author: BOLIN, Justice. MURDOCK, Justice

text:
    Mary S. DOWNING, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Larry Downing v. The CITY OF DOTHAN.
    1090933.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Sept. 24, 2010.
    M. Adam Jones of Jacoby & Meyers, LLC, Dothan, for appellant.
    F. Lenton White, city atty., City of Do-than, for appellee.
   BOLIN, Justice.

Mary S. Downing, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Larry Downing, deceased, appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the City of Dothan. We affirm.

Facts

On January 13, 2007, Mary and her husband, Larry, arrived at the Southern Family Market to shop for groceries. After placing the groceries in their automobile, Larry was returning the shopping cart to the store when he was struck and killed by an automobile driven by Tabitha Shea Farmer. Farmer had apparently temporarily lost consciousness as the result of inhaling the fumes from an aerosol can of 3M brand dust remover, a computer-cleaning product.

Shortly before the accident, Farmer had been stopped by Dothan City police officers for erratic driving. Farmer testified that, while sitting at a red light, she inhaled fumes from the can of dust remover and lost consciousness. She said that her vehicle then rolled through the red light and over a curb and collided with a city park bench. After regaining consciousness, Farmer said she drove off. Wanda Andrews, an off-duty dispatcher for the City of Dothan, witnessed the series of events and immediately reported them to the Dothan Police Department. Andrews followed Farmer to a nearby parking lot, where Farmer got out of her vehicle to inspect the damage caused by the impact with the bench. Andrews questioned Farmer regarding the accident and noted that she seemed disoriented. Farmer drove off, and Andrews continued to follow her, noting her erratic driving. At approximately 5:54 p.m., Officer Raemonica Carney, who was nearing the end of her shift, heard the dispatch and responded to the call, initiating a traffic stop. Cpl. Clark Rice and Officer Darren Pert, the two officers dispatched to the call, arrived immediately thereafter. Also present at the scene were Cpl. Tim Miller, who worked in the vice-narcotics division, and Andrews, the off-duty dispatcher for the City. Andrews talked to Officer Carney and told her that she believed that Farmer was impaired. Andrews also talked to Cpl. Rice and described everything that she had witnessed: Farmer’s car rolling through the red light and striking a park bench; Farmer making a U-turn; Farmer staggering, slurring her speech, being unable to intelligently answer simple questions, driving off again, stopping in the middle of Main Street, and jumping the curb. Upon questioning by Cpl. Rice about her erratic driving, Farmer replied that she did not recall doing anything wrong. Cpl. Rice continued to question Farmer, asking if she had any medical problems that could have affected her driving or if she had possibly been attending to her two-year-old child, who was in the backseat; Farmer responded “no.” With Farmer’s permission, Officers Carney and Pert searched Farmer’s vehicle while Cpl. Rice questioned a second witness. Officer Carney found a can of dust remover without a cap in the floorboard area of the driver’s side of the vehicle. She discovered on the passenger’s side floorboard a plastic shopping bag containing, among other things, a second can of dust remover, along with the cap from the first can. Officer Carney asked Farmer if she had been driving around “huffing” the dust remover and Farmer replied, “I don’t do that.” Officer Carney showed the cans of dust remover to Cpl. Rice; Farmer again denied having inhaled the dust remover. Officer Carney used a flashlight to check Farmer’s eyes for responsiveness to stimuli. According to Officer Carney, Farmer’s eyes did not dilate or otherwise respond to the light. Officer Carney expressed her opinion to Cpl. Rice that Farmer had been driving around while inhaling the dust remover and that she should be arrested for driving while intoxicated. Cpl. Rice had Farmer submit to a series of field-sobriety tests. According to Cpl. Rice, Farmer performed all the tests successfully and she seemed alert, aware, and fully functional. Officer Pert, Lt. Ray Wood-ham, and Andrews witnessed Cpl. Rice administering the field-sobriety tests and agreed that Farmer had performed them successfully. Officer Carney, however, disputes that Farmer passed all the tests successfully. Cpl. Rice eventually approached Officer Carney (because her shift had ended) and told her that she could go and that “they would handle the call.” Thereafter, Cpl. Rice and Officer Pert made the decision to not arrest Farmer based on their opinion that she was not impaired or under the influence of any substance that would preclude her from safely operating her vehicle. Cpl. Rice testified in his affidavit as follows:

“Ms. Farmer recited her ABC’s without difficulty. She performed the 1, 2, 3, 4 finger count twice correctly. She counted from 100 backwards to 93 as instructed with no hesitations or mistakes. She performed the one-legged stand and passed. She knew the date when I asked her today’s date. She was incorrect when I asked her what time it was. She stated 7:30 when it was 6:00 p.m. Ms. Farmer’s eyes were not red, she was steady on her feet and did not stagger. Her speech was not slurred nor did she ever act overly excited or agitated. She had no detectable odor of alcohol on her breath, her person or inside her vehicle. A search of her vehicle revealed no alcoholic beverages, prescription narcotics or drug paraphernalia.
“Ms. Farmer seemed alert, aware and fully functional during the time I was with her at the scene of the traffic stop. She never mentioned any medical conditions and ... did not appear to have any. I have had the opportunity during my career as a police officer to witness many intoxicated persons and I have made many arrests for public intoxication and [driving under the influence] which have resulted in convictions. Based upon my experience and my observations of Ms. Farmer, it was then and remains my opinion she was not under the influence of any substance such that her ability to safely operate a motor vehicle was compromised. A traffic incident report was made and Officer Pert released Ms. Farmer.”

As previously noted, after being released, Farmer proceeded to the parking lot of the Southern Family Market grocery store where she inhaled dust remover and lost consciousness while she was driving, causing her vehicle to strike and kill Larry Downing.

Mary Downing, individually and as ad-ministratrix of her deceased husband’s estate, filed a wrongful-death action against the City of Dothan and fictitiously named parties, alleging negligence and wantonness. The City of Dothan filed a motion for a summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to State-agent immunity as governed by the analysis set forth in Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala.2000). Downing responded by citing the following three cases: Luker v. City of Brantley, 520 So.2d 517 (Ala.1987), Tyler v. City of Enterprise, 577 So.2d 876 (Ala.1991), and Nunnelee v. City of Decatur, 643 So.2d 543 (Ala.1993).

“Luker stands for the proposition that once a police officer, acting in the line and scope of his duty, knows that a driver is intoxicated, he has a duty to restrain him, and if he does not restrain him and a third party is injured by the intoxicated driver, the city may be liable for the negligence of the officer in allowing the intoxicated driver to proceed.”

Tyler, 577 So.2d at 877.

Specifically, relying on the Luker principle, Downing argued that the City of Dothan was not entitled to State-agent immunity because, she says, its police officers had a duty to restrain Farmer from driving once they knew or reasonably should have known that she was intoxicated. After conducting two separate hearings, the trial court ultimately concluded that the cases relied on and cited by Downing predated the effective date of § 6-5-338, Ala. Code 1975 (April 26, 1994), which provides that “[e]very peace officer ... shall at all times be deemed to be officers of this state, and as such shall have immunity from tort liability arising out of his or her conduct in performance of any discretionary function within the line and scope of his or her law enforcement duties.” The trial court further concluded that Downing failed to produce any evidence indicating that the police officers had acted willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond their authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law in not preventing Farmer from driving. Downing appeals.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

The restatement of State-agent immunity as set out by this Court in Ex parte Cranman now governs the determination of whether a police officer is entitled to immunity under § 6-5-338(a), Ala.Code 1975. See Ex parte City of Tuskegee, 932 So.2d 895, 904 (Ala.2005) (“The restatement of State-agent immunity as set out in Cranman ... now governs the determination of whether a peace officer is entitled to immunity under § 6-5-338(a).”). .In Cranman, this Court stated:

“A State agent shall be immune from civil liability in his or her personal capacity when the conduct made the basis of the claim against the agent is based upon the agent’s
“(1) formulating plans, policies, or designs; or
“(2) exercising his or her judgment in the administration of a department or agency of government, including, but not limited to, examples such as:
“(a) making administrative adjudications;
(‘(b) allocating resources;
“(c) negotiating contracts;
“(d) hiring, firing, transferring, assigning, or supervising personnel; or
“(3) discharging duties imposed on a department or agency by statute, rule, or regulation, insofar as the statute, rule, or regulation prescribes the manner for performing the duties and the State agent performs the duties in that manner; or
“(4) exercising judgment in the enforcement of the criminal laws of the State, including, but not limited to, law enforcement officers’ arresting or attempting to arrest persons[, or serving as peace officers under circumstances entitling such officers to immunity pursuant to § 6-5-338(a), Ala.Code 1975].
“(5) exercising judgment in the discharge of duties imposed by statute, rule, or regulation in releasing prisoners, counseling or releasing persons of unsound mind, or educating students.
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing statement of the rule, a State agent shall not be immune from civil liability in his or her personal capacity
“(1) when the Constitution or laws of the United States, or the Constitution of this State, or laws, rules, or regulations of this State enacted or promulgated for the purpose of regulating the activities of a governmental agency require otherwise; or
“(2) when the State agent acts willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his or her authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.”

