Carolyn Ann Williamson entered into a contract to sell her house to Mr. and Mrs. Matthews at a time when her house was threatened with foreclosure. Evidence showed that Williamson was an alcoholic. Having read about the threatened foreclosure in the newspaper, attorney Virgil M. Smith appeared at Williamson’s home to discuss the matter with her. Williamson told Smith that she expected to receive $17,000 from the sale but had actually received $1,700. On the following day, after drinking a pint of 100-proof vodka, Williamson and her son went to Smith’s office, where Smith prepared a lawsuit to have the sale of the house set aside based on Williamson’s lack of capacity due to alcoholism. At that time, Smith loaned Williamson $500 and took back a note and mortgage on her house to secure repayment of this amount and his attorney’s fees. Evidence showed that Smith did not allow Williamson’s son to read the mortgage. The sale to Mr. and Mrs. Matthews was set aside. Subsequently, Smith began foreclosure proceedings on Williamson’s house to recover attorney’s fees and advances. Williamson filed this lawsuit to enjoin the foreclosure. The trial court held that Smith’s mortgage was void and permanently enjoined him from foreclosing on Williamson’s house. Smith appealed. Do you think that attorney Smith acted ethically in this case? Was Williamson’s alcoholism a sufficient mental incapacity to void the mortgage? Smith v. Williamson, 429 So.2d 598, Web 1982 Ala. Civ. App. Lexis 1418 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama)