The Check
There is a check. It is dated October 11, 2016. The check was drawn on the conservatorship account of Opal K. Smith — an account that, by law, consisted solely of Opal Smith's money. The Conservatorship of Opal K. Smith had been established by the Chancery Court of Lamar County, Mississippi, Cause No. 37CH1:15-pr-00103-CS, in 2015, after the court found that Smith could no longer manage her own affairs. The lawyer appointed to manage them — the attorney-conservator, identified in court filings and in the Mississippi Bar complaint by the name Arrington — was a fiduciary in the strictest sense the law knows. He controlled Opal Smith's money because she could not.
On October 11, 2016, he wrote a check on that account for $5,010. He described the purpose on the check as "reimbursement." He deposited the check into his law firm's IOLTA account — the Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts account that every law firm maintains to hold client funds. It is still there.
That is the short version. The longer version is worse.
What 'Reimbursement' Would Require
A reimbursement is a repayment of money previously advanced. If Arrington reimbursed himself $5,010 from Opal Smith's conservatorship, there must be a corresponding advance — a moment when he put $5,010 of his own money, or his firm's money, into the conservatorship for Smith's benefit. Without that advance, there is nothing to reimburse. Without documentation of that advance, the check is not a reimbursement. It is a withdrawal.
According to the detailed bar complaint later filed — a complaint whose full text and supporting court documents were provided to The Ethics Reporter — no such advance appears anywhere in the conservatorship's records. The court file contains no record of any loan or advance to the conservatorship. Subsequent accountings filed by Arrington with the Chancery Court show no repayment of the $5,010 from his firm to the conservatorship. The documentation gap runs in both directions: no money in, no money back out. Just the check, the "reimbursement" label, and the transfer to his firm's trust account.
The IOLTA Problem
Depositing the check into the firm's IOLTA account was not incidental. It mattered. IOLTA accounts are trust accounts, not operating accounts. Money in an IOLTA account is supposed to be client money, held temporarily on behalf of clients — not attorney income, not firm revenue. By depositing the conservatorship check into IOLTA rather than an operating account, Arrington positioned the $5,010 in an account where, as the complaint notes, it has remained ever since. Not distributed to him. Not returned to the conservatorship. Just parked.
The complaint frames this as conversion: the use of another person's funds for purposes the owner did not authorize. Conversion is not a bookkeeping error. It is a tort. In the attorney-discipline context, it is one of the more serious findings a bar can make against one of its members — the kind of finding that, in most states, leads to suspension or disbarment when it is proven.
The Bar's Response
The Mississippi Bar received the complaint. The complaint was based on documents pulled from the public Chancery Court file — the check itself, the deposit records, the conservatorship's subsequent accountings, and the absence of any documentation of an advance. The Bar summarily dismissed the complaint without comment.
"Without comment" means exactly that. The Bar did not explain why the check was permissible. It did not explain where the advance was documented. It did not explain why a fiduciary's transfer of ward funds into his own firm's trust account, labeled "reimbursement," with no corresponding advance in the record, failed to warrant even an investigation. It just dismissed the complaint.
The Ward
Opal K. Smith cannot manage her own affairs. That is why the conservatorship exists. The system that was created to protect her — the Chancery Court, the conservator it appointed, the bar that polices the conservator — is the same system that processed the check, accepted the "reimbursement" label, filed the subsequent accountings, and dismissed the complaint. At no point in that chain did anyone responsible for Opal Smith's money ask the question the check raises on its face: where is the advance this is reimbursing?
The answer, according to the court file, is nowhere. The answer, according to the Mississippi Bar, is not worth discussing. The answer, according to the check's deposit record, is sitting in an IOLTA account still.
A Note on Sources
This article is based on the complaint and supporting court documents submitted to The Ethics Reporter by an anonymous tipster, including the October 11, 2016 check, the deposit record into the firm's IOLTA account, the Conservatorship of Opal K. Smith court file (Chancery Court of Lamar County, Mississippi, Cause No. 37CH1:15-pr-00103-CS), and the Mississippi Bar's summary dismissal of the complaint. The Ethics Reporter has not independently reviewed the full Chancery Court record, which is a public record available through the Lamar County Chancery Clerk. Arrington did not respond to a request for comment.
The Ethics Reporter is an independent legal accountability publication. We rely entirely on reader donations to fund this work. If this reporting matters to you, please consider supporting us at theethicsreporter.com/donate. Even $1 keeps the lights on. Thank you.