Ligon v. Tapp
2017 Ark. 185
| Ark. | 2017Background
- The Arkansas Supreme Court considered a petition for disbarment filed by the Executive Director of the Committee on Professional Conduct against attorney John Skylar Tapp after extensive disciplinary proceedings and an interim suspension.
- The proceedings encompassed six separate client matters (Fenimore, Hurst, Schlenker Condo, Bowerman, Riley, Tankersley) with over forty alleged rule violations; the trial record spanned 27 volumes and 7,200+ pages.
- Findings included unauthorized filings (bankruptcy petitions naming nonconsenting parties), mishandling and commingling of client trust funds, purchasing client-adverse property without disclosure, filing misleading pleadings and false statements to courts and to the OPC, and improper lis pendens filings that halted development and caused foreclosures.
- The special judge found multiple violations of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules on competence, candor, client funds, conflicts of interest, and dishonesty (e.g., Rules 1.1; 1.15; 3.1; 3.3; 4.4; 8.4), and recommended disbarment.
- The judge found significant aggravating factors: prior disciplinary history (multiple prior sanctions), dishonest or selfish motive, pattern and multiplicity of offenses, and refusal to acknowledge wrongful conduct; no mitigating factors were found.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court accepted the special judge’s findings and ordered disbarment, concluding the misconduct met the Rule 17(B) criteria for serious misconduct given misappropriation risk, dishonesty, substantial prejudice to clients, pattern of violations, and prior sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized bankruptcy filings naming nonconsenting parties and incompetent bankruptcy practice (Fenimore) | Tapp filed Chapter 13 petitions for GFST and named Fenimores without consent; filings were improper and wasted judicial resources | Tapp claimed limited experience and inability to afford counsel; implied no malicious intent | Court found filings improper, unauthorized, prejudicial; rule violations proven (competence, candor) |
| Mishandling and commingling of client trust funds; failure to distribute (Hurst) | Tapp kept Hurst’s settlement funds but allowed trust balance to drop and delayed distribution until OPC inquiry; made false statements about safeguarding funds | Tapp asserted funds belonged to bankruptcy trustee, not client | Court rejected defense, found trust accounting violations, commingling, false statements; sanction-worthy misconduct |
| Purchasing property at foreclosure adverse to clients without disclosure/consent (Schlenker Condo) | Tapp bought the foreclosed unit he was litigating about without informing clients, creating a conflict | Tapp contended purchase was in clients’ best interest | Court held purchase created an undisclosed conflict and violated duties; rule violations proven |
| Filing false/misleading pleadings and failing to disclose prior related suit (Bowerman) | Tapp filed pleadings that contradicted earlier suit where client had acknowledged debt; conduct hindered enforcement and misled court/opposing counsel | Tapp did not offer an adequate justification for withholding disclosure | Court found frivolous pleadings, misrepresentations, and rule violations for dishonesty and obstruction |
| Improper lis pendens filings and dual representation causing foreclosure and loss (Tankersley) | Tapp filed lis pendens without proper basis; represented clients with adverse interests and failed to advise of risks, causing project halts and foreclosure losses | Tapp claimed filings and dual representation were proper and consented | Court found lis pendens noncompliant with law, conflict of interest unwaived, conduct deceptive and prejudicial |
| Refusal to acknowledge wrongful conduct and prior disciplinary record as aggravation | Committee argued Tapp’s record and refusal to accept wrongdoing warranted disbarment | Tapp sought suspension and argued capability to rehabilitate; presented character testimony | Court treated prior sanctions and refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing as aggravating and ordered disbarment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ligon v. Dunklin, 368 Ark. 443 (2007) (standard of review in disciplinary proceedings; accept special judge’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous)
- Stewart v. [unnamed], 369 Ark. 380 (2007) (deference to fact-finder on credibility; disciplinary sanction principles)
- Neal v. Matthews, 342 Ark. 566 (2000) (distinguishing serious versus lesser misconduct for sanctions)
- Ligon v. Price, 360 Ark. 98 (2004) (criteria for considering aggravating and mitigating factors in discipline)
- Newman v. [unnamed], 365 Ark. 510 (2006) (procedures for penalty phase and factors used to determine sanctions)