Fate might well have been involved when a lawyer named Swindle was admonished and fined over $16,000 for questionable actions in three cases.
The Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct in July issued two reprimands and a caution against Rogers attorney Ken Swindle, who accepted his penalties.
He told reporter Tracy M. Neal he'd had his day in court and wouldn't be appealing.
Neal reports the lawyer's problems dated back to 2012 when his then 5-year-old son dropped the f-bomb three different times at school despite continued discipline.
The first earned the elementary school student a counseling session. The second prompted a note to his parents. The third time (always the charm) saw the principal call Swindle to have him pick up his child for the remainder of that day.
Instead of coming for his son, Swindle sued the principal and the Rogers School District. Say wha now?
Circuit Judge Xollie Duncan wisely upheld the child's partial-day suspension and dismissed Swindle's overreactive lawsuit. Swindle appealed and Duncan's decision was upheld.
David Matthews, attorney for the Rogers School District, restrained himself from filing a complaint against Swindle, Neal reported. Instead, Matthews reminded Swindle his son's suspension would have concluded that same school day. In addition, the district's policy did not provide for disciplinary action to show up on his son's record.
The court's committee determined Swindle had filed his lawsuit hastily in anger, without the professional judgment expected of an attorney. That was especially pertinent because if he or his wife had picked up their son as asked, the child would not have had to spend more than three hours in the principal's office studying or doing homework, the news account said.
For his poor decision, Swindle was reprimanded and ordered to pay $7,120 restitution to the school district for time and effort expended on the lawsuit. Ouchy!
But the committee was only warming up. Neal reported Swindle was issued a second reprimand after the committee determined he also had "improperly, knowingly and deliberately shared his legal fee with a non-lawyer and no sale or purchase of a law practice was involved."
The committee's decision said Swindle agreed to give tax-preparer Francisco Menendez 10 percent of Swindle's fee after Menendez referred a case to him that led to a $180,000 settlement. Swindle's legal fee was $60,000, and Menendez received $6,000. For that, Swindle then was fined $6,000.
The committee also issued Swindle a caution in a case where he represented two people who sued an insurance company for stalling payment on a settlement. Swindle filed that lawsuit against Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. on Oct. 19, 2012. And the case made its way to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The professional conduct panel voted on nine charges in the case and found Swindle did not violate rules in eight. However, the panel determined Swindle had filed a hasty and frivolous lawsuit against the insurance company and ordered him to pay $3,490.
The way I cipher in my lentil-sized brain, that totals $16,610 Swindle was required to fork over to the clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court for what strikes me as some mighty expensive poor choices.
Plus, just looky here at the career mess. He's made headlines in the state newspaper, paid thousands in fines, wound up on the Supreme's radar and now in this space, all for flawed reasoning only he can understand.
I shouldn't share this thought. But I can't resist. An attorney with the last name Swindle being run through a Supreme Court committee's meat grinder prompts my recall of the old saw about the fictional law firm of "Dewey, Cheatum and Howe."
No meaning no?
As a child, whenever I badgered my parents for a toy or candy as we headed for the checkout at a store, I was firmly told no and given the parental stinkeye that meant don't even ask again.
That's all it took for me to close my mouth and focus my attention elsewhere.
Flash forward to today and my place in line at the neighborhood Dollar General. A late-20s mother ahead of me stands with her daughter who appears to be about 8. The girl grabs a Pez candy dispenser from a box along the checkout line.
"Mommy, can I have this, please?"
"No, put it back."
"But Mommy, it's my very favorite one. Please, please. I really want it!"
"No means no!"
"But pulllease?"
"I said put it back right now. Don't dare ask me again or you're in big trouble!"
Several seconds pass and the girl continues to hold the dispenser and look toward her mother with a pained expression. Mom finally glances down with a stern expression that quickly changes.
"Oh, why, that's your favorite dinosaur, isn't it?"
"Yes, mommy!"
"OK, well let me have it." And the clerk rings up the object of debate. Thus, fellow parents and grandparents, concludes today's vignette about much of the parenting skills in 2018 America.
------------v------------
Mike Masterson is a longtime Arkansas journalist. Email him at [email protected].
Editorial on 08/14/2018