792 So.2d at 405 (some emphasis original; some emphasis added; and bracketed modification added by Hollis v. City of Brighton, 950 So.2d 300, 309 (Ala.2006)).

In determining whether State-agent immunity applies under Cranman, this Court has established a “burden-shifting” process. Ex parte Wood, 852 So.2d 705 (Ala.2002). In order to claim State-agent immunity, the City of Dothan bears the initial burden of demonstrating that Downing’s claims against it arise from a function that would entitle it to immunity. Wood, 852 So.2d at 709; Ryan v. Hayes, 831 So.2d 21 (Ala.2002). If the City of Dothan makes such a showing, the burden then shifts to Downing to show that one of the two Cranman categories of exceptions to State-agent immunity is applicable. Ex parte Kennedy, 992 So.2d 1276 (Ala.2008).

Discussion

The City of Dothan argues that it is entitled to State-agent immunity because, it says, its police officers were exercising a discretionary function in deciding whether to arrest Farmer for driving under the influence. There is no question that the City of Dothan met its burden because, on the day in question, its police officers were engaged in a law-enforcement function for which State-agent immunity would be available. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-338; Ex parte Cranman, supra; see also City of Birmingham v. Sutherland, 834 So.2d 755, 759 (Ala.2002) (“‘Generally, arrests and attempted arrests are classified as discretionary functions.’” (quoting Telfare v. City of Huntsville, 841 So.2d 1222, 1228 (Ala.2002))). Moreover, this Court has held that “[t]here is no hard and fast rule concerning when there is and when there is not probable cause to arrest a driver suspected to be under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.” Ex parte City of Montgomery, 758 So.2d 565, 570 (Ala.1999) (abrogated on other grounds by Cranman, 792 So.2d at 404). Therefore, the burden shifted to Downing to present evidence that one of the two exceptions to State-agent immunity in Cranman is applicable. The exception being asserted by Downing is that the police officers acted beyond their authority in failing to restrain Farmer and otherwise allowing her to continue to operate her vehicle. “A State agent acts beyond authority and is therefore not immune when he or she ‘fail[s] to discharge duties pursuant to detailed rules or regulations, such as those stated on a checklist.’ ” Giambrone v. Douglas, 874 So.2d 1046, 1052 (Ala.2003) (quoting Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173, 178 (Ala.2000)). Downing has not alleged that the police officers violated any departmental rules or regulations in exercising their judgment in this case. Instead, relying on the Luker principle, she argues that immunity cannot be extended to the City when its police officers failed to restrain a driver they knew to be impaired. However, as previously stated, Ex parte Cranman now governs the determination of whether a police officer is entitled to immunity under § 6-5-338(a), Ala.Code 1975; § 6-5-338(a) was enacted subsequent to this Court’s decision in Luker. In any event, the evidence simply does not demonstrate that the police officers in this case acted beyond their authority in exercising their judgment to not arrest Farmer for driving under the influence. See, e.g., Nunnelee, supra (defendants entitled to immunity on a claim that they failed to arrest an intoxicated driver when driver passed field-sobriety test; driver had one unopened can of beer in vehicle; and driver did not appear intoxicated). In the instant case, although Officer Carney harbored the opinion that Farmer should have been arrested for driving under the influence, the record contains sufficient evidence to show that Cpl. Rice and Officer Pert had facts based on which they could have reasonably believed that Farmer was not impaired or otherwise incapable of operating her vehi-ele. As previously stated, Cpl. Rice administered a series of field-sobriety tests. Cpl. Rice and Officer Pert testified in their affidavits that Farmer performed the tests successfully and that she did not appear impaired. Lt. Woodham also testified in an affidavit that he observed Farmer perform the field-sobriety tests and that she performed them successfully. Andrews also opined that Farmer passed all the tests that were administered. Downing has failed to carry her burden of showing that the police officers acted beyond their authority in exercising their discretion in enforcing the criminal laws of this State. Accordingly, the summary judgment in favor of the City of Dothan is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, C.J., and LYONS, STUART, SMITH, PARKER, and SHAW, JJ., concur.

WOODALL and MURDOCK, JJ., concur in the result.

MURDOCK, Justice

(concurring in the result).

Although I do not concur in all aspects of the “beyond-their-authority” analysis expressed in the main opinion, see Ex parte Watson, 37 So.3d 752, 765-67 (Ala.2009) (Murdock, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Ex parte Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 48 So.3d 621, 631 (Ala.2010) (Murdock, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), I agree that the police officers’ decision not to arrest Farmer was one that fell within their authority. I therefore concur in the result reached by the main opinion.

      . We note that Downing also named other defendants who are not parties to this appeal.

      . We note that Downing sued only the City of Dothan and not the police officers involved in Farmer’s stop. " 'It is well established that, if a municipal police officer is immune pursuant to § 6-5-338(a), [Ala.Code 1975,] then, pursuant to § 6-5-338(b), the city of which he is employed is also immune.’” Ex parte City of Tuskegee, 932 So.2d 895, 910 (Ala.2005) (quoting Howard v. City of Atmore, 887 So.2d 201, 203 (Ala.2003)). Accordingly, because the liability of the City of Dothan in this case is contingent on the liability of its police officers, we will consider whether the police officers, as agents of the City, would be entitled to immunity under the analysis stated in Cranman.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Ex parte Attorney General Troy KING. (In re District Attorney E. Paul Jones v. CVS Caremark Corporation; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; and Rite Aid Headquarters Corporation). Ex parte CVS Caremark Corporation et al. (In re District Attorney E. Paul Jones v. CVS Caremark Corporation; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; and Rite Aid Headquarters Corporation).
    1090388 and 1090399.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Sept. 24, 2010.

      Troy King, atty. gen., and Cheairs M. Porter, spec. asst. atty. gen., and W. Rushing Payne, Jr., deputy atty. gen., for petitioner Attorney General Troy King.
    David G. Hymer, John D. Watson III, Marc James Ayers, and Charles M. Ferguson, Jr., of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, for petitioners/respondents CVS Caremark Corporation and Rite Aid Headquarters Corporation; and Harlan I. Prater IV, Stephen J. Rowe, and Wesley B. Gilchrist of Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Birmingham; and Dwight J. Davis, Barry Goheen, and Jonathan R. Challey of King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta Georgia, for petitioner/respondent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    W. Lee Gresham III of Heningef Garrison Davis, LLC, Birmingham; and Larry W. Morris of Morris, Haynes & Hornsby, Alexander City for respondent District Attorney E. Paul Jones and intervenor District Attorney Arthur Green.
    Gregory C. Cook and Jason B. Tompkins of Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, for intervenor Walgreen Company.
    Thomas W. Sorrells and Kristi Vails, Alabama District Attorneys Association, for amicus curiae Alabama District Attorneys Association, in support of the respondent District Attorney E. Paul' Jones (in case no. 1090388).
    Matthew C. McDonald and Kenneth S. Steely of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poin-tevent, Carrére & Denegre LLP, Mobile, for amici curiae Alabama Retailers Association and the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Coalition, in supp'ort of the petitioner Attorney General Troy King (in case no. 1090388).
   PER CURIAM.

