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
36Fall2014TheMississippiLawyerficientfundstocovertheamountowedtoALFfromthedatehesettledthecasetothedateheultimatelypaidALFsclaim.BecauseMr.ParsonsfailedtorespondtotheBarcomplaintfiledbyALFtheBarpropoundeddiscoveryrequeststoMr.ParsonstoproducehislawyertrustaccountrecordsandtoproduceevidenceofhisadvisingALFofthesettlementpro-ceeds.HoweverMr.ParsonsfailedtoansweranyofthediscoverypropoundedbytheBar.TheBarfiledaMotiontoCompelandnoticeditforhearing.Mr.Parsonsattend-edthehearingwithcounsel.TheComplaintTribunalgrantedtheBarsMotionandorderedMr.Parsonstorespondtodiscoverywithinfifteendays.Mr.ParsonsfailedtoanswerthediscoverynotwithstandingtheOrdercompellinghimtodoso.TheBarsubsequentlyfiledaMotionforDefaultJudgmentforhisfailuretoanswerthediscovery.Mr.Parsonsfailedtofileanypleadinginopposition.TheComplaintTribunalenteredaDefaultJudgmentgrantingtheBarsMotionforDefaultforallofthereliefrequestedintheFormalComplaintincludinganorderofdisbar-ment.StanleyL.TaylorofBiloxiMississippiAComplaintTribunalSuspendedMr.Taylorforaperiodofsix6monthsinCauseNo.2013-B-727forviolatingRules1.21.31.48.1and8.4MRPC.OnoraboutApril172012oneofMr.TaylorsclientsfiledaninformalBarcomplaintallegingthatMr.Taylorfailedtohandleapersonalinjurymatterandwouldnotcommunicatewithheraboutthestatusofthecase.Mr.TaylorfailedtorespondtotheBarcomplaintinspiteofthreedemandstodoso.Mr.Taylorknow-inglyfailedorrefusedtorespondtotheBarcomplaintgiventhefactherequestedadditionaltimetorespondbutneveractu-allyfiledaresponse.InadditionMr.Taylorfailedtoappearforadulynoticedinvestigatoryhearing.PriortothefilingoftheFormalComplaintMr.Taylorhadreceivedapub-licreprimandanda180daysuspensionforsimilarmisconduct.Atthetimeoffil-ingtheFormalComplaintinthiscaseMr.Taylorwasalsosuspendedfornon-pay-mentofdues.Mr.TaylorfailedorrefusedtofileanAnswertotheFormalComplaintandtheBarsubsequentlyobtainedadefaultjudg-mentsuspendingMr.TaylorforaperiodofsixmonthsforviolatingRules1.21.31.48.1and8.4.PrivateReprimandsAComplaintTribunalimposedaPrivateReprimandonanattorneyforviolatingRules1.21.31.4and1.16MRPC.TheBarreceivedinformationfromtheUnitedStatesBankruptcyTrusteesofficethatanattorneyhadfailedtocommunicatewithhisclientsortheBankruptcyCourtwithrespecttotwooutstandingbankrupt-cycases.ThefirstcaseinvolvedajointChapter7case.Shortlyafterfilingthecasetheattorneymovedtowithdrawfromtherep-resentationinwhichhestatedhewasclos-inghislawofficeforpersonalreasons.TheclientswhohadalreadypaidtheattorneywereforcedtohireanotherlawyertofinishtheBankruptcycase.ThenewlawyerconvertedthecasefromChapter7toChapter13becausethedebtorswerenoteligibleforaChapter7inthefirstinstance.TheBankruptcyCourtsubsequentlyrequiredtheattorneytorefundapproxi-mately1500totheclientsbecausetheCourtfoundthefeeschargedwereexces-sive.WhentheattorneyfailedtorefundthefeestheCourtcitedhimforcontempt.ThesecondcaseinvolvedaChapter13clientwhohadfiledbankruptcyapproxi-matelythreeyearsearlier.In2012theclientsustainedtornadodamagetoherhomeandwaseligibleforahardshipdis-charge.Sheattemptedtocontacttheattor-neyonnumerousoccasionswithoutsuc-cess.AlawyerinChapter13hascontinu-ingdutiestotheclientuntiltheclientisultimatelydischargedinbankruptcy.Thedebtorwasforcedtohireanotherattorneyandreceivedahardshipdischarge.Theattorneyessentiallyadmittedthecom-plaintandviolationsofRules1.21.31.4and1.16MRPC.Inmitigationtheattor-neystatedhislawpracticehadbeenclosedlargelyduetofinancialreasons.AComplaintTribunalimposedaPrivateReprimandonanattorneyforviolatingRule1.7MRPC.Rule1.7boftheMississippiRulesofProfessionalConductMRPCprohibitsalawyerfromrepresentingaclientiftherepresentationmaybemateriallylimitedbythelawyersowninterestsunlessthelawyerbelievestherepresentationwillnotbeadverselyaffectedandtheclientcon-sentsafterbeinggivenknowingandinformedconsent.TheMRPCalsoappliestosituationswherealawyerisact-inginacapacityotherthanatraditionalattorney-clientrelationship.Inthiscasetheattorneysresponsibilitiesasafiduci-arypreventedhimfromactinginhisownself-interestandcontrarytotheinterestsofhisfamilymembers.UnauthorizedPracticeofLawRobertJ.TubwellTheChanceryCourtofDesotoCountyenjoinedMr.Tubwellanon-lawyerfromengagingintheunauthorizedpracticeoflawandorderedhimtoamendthecorpo-ratecharterforhiscloselyheldcorpora-tionsothatitnolongerstateditwasapro-fessionalassociation.OverthepastseveralyearstheBarhasreceivedoveradozencomplaintsallegingMr.Tubwellhasbeenengagedintheunau-thorizedpracticeoflaw.Mr.TubwellisthesoleshareholderofPPSLegalResearchClinicPA.Mr.Tubwelliswellknownasawrit-writerintheprisoncom-munity.Mr.Tubwellisaconvictedfelonwholearnedhiscraftwhileincarcerated.TheBarallegedMr.Tubwellregularlypre-paredpost-convictioncollateralreliefpeti-tionsandotherpleadingsforinmatesatvariouscorrectionalfacilitiesthroughoutthestatethatwerethenpurportedlyfiledasprosepleadingsbytheinmates.1TheBaralsoallegedthatMr.TubwellshouldhavetoamendthePPScorporatechartertoeliminateanyreferencetoprofessionalassociationwhennoofficerdirectororshareholderofthecompanywasinfactaprofessionalofanykind.FinalDisciplinaryActionsContinuedonnextpage