fortson Tom Glaze Mark W. GrobmyerJames Dunham AJlison Graves Bazzel David A. Couch Kent R. Foster Gilbert L. Glover Paul D. GroceJim Dunham James P. Beachboard Nate Coulter Lyle D. Fosler Jim Glover Timothy W. GroomsDavid L. Eddy Paul B. Benham Nancy KaY" Brooks Cound Marsha Talley Foster Scott P. Goldsholl Robert L. GrossJeff Faught Keith I. Billingsley J. Lee Covington Stephen Doak Foster James F. Goodhart Rita W. GruberDale W. Finley John Biscoe Bingham Ray F. Cox, Jr. Donald Frazier Arnold N. Goodman Wayne A GruberStephen Gardner M. Stephen Bingham Bryant K Cranford Randal B. Frazier Kathy W. Goas H. Charles Gschwend, Jr.David Gibbons Garland W. Binns, Jr. Kevin A. Crass Byron L. Freeland Kenneth S. Gould Karen D. GulleyRobert Hardin Allen W. Bird, n Claiboume Crews G. Spence Fricke Robert J. Govar Russell GunterJohn Harris William E. Bishop Hugh E. Crisp William C. Frye David A. Grace Susan G. GunterKenneth Hodges Clayton R. Blackstock Willis D. Cronkhite, III Donna S. Galchus William Lee Grace, Jr. Dawn GuthrieRobert E. Irwin Amy Bendos.ki Blackwood J. Bruce Cross Price C. Gardner Jeffrey M. Graham Michael E. HaleJohn L. Johnson Tim Boe Zimmery Crutcher, Jr.Allen Laws C. Tad Bohannon Stephen K CuffmanHugh Laws Richard Boling Sid C. DabbsIke Laws Barbara P. Bonds William M. Dabbs, Jr.R. Bryant Marshall Michael D. Booker Robert DaneckiDavid McCormick Sylvia Borchert Ed. Daniel, IVLorre Moore Raymond E. Bomhoft Roland E. Darrow, nCarl Moyer David O. Bowden Mark D. D'Auteuil

U.l.__

Tim Murdock Arthur P. Bowen J. Mark DavisSTATEMENT Of OWNERSHIP. MItA!jt~~rnT ANC' CIRCULATION

'''.TlIIo'''''''''',_ ' .. O\.IIIlICAT1OOINO.z.o.oo ..._

Richard Peel William Bowen John A. Davis T", ARKANSAS LAIIYER ,101'lol;l,-r ]10_5_94Jon Sanford Brian P. Boyce John D. Davis - - ......-Jonathan Shermer Valerie F. Boyce John Gary DavisWilliam F. Smith Lawrence J. Brady Marva J. Davis

QIIJrterly • S15.00

Anna Stiritz Cynthia J. Brandon Sleven R. DavisAJex G. Street Ellen B. Brantley T. Martin Davis "0 'II "~rkh~1II St, Ltttle Rock " 72201-1408 Pulukl Count

WiJliam Swain Sam I. Bratton Bob Dawson -- ....... ~ -- . ~

John Van Kleef Brian Brown Cynthia S. Dawson "0 II "~rkhJ. St, Ltttle Rock, " 72201·1408

Susan Walker Charles A. Brown Rush B. Deacon....._""'c:_,.__..__._._.. _tftIo_Ml1SJlIOr .. _

Joseph L. Brown Neil D. Deininger Arhnsu hr Auochtton "n II ~JrkhJ. 5t, Little Rock, All 72201·1408PRAmIE COlINTY Marilyn J. Brown Betty J. Demory - .Robert Abney Robert L. Brown James M. Dendy Stacey DeWitt, 400 W. Markham, Little RockKeith Rhodes Jack E. Browne Rebec<:a J. Denison -Anne Smith Bettina E. Brownstein James B. DePriest Bill Glenn, 400 W. Markham, Little Rock

John A. Bryant Sharrock Dermott1 ~lf..-=Z~<t''::''-:':!:::''-:~--:'-=-~~~-=:~''''::;:'='Pl U ASKI COUNTY C. Brantly Buck Terri A. DeSio:.:':...-:._t:-'''::''':i:-·_~~I''''<t'--- .._,.._·.--.,·.........-. ..

