Douglas H. Cooner v. Alabama State Bar (Appeal from ASB No. 02-150

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/24/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1111340 Douglas H. Cooner v. Alabama S t a t e Bar Appeal from the D i s c i p l i n a r y Board o f the Alabama S t a t e Bar (No. 02-150(A)) On R e t u r n t o S e c o n d Remand WISE, Justice. On F e b r u a r y 17, 2010, a p a n e l ("the Board") o f t h e Alabama State of theD i s c i p l i n a r y Board B a r ("the B a r " ) ordered t h a t D o u g l a s H. C o o n e r be d i s b a r r e d f r o m t h e p r a c t i c e o f l a w . 1111340 Cooner appealed October 8, the 2010, disbarring this Cooner 4.2, A l a . R. fact as decision Court d i d not D i s c . P., t o each Board's held satisfy to that the this the Court. Board's requirements On order of Rule because i t d i d not i n c l u d e f i n d i n g s of allegation of misconduct adequate for this Court to conduct a meaningful review to determine whether the Board's conclusion that Cooner had violated Rules 8 . 4 ( a ) , 8 . 4 ( c ) , and 8 . 4 ( g ) , A l a . R. P r o f . Cond., was by clear Bar, 59 this and So. Court violations, convincing evidence. 3d 29 ( A l a . 2010) reversed the ordered the supported C o o n e r v. A l a b a m a ("Cooner Board's Board 1.7(b), to I"). 1 State Accordingly, judgment as vacate its to those order of d i s b a r m e n t as t o t h o s e v i o l a t i o n s , and remanded t h i s c a s e f o r the Board A l a . R. t o e n t e r a new Disc. order that complied w i t h Rule 4.2, P. The B o a r d a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t C o o n e r h a d v i o l a t e d R u l e 1 . 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. P r o f . Cond. On a p p e a l , C o o n e r c o n c e d e d t h a t the Board's f i n d i n g s of f a c t r e g a r d i n g i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t he h a d v i o l a t e d R u l e 1.8(c) were s u f f i c i e n t f o r a p p e l l a t e review. B a s e d on t h a t c o n c e s s i o n , t h i s C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d C o o n e r ' s argument t h a t t h e B o a r d e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t he h a d v i o l a t e d R u l e 1 . 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. P r o f . Cond.; h e l d t h a t C o o n e r ' s p r e p a r a t i o n of the t r u s t i n s t r u m e n t d i d not v i o l a t e Rule 1 . 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. P r o f . Cond.; and r e v e r s e d t h e B o a r d ' s j u d g m e n t w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e v i o l a t i o n o f R u l e 1 . 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. P r o f . Cond. 1 2 1111340 On June 27, 2012, (On Remand)" ("the t h e B o a r d e n t e r e d i t s " R e p o r t and June 27, 2012, o r d e r on r e m a n d " ) . t h e n a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t f r o m t h e June 27, remand. 2012, Ala. On M a r c h 15, 2013, o r d e r on R. Disc. Cooner order t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e June remand d i d n o t P., 2012, Order or w i t h t h i s comply w i t h e i t h e r 27, Rule 4.2, C o u r t ' s mandate i n C o o n e r I , supra, because i t d i d not i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of f a c t to each Bar, allegation of misconduct. C o o n e r v. A l a b a m a [Ms. 1111340, M a r c h 15, 2013] ("Cooner directions II"). A c c o r d i n g l y , we f o r the Board So. 3d remanded to vacate e n t e r a new D i s c . P., order that complies as State ( A l a . 2013) this cause with 17, 2010, i t s February o r d e r o f d i s b a r m e n t and t h e June 27, 2012, to on o r d e r on remand and w i t h Rule 4.2, Ala. R. and w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s mandate i n C o o n e r I . On A p r i l 15, 2013, "Second Report and the Board submitted to t h i s Court i t s Order (On Remand)" ("the second remand"). Standard of Review "'The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o an a p p e a l f r o m an o r d e r o f t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y B o a r d i s " t h a t t h e o r d e r w i l l be a f f i r m e d u n l e s s i t i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e or m i s a p p l i e s the law to the f a c t s . " N o o j i n v. A l a b a m a S t a t e 3 order on 1111340 Bar, 577 So. 2d 420, 423 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , c i t i n g Hunt v. D i s c i p l i n a r y B o a r d o f t h e A l a b a m a S t a t e B a r , 381 So. 2d 52 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . 