## Facts

- William Jefferson Clinton was admitted to practice law in Arkansas in 1973.
- In 1990, Clinton changed his Arkansas law license to inactive status and lived in Washington, D.C. during the events giving rise to this disciplinary matter.
- While Clinton’s license was inactive, Paula Jones sued him in federal court in a civil action.
- During discovery in that federal case, Clinton gave deposition testimony about whether he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
- Although the federal court ultimately granted Clinton summary judgment on the merits, the federal judge found Clinton in civil contempt for giving false, misleading, and evasive deposition answers intended to obstruct justice.
- The federal judge imposed approximately $90,000 in contempt sanctions against Clinton.
- The federal judge also stated that the Lewinsky-related testimony was not essential, might have been inadmissible, and that Jones’s case would have lacked merit even if Clinton had testified truthfully about the relationship.
- After later proceedings, Jones was treated as made whole following a settlement of her appeal for $850,000, plus nearly $90,000 in expenses and attorney fees.
- The federal judge referred Clinton’s conduct to Arkansas disciplinary authorities for possible professional discipline.
- Clinton had no prior disciplinary record, had been in good standing for more than 25 years, and cooperated fully in the disciplinary investigation.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct voted to initiate disbarment proceedings and filed a complaint in Pulaski County Circuit Court seeking Clinton’s disbarment.
- Clinton answered the complaint, and the parties resolved the case through an agreed order of discipline rather than litigating to a contested decision.

## Issues

1. Whether an Arkansas-licensed lawyer, even on inactive status, commits professional misconduct by giving false, misleading, and evasive sworn deposition testimony in federal civil litigation that results in a civil-contempt finding.
2. Whether disbarment was warranted, or whether a negotiated, lesser sanction adequately addressed the misconduct in light of mitigating circumstances.

## Decision

- The Pulaski County Circuit Court entered an Agreed Order of Discipline resolving the disbarment complaint.
- The agreed order suspended Clinton from the practice of law in Arkansas for five years.
- The agreed order imposed a $25,000 monetary sanction.
- The case concluded by consent order rather than a litigated judgment ordering disbarment.

## Legal Principles

- An Arkansas lawyer remains subject to Arkansas’s professional-conduct rules even when the lawyer’s license is on inactive status.
- Dishonest conduct in sworn testimony during discovery, including false, misleading, or evasive deposition answers intended to obstruct the judicial process, can constitute professional misconduct.
- A court’s contempt finding and sanctions for discovery-related dishonesty may serve as a factual basis for attorney discipline in a separate state disciplinary proceeding.
- In determining an appropriate sanction, disciplinary authorities may consider mitigating circumstances such as a long history of good standing, absence of prior discipline, and cooperation with the investigation and resolution.

## Conclusion

Neal v. Clinton arose from federal-court findings that Clinton gave false, misleading, and evasive deposition testimony intended to obstruct justice, leading to civil-contempt sanctions and a referral to Arkansas disciplinary authorities. After the Arkansas Committee on Professional Conduct filed a circuit-court complaint seeking disbarment, the matter ended through an agreed order imposing a five-year suspension and a $25,000 monetary sanction, reflecting the seriousness of sworn dishonesty while taking account of mitigating factors and the parties’ negotiated resolution.


Neal v. Clinton, 2001 WL 34355768 (2001)