Leslie R.. Ablondi Randall S. Bueter Stacey Allison DeWittGreg Actin C. Douglas Buford, Jr. M. Jane Dickey

~- - -Douglas S. Adams Jane Burleson W. H. Dillahunty,k ,Jim F.Adkins Kevin R. Bums Edward B. DiJlon, Jr. 1t1 -

Erin B. Ahearn James A. Buttry John A. DiPippaH. William Allen Randall L. Bynum Philip E. Dixon

..__._•• _____......... l_.. _. ..

T

.... _ .._._._

Mark H. Allison Arlci. Byrd Allen C. Dobson _.",- ...-.--~~- --William G. Almand Robert D. Cabe David Donovan

James M. Ammel John Calhoun, Jr. Richard T. DonovanGuy Amsler, Jr. Joseph D. Calhoun, III Darrell D. Dover ".Christopher D. Anderson Ken Calhoon James F. Dowden It. ...~ ..__~___T....... _ ...___ ......ll_Overton S. Anderson Donald K Campbell, III Richard C. Downing Tho_._""'_.......... 01___...._ .._""'_.. _ ..·_~_

Phillip S. Anderson George E. Campbell James H. Druff '",. :.::;:-"'.........___<t'

Richard Lance Angel Howard G. Campbell Winslow Drummond []=.::.;~::"'" O~= --_.,Stephanie Houston Phillip W. Campbell Timothy O. Dudley ,. to.... __ ..~ ....,_ ....~.r-__ _ .... c:......._ .._-_.._- ......... '1_

____1;1...

Angel Rick Campbell Larry G. Dunklin... To....... c..- ...._~ ....Benjamin F. Arnold Sheila F. Campbell Treeca J. Dyer 4380

Jess Askew, II1 Paul Capps J. Benton Dyke I .......-~_...._- -0_ -0-, ......_...................._----Michael E. Aud James Allen Carney Jack East, III 1..... _

4155 4314Brent Baber G. Scott Caroom Raymond Easterwood --.....CT........ ..-_".. e__Joyce Bradley Babin Phillip Carroll Walter M. Eoot _,,/.'.'M1J 4155 4334

Donald H. Bacon Daniel R. Carter Katherine D. Ehrenberg 1;1 , .... I>4._....... c.._ .. O-_ , ,_ .. e-..,..__ ,.... c..-

Nancy H. Bailey Mark S. Carter Byron M. Eiseman IT.."_<Joooo<t'C.DI 4340Rita F. Bailey Clarence W. Cash W. W. Elrod 4161

Charles W. Baker Meredith P. Catlett Stephen C. Engstrom '~""lHo_ ... 110,. Of';,;._.........,. ___.h.. -...

Darryl E. Baker S. Graham Catlett Gary L. Eubanks, __......._

-0- -0-James C. Baker Brad A. Cazort Herman W. Eubanks G. TTlTAl._<t'I.II..."I-_.......___ .. .</

"" ....Stan Baker Robert M. Cearley Robert M. Eubanks, II[

" Itz,""~~~-· ..-Les R. Baledge Victoria Charlesworth Audrey R. Evans I eentty 1M'! II...w ••m...U made by_ .bo....,. e...,eel end comple,. . Execllt1ve Director

Dee Davenport Ball Tim S. Cheatham Ann P. FaitzWayne B. Ball John S. Cherry, Jr. Jackson L. Farrow, Jr.