'I 1non \ " D a v i s v. A l a b a m a (Ala. 1996)." Cooner State B a r , 676 So. 2d 306, 308 I , 59 So. 3d a t 37. Discussion In the second o r d e r on remand, the Board s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t i t was v a c a t i n g a l l p r i o r o r d e r s . Therefore, the Board i t vacate i t s has c o m p l i e d w i t h our d i r e c t i o n s that F e b r u a r y 17, 2010, o r d e r o f d i s b a r m e n t a n d t h e June 27, 2012, o r d e r on remand. In i t s s e c o n d o r d e r on remand, t h e B o a r d q u o t e d charges IV, I X , X, a n d X I f r o m t h e c o m p l a i n t f i l e d a g a i n s t C o o n e r . its findings-of-fact the Board section In o f t h e s e c o n d o r d e r on remand, stated: " B e i n g f u l l y c o g n i z a n t o f t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s a d m o n i t i o n i n i t s O p i n i o n s o f O c t o b e r 8, 2010 [Cooner I,] a n d M a r c h 15, 2013 [Cooner I I ] , t h e same F i n d i n g s o f F a c t as s e t f o r t h i n t h e P a n e l ' s June 27, 2012, R e p o r t a n d O r d e r (on Remand) w i l l once a g a i n be s e t f o r t h ; h o w e v e r , s p e c i f i c a l l y numbered F i n d i n g s o f F a c t s h a l l be c o n n e c t e d t o a n d r e c i t e d as t o e a c h C h a r g e i n s u p p o r t o f t h e P a n e l ' s C o n c l u s i o n s o f Law." The B o a r d t h e n r e c i t e d t h e e v i d e n c e i n p a r a g r a p h s 1 t h r o u g h 30 of the findings of fact, which 4 was a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l t o the 1111340 " F i n d i n g s o f F a c t " i n t h e June 27, 2012, o r d e r on remand. In its on "Conclusions of remand, t h e B o a r d Law" section in the second order stated: "1. C h a r g e I V a l l e g e s a v i o l a t i o n o f R u l e 1.7(b) o f t h e A l a . R. P r o f . C. as s e t f o r t h a b o v e . T h i s a l l e g a t i o n o f m i s c o n d u c t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y b a s e d upon and s u p p o r t e d by F i n d i n g s o f F a c t 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30. "2. C h a r g e IX a l l e g e s a v i o l a t i o n o f R u l e 8.4(a) o f t h e A l a . R. P r o f . C. as s e t f o r t h a b o v e . T h i s a l l e g a t i o n o f m i s c o n d u c t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y b a s e d upon and s u p p o r t e d by F i n d i n g s o f F a c t 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30. "3. C h a r g e X a l l e g e s a v i o l a t i o n o f R u l e 8.4(c) o f t h e A l a . R. P r o f . C. as s e t f o r t h a b o v e . T h i s a l l e g a t i o n o f m i s c o n d u c t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y b a s e d upon and s u p p o r t e d by F i n d i n g s o f F a c t 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30. "4. C h a r g e X I a l l e g e s a v i o l a t i o n o f R u l e 8.4(g) o f t h e A l a . R. P r o f . C. as s e t f o r t h above. This a l l e g a t i o n o f m i s c o n d u c t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y b a s e d upon and s u p p o r t e d by F i n d i n g s o f F a c t 1 t h r o u g h 30. "The P a n e l f i n d s t h a t b a s e d upon t h e F i n d i n g s o f F a c t a s s i g n e d and r e l a t e d t o e a c h C h a r g e as s e t f o r t h above, t h a t t h e r e i s c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t Mr. C o o n e r i s g u i l t y o f v i o l a t i n g e a c h of t h o s e Charges o f m i s c o n d u c t . " (Emphasis In failed added.) t h e s e c o n d o r d e r on remand, t h e B o a r d has once a g a i n to include specific findings 5 of fact as to each 1111340 allegation of misconduct. Board d i d not found constituted a violation Conduct Cooner include In was i t s conclusions a summary o f t h e s p e c i f i c charged of each