RSS Feed
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Editor's Notes
A judge-who was usually a lawyer before becoming a judge-has the same obligations, only more so, given that he has been elected or selected to be a nonpartisan referee in legal proceedings representing people's lives, freedom and assets. The Alabama State Bar Association is the professional organization representing the state's lawyers. It is a fraternal organization, I suppose, but also a watchdog one, in that lawyers oversee their profession's conduct and has the authority to act in cases when peer attorneys step out of line or violate the "standards of care." The Bar took action against Jackson attorney Stuart DuBose a few days ago, saying it would suspend his law license for 45 days starting Nov. 8. DuBose entered what the Bar termed a "conditional guilty plea" regarding his improper preparation of a will and other matters related to the estate of a deceased Washington County man. DuBose prepared a will for the man at the instruction of a woman-his client-who said the man wanted to leave his entire estate to her, a friend and caregiver. The estate was valued at $2.5 million or more at the time. He also included provisions making himself the attorney for the state and the successor executor. He violated his profession's "Rules of Conduct" in preparing the will without ever meeting or speaking with the man he was preparing it for. The man signed the will and died shortly afterwards. DuBose then met with the woman regarding an anticipated estate contest. According to the Bar's news release, "DuBose failed to inform the woman of the potential for a conflict of interest involving his representation of both she and the estate." That is another violation of the "Rules of Conduct." The estate was disputed and was only settled out of court the same week that the reprimand came down, which leads some to think it may have been a part of the confidential settlement. Whatever the settlement, DuBose apparently came out of the mess very well financially. Some have said that he collected a $1.2 million fee-about 40 percent-from the estate. All total, the Bar's Disciplinary Commission cited him for misconduct, failure to provide competent representation to a client, failure to properly communicate a matter to a client so that they can make informed decisions regarding representation, and conflict of interest. That's a lot of violations-and serious ones to boot. Maybe the fee he earned made it worth it. A suspension, from what I understand, is just one step removed from complete disbarment and is an "infrequent" punishment reserved only for the most serious offenses, according to Tony McLain, general counsel for the Bar. Locally, Jimmy Tucker was disbarred for his part in a scam several years ago that sought to steal property from an elderly Grove Hill woman. This would be a serious matter if Stuart DuBose was just a practicing attorney. It is doubly serious because he is also the Democratic nominee for a circuit judgeship in the First Judicial Circuit. He has no opposition in the Nov. 7 General Election and will certainly be elected and take office Jan. 15. Some have suggested drafting an attorney in the circuit to be a write-in candidate but that is foolhardy and could never succeed, especially at this late date. DuBose was elected in a bitter primary contest with less than a 100-vote majority out of over 19,000 cast across three counties. His votes came from people voting for him but also from many who likely voted more against his opponent, a lawyer backed by most of the lawyers in the circuit, and perceived as their handpicked favorite to a position in which they had more than a passing interest. But for all the heated rhetoric spewed in the campaign and the animosity generated, a healing-or at least an understanding-has apparently been reached between DuBose and most of the lawyers who opposed him. They, after all, are practical barristers and realize that he won and that they will have to practice before his bench. Better to make amends now, apparently, than after he has the title. So, there have been no great howls of protest over his coming disbarment from the legal community. Some may not like it but most are biting their lips and keeping quiet. What few concerns I've heard about the reprimand have come from the general public. DuBose has said little publicly about the disbarment and probably won't. Some have suggested he resign but I know Stuart-that ain't going to happen. He is heir to a judge's seat and he isn't going to walk away from it now that it is at his fingertips. The Democratic Party could take the nomination away from him before Nov. 7 but that doesn't seem likely either. He made a big to do about moderating a political forum last week that drew proportionally more candidates than spectators but at a county Democratic meeting the week before he did not mask his support of the Democrats that would be attending. I am concerned about the reprimand and the potential adverse affect it could have on his judgeship. Can the public be assured of having a fair and impartial judge overseeing their cases? Despite what has transpired-a sorry and inexcusable mess if I've ever seen one-I have to hope and believe that Stuart can be a good judge. I hope he can overcome this infamous designation of being perhaps the only judge in our state's history to have his license suspended just weeks before he takes office. Which leads to another observation: It is a little aggravating that the Bar's watchdog arm conveniently arranged the suspension so that it would not affect his electability or his eligibility to become a judge. The reprimand may have been tough but at least the watchdog was mindful of the calendar. We all need to pray for Stuart DuBose to be the best judge possible. We need to pray for the citizens who will stand before him for judgement. We might even ought to pray for the lawyers who will practice before him but if you want to be selective in those prayers it is all right with me. People will be watching his actions and performance on the bench closely, of that you can be certain. It should be an interesting six-year term.
Jim Cox is editor and publisher of The Democrat.
|
for larger version       |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