.. _ 3521. Doc. ,.1 1Joo ____1

Randolph Baltz Sandra W. Cherry John C. FendleyRobert E. Bamburg lAwrence E. Chisenhall, Jr. Todd Ferguson



Retired from EEOC with20 years experience

EEOCDiscrimination

Consultant

Stand·Up DEsks' Renlh'ing Bookcases' Staekable BookcasesSolid Hardwood fumiltll'! at FacIor)' PrittsCALL TOLL FREE 1·800·838·9494

TAI.. Box m, Silverhill. AL 36576

Anne P. RitcheyLewis E. RitcheyRichard W. RoachellAndree L. RoafElizabeth J. RobbenChet RobertsJudy M. RobinsonRobert L. Robinson, Jr.William S. RobinsonGary B. Rogers

VALUATIONS/FAIRNESSOPINIONS

Closely-held Businesses, Banks,Professional Practices. For ESOPs,

gifts, estate planning, charitablecontributions, minority shareholderdisputes, divorces. Economic loss

studies (personal/business).Experience with hundreds of cases andmany industries. Court Testimony by

credentialed experts.

MERCER CAPITAL5860 Ridgeway Center Parkway,Suite 410. Memphis, TN 38120.

(901) 685-2120.

FREECATALOG

Michael R. RainwaterRichard L. RamsayGordon S. RatherCarrold E. RayMiddleton P. Ray, Jr.Thomas RayMichael ReddenW. Michael ReifCharles W. ReynoldsSteve Riggs

Margaret M. NewtonMarshall S. NeyJames E. NickelsA. WyckliffNisbet, Jr.W. Robert Nixon, Jr.Walter NixonN. M. Norton, Jr.Alan J. NussbaumGene O'DaruelMichael C. O'MalleyBennie O'NeilM. Darren O'QuinnJohn OglesRichard E. OlszewskiNina OrsiniHenry J. OsterlohWilliam D. Overstreet.William L. OwenWilliam Adolph OwingsJohnR. PaganSteven J. ParisDonald L. ParkerMichael O. ParkerTerri S. ParnellGoodloe M. PartreeClaibourne Patty. Jr.Walter A. Paulson, IIJohn B. PeaceB. Jefferey PenceJames R. PenderEdward M. Penick, Sr.Suzanne PennMark Alan PeoplesPam Corker PercefullFred M. PerkinsKathryn Bennett PerkinsLiea G. Mathis PetersJ. Slocum PickellMike PickensMackie M. PierceRobert L. PierceGeorge Pike, Jr.Deborah I. PipkinsGeorge N. PlastirasJohn B. PleggeNorvel N. PlowmanJoe A. PolkAustin Porter Jr.David M. PowellCharles C. PriceDale PriceTroy PriceWillard Proctor, Jr.John E. PruniskiMary J. PruniskiMichael James PtakJohn I. PurtleJoseph H. PurvisSteven W. QuattlebaumRichard QuiggleJo Ann C. QuirkBill Rshn

Charles Bucher(501) 224-0877

Jo Ann C. MaxeyNancy Bellhouse MayRonald MayWalter E. MayS. Hubert Mayes, Jr.Richard L. MaysRobin L. MaysLetty McAdamsMartha Jett McAlisterJohn M. McAllisterJ. Cal McCastlainAndrew J. McClurgLinda McCormickJ. Van McCrackenCharles D. McDanielJane Willbanks McFarlinPhillip A. McGoughMary Spencer McGowanThomas H. McGowanRobert McHenryJosh E. McHughesRobert C. McKinneyKaye Hartenstein-McLeodJames McMathBen C. McMinnMarian McMullanJudy P. McNeilKeith Martin McPhersonWalter McSpaddenHenry N. Means, IIIPaul MeansW. Russell Meeks, IIIDavid F. MenzLance R. MillerMarie B. MillerPeter A. MillerStuart P. MillcrPhilip MironDavid S. MitchellH. Maurice MitchellMichael W. MitchellJames G. MixonArk MonroeOrin E. MontgomeryEdward O. MoodyDewey Moore, Jr.Jeffrey H. MooreJohn E. MooreMichael S. MooreRichard N. Moore, Jr.Jay MorganH. Keith MorrisonLori A. MosbyPamela A. MoseleyBobby Keith MoserLee J. MuldrowBruce MunsonCharlotte MurphyRandy P. MurphySteven NapperSheffield NelsonCharles R. Nestrud

