What to Do About a Doo Doo Attorney: Legal Malpractice Case Against William Z. White

Most Pro Se litigants cannot afford an attorney. Sometimes though, a person hires an attorney and still loses due to attorney error.

Sometimes people lose because of a judge’s error. A good attorney will fight an errant judge in the appellate court. A great attorney will call out the judge at the trial court and persuade the judge to follow the law.

What happens if an attorney does a bad job?

Usually, nothing.

Occasionally, another attorney will represent the bad attorney’s client in a legal malpractice suit.

Following a brief introduction of an allegedly mal-practicing attorney William Z. White of Heber Springs, Arkansas, there is the full text of a lawsuit filed against “Zac” for legal malpractice. The suit was settled out of court, as are the vast majority of all suits filed. (Most disputes don’t even get memorialized in a Complaint filed in a court. They are in essence “settled” before the victim must take the drastic step of filing suit.)

Remember, I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice or legal commentary. It is a recitation of facts attributed to the people who wrote legal complaints, whether private or public.

A William Z. White was found guilty of charges against him listed on the Arkansas “Court Connect” website, twice for traffic violations and once for a criminal charge referred to as “Hot Checks”.

A William Z. White was found guilty of “Hot Checks”, WC 97-2786 in July 1997. He was 20 years old, indicating a birth year about 1977. It looks like he did not accept the invitation to court, as the docket says “NO PLEA” and “GUILTY – BOND FORFEITED”.

A William Z. White born about 1977 was found guilty of speeding on the I-630 on July 21, 2003. Oddly, the docket entries were not made until 2015.

A William Z. White born about 1977 was found guilty of speeding, Ark. Code. Ann. 16-17-136 in 2019. A docket entry says:

William Z. White apparently rethought this defense, waived appearance and pled guilty.

There is an attorney named William Z. White who I allege filed a completely bogus lawsuit against me. I allege he is shaking me down with a malicious prosecution. Unfortunately, there is a judge named Susan Kaye Weaver who appears to me to be colluding with Mr. White, who goes by Zac.

Interestingly, there is a “Susan Kaye Weaver” AKA “Susan Young” who also got a speeding ticket in Arkansas in 1997, the year William Z. White was writing hot checks. She was 18 years old, meaning born around 1979. Judge Susan Kaye Weaver was also born about 1979.

A Susan Kaye Weaver AKA Susan Young also born about 1979 was ticketed for speeding in 2000. But the officer Rhonda Hance requested no prosecution. [UPDATE 1/17/2022: Birth year attributed to story by Tammy Keith in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, June 17, 2012 and not an official record. See next paragraph.]

I don’t know how or why the Court Connect filed the Susan Kaye Weaver violations under the name Susan Young. My investigative reporter mind immediately wonders if Judge Susan Kaye Weaver’s position working for the government gave her the ability to somehow change the name in the search field. [UPDATE 1/17/2022: A story published in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on June 17, 2012 in which Tammy Keith interviewed then District Court Judge Elect Susan Kaye Weaver said Susan Weaver “who married at 21 and divorced less than two years later…” It is possible Ms. Keith did not fact check and that the brief marriage was from 1997 (18 years) to 2001 (22 years). There was a suit for divorce filed by a Susan Young in Faulkner County in 2001 showing on Court Connect, without images of documents. This writer will try to find paper records.]

Regardless, while researching William Zac White and his apparent cohort, Judge Weaver, I came across a complaint filed against Mr. White for allegedly committing legal malpractice. It seems like a complaint my readers might find useful. (Sorry I could not put spaces between the paragraphs.)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOT SPRING COUNTY, ARKANSAS
CIVIL DIVISION
MARION D. SPENCE II PLAINTIFF
VS. CASE NO. __
WILLIAM “ZAC” WHITE DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT

Comes now the Plaintiff, Marion D. Spence II, by and through his attorneys, The Brad
Hendricks Law Firm, and for his Complaint state as follows:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. The Plaintiff, Marion Spence is a resident of Hot Spring County, Arkansas whose
   current address is 23555 Highway 51, Malvern, Arkansas 72104.
2. Defendant, William “Zac” White is an Arkansas attorney whose address is 706
   West Quitman Street, P.O. Box 1087, Heber Springs, Arkansas 72543.
3. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter and is the proper venue for this
   Complaint.
   RELEVANT FACTS
4. The Defendant attorney was hired by Plaintiff to pursue a claim against Plaintiff’s
   employer, Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) under the Federal Employer’s
   Liability Act (“FELA”) for shoulder injuries sustained while on the job and due to the Union
   Pacific’s negligence. See Engagement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1.
   
