{ "id": 1451146, "name": "John L. KEARNEY v. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT", "name_abbreviation": "Kearney v. Committee on Professional Conduct", "decision_date": "1995-05-22", "docket_number": "94-1399", "first_page": "581", "last_page": "583", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "320 Ark. 581" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "897 S.W.2d 573" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "294 Ark. 16", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1895761 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/294/0016-01" ] }, { "cite": "317 Ark. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1443797 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/317/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "861 S.W.2d 550", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1912817, 1912761 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/314/0411-01", "/ark/314/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "314 Ark. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1912761 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/314/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "861 S.W.2d 551", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 6138595, 1912772, 1912781 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/43/0123-01", "/ark/314/0469-01", "/ark/314/0540-02" ] }, { "cite": "314 Ark. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1912772 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/314/0469-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 357, "char_count": 5375, "ocr_confidence": 0.886, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.157811620859208e-07, "percentile": 0.7694048958066667 }, "sha256": "ecbebda173f145bce634aef66077572eef5a5313e0e057fe7043e0300c9d4286", "simhash": "1:f65b9522b4b7aa0e", "word_count": 852 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:37.743482+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "John L. KEARNEY v. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nSeveral complaints were filed against appellant John Kearney. First, James M. Guffy claimed Kearney mishandled a quiet title action, and in doing so, violated Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 3.4(c) and 8.4(d). The second and third complaints were referrals by per curiam to the Professional Conduct Committee from this court in cases where Kearney petitioned for rule on the clerk for belated appeals. Britton v. State, 314 Ark. 469, 861 S.W.2d 551 (1993); Garrett v. State, 314 Ark. 470, 861 S.W.2d 550 (1993). All three complaints were consolidated for hearing before the Committee. Mr. Kearney brings this appeal from the Committee\u2019s May 26, 1994 decision wherein it suspended his license for six months.\nKearney lists six points for reversal which we are unable to address because of his flagrantly deficient abstract. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(2). The transcript itself contains only 62 pages, and Kearney fails to abstract thirteen pages of it, including the Committee\u2019s findings, the Committee\u2019s May 26, 1994 letter decision and the notice of appeal. In addition, significant and relevant information contained in exhibits introduced below have not been abstracted.\nSpecifically, we point out that, in his argument on appeal, Kearney challenges the Committee\u2019s findings that he had violated certain Model Rules when representing Garrett and Brit-ton in their belated appeals. However, he fails to abstract those findings or what sanctions were imposed for those violations. In addition, Kearney\u2019s abstract only reflects he has appealed the Committee\u2019s May 26, 1994 decision which suspended his license. Whether the Garrett and Britton claims were considered in the Committee\u2019s suspension of Kearney\u2019s license is not clear, since we do not have the Committee\u2019s findings and decision before us.\nNext, Kearney also argues the Committee erred in admitting into evidence an informal list of nine prior sanctions, but he fails to abstract that list. Aside from Kearney\u2019s failure to abstract these prior sanctions, he also does not abstract that part of the transcript where his counsel forewent any objection to the admission of those prior violations.\nAnother example of Kearney\u2019s abstract concerns his contest of Guffy\u2019s affidavit and the Committee\u2019s consideration of it. Below, Kearney objected to Guffy\u2019s affidavit because it was not notarized, but on appeal, he claims that, because Guffy failed to appear at the hearing, Kearney was denied the due process right to cross-examine him. Again, Kearney fails to abstract Guffy\u2019s affidavit and attached pleadings and exhibits even though these items are the focus of his point for reversal on appeal. We should also note that, at the Committee\u2019s hearing, Kearney lodged no objection or obtained no ruling concerning his due process (inability to cross-examine) argument.\nAnd finally, we mention Kearney\u2019s argument that the penalties imposed were greater than warranted by the circumstances. As previously mentioned, the transcript itself reflects prior sanctions against Kearney were considered at the penalty stage of this proceeding, but, again that portion of the transcript was not abstracted. As this court has written numerous times, we will not go to the single transcript. Our review of the case on appeal is limited to the record as abstracted in the briefs, not upon one transcript, since there are seven judges involved in the appellate decision-making process. Stroud Crop, Inc. v. Hagler, 317 Ark. 139, 875 S.W.2d 851 (1994).\nConcerning the severity-of-sanction issue, we also reiterate Kearney\u2019s failure to abstract the Committee\u2019s May 26, 1994 letter decision that related contested factual questions. The Committee noted Kearney never answered interrogatories in the proceeding in which he represented Guffy even though a court had ordered Kearney to do so. The Committee\u2019s letter further related Guffy said that he had incurred a $1,500 judgment due to Kearney\u2019s actions or inactions, and while Kearney agreed to pay the judgment, he did not do so. Kearney\u2019s failure to abstract that part of the record bearing on his decision not to comply with a court order is clearly relevant to the severity of the sanctions the Committee may have considered and imposed against him. Also, while Kearney testified he rectified Guffy\u2019s problem by paying the $1,500 judgment, it is relevant to know the Committee considered Guffy\u2019s statement that Kearney never paid the judgment.\nWhere the appellant fails to abstract the pleadings, exhibits, orders and final judgment necessary to an understanding of all questions on appeal, the appellate court cannot reach the issues it is asked to decide. Jolly v. Hartje, 294 Ark. 16, 740 S.W.2d 143 (1987). Because Kearney\u2019s abstract is so deficient in omitting relevant parts of the transcript needed in order to consider the arguments raised on appeal, we affirm for failure to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(2).\nAt the hearing, Kearney testified he paid $1,500 in cash to Guffy\u2019s son-in-law and obtained a signed receipt, but Kearney said he could not locate the receipt.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant, pro se.", "Barber, McCaskill, Amsler, Jones & Hale, P.A., by: John S. Cherry, Jr., and Derek J. Edwards, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "John L. KEARNEY v. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT\n94-1399\n897 S.W.2d 573\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 22, 1995\nAppellant, pro se.\nBarber, McCaskill, Amsler, Jones & Hale, P.A., by: John S. Cherry, Jr., and Derek J. Edwards, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0581-01", "first_page_order": 609, "last_page_order": 611 }