Gary D. JilesKaren JohnsonMichael JohnsonMichael B. JohnsonStephen N. JoinerBeverly Hood JonesGlenn W. JonesJerry C. JonesM. Samuel Jones, IIIStephen W. JonesTonia P. JonesW. Wilson JonesJim L.JulianRichard C. KalkbrennerPhilip E. KaplanWilliam B. KeislerHerbert W. Kell, Jr.Jana Kim KellerGlenn Eugene KelleyA. J. KellyWalter A. Rendel, Jr.Kevin Wade KennedyWilliam H. Kennedy, IIIJudson C. KiddJoseph E. Kilpatrick, Jr.John S. KittermanDavid KnightJoseph F. KolbJohn Kooistra, illC. James KubicekPeter G. KumpeH. Baker KurrusH. T. LarzelereGail LasterScott G. LauckRichard L. LawrenceJamcs LawsonR. Cb.ristopher LawsonMichael F. LaxLeland F. LeathermanMichael A. LeBouefSamuel E. LedhctterT. Michael LeeBob LeslieJack L. LessenberryPatricia Sievers LewallenTodd A. LewellenHarry A. LightLouis "Whit" LightJohn G. LileGary F. LilesRuth LindseyLynn D. LiskW. Kirby LockhartRita S. LooneyThelma M. LorenzoEdwin L. Lowther, Jr.Robert C. LowryPatty W. LuekenPatricia Stanley LuppenWilliam P. LuppenS. Scott LutonRobert LyfordDavid MackeyDiane S. MackeyHarold W. MaddenJean M. MaddenJ. Phillip MalcomJorry L. MaloncDrake MannCheryl K MaplesWilliam MarshallDavid P. MartinEverette L. MartinWilliam A. MartinEverett O. MartindaleJ\.1ichael O. MasseyTerry L. MathewsDiana Maulding

John H. HaleyDon F. HamiltonJim HamiltonFrank S. HamlinRalph C. Hamner, Jr.Stuart W. HankinsMildred H. HansenRegina HaralsonG. Robert HardinJohn T. HardinKaren Queen HareMelva HannonErnest H. Harper, Jr.James Edward HarrisJames L. HarrisPatrick C. HarrisSandra Y. HarrisPaul E. HarrisonRoger B. HarrodMike E. Hartje, Jr.John T. HaskinsRichard F HatfieldJames E. Hathaway, IIIWilliam D. HaughtSteele HaysFloyd A HealyDavid HeasleySarah J. HemeyPeter B. HeisterChristopher J. HellerDonald H. HenryJudy S. HenryPaul HickeyFran C. HickmanBasil V. Hicks, Jr.Carrol HicksCharlee R. HicksSam HilburnKathJeen A. HillegasR. Steve HixGwendolyn HodgeHenry HodgesAlice HolcombCyril HollingsworthPatrick E. HollingsworthWilliam Gary HoltJanan Kemp HoneysuckleClifton H. HoofmanPaul HooverRonald A. HopeGregory M. HopkinsMariam T. HopkinsRandolph B. HopkinsAllan W. HomeBryan E. HostoMike HuckabayLewis A. Huddle, Jr.Karen J. HughesRichard L. HughesBruce P. HurlbutJoseph B. HurstJames W. HydenAnnabelle Clinton ImberDavid L. IversHermann IvesterGeorge S. IvoryDonald T. Jack, Jr.Michael T. JacksonStuart JacksonDavid JacobsJohn H. JacobsPatrick R. JamesWilliam Owen James, Jr.Neal JansoniusFaber D. JenkinsAlston Jennings, Sr.Barry J. JewellJohn M. JewellW. Horace Jewell