5. Mr. Spence’s attorney, Mr. White, filed the Complaint in United States District
   Court for the Western District of Arkansas on September 1, 2017. The case was Civil Action No.
   3:17-CV-3074 TLB. See Complaint, attached as Exhibit 2.
6. Union Pacific filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support on
   January 18, 2019. See Motion for Summary Judgment, attached as Exhibit 3; Brief in Support,
   attached as Exhibit 4 (pursuant to ARCP Rule 10(d), the Brief in Support is attached without the
   large number, 229 pages, of exhibits).
7. An extension to respond was granted which made the Response to the Motion for
   Summary Judgment due on February 8, 2019.
8. Mr. Spence’s attorney, Mr. White, failed to file a Response to the Motion for
   Summary Judgment, despite being given an extended deadline to do so.
9. As a result of attorney White failing to respond, the Motion for Summary Judgment
   was granted and Mr. Spence’s Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. See Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, attached as Exhibit 5, and Judgment, attached as Exhibit 6.
10. Mr. White failed to hire an expert doctor to rebut the opinions of Union Pacific’s
    expert doctors who opined that Mr. Spence’s shoulder injuries were not work related but were part
    of the natural aging process.
11. The Memorandum Opinion explained that a plaintiff in a FELA case must present
    expert testimony of his own to establish a causal connection between the injury and whatever
    incident is alleged to have caused the injury. See Exhibit 5, page 4.
12. “The test of causation under FELA is much easier to prove than in state tort cases;
    it is whether the railroad’s negligence played ‘any part, even the slightest,’ in the injury that is the
    subject of the lawsuit.” Richardson v Union Pac. R. Co., 2011 Ark. App 562, 3, 386 S.W.3d 77,
    80 (2011) citing Rogers v Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506 (1957).
13. An employee’s claim under FELA does not depend on showing that the injury was
    caused by a particular act or a specific event, but can be caused by the cumulative effect of a series
    of events or due to the employee’s weakened condition. Fletcher v. Union Pac. R. Co., 621 F.2d
    902, 909 (8th Cir. 1980). The railroad has a duty to protect the employee from further injury. Id.
14. Mr. Spence needed an expert to opine that even if Mr. Spence’s shoulder was
    degraded by age and years of use (like all older humans), it is the lifting of ties on the railroad that
    caused the injury that required surgery and caused his serious problems.
15. The repetition of lifting and placing at least 1000 plates per day placed excessive
    strain on Mr. Spence’s shoulders and he was made to continue doing that same work even after he
    complained of extreme pain to the track foreman and even after an injury report was filed. See
    Exhibit 2, page 4.
    PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
16. Defendant had a duty on behalf of his client to use reasonable diligence and skill
    ordinarily used by attorney’s acting in the same or similar circumstances.
17. Defendant’s conduct fell below the generally accepted standard of practice when
    he failed to hire an expert to rebut the opinions of the opposing experts.
18. Defendant’s conduct fell below the generally accepted standard of practice when
    he failed to file a Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
19. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, judgment was entered against Plaintiff
    and Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed with prejudice.
    
20. Plaintiff would have likely prevailed on the Motion for Summary Judgment and the
    underlying case had he provided “even the slightest” connection between the injury and the work
    at the railroad.
21. Defendant Union Pacific had already offered $100,000.00 to settle the case and, as
    often the case, settlement negotiations were on hold pending the ruling on the Motion for Summary
    Judgment. See Settlement Memorandum, attached as Exhibit 7.
22. As a result of Plaintiff’s attorney failing to hire an expert and failing to file a
    Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff suffered damages.
    WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendant for compensatory
    damages in an amount greater than is required for diversity jurisdiction ($75,000.00); together with
    any and all special, incidental or consequential damages to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
    Finally, Plaintiff prays for attorney’s fees and costs and for all other just and proper relief.
    PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A JURY TRIAL.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    THE BRAD HENDRICKS LAW FIRM
    500 C Pleasant Valley Drive
    Little Rock, Arkansas 72227
    (501) 221-0444
    (501) 219-0608 (fax)
    tkitchens@bradhendricks.com
    BY: ________________________
    LLOYD W. “TRE” KITCHENS, ABN 99075

***************************************************

Coincidentally, I had Tre Kitchens agree to represent me in the case filed by Mr. White, before Judge Weaver’s bias became so apparent. Before collecting his retainer and after a slew of bad calls by the judge, such as ignoring Mr. White’s failure to respond timely to several motions, Mr. Kitchens refused to take a $5,000 check I offered to retain him. He took on Mr. White in the malpractice case above and may have prevailed at settlement, but no one really wants to take on City Hall. Especially in the backwoods, inbred culture in the Ozarks.