Alabama State Bar v. Tipler

904 So. 2d 1237 (Ala. 2004) · Supreme Court of Alabama · December 30, 2004 · No. No. 1030876

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama held that a conviction under Alabama Code § 13A-10-130(a)(1) for interfering with judicial proceedings constitutes a serious crime under Rule 8(c)(2)(C) of the Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The court concluded that the disciplinary authorities must consider the necessary elements of the offense rather than the underlying degree of seriousness of the attorney's conduct. The court reversed the Board of Disciplinary Appeals and remanded for further proceedings, including review of the 120-day suspension.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the Court
Nabers, C.J.; Houston, J.; Lyons, J.; Brown, J.; Harwood, J.; Woodall, J.; Stuart, J.
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Decision date
December 30, 2004
Docket number
No. 1030876
Procedural posture
The Alabama State Bar appealed the Board of Disciplinary Appeals' reversal of the Disciplinary Board's determination that Tipler's conviction constituted a serious crime and the Disciplinary Commission's resulting 120-day suspension.
Standard of review
Questions of law, including the interpretation of Rule 8(c)(2)(C) and Rule 22(a)(2), are reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published Alabama Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Alabama State Bar v. James Harvey Tipler
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

statutory interpretationappellate procedurestandard of reviewdue processconstitutional law

Practice areas

legal ethics and professional responsibilityattorney disciplinestatutory interpretationconstitutional due processappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a conviction under Alabama Code § 13A-10-130(a)(1) for interfering with judicial proceedings is a serious crime under Rule 8(c)(2)(C) of the Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
  2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings violated Tipler's due-process rights to fair notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
  3. Whether the Board of Disciplinary Appeals could assess the degree of seriousness of the underlying conduct rather than consider only the necessary elements of the offense.

Holdings

  1. A conviction under Alabama Code § 13A-10-130(a)(1) is a serious crime under Rule 8(c)(2)(C) because the necessary elements of interfering with judicial proceedings involve interference with the administration of justice.
  2. The disciplinary authorities must consider the necessary elements of the crime and may not evaluate the degree of seriousness of the particular conduct to determine whether the offense meets Rule 8(c)(2)(C).
  3. Tipler was afforded due process because he received an extensive hearing, could establish the circumstances of his guilty plea and the general nature of the events, and had a meaningful opportunity to be heard on whether his conviction constituted a serious crime.
  4. Civil or criminal contempt is not equivalent to a conviction for a crime and does not independently trigger mandatory discipline under Rule 22; mandatory discipline arises only if the attorney is separately prosecuted and convicted of a qualifying serious crime.

Key quotations

Rather, it is required to consider only the necessary elements of the crime when determining whether the crime falls within the definition of a "serious crime" found in Rule 8(c)(2)(C), Ala. R. Disc. P. (904 So. 2d at 1240-1241)
A crime of "interfering with judicial proceedings" necessarily involves an "interference with the administration of justice" because the impairment of the judicial proceeding affects the administration of justice. (904 So. 2d at 1241)
Tipler was afforded "a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue whether the crime[] to which [he] had pleaded guilty constituted [a `serious crime']...." (904 So. 2d at 1241-1242)

Factual background

Tipler represented a plaintiff in a medical-malpractice case and attempted to introduce an edited videotape of the decedent to support the claim that surgery had been unnecessary. The witness used to authenticate the tape had viewed only the original, unedited version and therefore unknowingly gave false answers about the edited tape. After the trial court excluded the tapes and initiated contempt proceedings, Tipler was charged with first-degree perjury but pleaded guilty to interfering with judicial proceedings. The Alabama State Bar then pursued discipline based on that conviction.

Procedural history

Tipler pleaded guilty to interfering with judicial proceedings, a Class B misdemeanor, after attempting to introduce an edited videotape in a medical-malpractice trial. The Disciplinary Board determined that the conviction was a serious crime under Rule 8(c)(2)(C), and the Disciplinary Commission imposed a 120-day suspension. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals reversed both orders, concluding that Tipler's conduct did not amount to interference with the administration of justice. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and remanded.

Remand instructions

Remand for further proceedings consistent with the decision, including proceedings addressing the appropriate disciplinary action and any review required under Rule 5.1(d), Ala. R. Disc. P.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…