Attorney General Troy King, CVS Care-mark Corporation (“CVS”), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (‘Wal-Mart”), and Rite Aid Headquarters Corporation (“Rite Aid”) have, in two separate petitions, petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Tallapoosa Circuit Court to accept the October 8, 2009, notice of dismissal, filed by the attorney general on behalf of the State, of the underlying action. We grant the attorney general’s petition and issue the writ (case no. 1090388). Because we issue the writ in case no. 109388, we deny as moot the petition of CVS, Wal-Mart, and Rite Aid (collectively, “the pharmacies”) in case no. 1090399.

Facts

On July 20, 2009, E. Paul Jones, district attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit (“the district attorney”), filed a complaint in the Tallapoosa Circuit Court against the pharmacies seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Alabama Pharmacy Act, § 34-23-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 (“the APA”), and the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices' Act, §' 8-19-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 (“the ADTPA”). The district attorney also sought attorney fees and costs: In the complaint; the district attorney stated that the action was filed “in the name of the State of Alabama.” The State’s claims were based primarily on allegations that the pharmacies had substituted generic medications for name-brand medications without the express permission of the prescribing doctor. The State alleged that the pharmacies had unlawfully sold the substituted prescriptions to the citizens of the Fifth Judicial Circuit.

On October 8, 2009, before any of the pharmacies -answered the complaint, Special Assistant Attorney General Cheairs M. Porter, and Deputy Attorney General W. Rushing Payne, Jr., acting on behalf of the attorney general, filed a notice of dismissal on behalf of the State.

On October 14, 2009, the district attorney filed a motion to strike the attorney general’s notice of dismissal, arguing that the attorney general had failed to file a notice of appearance on behalf of the State and had failed to seek leave of court to assume representation of the State’s interest iri the place of the district attorney.

On October 29, 2009, Porter and Payne, acting on behalf of the attorney general, entered notices of appearance as counsel for the State of Alabama. Also on October 29, 2009, the attorney general filed a motion for leave to represent the State of Alabama and a motion to transfer representation of the State’s interest to the attorney general. The attorney general took the position that those motions were not necessary but indicated that he filed the motions to address any procedural concerns raised by the district attorney’s motion to strike. Also on that date the attorney general filed an opposition to the district attorney’s motion to strike the notice of dismissal. On October 30, 2009, the pharmacies filed a joint “motion in opposition” to the district attorney’s motion to strike.

On November 5, 2009, the trial court entered an order denying the attorney general’s motion for leave to represent the State of Alabama on grounds that the attorney general lacks authority to dismiss a civil action filed by a district attorney on the State’s behalf. The trial court’s November 5, 2009, order directed “the District Attorney for the 5th Judicial Circuit to proceed with the prosecution of this action.” The order did not expressly address the district attorney’s motion to strike the attorney general’s notice of dismissal.

On November 25, 2009, the attorney general filed a motion requesting the trial court to certify the following question for an interlocutory appeal: “Whether the Attorney General is authorized to control and dismiss a civil case that was filed in the name of the State of Alabama by a district attorney.” The pharmacies subsequently joined the attorney general’s motion to certify the question for an interlocutory appeal. On December 3, 2009, the trial court denied the attorney general’s motion to certify the question.

On December 17, 2009, the attorney general filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to accept the October 8, 2009, notice of dismissal filed by him on behalf of the State. Also on December 17, 2009, the pharmacies filed a petition for a writ of mandamus “recognizing that the Attorney General acted within his authority in dismissing this action, and that the action has therefore been dismissed.”

Standard of Review

The standard of review applicable to a petition for a writ of mandamus is well settled:

“ ‘Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and requires a showing that there is: “(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.” Ex parte Edgar, 543 So.2d 682, 684 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Alfab, Inc., 586 So.2d 889, 891 (Ala.1991); Ex parte Johnson, 638 So.2d 772, 773 (Ala.1994).’ Ex parte Gates, 675 So.2d 371, 374 (Ala.1996). See also Ex parte Waites, 736 So.2d 550, 553 (Ala.1999).”

Ex parte Inverness Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 153, 156 (Ala.2000). In reviewing a trial court’s application of law to undisputed facts, we apply a de novo standard of review. Ex parte J.E., 1 So.3d 1002, 1008 (Ala.2008).

Analysis

The attorney general does not argue that the district attorney was without authority to file the complaint in this action. Rather, the attorney general contends that the attorney general is entitled to dismiss the action on behalf of the State over the objection of the district attorney. The district attorney argues that the trial court correctly concluded that the attorney general does not have the authority, to supersede control of the litigation on behalf of the State and to dismiss the action. The dispositive question, then, is whether the attorney general may dismiss the action, despite the objection of the district attorney who initiated the action on behalf of the State.

The duties of the attorney general and district attorneys are prescribed by statute. Ala. Const.1901, Art. V, § 137 (“The attorney general ... shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by law.:.. The legislature may require the attorney general to defend any or all suits brought against the state, or any subdivision thereof. ...”); Ala.Code 1975, § 12-17-184 (setting forth the duties of district attorneys generally, including the duty “[t]o perform other duties and exercise other powers as are or may be required by law”). But see Ala.Code 1975, § 36-15-1.1 (“The Attorney General shall have and retain all of the powers, duties, and authority heretofore granted or authorized by the constitution, statutory law, or the common law.”).

“The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature as manifested in the language of the statute.” Ex parte State Dep’t of Revenue, 683 So.2d 980, 983 (Ala.1996) (citing Gholston v. State, 620 So.2d 719 (Ala.1993)). In applying relevant statutes to resolve the issues before us, we give the “ ‘[wjords used in a statute ... their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says.’” Ex parte Booker, 992 So.2d 686, 691 (Ala.2008) (quoting IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng’g Assocs. Corp., 602 So.2d 344, 346 (Ala.1992)).

“All litigation concerning the interest of the state, or any department of the state, shall he under the direction and control of the Attorney General.” Ala.Code 1975, § 36-15-21. “The Attorney General is authorized to institute and prosecute, in the name of the state, all civil actions and other proceedings necessary to protect the rights and interests of the state.” Ala. Code 1975, § 36-15-12. Further, “[t]he attorney general shall give the district attorneys of the several circuits any opinion, instruction or advice necessary or proper to aid them in the discharge of their duties....” Ala.Code 1975, § 36-15-15. Nevertheless, the district attorney argues that the attorney general is not authorized to direct or control the litigation in this action. Specifically, he argues that the attorney general has no authority to assume direct control of a civil action initiated by a district attorney or to dismiss the action.

In support of this argument, the district attorney cites Ala.Code 1975, § 36-15-14, which states:

“The Attorney General, either in person or by one of his assistants, may at any. time he sees proper, either before or after indictment, superintend and direct the prosecution of any criminal case in any of the courts of this state. The district attorney prosecuting in such court shall assist and act in connection with the Attorney General or his assistant in such case.”

(Emphasis added.)

The district attorney notes that § 36-15-14 expressly authorizes the attorney general to superintend and direct the prosecution of criminal cases at any time but says nothing of superintending and directing civil cases. The district attorney argues that, if the legislature had intended the attorney general to superintend and direct civil cases filed by a district attorney, the legislature would have expressly so stated.

However, to determine the intent of the legislature with regard to the attorney general’s involvement in civil matters, we do not consider the silence of § 36-15-14 in a vacuum. Sections of the Code concerning the same subject matter must be construed together to ascertain the meaning of each. Ex parte Weaver, 871 So.2d 820, 824 (Ala.2003). Section 36-15-14 is not the only section of the Code that addresses the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the attorney general. See generally Ala.Code 1975, §§ 36-15-1 through -22 (setting forth the duties, responsibilities, and other matters regarding the office of attorney general).