Judith Hogen Joel Taylor Reba M. Wingfield Eldon Coffman Thomaa E. Robertaoo. Jr. Robert TrammellMaurice Rogto:n Marcella J. Taylor Mary A Winze-rling J Michael Cccbill David Ilogen Teresa WinelandJoann C. Rooeevelt Richard D. Taylor Carolyn B. Witherspoon Robert Cohen Gill Roge... VAN BUBEN C01lNTYBrian Roee.nthaJ Randell Templeton Donna J. Wolfe Craig L. Cook Doney Ryan Karen BakerFT8IlCe8 Roeenzweig William T. Terrell RUM E. Wolff Kenneth Cowan Shelton Sargent Ralph BlaggRobert D. Rosa Lee Thalmeimer David J. Wood James Cox Denn..i.s SbanoLto Jim BurnettRobe" R. Rooa Jeffrey H. Thomas Fnld A. Wood Thomas L. Craft, Jr. John Settle Stephen JamesBeverly A Rowlett Peter O. Thomas, Jr. Henry Woods Jan R. Cromwell Stephen Sharum Jack LewisHerbert C. Rule. III Thomas P. Thrash William H. L. Woodyard, Hal W. Davis Timothy C. Sharum Dale LipemeyerAmelia Russell John R. Tisdale ill Robert T. Dawson Randolph J. Shock Eddie MorganG. Randolph SatWfield Jim Tilley Dean L. Worley Judith L. Deason Michael ShoneJ. Scott Scha11hom Marti S. Toennies Matthew Keith Wren Ge.ald Delung Jack Skinner WASHINGTONAI Schay Alice M. Tot8Ch Edward L. Wright Bruce Denney Douglas O. Smith COUNTYJames Gerard Schulze Geoffi-ey B. Treece Herbert T. Wright, Jr. Jannell C. Dillon Greg Smith Andy E. Adams1... Howanl Schwander, ill William H. Trice, III Robert R. Wright Troy Douglas Oscar Stilley Steve E. Adams18aac A. Scott, Jr. Walls Trimble Susan Webber Wright Jim Dunn Mike Stubblefield Richard AlexanderMary Davies Scott James L. Tripcony Walter G. Wright, Jr. Davis Duty PhilJjp J. Taylor Sarah Harkey AshleyFrances E. Scroggins Andree L. Trosclair James W. Wyatt Leslie J. Evitts, III Gary Udouj Richard AtkinsonJ. Fletcher See. ill Deborah K.. Truby John C. WyvilI Christina Ferguson David Vandergriff Brenda AustinJohn S. Selig David R Tn>seell Gregory 1... Yeatman James R Filyaw John Verkamp John Barry BakerRick Sellars Betty Tucker David Young Lawrence Fitting Wyman Wade Lindlee BakerFrank B. Sewall Jim Guy Tucker Michael Fitzhugh Eugene A Wahl, Jr. Carlton BaileyRobert S. Shafer Kimberly Wood Tucker RANDOLPH COUNTY R. Ray Fulmer, II Eddie H. Walker, Jr. Dorothy Ann BarryMichael N. Shannon Scott Tucker Bob Castleman Lynn Manning Flynn Bill Walten Tod BaasettJacob Shatp, Jr. John E. Tull, ill Richard L. Castleman Dean Garrett Montgomery Watts Woody BassettJay F. Shell Diana Hamilton Turner Murrey Grider PaulGean Jan Whitt W. W. Bassett, Jr.Kenneth R. Shemin Tab Turner Kirl>y Riffel RoyGean Bill W;ggm. Chester BaugusW. Bradford. Sherman Edgar J. Tyler Philip G. Smith Roy Gean, III Norman WLlkin.son Joe BensonWilliam F. Sherman Frederick S. Urse.ry David Throeocb Daniel Gilbreath Alan Wooten James H. BingamanMichael T. Sherwood Michael P. Vanderford John Tbroesch E. C. Gilbreath Michael Yarbrough Mikel BlockerRobin L. Shively Thomas C. Vaughan, Jr. Paul Giuffre Stanley BondScotty M. Shively Scott 1: Vaughn $I FRANCIS COUNTY James Haaser SEYlER COUNTY Leslie BorgognoniRobert Shults Larry D. Vaught John Bridgforth Michael J, Hamby La Jeana Jones Diane BoydSteven T. Shults Mart Vehik Allen Cline Ronald D. Harrison Robert Lowery Raymond BoylesShawn Sibley Kent Vestal Michael Easley David K.. Harp Henry Morris Marcia BrintonDavid E. Simmons William A Waddell, Jr. Preston Hickey L. Cody Hayes Randall Wright Stephanie BrodaczJames M. Simpeon Guy Alton Wade Philip Hicky William Hill Tim BrooksJames M. impeon Jack. Waaoner, ill Ann B. Hud.80n Josef Hobean SHARP COllN'IT Tim BuckleyBarry A. Sima William J. Walker Knox Kinney Stanley Mel Holleman Sam Beller Ronald E. BumpassWalter L. Skelton Woodson