with i n c l u d e any e x p l a n a t i o n as t o why violation of of the p a r t i c u l a r rule. Rule law, the conduct i t of P r o f e s s i o n a l violating, and i t d i d not such conduct c o n s t i t u t e d a Rather, the Board merely c i t e s laundry l i s t s of the v a r i o u s paragraphs i n c l u d e d i n the "Findings of Fact." not constitute misconduct. R e f e r e n c e s t o p a r a g r a p h numbers a l o n e do findings of fact as to each allegation of A l s o , w i t h r e g a r d t o Charge X I , the Board s t a t e s t h a t i t s f i n d i n g o f m i s c o n d u c t i s " b a s e d upon and s u p p o r t e d by F i n d i n g s o f F a c t 1 t h r o u g h 30," w h i c h i s m e r e l y a r e f e r e n c e t o the e n t i r e "Findings Board i s s t i l l of Fact." Thus, i t i s clear that the r e l y i n g s o l e l y on t h e g e n e r a l r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e evidence t h a t i s i n c l u d e d i n the "Findings of Fact" p o r t i o n of the second order on remand. previously held that that general was However, recitation n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 4.2, See Cooner I , 59 So. 3d a t 39; C o o n e r Accordingly, Court's specific the Board s t i l l mandates in 6 this Court has of f a c t s alone A l a . R. Disc. P. I I , supra. has n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h Cooner I and Cooner this II. 1111340 T h e r e f o r e , we a r e a g a i n c o m p e l l e d t o remand t h i s cause with i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t t h e B o a r d v a c a t e t h e s e c o n d o r d e r on remand and e n t e r a new o r d e r t h a t complies w i t h Rule 4.2, A l a . R. D i s c . P., a n d w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s p r i o r mandates i n C o o n e r I a n d Cooner I I . The B o a r d s h a l l make due r e t u r n t o t h i s C o u r t a t t h e e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e t i m e a n d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r of this the date opinion. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Stuart, Bolin, Moore, C . J . , Parker, Main, and Bryan, and Murdock, J . , d i s s e n t . 7 J J . , concur. 1111340 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e As Bar, (dissenting). t h e main opinion notes, i n C o o n e r v. A l a b a m a [Ms. 1111340, M a r c h 15, 2013] 2013) ("Cooner time because Alabama State II"), the Bar this order So. 3d C o u r t remanded of ("the the Board") this Disciplinary on remand State , case (Ala. a Board second of the following this C o u r t ' s r e v e r s a l and d i r e c t i o n s on remand i n C o o n e r v. A l a b a m a S t a t e B a r , 59 So. 3d 29 ( A l a . 2010) ("Cooner I " ) , s t i l l " d i d n o t i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t as t o e a c h a l l e g a t i o n o f misconduct." today, our remand was "vacated A l t h o u g h n o t r e c i t e d i n t h e main o p i n i o n i s s u e d o p i n i o n i n Cooner i t s February Cooner I I . its with 2010, t h e main i t s February therefore 17, So. 3d a t agree vacated noted that necessary a t t h a t time because the Board Cooner I . " I II also has complied 17, with order as we a second had not instructed in . opinion that 2010, that the Board has disbarment now order of and aspect o f o u r mandate i n I d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e m a i n o p i n i o n , h o w e v e r , as t o decision that this c a s e needs t o be remanded f o r a time f o r the Board t o e n t e r s p e c i f i c 8 f i n d i n g s of f a c t . third 1111340 T h e r e have b e e n two p r o b l e m s a l l a l o n g w i t h t h e findings of fact in this case. First, as purported explained i n both C o o n e r I and C o o n e r I I , t h e r e have n o t b e e n a c t u a l f i n d i n g s o f fact by the Board as opposed e v i d e n c e h e a r d by t h e B o a r d . case states that "this to The general main o p i n i o n i n the C o u r t has previously held g e n e r a l r e c i t a t i o n o f f a c t s a l o n e was w i t h R u l e 4.2, A l a . R. D i s c . P." added). This statement, previous holdings i n a way an incorrect conclusion again. opinions "evidence" In