## Facts

- William Dowsing Davis III and Dan Arthur Goldberg were partners in a high-volume firm driven largely by television advertising and handling many bankruptcy and Social Security matters.
- The firm spent substantial sums on advertising and implemented office practices aimed at lowering costs and increasing volume, including heavy reliance on associates and nonlawyer staff for intake and case processing.
- Testimony indicated associates carried extremely large caseloads and were subject to production expectations (e.g., quotas for new files), limiting time available per client.
- Evidence showed nonlawyer staff performed tasks involving legal judgment (client interviews, preparation and processing of filings), often without adequate lawyer supervision.
- Multiple clients and former employees testified to recurring breakdowns in client service, including failure to return calls, lost paperwork, missed or misunderstood deadlines, and inaccurate status information.
- In a highlighted Social Security matter, the firm allegedly misplaced documents, stated a claim had been filed when it had not, and later advised the filing deadline had expired, harming the client’s interests.
- The Alabama State Bar charged the partners with multiple violations of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct; the Disciplinary Board found violations and suspended each attorney for 60 days, while acquitting them of a specific charge of false or misleading advertising.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the Disciplinary Board’s findings that Davis and Goldberg violated the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Whether the disciplinary prosecution was improperly motivated by hostility to the attorneys’ advertising rather than by proven misconduct.
3. Whether a 60-day suspension for each attorney was excessive under the circumstances.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the Disciplinary Board’s order.
- The Court held the record contained clear and convincing evidence supporting findings of violations, including lack of competence and inadequate client communication resulting from firm systems and staffing practices.
- The Court rejected the claim that the case was an advertising-based retaliatory action, noting discipline rested on proven client-service and supervision failures, not on the content of protected advertising.
- The Court upheld the 60-day suspensions as within the Board’s discretion given the seriousness and firm-wide nature of the misconduct.

## Legal Principles

- Disciplinary Board findings are upheld on review when supported by clear and convincing evidence and not plainly wrong.
- Partners and supervising lawyers must make reasonable efforts to ensure that firm lawyers comply with professional obligations and that nonlawyer assistants act in a manner compatible with those obligations (Rules 5.1, 5.3).
- A law firm’s organizational model may violate professional duties when it predictably produces incompetent representation or persistent failures to communicate with clients (Rules 1.1, 1.4).
- Allowing nonlawyers to perform functions amounting to legal practice, or assisting such conduct, can constitute professional misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (Rules 5.5(b), 8.4).
- Attorney advertising is generally protected, but discipline may be imposed for resulting misconduct in practice operations even if the advertisements themselves are not found false or misleading.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed 60-day suspensions for both partners because clear and convincing evidence showed that their high-volume, profit-driven firm policies caused widespread client neglect, poor communication, and inadequate supervision of lawyers and nonlawyers, warranting discipline independent of any protected advertising.


Davis v. Alabama State Bar, 676 So. 2d 306 (Ala. 1996)