D. Walker James Miller Robert Hornberger Uoyd Harper Jim BurnettRhonda K Slayden Mark N. Waller teve Routon Robert Hough Mark Johnson John BurrowGraham F. Sloan Keena V. Wamble Harold Sharpe Stephen G. Hough Kevin King George ButlerR. Brannon Sloan Garry S. Wann William Snowden ABa Hutchinson Dan Orr Jack ButtAnne Oni Smith Joyce Williams Warren Randolph Jackson Andrew G. Ponder James CallowayDavid Alan Smith Ralph Washington SAI.JNE COJINTY Joel Johnson Keith Watkins Kelly CarithersGriffin Smith, jr. John Dewey Watson Ronald D. Jonee uaan Johnson Marshall CarlisleH Vann Smith William Watt Meredith Wineland Kendall B. Jones STONE COI1N1'X Denise J. CaronJim E. Smith Richard N. Watts Robert Jones, ill Leroy Blankenship Gary L. CarsonLaura A Smith Ed Webb SCOTI' COl1N1'X Greg Karber Whitman W. Fowlkes Earl "'Buddy" ChadickSimmofUI S. Smith Jeffry A. Weber Donald Goodner Matthew C. Ketcham Jeffery Hance Vincent O. ChadickStan D. Smith Raymond Weber Michael J. Hamby Naif Khoury Adam Harkey Nadine R. ChenaultSteven R. Smith Ann West Matthew Ketcham Gary King Joaephine Hart Constance ClarkSteve E. Snider Dana S. Wesl Dan Nelson Phil Kinsey John Dan Kemp William ClarkM-ichael W. Spades Frederick S. Wetzel Wayland Parker, U Eileen Kradel John Purtle John W. CloerC. Timothy Spainhour Rhooda Mcl<mnis_ James B. Pierce William Kropp Robert Stroud John CopelandCarla G. Spainhour Bernard Whetstone John Verkamp Spence A. Leamons Chaney W. Taylor Alene CoxO.C,S.,.,u Bud B. Wbetatone Bill Walterl Stanley Leasure Tom Thompson Boyd CoxHugh F. Spinks John Ray White John Alan Lewis Tim Weaver onnan G. CoxJohn William Spivey, III tephen B. Whiting SEARCY COUND" Gregory Magness James CrouchRalph M. Spory, Jr. Stephen E. Whitwell John Aldsworth Patrick McCarty UNION COl TNTY Charles E. DavisLogan Scott Stafford Gordon M. Wilbourn Jerry Patterson Joey McCutchen W. H. Armstrong Sidney P. DavisPaul Stanfield Penny Brown Wilbourn J. Randall McGinnis Jamee Baine Mark DennistonDouglas J. Stanley Tony L. Wilcox SEBASTIAN COJINTY Stephen Meeh Jim Bennett Ann DonovanJames W Stanley James H. Willrina., Jr. John D. Alford Phillip J. Milligan Sam Brooks AogeIaM eo..Amy Lee Stewart A. Gene Williams Dale Amold Rodney Mills Worth Camp D. Westbrook Dou, Jr.David Stewart Danny R. Williams Jamee A. Arnold, rJ David Moore Robert L. Depper Claudia DriverJean D.S~u~r David H. Williams Jeff Atkinson Bennett Nolan Don Dodson DUlna S. Blackman DuellTom Stone Richard A Williams Ben Barry James O'Hem David Guthrie Ken EdwardsO. H. Storey, III Stephen P. Williams John R. Beasley Lows B. Paddock Pat Hall John R. Eldridge, mPaula J. Storeygard Thomas G. Williams Bruce H. Bethell Wayland Parker, U Joeeph Hickey Don R. Elliott, Jr.Sammie P. Strange, Jr. W. Jackson Williams Robert Bishop Thomas Pennington Jay Hoggard Pete EsteeJohn C. Stratford. J. Gaston Williamson Robert S. Blatt James B. Pierce Henry C. Kinslow Robert R. EstesGary L. Sullivan Fran.k. J Wills Michael P. Bradley Paul R. Post Kevin Phillipe Marshall Dale EvanaPatricia L. Summerville David D. Wilson Katluyo S_ Campbell Annie Powell Brian Ratcliff James E. Evans, Jr.Sleven R. Sumsion John C. Wilson Jerry Canfield Kelly Procter Dennis Shackleford. Deb Sexton EverettBuddy Sutton Mike Wilson Doulgas M. Carson Jerry Pruitt James V. Spencer, OJ John C. EverettThomas J. Swearingen Philip M. Wilson Michael C. Carter Thomas B, Pryor George LeCroy Taylor Keith FaulknerGregory D. Ta,ylor Ralph R. Wilson Rex Chronister Michael Redd Denver Thornton Janet FlaccusJimmy D. Taylor Laura G. Wiltahire Orville Clift. Bill Reynolds Jan Thornton Susan Fox