Alabama Code 1975, § 36-15-1, sets out the general duties of the attorney general. Section 36-15-1(2) expressly states that the attorney general “shall ... attend to all cases other than criminal” that are pending in any of the courts of this State, “in which the state may be in any manner concerned.” As to criminal cases, however, § 36-15-1(2) states only that the attorney general “shall attend, on the part of the state, to all criminal cases pending in the Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals.”. Section 36-15-14 .thus clarifies that the attorney general may also attend to, direct, and control a criminal case at the trial and pretrial level, and sets out particular information regarding the attorney general’s involvement in such a case. However, the mere silence of § 36-15-14 as to the attorney general’s responsibilities to “attend” to civil matters at the trial level, see § 36-15-1(2), indicates nothing about the details of those responsibilities one way or the other. In short, we are not persuaded by the district attorney’s argument that the attorney general has no authority to appear in, direct, control, or dismiss a civil action filed by a district attorney simply because § 36-15-14 is silent on that issue.

' The district attorney further argues that this action is beyond the direction and control of the attorney general because, according to the district attorney, the case does not involve the interest of the State. According to the district attorney, if the attorney general has the authority to direct and control civil litigation initiated by a district attorney, that authority extends only to matters concerning the representation of agencies and departments of the State. Alabama Code 1975, § 36-15-21, does not allow for such a construction. Section 36-15-21 states: “All litigation concerning the interest of the state, or any department of the state, shall be under the direction and control of the Attorney General.” (Emphasis added.) Generally speaking, the State has an interest in an action, such as the present one, that is filed in the State’s name and on its behalf to vindicate its policies and concerns.

We note that, in the complaint the district attorney filed on behalf of the State, he stated:

“Code of Alabama § 34-23-2 — Legislative declarations — construction, states in pertinent part that ‘[t]he practice of pharmacy and the management and operation of pharmacies ... affect the public health, safety and welfare of the people of Alabama, and [are] thereby subject to regulation and control in the public interest....’ ”

The district attorney further argues that all grants of authority to. a district attorney to initiate and prosecute actions operate as specific exceptions to the attorney general’s authority to direct and control “[a]ll litigation concerning the interest of the state.” Ala.Code 1975, § 36-15-21. The district attorney cites Ala. Code 1975, § 8-19-8(a), which authorizes either the attorney general or the district attorney to file an action on behalf of the State seeking an . injunction restraining persons from violating the ADTPA. He also cites the following provision in the APA: “It shall be the duty of the district .attorney of the judicial circuit wherein any offense is committed to prosecute violations of this chapter.” Aa.Code 1975, § 34-23-93.

' The district attorney also cites Aa.Code 1975, §. 12-17-184(3), which states:

“It is the duty of every district attorney and assistant district attorney, within the circuit, county, or other territory for which he or she is elected or appointed:
“(3) To prosecute and defend any civil action in the circuit court in the prosecution or defense of which the state is interested.”

But see Aa.Code 1975, § 36-15-12 (“The Attorney General is authorized to institute and prosecute, in the name of the state, all civil actions and other proceedings necessary to protect the rights and interests of the state”).

The district attorney argues that, because it is the duty of a district attorney to prosecute civil actions in which the State is interested, including actions brought under the ADTPA and the APA, the attorney general is without authority to direct or to superintend control of the prosecution of such actions. In support of this argument, the district attorney points out that, as a matter statutory interpretation, when two statutes conflict, special statutory provisions relating to specific subjects are understood to be exceptions to general provisions relating to general subjects. Ex parte E.J.M., 829 So.2d 105, 108-09 (Ala.2001).

However, wherever it is possible reasonably to do so, statutes should be construed together so as to harmonize their provisions as far as practical. Ex parte Jones Mfg. Co., 589 So.2d 208, 211 (Ala.1991); Siegelman v. Folmar, 432 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1983). In the statutes conferring on district attorneys the duty to prosecute civil actions in the name of the State, we find no conflict with, or limitation on, the authority of the attorney general to direct and to control litigation instituted on behalf of the State. As we recently observed in Riley v. Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., 57 So.3d 704 (Ala.2010) (released while the petitions in this case were pending):

“[T]he tension between the powers of the governor and the statutory authority of the attorney general to prosecute ‘all’ cases finds an analogue in the juxtaposition of authority granted the attorney general and that granted district attorneys. Thus, in Graddick v. Galanos, 379 So.2d 592, 594 (Ala.1980), this Court found no conflict between the attorney general’s authority in § 36-15-14 to superintend criminal cases, on the one hand, and ‘the duty of every district attorney and assistant district attorney, within the circuit, county, or other territory for which he is elected or appointed: ... (2) to draw up all indictments and to prosecute all indictable offenses.’ ... This Court reasoned that the latter language merely describes the powers of the district attorney and is not a limitation on the powers of the attorney general.”

Cornerstone, 57 So.3d at 732 (emphasis omitted).

In short, although district attorneys (as well as the attorney general) are charged with instituting and prosecuting criminal and civil actions on behalf of the State, the district attorney has pointed to no rule or statute that permits a district attorney, in the exercise of those duties, to disregard the direction, control, and instruction of the attorney general in such cases. Where, as here, the attorney general clearly directs and instructs that litigation on behalf of the State be dismissed, his instructions in that regard take precedence over a district attorney’s desire to proceed with the action. Cf. Graddick v. Galanos, 379 So.2d 592, 594 (Ala.1980) (“[Ala.Code 1975, §] 12-17-184(2)[] merely describes the powers of the District Attorney and is not a limitation on the powers of the Attorney General.”).

In this case, the attorney general has made clear that the action is to be dismissed. The district attorney has made clear that he will not comply with the direction and control of the attorney general in this regard and that he will proceed with the action. Under the circumstances, if the attorney general’s statutory duties to direct, control, and attend to civil litigation concerning the interests of the State are to have any effect, the attorney general must have the prerogative to step in and dismiss the action on behalf of the State where, as here, the district attorney’s office will not do so. See Ala.Code 1975, § 36-15-21 (“All litigation concerning the interest of the state, or any department of the state, shall be under the direction and control of the Attorney General.”); State ex rel. Carmichael v. Jones, 252 Ala. 479, 484, 41 So.2d 280, 284 (1949) (noting that the attorney general’s “ ‘power ... to control litigation involves the power to discontinue if and when, in his opinion, this should be done.’ ” (quoting 5 Am.Jur. 240 § 11)).

The attorney general has established a clear legal right to appear and to dismiss the action on behalf of the State, and the trial court has denied him that right. In the circumstances before us, we are convinced that the attorney general lacks any other adequate remedy and has thus properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, we hold that the attorney general is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to accept the notice of dismissal he previously filed on behalf of the State.

Further, our issuance of the writ requested by the attorney general renders moot the pharmacies’ petition for a writ of mandamus.

1090388 — PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

1090399 — PETITION DISMISSED AS MOOT.

COBB, C.J., and LYONS, WOODALL, STUART, SMITH, BOLIN, PARKER, MURDOCK, and SHAW, JJ., concur.

      . See Rule 41(a)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P. ("[A]n action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first oc-curs_”).'

      . From the materials before us, it appears that the trial court never expressly ruled on the district attorney's motion to strike the notice of dismissal.

      . The district attorney contends that § 36 — 15— . 15 merely allows the attorney general to give "advice” and "opinions” to a district attorney, but, according to the district attorney, nothing in the statute requires a district attorney to follow such "advice” or “opinions.” The district attorney fails to address the fact that, according to § 36-15-15, in addition to "advice” and "opinions,” the attorney general "shall give the district attorneys ... instruction ... necessary or proper to aid them in the discharge of their duties.” "Instruction” can be used to refer to "a direction calling for compliance,” or to the activity of teaching and training. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 649 (11th Ed. 2004). The district attorney fails to submit any argument or authority as to the legislative intent conveyed by the word "instruction” as used in § 36-15-15.