point in this is of not f i n d i n g s of " f a c t s . " we 3d a t that is recasts we must remand t h i s we said that a general to in constitute our case recitation the our for once previous of requisite s a i d i n Cooner I : "'The B a r a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t [ i n ] S e c t i o n I I o f t h e o r d e r ... t h e p a r a g r a p h s a r e n o t preceded by the statement, "The D i s c i p l i n a r y B o a r d f i n d s as f o l l o w s . " ' "We have r e v i e w e d t h e B o a r d ' s o r d e r and c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e o r d e r does n o t s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 4.2, A l a . R. D i s c . P. A r e c i t a t i o n of the 9 that (emphasis actually what sufficient As present that, I think, i s responsible that of not s u f f i c i e n t t o comply So. however, fact, case recitations 1111340 e v i d e n c e does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a f i n d i n g o f f a c t as t o each a l l e g a t i o n of misconduct C o o n e r I , 59 So. 3d a t 38-39 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . And as we said i n Cooner I I : "[T]he ' f i n d i n g s of f a c t ' i n c l u d e d i n the order remand a r e n o t h i n g more t h a n a g e n e r a l r e c i t a t i o n the evidence p r e s e n t e d at the h e a r i n g . " Cooner I I , The read So. latest 3d a t (emphasis added). order i s s u e d by the in i t s entirety, w h i l e not a model suffices. on of Board, especially when for future orders, To b e g i n w i t h , t h e r e c i t a t i o n o f f a c t s b e g i n s w i t h the statement Fact." t h a t " [ t ] h e P a n e l made t h e f o l l o w i n g F i n d i n g s o f (Emphasis added.) In addition, gone from the d i s c u s s i o n t h a t f o l l o w s a r e many o f t h e r e f e r e n c e s t o what a witness s t a t e d i n h i s or her references accepted by describing guardian Board's ad are the the as evidence litem original Barineau's Board testimony: of such. received f o r one order and statements definitive testimony of be take from Douglas could "Ms. To fact example, Leslie as Barineau, clients, simply explained in a the reciting she had d i f f i c u l t t i m e o b t a i n i n g an a c c o u n t i n g o r i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m 10 such apparently one Cooner's read Barineau i n p l a c e of a Mr. 1111340 Cooner" and accounting "[s]he but identified stated i t was the not added.) This same i n f o r m a t i o n facts: "Ms. Barineau accounting" had a previously complete." i s now (Emphasis f r a m e d as difficult and " [ t ] h e a c c o u n t i n g discussed time referenced definitive obtaining an ... above was not complete." The B o a r d t h u s has done e n o u g h i n my what p r e v i o u s l y were mere " g e n e r a l and other evidence into opinion to recitations" s e r v i c e a b l e , i f not of convert testimony ideal, factual findings. The Board s e c o n d p r o b l e m a l l a l o n g has to align conclusions finally different factual of misconduct. employed i s that The of been the f a i l u r e of findings technique numbering with the different t h a t the Board paragraphs and has then l i s t i n g the c o r r e s p o n d i n g numbers as p a r t o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n as to conclusion each order of Mr. states: Fact above, charge. At "The assigned ... there the Panel and is Cooner i s g u i l t y misconduct." Again, of this discussion, f i n d s t h a t b a s e d upon t h e r e l a t e d to each clear convincing of and violating this approach 11 Charge each of i s not as Findings set evidence those the forth that Charges of recommended; i t 1111340 makes t h e o r d e r assess. That more d i f f i c u l t said, warrants a t h i r d I cannot for this go Court t o review further and and say t h a t i t remand. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , the Board's c u r r e n t order. I dissent from the r e v e r s a l of I would proceed t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e m e r i t s o f t h e Board's f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s order. 12 i n that

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.