Bentonville501-211-2231

Call for more information.or to schedule an initial

consultation.

Red MorganJohn PattersonPhil ShoffnerTodd Wooten

WOODRUFF COUNTYJohn Eldridge, 111Joe PeacockRay Waters

VEI,I, COUNTYRandall DixonJohn Van K1eef

Little Rock501-224-1190

Lee BiggsComer BoyettThomas R. BryantLeroy FromanLori HoggardTeresa HughesThomas HughesRuss HuntSteve JordanLarry KiUoughWesley LodyMargaret MeadsRobert MeurerMike MillarWilliam Mills

Sid McCollum, President.:. Over 24 years in a general and varied practice as an attorney.:. 6 years experience as a Circuit Judge in the State of Arkansas.:. Providing full-time ADR services in all fields of law

throughout Arkansas and surrounding states.

MEDIATION

ARBITRATION

MINI-TRIALS

SUMMARY TRIALS

EVALUATIONS

PRIVATE JUDICIAL SERVICES

INCALTERNATIVE DISPlITE REsOLUTION

Steven L. ParkerWayland ParkerThomas Pcar80nNeal PendergraftDonna PettusLamar PettusMarshall PrettymanSusan PurtleBm PutmanJoe ReedRay ReynoldsBruce RhoadesDick RichardsJon RobinsonJim Rose, illJames M. RoyFrances RudkoSharon D. Ru.ssellDavid SchoenJob SerebrovHolly L. SmithJ. Timothy SmithLavenski SmithRaymond C. SmithScott E. SmithBrian L. SpauldingRoy StanJeyLou SteenkenBrent SterlingBob S';IIDavid D. Stills1bm StocklandWilliam A. StoreyJames StrotherCharles L. StuLteDon A. TaylorPaul TaylorStephen TaylorW. H. TaylorSteven TennantJay N. TolleyBruce TrammellAmber Carter TrumboBass TrumboShawn TwingObert M. UndemJohn Van WinkleW. Todd Ver WeireBetta S. VolkamerLynn WadeDavid WallMirna WallaceMarilyn WashburnJohn J. WatkingDana WatsonJason WatsonJeff WatsonGary WeeksMary Ann WestphalEsther WhiteRoben R. Wbj",

Kit WilliamsRussell WinburnJames WireR. L. WommackBrian WoodMarsha WoodruffRonald WoodruffJames Wray. IIJDanny WrightTikIen P. "Chip"Wrigb4 illCharles Ii:. Young, InSteve ZegaStacey ZimmermanAndrew ZizerJoseph David Zurborg