      . See Ala.Code 1975, § 36-15-1.1 ("The Attorney General shall have and retain all of the powers, duties, and authority heretofore granted or authorized by the constitution, statutory law, or the common law.”); Ex parte Weaver, 570 So.2d 675, 677 (Ala.1990), rev’d on other grounds, Riley v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 57 So.3d 704, 728 (Ala.2010) (" ‘The most far-reaching of the attorney general's common-law powers is the authority to control litigation involving state and public interests.... As the state’s chief legal officer, “the attorney-general has power, both under common law and by statute, to make any disposition of the state’s litigation that he deems, for its best interest_ [H]e may abandon, discontinue, dismiss or compromise it.” In addition to having authority to initiate and manage an action, the attorney general may elect not to pursue a claim or to compromise or settle a suit when he determines that continued litigation would be adverse to the public interest. Most courts have given the attorney general a broad discretion ... in determining what matters may, or may not, be of interest to the people generally.' ” (quoting Note, Tice v. Department of Transportation: A Declining Role for the Attorney General? 63 N.C.L.R. 1051 at 1053-54 (1985) (footnotes omitted))).

      . Section 34-23-93 also provides:
      “The [Board of Pharmacy] and its members and officers shall assist prosecuting officers in the enforcement of [the APA].... The Attorney General of the state shall be the attorney for the board, but the board may in its discretion employ other counsel.”
      The parties submit no legal argument as to whether the sentence cited by the district attorney, standing alone or in conjunction with the remainder of § 34-23-93, acts to modify the attorney general’s general duty to direct and control litigation in which the State has an interest. " ‘[I]t is not the function of this Court to do a party's legal research or to make and address legal arguments for a party....’ ” Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So.2d 1, 20 (Ala.2003) (quoting Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So.2d 248, 251 (Ala.1994)).

        . See Ala.Code 1975, § 36-15-12 ("The Attorney General is authorized to institute and prosecute, in the name of the state, all civil actions and other proceedings necessary to protect the rights and interests of the state.”).

      . Alabama Code 1975, § 12-17-184(2), states:
      “It is the duty of every district attorney and assistant district attorney, within the circuit, county or other territory for which he is elected or appointed:

      "(2) To draw up all indictments and to prosecute all indictable offenses.”


author: STUART, Justice.

text:
    Douglas H. COONER v. ALABAMA STATE BAR.
    1090944.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Oct. 8, 2010.

      Craig A. Alexander of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
    J. Anthony McLain, gen. counsel, and Robert E. Lusk, Jr., asst. gen. counsel, Alabama State Bar, for appellee.
   STUART, Justice.

On February 17, 2010, the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar, Panel III (“the Board”), ordered that Douglas H. Cooner be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama. The order of disbarment states:

