Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
DisbarmentsSuspensionsandIrrevocableResignationsJ.AllenDerivauxJr.ofVicksburgMississippiMr.DerivauxsPetitionforReinstatementwasdeniedforfailuretocomplywithRule12.7oftheRulesofDisciplinefortheMississippiStateBarMRDandrelevantcaselawrelatedtoreinstatement.JoeDonaldPegramofOxfordMississippiTheSupremeCourtofMississippiimposedaPublicReprimandforviolationsofRules1.1and1.16doftheMississippiRulesofProfessionalConductMRPC.Mr.Pegramoriginallyagreedtoassistafelonycriminaldefendantinobtainingcounselaftertheclienthadbeenarrestedforfelonypossessionofacontrolledsub-stance.Mr.Pegramadvisedtheclientthroughamutualfriendthathedidnothandlecriminalcases.Aspartofhisassis-tancetotheclienthedeterminedthatthecostofrepresentationwouldbe20000.Mr.Pegramsubsequentlyassociatedanexperiencedcriminaldefenselawyer.RatherthanhavingthecriminaldefenselawyerhandlethecaseintotofromthatpointMr.Pegramstayedinthecasetoassistthecriminallawyerinnegotiationswithpoliceandprosecutorstoreduceoreliminatethecharges.Thecriminaldefenselawyersignedacontractwiththeclientforrepresentinghimthroughindict-mentfor10000andadditionalfeespostindictment.Mr.Pegramhadnowrittencontractwiththeclient.Whentheclientwassubsequentlyindictedforthefelonypossessionchargesandadditionalchargesforsaleofcontrolledsubstancesthecriminaldefenselawyerinquiredaboutadditionalfees.Mr.Pegramadvisedthecriminaldefenselawyerthattherenootherfeeswereavailable.Thecriminaldefenselawyerwithdrewfromthecase.FromthattimeforwardMr.Pegramwastheclientssolecounselofrecordinthecase.Mr.Pegramattemptedtonegotiateapleabargainarrangementwiththeprose-cutorwherebytheclientwouldenterapre-trialdiversionprogram.Mr.PegramobtainedcontinuancesinthecaseforaperiodofapproximatelyfouryearsduringwhichMr.Pegramseffortstomeetwiththeprosecutorwereunproductiveandlargelyignored.Onshortnoticetheassistantdistrictattor-neyassignedtocleanupabacklogofcriminalcasesinthedistrictadvisedMr.Pegramheintendedtogototrialonthecase.Mr.Pegramorallymovedtowith-drawfromtherepresentationontheeveoftrialstatingthathewasmovingtowith-drawsothattheclientcanhaveacompe-tentcriminalattorneywhichisnotme.TheCircuitCourtallowedtohimtowith-drawandappointedcounselfortheclient.Thenewlawyerwasabletoobtainapleaagreementfavorabletotheclient.TheBarallegedviolationsofRules1.11.21.31.41.51.151.16and8.4.AtthetrialonthedisciplinarymatterMr.Pegramassertedthathehadearnedhispartoftheattorneysfeebuthadnotrustaccountrecordstosupportthatassertionbecausetheyhadbeendestroyed.TheComplaintTribunalfoundMr.PegramhadviolatedonlyRule1.1Competencyandimposedapublicrepri-mand.TheBarappealed.TheSupremeCourtfoundMr.PegramviolatedbothRule1.1andRule1.16andaffirmedtheimpositionofapublicreprimand.TheCourtfurtherorderedthatthismatterbesubmittedtotheFeeDisputeResolutionCommitteeoftheBartodeterminetheamountoftheunearnedfeewhichMr.Pegramshouldhavereturnedtotheclient.TaddParsonsofWigginsMississippiAComplaintTribunalDisbarredMr.ParsonsinCauseNo.2013-B-1692forviolatingRules1.15a1.15b8.1b8.4aand8.4dMRPC.OnJanuary222013theLienAdministratorforALFUNDPrimeLLCALFfiledaninformalBarcom-plaintagainstMr.Parsons.ALFisalegalfundingcompanybasedinArizona.ThecomplaintallegesALFmadetwoadvancestotaling57000in2009againstanticipatedsettlementproceedsinvolvingaclientofMr.Parsons.ALFmadeMr.Parsonsawareofitslienagainstthesettle-mentproceedsbyaprovidingMr.Parsonswithacopyofitssecurityagree-mentbhavingMr.ParsonssignanacknowledgementofitssecurityinterestintheproceedsandcperfectingitslienthroughUCCfilings.ALFwasthereforeathirdpartybeneficiaryofanysettlementproceedsMr.Parsonsreceivedfortheclient.OnoraboutMay242010Mr.ParsonscontactedALFtogetapayoffonfundsithadadvanced.OnoraboutMay262010Mr.Parsonsnegotiatedasettlementcheckfromoneofthedefendantsintheclientscase.Theremainingdefendantwasgrant-edSummaryJudgmentinMarch2012.Mr.ParsonsfailedtoadviseALFthatheheldsettlementproceedsforALFsbene-fitthathehadsettledthecasewithonedefendantorthattheotherdefendanthadbeengrantedsummaryjudgment.MoreoverMr.ParsonsfailedtopayALFslienuntilaftertheBarfiledtheFormalComplaintinOctober2013.TheBarsentMr.ParsonsatotalofthreedemandstofilearesponsetotheBarcom-plaint.Mr.ParsonsrequestedadditionaltimetofilearesponsedemonstratingknowledgethathewasrequiredtoanswertheallegationsoftheBarcomplaint.LikewiseMr.Parsonsfailedtoappearforaninvestigatoryhearinginthematter.TheCommitteeonProfessionalConductdirectedtheBartofileaFormalComplaint.TheFormalComplaintallegedthatMr.Parsons1failedtomaintaincompleterecordsoffundsheldintrustforaperiodofsevenyearsfollowingtermina-tionoftherepresentationasrequiredbyRule1.15a2failedtokeeptrustaccountfundsseparatefromhisownasrequiredbyRule1.15a3convertedfundsintendedforALFtohisownbenefitinviolationofRule1.15aand4failedtopromptlynotifyathirdpartybenefici-arythatheheldfundsfortheirbenefitpur-suanttoRule1.15b.TheFormalComplaintalsoallegedviolationsofRule8.1bforMr.ParsonsfailuretorespondtotheBarsdemandforinformationRule8.4aforviolatingaRuleofProfessionalConductRule8.4cforengagingindis-honestconductandRule8.4dforengaginginconductdetrimentaltotheadministrationofjustice.Mr.ParsonsansweredtheFormalComplaintbutfailedtospecificallydenythathisLawyerTrustAccountlackedsuf-FinalDisciplinaryActionsTheMississippiLawyerFall201435