WHITE COl [NT)"Pat AydelottRichard B. Berry

Gene FrancoDale GarrettVirginia GatesAlan C. GauldinKathrinc C. GoyWilliam GibsonCarol GillespieMorton GitelmanRobert GladwinDottie GodseyCarol GoforthDouglas GramlingJudy GrayMary GreenRay GreenSteven D. GundersonMary Ann GunnJames HallRandy HallNancy HammCharles E. HanksRobert C. HarderJeff HarperTerry HarperScott HarrisonMichele A. HarringtonCharles HarwellCurtis E. HogueJenniffer Morris HoranDavid HorneTim HowellR. Read HudsonRusty HudsonElizabeth HugginsJoel O. HugginsDonna HutchinsPhyllis Hall JohnsonRufus W. JohnsonClinton "Casey" JonesTerry JonesWilliam B. JustissMarjorie M. ReslTim KlingerConrad C. Krauft.BobLambenMichael LangleyRobert LaurenceGerald D. LetiMark LindsayTabi Rubbe LipscombJ. W. LooneyStanley LudwigWinnie MacDonaldThomas A. MarsJack MartinMark L. MartinMichael MashburnJohn MayBob I. MayesWilliam R. MayoA. D. McAllisterRonald M. McCannLaGayle McCartyLaura McKinnonRichard lI.lillerJ. D. MoonPhillip MoonDavid Lawrence MooreRudy MooreDavid E. MorrisCharlie MoyerCharles T. Mulvey, Jr.Tim MyersDarla P. NewmanDavid NixonPhil NorvellKim NovickiBobby Lee OdomConrad T. OdomKenncth Osborne


C'NAFor All the Commitments You Make-

Los, control IS an~thmg bur aquick study. The less you know, the more mlnerable you are.

So "hen it comes to help, you want an insurer that gl\es you the whole Slory.• That's why,

at C, \, we offer comprehensll'e loss control 'emm", to help you control your '-'JlOS11'I".

We know the osb you face, WhlOh means we can help you redoce them. -Ind should, claim

mr occur, we'll prOlide you with, defense team that underltands your practice.• The

happy ending? .\ttend our senunars, and your finn can earn a premium credit of up to ".5

percen! for three years. :';ot to mennon ,ny applicable eLF credit>. For loss control exper

tise you won't find in any book, call yoor independent agent or broker.

~Reb~men InsurancePO.Bo:< 33981500 Riverfront Driven UIII" Rock.Arl<ansas 72203-339R501-fiM..fI79\

Tn. Ark In Bar A K)Clatoo sponsored protessiOOall lbihly In llrance program IS underwflllen by Conlll'lsntal Casually Company one of th CNA Ir'lsurance Compan ;leNA Plaza/ChICago III'n()IS 606B5:NA IS a reg slerP.d servte8 k 01 the CNA F Mocl8l Corporation

THE ARKANSAS LEGAL DIRECTORYHYOUR BLUE BOOK OF ATTORNEYS SINCE 1935 H

Official Directory

of the

Arkansas Bar

Association

SPECIAL FEATURES

• Ahandy guide to county, stateand federal offices includingdepartments of _. andArkansas state government.

• A complete digest of courtscontaining terms, rules andjurisdiction of federal, state andlocal courts with names,addresses and telephonenumbers of court personnel.

•Acomplete roster of attorneysand law firms in Arkansas withaddresses and telephonenumbers listed by countylcityand alphabetically statewide.

• Professional associationsincluding officers, committeesand sections of the ArkansasBar Association.

• Professional and biographicaldata of some of the law firmsand indil'idual practitioners inArkansas.

PLEASE CALL OR WRITE FOR ADVERTISING OR BIOGRAPHICAL CARD RATE INFORMATION

Order as many copies as you need today!$38.00' plus $3.92 for postage and handling, $2.09 for sales tax, totaling $44.01.

Check must Accompany order.'Pnce subject to change without notice.

LEGAL DIRECTORIES PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC.91 I 1 Garland Road • P.O. Box 189000 • Dallas, Texas 75218-9000Facsimile (214) 324-9414 Toll Free (800) 447-5375 Telephone (214) .321-32.38

vol.29_n0.2_spring 1995

Documents

sensationalizedjury

trialnotebook form

bench trial withjudge

new jersey

thepossible future of

smith case

new york city everyday

legal world