“I.
“PROCEDURAL HISTORY
“Formal charges in this matter have been pending since March 31, 2004. The case was previously set on January 15, 2008, but continued at the request of Mr. Cooner without objection.
“On October 20, 2009, an Order was entered setting the case for January 26, 2010. On January 22, 2010 the Alabama State Bar received a letter from Mr. Cooner dated January 14, 2010, in which he states in part that he ... “will not be in a position to attend a scheduled meeting in Montgomery on January 26, 2010,’ citing a conflict with immigration hearings in Atlanta set for the same day. Attached to his report was a ‘Request for Applicant to Appear for Initial Interview’ dated December 16, 2009. No explanation was provided why Mr. Cooner waited almost one month to draft his request for a continuance or why it took eight days for the Bar to receive the same.
“The Bar filed an opposition to the request on January 25, 2010, and by Order dated the same day Mr. Cooner’s request for a continuance was denied. ...
“II.
“THE HEARING
“This case involves violations of various Rules of the Ala. R. Prof. Cond., in connection with Mr. Cooner’s dealings with his uncle, William B. Riley, most notably his preparation of an Irrevocable Trust in which Mr. Cooner was appointed as Trustee, his acts as Trustee and the conveyance of certain real property.
“The Panel heard testimony by telephone from Mildred C. Battles. Ms. Battles lives in Evans, Georgia, is ninety (90) years old and was unable to attend due to some physical difficulties. William B. Riley (hereinafter referred to as Mr. Riley) was her sister’s husband. Mr. Cooner is her nephew, as he is the son of her brother.
“She knew that Alan Furr was Mr. Riley’s lawyer. Ms. Battles was hot aware of Mr. Cooner visiting Mr. Riley or his wife prior to her death but after-wards he ‘came around.’
“After Mr. Riley’s wife died, Mr. Cooner started taking care of Mr. Riley’s finances and initially Mr. Riley was glad that Mr. Cooner was helping. Ms. Battles knows that Mr. Riley asked Mr. Cooner to provide him information about his property and money. She also knows that Mr. Cooner took Mr. Riley’s house keys and would not let him in his home.
“Ms. Battles also is aware that Mr. Cooner sold Mr. Riley’s house and property but she does not know what he did with the proceeds.
“Eventually, Mr. Riley got so frustrated with Mr. Cooner’s failure to provide him with information that he went to see Alan Furr, another lawyer. Ms. Battles went with Mr. Riley to see Mr. Furr and Mr. Riley specifically requested Mr. Furr to find out what happened to his money. Mr. Riley was very clear that he desired Mr. Furr to be his lawyer.
“Ms. Battles explained that she filed a complaint with the Bar and that unfortunately Mr. Cooner ‘is the biggest liar God ever created.’
“The Panel next heard from Alan Furr, who in 1997 was practicing in the Grayson Valley area of Birmingham. At that time, he prepared Wills for Mr. and Mrs. Riley, explaining they were typical spouse to spouse Wills. When Mrs. Riley died in 1998, Mr. Furr prepared a new Will. In the Will he prepared, Mr. Riley’s estate was left to Sylvia Hancock and his church; however, no bequest was made to Mr. Cooner.
“In October or November of 2001, Mr. Riley, accompanied by Ms. Battles and Linda Gable, met with Mr. Furr. Mr. Furr related Mr. Riley informed him that Mr. Cooner had prepared a Will and Trust and he had been requesting information from Mr. Cooner about his assets, his automobile and his house. He was frustrated as he received no response from Mr. Cooner.
“Mr. Furr identified as Bar Exhibit 1 a document entitled ‘William B. Riley Irrevocable Living Trust’ dated May 11, 2000. In the Trust, Mr. Cooner was listed as a beneficiary of the Trust’s residuary assets. (See V(B)(13)). Under the section of the Trust entitled ‘Trustee’s Powers,’ the following provision was included:
“‘C. Standard of Care. To acquire, invest, reinvest, exchange, retain, sell, and manage Estate and Trust assets, exercising the judgment and “fiduciary” care, under the circumstances then prevailing, that persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not in regard to speculation but in regard to the permanent disposition of their funds, considering the probable income as well as the probable safety of their capital ... ’ (See Paragraph VI(C)).
“The Trust also included a provision entitled ‘Management of Trust Assets’ which compelled the Trustee to manage and distribute the assets for the benefits of [Mr. Riley’s] health, maintenance and welfare. (See Paragraph III).
“Finally, Mr. Riley is designated in the Trust as both the ‘Grantor’ or ‘Beneficiary’ and the Trust contains a provision requiring the Trustee to provide an accounting on at least an annual basis. (See Paragraph VII(D)).
“Mr. Furr identified a warranty deed dated May 19, 2000, wherein Mr. Riley conveyed a parcel of real estate to the Trust. (See Bar Exhibit 2). Mr. Furr also identified a Bill of Sale dated May 19, 2000, wherein Mr. Riley conveyed his automobile to the trust. (See Bar Exhibit 3).
“As a result of their meeting, Mr. Furr advised Mr. Riley to send a written request to Mr. Cooner for an accounting, which was done by letter dated November 13, 2001. (See Bar Exhibit 4). According to Mr. Furr, Mr. Cooner never responded.
“Mr. Furr conducted a title search and discovered the following:
“(a) A Warranty Deed conveying real estate to Mr. Riley dated June 18, 2001 (See Bar Exhibit 5).
“(b) A mortgage of the same date between Mr. Riley and Mortgage Edge Corporation. (See Bar Exhibit 6).
“(c) A Special Power of Attorney dated April 25, 2001, wherein Mr. Riley allegedly gives authority to Mr. Cooner to purchase the above referenced real estate. (See Bar Exhibit 7).
“(d) A Warranty Deed from Mr. Riley to Mr. Cooner conveying the same real estate dated July 22, 2001. (See Bar Exhibit 22). (Hereinafter ‘Woodberry Lane residence’).
“Mr. Furr met with Mr. Riley again in December 2001. Mr. Riley was not aware of the conveyances described above and did not recall signing the Power of Attorney. Mr. Furr identified as Bar Exhibit 8 a handwriting sample he submitted to Ferrell Shiver, who he identified as a handwriting expert, who orally told him that the Power of Attorney was not signed by Mr. Riley.
“Mr. Furr explained that while Mr. Riley was residing at an assisted living facility, he was aware of his surroundings, asked specific questions, was conversant and, in his opinion, competent.
“Mr. Riley engaged Mr. Furr to represent him (See Bar Exhibit 9) and, as a result, Mr. Furr sent a letter to Mr. Cooner dated December 17, 2001, demanding an accounting of the Trust and copies of all documents pertaining to the real estate transaction described above. (See Bar Exhibit 10). Receiving no response, Mr. Furr filed suit against Mr. Cooner on behalf of Mr. Riley in the Jefferson County Circuit Court on February 20, 2002. (See Bar Exhibit 11). Additionally, Mr. Riley executed a revocation of Power of Attorney dated February 19, 2002. (See Bar Exhibit 12). Thereafter, Mr. Cooner, on behalf of himself and Mr. Riley, filed suit against Mr. Furr and his law firm, that lawsuit being filed in the Jefferson County Circuit Court on March 13, 2002. Because of the obvious dilemma, i.e., Mr. Furr representing Mr. Riley, yet Mr. Riley filing suit against him, Mr. Furr contacted the Alabama State Bar. Mr. Furr asked whether he could even speak to Mr. Riley. Mr. Furr was told that he could contact Mr. Riley because his representation had not been terminated. Mr. Furr received information from Mr. Riley’s niece, Linda Gable, through his assistant, that Mr. Riley wanted him to continue to be his lawyer and that he had not authorized the lawsuit filed by Mr. Cooner.
“Mr. Cooner finally provided what he called an accounting in connection with the litigation wherein he was the defendant. (See Bar Exhibit 19). According to Mr. Furr, he did not consider the submission a true accounting because there was very little in the way of backup documents or data to support the entries. It appeared to Mr. Furr that based on the accounting, there was Thirty-Eight Thousand Thirty-Two Dollars and 09/100 ($38,032.09) not accounted for.
“The litigation against Mr. Cooner was eventually settled. The settlement revealed that the Woodberry Lane residence was purchased for One Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($135,000.00) and a mortgage in the amount of One Hundred Eight Thousand and 00/1000 Dollars ($108,000.00) was provided as collateral. The amount of Twenty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-One and 73/100 Dollars ($29,991.73) was paid from Mr. Riley’s trust as a down payment. According to Mr. Furr, those funds came from Mr. Riley’s own security account. (See Bar Exhibit 24, cashier’s check for the amount stated and Bar Exhibit 23, the closing statement).
“The Settlement Agreement provided, among other things, that Mr. Cooner make payment to the Trust in the amount of Ten Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($10,000.00), that he be removed as Trustee, that he be removed from any Certificates of Deposit, that he furnish the successor Trustee, Ms. Gable, all documents in connection with the Trust, that he satisfy the existing mortgage on the Woodberry Lane residence, that he convey that property to Ms. Gable as successor Trustee, that he surrender the automobile and that he submit an itemization of the personal property of Mr. Riley, which was contained at his residence, which was presently stored in the basement of Mr. Cooner’s residence. (See Bar Exhibit 14).
“Mr. Furr also informed the Panel that Mr. Cooner filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy (See Bar Exhibit 25) on January 5, 2000, which was near the time of the Woodberry Lane [residence] transaction. He also explained that Mr. Cooner tried to set aside the Settlement Agreement; however, those efforts were rejected by Judge Ed Ramsey. (See Bar Exhibit 15).
“Finally, Mr. Furr testified that the lawsuit brought against him and his law firm was settled on payment of costs.
“Leslie Barineau was appointed Guardian ad Litem in March 2003, as by that time Mr. Riley was no longer competent. Her charge was to protect his interests and determine if there was any misappropriation from the Trust. Ms. Barineau explained she had a difficult time obtaining an accounting or information from Mr. Cooner and a difficult time receiving any documentation such as receipts, bills, etc., to support the alleged expenditures from the Trust.
“She identified the previously discussed accounting but stated it was not complete. . She testified there were some questionable transactions — for example, expenditures for allegedly extensive damage to Mr. Riley’s home, which was vacant, without providing any backup documentation. She also questioned why the home was never rented. She questioned expenditures for gasoline for someone who was residing in an assisted living facility or for car maintenance. She questioned disbursements to Ms. Hancock, who never had the account which was- listed on the accounting. She questioned expenditures for Direct TV because Mr. Riley did not have this service at the assisted living facility and also questioned many cash transactions. When she requested explanations by Mr. Cooner for these questionable transactions, he refused to provide an explanation or documentation.
“Obviously, the Woodberry Lane [residence] transaction bypassed the Trust but trust funds were used to purchase the residence and the accounting does not show the repayment of Twenty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-One and 73/100 Dollars ($29,991.73) by Mr. Cooner to the Trust.
“It also appeared to Ms. Barineau that Mr. Cooner was using trust funds to pay for the defense of the case brought by Mr. Riley.
“Pursuant to questioning by Mr. Davis, Ms. Barineau agreed there were questionable transactions involving deposits and withdrawals. For example, there were instances where a specific amount of money was deposited into the Trust and on the same day there would be withdrawals with no explanation of who withdrew the funds or what they were to be used for. (See e.g. page 40 and 46 of Bar Exhibit 19).
“The Panel considered a provision in the Settlement Agreement wherein it was stated it appeared ány breach of the Trust was unintentional, and, due in part, to poor record keeping and it did not appear the Trustee misappropriated any funds with the intent to defraud. It was explained by Mr. Furr this provision was insisted upon by Mr. Cooner’s attorney in order to settle the case and he felt it was in the best interest of Mr. Riley, as did Ms. Barineau, for the matter to be settled. That said, it is the Panel’s opinion that these statements do not prevent the Panel from fully considering the evidence presented nor [do they] provide any preclusive effect.
“The Panel also compared closely the handwriting which was verified to be that of Mr. Riley (See Bar Exhibits 8 and 12) with the Special Power of Attorney (See Exhibit 7) and concludes unanimously that the latter signature is not that of Mr. Riley.
“Finally, the Panel fully reviewed and considered the motions to dismiss filed by Mr. Cooner along with the many exhibits attached.
“HI.
“DECISION
“Upon consideration, evaluation and analysis of the testimony and exhibits, the Panel unanimously believes there is clear and convincing evidence to establish Mr. Cooner’s guilt of violating Rule 1.7(b) [‘[a] lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests’], 1.8(c) [‘[a] lawyer shall not prepare an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer as parent, child, sibling, or spouse any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, except where the client is related to the donee’], 8.4(c) [‘[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation’], and 8.4(g) [‘[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law'] of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, which are Charges IV [charging Mr. Cooner with representing Mr. Riley when the representation of Mr. Riley was materially limited by Mr. Cooner’s own interests in violation of Rule 1.7(b)], V [charging Mr. Cooner with preparing an instrument giving himself a substantial gift from Mr. Riley in violation of Rule 1.8(c) ], IX [charging Mr. Cooner with violating or attempting to violate the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, and/or knowingly assisting or inducing another to do so and/or did so through the acts of another in violation of Rule 8.4(a) ], [] X [charging Mr. Cooner with engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) ], and XI [charging Mr. Cooner with engaging in conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law in violation of Rule 8.4(g)] of the Bar’s complaint. The Panel further finds that Mr. Cooner is not guilty of violating Rule 1.2(a), 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.15(a), l:15(b) and 1.16(d) of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, which are Charges I, II, III, VI, VII, and VIII of the Bar’s complaint.
“In order to adjudge the appropriate disciplinary sanction, the Panel has considered those factors constituting aggravation as set out in the standards, to include standards 4.11, 4.31 and 5.11(b), and in addition makes the following findings:
“A. Prior disciplinary offenses— None.
“B. Dishonest or selfish motive— Yes.
“C. A pattern of misconduct — Yes, as evidenced by the Woodberry Lane [residence] transaction and Trust expenditures.
“D. Multiple offenses — See above.
“E. Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings by intentionally failing to comply with Rules or Orders of the-disciplinary agency; — Yes.
“F. Submission of false evidence, false statements or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process— Yes.
“G. Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct — Yes.
“H. Vulnerability of victim — Yes.
“I. Substantial experience in the practice of law — No.
“J. Indifference to making restitution — Yes.
“IV.
“[MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ]
“The Panel has considered the following mitigating circumstances:
“A. Absence of prior disciplinary record — Yes.
“B. Absence of dishonest or selfish motive — No.
“C. Personal or emotional problems — No.
“D. Timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct — No.
“E. Full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude towards proceedings — No.
“F. Inexperience in the practice of law — Yes.
“G. Character or reputation — No evidence presented.
“H. Physical or mental disability or impairment — Unknown.
“I. Delay in disciplinary proceedings — Yes.
“J. Interim rehabilitation — No.
“K. Imposition of other penalties or discipline — No.
“M. Remoteness of prior offenses— Not applicable.
‘V.
“CONCLUSION
“The Panel has carefully considered what the appropriate punishment should be. While certainly not unmindful of the severity of disbarment, the Panel unanimously came to the conclusion that the totality of Mr. Cooner’s conduct merits disbarment. Safeguarding and accounting for funds belonging to third parties is an integral and essential duty of a lawyer and responsibility of the legal profession. Self-dealing or utilizing funds not belonging to a lawyer for selfish purposes and taking advantage of an elderly and vulnerable person erodes and eviscerates the public’s confidence in and the honor and integrity of the legal profession, thereby warranting the most severe consequence. When that foundational trust is violated for the selfish purposes of a lawyer, confidence in the integrity and honor of the legal profession demands the most severe consequence.
“Based upon all of the foregoing, it is the judgment of the Disciplinary Board, Panel III, as follows:
“1. Mr. Cooner is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Alabama.
“In addition, Mr. Cooner shall be assessed for all costs, including, but not necessarily limited to, cost of publication of public notices incidental to these proceedings and this hearing; and, an administrative fee in the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750.00) is assessed against Mr. Cooner in accordance with Rule 38(d)(9) of the Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
“All Panel members concur.

