441 S.W.3d 4
Ark.2014Background
- In 2006, Nita Bargen briefly consulted and paid Sky Tapp to represent her in a paternity/support matter against Jason Schmidt; she later discharged him and continued with other counsel.
- In 2012, Tapp entered an appearance for Schmidt in the same Garland County case; Bargen moved to disqualify him based on his prior 2006 representation and confidential information allegedly shared then.
- The trial court disqualified Tapp from representing Schmidt; the Committee on Professional Conduct thereafter charged Tapp with violations of Rules 1.7(a), 1.9(a), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d).
- At the Committee hearing, witnesses disputed facts about what confidential information Bargen provided in 2006 and whether certain billing notes were Tapp’s handwriting; the Committee found Tapp did represent Bargen in 2006 and that he later represented the adverse party without written consent.
- The Committee found Tapp engaged in deceit/misrepresentation and prejudicial conduct to the administration of justice, suspended his law license for 90 days, fined him $10,000, and assessed costs; Tapp appealed only the severity of the suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tapp) | Defendant's Argument (Committee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tapp had a concurrent conflict under Rule 1.7(a) by representing an adverse party in the same matter | Tapp denied receiving confidential info from Bargen in 2006 and disputed documents showing representation | Committee found Bargen consulted and paid Tapp in 2006 and that representing Schmidt in 2012 posed a clear conflict | Court affirmed that Tapp violated Rule 1.7(a) |
| Whether Tapp violated Rule 1.9(a) by representing a party materially adverse to a former client without written consent | Tapp argued he did not have relevant prior-client confidences and contested authorship of file documents | Committee found no informed written consent from Bargen and that the matters were the same or substantially related | Court affirmed violation of Rule 1.9(a) |
| Whether Tapp’s conduct amounted to dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation under Rule 8.4(c) | Tapp denied deceit, claiming others created disputed records and questioned motives of opposing counsel | Committee found deceit/misrepresentation in undertaking representation of Schmidt after prior brief representation of Bargen | Court affirmed finding of misconduct under Rule 8.4(c) |
| Whether 90-day suspension was an appropriate sanction given misconduct and Tapp’s disciplinary history | Tapp argued suspension was excessive and sought a lesser penalty | Committee emphasized serious misconduct and Tapp’s extensive prior sanctions showing disregard for duties | Court held 90-day suspension (plus fine and costs) was supported and affirmed sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Ligon, 373 Ark. 289 (de novo standard of review for appeals from Committee decisions)
- Tapp v. Ligon, 2013 Ark. 259 (matter noting interim suspension and related proceedings)