Cooner moved for a new trial or, in the alternative, to open the judgment. After requiring the State Bar to, respond, the Board summarily denied Cooner’s motion. Cooner appeals.

Standard of Review
“The standard of review applicable to an appeal from an order of the Disciplinary Board is ‘that the order will be affirmed unless it is not supported by clear and convincing evidence or misapplies the law to the facts.’ Noojin v. Alabama State Bar, 577 So.2d 420, 423 (Ala.1990), citing Hunt v. Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar, 381 So.2d 52 (Ala.1980).”

Davis v. Alabama State Bar, 676 So.2d 306, 308 (Ala.1996).

Discussion

Before this Court can address the substantive issues raised on appeal, we must first determine whether . Cooner’s appeal was timely.

On February 17, 2010, the Board filed with the disciplinary clerk of the Alabama State Bar its order disbarring Cooner, in accordance with Rule 4.2(b)(6)(B), Ala. R. Disc. P. On March 3, 2010, 14 days after the Board’s order was filed, Cooner filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to open the judgment, pursuant to Rule 3(b), Ala. R. Disc. P., and Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P. On March 5, 2010, the Board ordered the State Bar to file a response. On March 17, 2010,.the State Bar responded, arguing that the filing of a motion for a new trial was not proper in a lawyer-disciplinary proceeding. The State Bar also argued the merits of the motion. On March 30, 2010, the Board summarily denied Cooner’s motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to open the judgment. Cooner filed his notice of appeal in this Court on April 8, 2010.

The State Bar contends that Cooner’s appeal should be dismissed because, it says, the appeal was not timely filed. Specifically, the State. Bar argues that the Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure adequately set forth the procedures to be followed in a disciplinary proceeding and because those Rules are silent with regard to a post-disciplinary-prOceeding motion, the filing and consideration of a post-disei-plinary-proceeding motion are not proper. The State Bar maintains that post-disciplinary-proceeding motions have no field of operation in lawyer-disciplinary proceedings; therefore, it argues, Cooner’s filing of his motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to open the judgment did not toll the time for filing his appeal. Cooner contends that his filing of a post-disciplinary-proceeding motion was proper pursuant to Rule 3(b), Ala. R. Disc. P., and Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., and that, therefore, because he filed his notice of appeal within 14 days of the denial of his post-disciplinary-proceeding motion, his notice of appeal was timely filed.

The Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure do not address the filing and consideration of post-disciplinary-proceeding motions. However, Rule 3(b), Ala. R. Disc. P., provides: “Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure shall apply.” As the State Bar maintains, Rule 12, Ala. R. Disc. P., sets forth in detail the procedures to be followed in disciplinary proceedings. Rule 12 does not provide for the filing of a post-disciplinary-proceeding motion. Consequently, the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable in this regard. Peseau v. Civil Serv. Bd. of Tuscaloosa County, 401 So.2d 79 (Ala.Civ.App.1981), and In re Anonymous, 720 So.2d 497, 502 (Ala.1998) (Hooper, C.J., and Maddox, See, and Lyons, JJ., concurring specially in part and dissenting in part)(“Although the general rule is that, in proceedings based -upon a statutory remedy,, the statute governs matters of procedure, an exception applies when the statute is silent, as the Parental Consent Statute is. -In that event the Rules of Civil Procedure fill the void, pursuant to Rule 81(a)(32), [Ala. R. Civ. P.].”).

In accordance to Rule 3(b), Ala. R. Disc. P., the application of Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., in disciplinary proceedings in which a post-disciplinary-proceeding motion is filed and considered is proper. Because Cooner filed his notice of appeal within 14 days of the denial of his post-disciplinary-proceeding motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to open the judgment, his appeal was timely. We now consider the merits of Cooner’s appeal.

Cooner contends that the Board’s order of disbarment does not contain specific findings of fact with regard to each allegation or each conclusion of misconduct and, therefore, that the order does not comply with Rule 4.2, Ala. R. Disc. P., and does not permit meaningful appellate review. Specifically, Cooner contends that the Board’s conclusion that he violated Rules 1.7(b), 8.4(a), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., is not supported by any specific findings of fact. He further maintains that the Board’s order is inconsistent because the Board found him not guilty of violating any provision of Rule 1.15, Ala. R. Prof. Cond., which addresses the obligations of a lawyer to safeguard the property of a client or a third party, and yet concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction because “[sjafeguarding and accounting for funds belonging to third parties is an integral and essential duty of a lawyer.” Cooner argues that because the Board’s order indicates that its decision to disbar him was based on the “totality of the circumstances,” such inconsistencies in the order prevents this Court from determining if the judgment entered by the Board was supported by the facts.

The State Bar disagrees, maintaining that the Board’s order substantially complies with Rule 4.2(b)(6)(C), Ala. R. Disc. P., and allows meaningful appellate review. In its brief to this Court, the State Bar states:

“The Bar acknowledges that Section II of the order is not entitled ‘findings of fact,’ and that the paragraphs are not preceded by the statement, ‘The Disciplinary Board finds as follows.’ ”

The State Bar, however, maintains that the recitation of the evidence indicates the evidence upon which the Board relied in reaching its conclusion. The State Bar further maintains that the section of the order entitled “Decision” provides the Board’s legal conclusions and findings of guilt or no guilt with regard to each of the charges.

Rule 4.2(b)(6), Ala. R. Disc. P., provides: “The Disciplinary Hearing Officer shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law as directed by the Disciplinary Board, which shall be captioned ‘Report and Order.’ The decision of the Disciplinary Board may be announced immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings....
“(C) The Report and Order shall contain:
“(i) A finding of fact and conclusion of law as to each allegation of misconduct, which, upon acceptance by the Disciplinary Board, shall enjoy the same presumption of correctness as the judgment of a trier of fact in a nonjury civil proceeding in which , evidence has been presented ore tenus;
“(ii) A finding as to whether the respondent attorney is guilty or not guilty of the misconduct charged; [and]
“(ni) A finding as to the discipline to be imposed, with reference, where appropriate, to the Alabama Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline .... ”

(Emphasis added.)

We have reviewed the Board’s order and conclude that the order does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 4.2, Ala. R. Disc. P. A recitation of the evidence does not constitute a finding of fact as to each allegation of misconduct,, and the “Decision” section of the order does not contain conclusions of law as to each allegation of misconduct. Indeed, the Board’s order finds Cooner guilty of Charge IX, which alleges that he violated Rule 8.4(a), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., and yet a violation of Rule 8.4(a), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., is not included in the list of rules the Board concluded Cooner had violated. Because of the inadequacy of the Board’s order, we cannot conduct a meaningful review to determine whether the Board’s conclusion that Cooner violated Rules 1.7(b), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(g), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, as to those violations, we reverse the Board’s order of disbarment and remand this cause with directions that the Board vacate its February 17, 2010, order of disbarment and enter a new order that complies with Rule 4.2, Ala. R. Disc. P. Cf. Alabama State Bar v. R.G.P., 988 So.2d 1005 (Ala.2008) (vacating an order of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals because the order did not provide the basis for reversing a panel’s disciplinary decision).

Before this Court, Cooner conceded that the Board’s order with regard to the findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the Board’s determination that he violated Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., is sufficient for appellate review. Although we make no determination as to the adequacy of the factual findings of the order with regard to Cooner’s violation of Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., in light of Coon-er’s concession that the order contains sufficient findings of fact in this regard, we consider Cooner’s argument.

Cooner contends that, the Board erred in concluding that in preparing a trust instrument for his uncle, William B. Riley, he violated Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond. It is undisputed that Cooner was related to Riley by marriage, not by blood; that Cooner drafted an irrevocable trust for Riley; and that Cooner was named as one of the 13 beneficiaries of Riley’s residual estate in the trust instrument. Cooner maintains that the preparation of this trust by which he would or could receive a gift at Riley’s death does not violate Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., because, he says, he was related to Riley. Cooner states that he presents a question of law this Court has not previously addressed: whether an uncle-nephew relationship established by marriage is encompassed within the term “related” as that term is used in Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond.

The State Bar maintains that the Board did not err in finding Cooner guilty of violating Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., because, it says, Cooner is not “related” to Riley. The State Bar argues that the terms “relative” or “related” as used in Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., “refer to those only who are connected by blood.” Consequently, the State Bar reasons, because Cooner was related to Riley only by marriage, Cooner’s preparation of the trust instrument for Riley,' which provided that Cooner, at a minimum, would receive a l/13th share of the residuary of Riley’s estate, violated Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond.

Cooner and the State Bar agree that because this issue does not involve a question of fact, but instead a question of law, this Court’s review is de novo. Tipler v. Alabama State Bar, 866 So.2d 1126, 1137 (Ala.2003).

Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., provides:

“A lawyer shall not prepare an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer as parent, child, sibling, or spouse any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, except where the client is related to the donee.”

A “relative” is “[a] person connected with another by blood or affinity; a person who is kin with another.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1315 (8th ed.2004). Thus, a person is “related” to another person, when the person is connected with another person by blood or affinity. In Kirby v. State, 89 Ala. 63, 69, 8 So. 110, 111 (1889), this Court defined “affinity” as “the tie which arises from marriage betwixt the husband and blood relatives of the wife, and between the wife and the blood relatives of the husband.” Therefore, we conclude that “related” as that term is used in Rule 1.8(c), Ala, R. Prof. Cond., includes relationships by blood and by marriage and that an affinity relationship between an uncle and his nephew is within the meaning of the term “related.” .

Moreover, we decline to hold, as the State Bar urges us to do, that, for purposes of Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., an affinity relationship arising from the marriage between a husband and blood relatives of the wife terminates with the death of the wife: In support of its contention, the State Bar cites Hays v. Hays, 946 So.2d 867 (Ala.Civ.App.2006). In Hays, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals examined the familial relationship of a stepparent and a stepchild. The stepmother petitioned the probate court to adopt the adult biological daughter of her late husband. The daughter consented to the adoption; her biological mother objected. Section 26-10A-6(2)c., Ala.Code 1975, permits adult adoptions when the adult child “consents in writing to be adopted and is related in any degree of kinship, as defined by the intestacy laws of Alabama, or is a stepchild by marriage.” (Emphasis added.) The Court of Civil Appeals “narrowly deeide[d] this case by examining the legal relationship of a stepparent and a stepchild and the plain-language definition of a ‘stepchild by marriage.’ ” 946 So.2d at 869. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the legal relationship between the stepparent and the stepchild is extinguished upon the death of the stepparent’s spouse, i.e., the stepchild’s natural parent, because a stepparent’s affinity relationship with a stepchild terminates upon the death of the natural parent. Additionally, the Court of Civil Appeals concluded that an examination of the plain meaning of the phrase “a stepchild by marriage” established that “ ‘a stepchild by marriage’ connotes a relationship that is established through the marriage or during the course of the marriage. When the marriage is no longer in existence, the stepparent-stepchild relationship is likewise extinguished.” 946 So.2d at 870. The Court of Civil Appeals’ holding is confined to the interpretation of,a statute and is limited to the meaning of the phrase “a stepchild by marriage.” Consequently, we do not find the decision in Hays applicable to this Court’s interpretation of the term “related” as that term is used in Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond.

The undisputed evidence indicates that Cooner was related to Riley by marriage; therefore, Cooner’s preparation of the trust instrument did not violate Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond. The. Board’s decision that Cooner violated Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., is reversed.

Lastly, Cooner maintains that the Board erred in denying his motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to open the judgment. The Board summarily denied Coon-er’s motion; therefore, we cannot determine whether the Board concluded that the filing of such a motion following a disciplinary proceeding was improper or that Cooner was not entitled to relief on the merits. Because it is unclear whether the Board denied Cooner’s motion on the merits or because it concluded that the filing of such a motion was improper and because we are reversing the Board’s order of disbarment, we decline to address Cooner’s arguments that the Board’s denial of his motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to open the judgment was error. When the Board issues its new order, Cooner will have an opportunity to challenge the judgment, pursuant to Rule 3(b), Ala. R. Disc. P., and Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P.; therefore, consideration of this issue at this time is not proper.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Board is reversed, and this cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

COBB, C.J., and LYONS, WOODALL, SMITH, BOLIN, PARKER, MURDOCK, and SHAW, JJ., concur.

      . Although the order indicates that Cooner was found guilty of Charge IX of the State Bar’s complaint, the Board's order does- not make a specific finding, when listing the rules that he violated, that he violated Rule 8.4(a), Ala. R. Prof. Cond.

      “2 Both Mr. Furr and Leslie Bari-neau, who was appointed Guardian ad Litem, testified that Mr. Cooner did not appear at the hearing set on his motion, giving the excuse that he had to attend an immigration hearing in Atlanta, obviously the same excuse he gave for not attending this hearing.”

      . Cooner concedes that the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Board’s order .with regard to the Board’s determination that he was guilty of violating Rule 1.8(c), Ala. R. Prof. Cond., are sufficient for appellate review. See discussion infra.