Page 34 - 93790_Fall 2024 The Mississippi Lawyer_HiRes

FINAL DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
Disbarments
Brian Lee Starling of Tupelo,
Mississippi: A Complaint Tribunal
appointed by the Supreme Court of
Mississippi Disbarred Mr. Starling in
Cause No. 2024-B-00205 for multiple
violations of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(b), portion of the proceeds from her per-
3.5(b) and 8.4(d), MRPC. Mr. Starling was
the subject of a properly noticed six (6)
count Formal Complaint wherein he did
not answer or participate resulting in
the entry of Default Judgment by the
Complaint Tribunal.
Rule 1.2(a), MRPC, provides that a
lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions
concerning the objectives of represen-
tation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and
(e), and shall consult with the client as
to the means by which they are to be
pursued. Rule 1.3, MRPC, provides that
a lawyer shall act with reasonable dili-
gence and promptness in representing
the client. Rule 1.4(a), MRPC, provides
that a lawyer shall keep a client rea-
sonably informed about the status of a
matter and promptly comply with rea-
sonable requests for information. Rule
3.5(c), MRPC, provides that a lawyer
shall not engage in conduct intended
to disrupt a tribunal. Rule 8.1(b), MRPC,
prohibits an attorney from knowingly
failing to respond to a lawful demand for
information from a disciplinary authority.
Rule 8.4(d), MRPC, provides that it is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to
the administration of justice.
Suspensions
Guy N. Rogers, Jr. of Jackson,
Mississippi: The Supreme Court of
Mississippi Suspended Mr. Rogers in
Cause No. 2024-BD-00215 based upon
his guilty plea to the commission of
a felony (possession of contraband in
jail facility) in accordance with Rule
6(a) of the Rules of Discipline for the
Mississippi State Bar (MRD). Mr. Rogers
must complete his thirty-six (36) month
probationary period and meet other
conditions imposed by the underlying
criminal court before potentially being
eligible to apply for reinstatement as set
forth in Rule 13, MRD.
Marquis Deshun Rose of Jackson,
Mississippi: A Complaint Tribunal
appointed by the Supreme Court of
Mississippi imposed a Six (6) Month
Suspension in Cause No. 2023-B-0826
against Mr. Rose for violations of Rules
34 FALL 2024
1.15(a), 1.15(b), 8.1, 8.4(a) and 8.4(d), MRPC. ment of material fact in connection with
A client hired Mr. Rose to represent
her in connection with a 2017 car acci-
dent. On December 20, 2018, the client
entered into a Purchase Agreement
with a litigation finance company in
exchange for a contingent right to a
sonal injury case. On September 12,
2019, the client entered into a second
Purchase Agreement with substantially
similar terms. The Purchase Agreements
included Irrevocable Letters of Direction
addressed to Rose which instructed
the attorney to satisfy the lien before
distributing any settlement proceeds to
the client. The client settled her claim
on September 19, 2019. Thereafter, Rose
failed (or refused) to inform the litigation
finance company of the settlement or
disburse funds nor did Rose deposit
the client’s settlement proceeds into his
lawyer trust account.
In a separate matter, a client hired
Rose in connection with a 2017 slip-and-
fall at a restaurant. On September 5,
2019, the client entered into a Purchase
Agreement by which the litigation
finance company paid the client funds
in exchange for a contingent right to a
portion of the proceeds from her per-
sonal injury case.
On November 3, 2020, the cli-
ent settled her claim. Thereafter, Rose
failed (or refused) to inform the liti-
gation finance company of the settle-
ment or disburse funds nor did Rose
deposit the client’s settlement proceeds
into his lawyer trust account. In his
initial response to the informal [Bar]
complaint, Rose denied that he signed
the Attorney Acknowledgments and
claimed the existing signatures were
not endorsed by him. The litigation
finance company then provided ver-
ification from the DocuSign software
showing that Rose had, in fact, signed
the Attorney Acknowledgements.
Rule 1.15(a) of the Mississippi Rules
of Professional Conduct which provides
in part that a lawyer shall hold clients’
and third persons’ property separate
from the lawyer’s own property. Rule
1.15(b) provides in relevant part that a
lawyer, upon receiving funds or other
property in which a third person has
an interest, shall (1) promptly notify the
third person and (2) promptly deliver to
the third person the funds to which he is
entitled. Rule 8.1 provides that a lawyer
shall not knowingly make a false state-
a disciplinary matter.
Public Reprimands
Kevin D. Thompson of Houma,
Louisiana: The Committee on
Professional Responsibility imposed
a Public Reprimand in docket num-
ber 23-361-4 against Attorney Kevin D.
Thompson based upon a report from a
circuit court judge in accordance with
Canon 3d(2) of the Mississippi Code
of Judicial Conduct alleging that Mr.
Thompson had filed a lawsuit without
properly being admitted in Mississippi
as either a member of the Bar or by
pro hac vice admission. Mr. Thompson
responded to the informal bar com-
plaint stating that he had previously
represented the client in other matters
and had prepared a lawsuit on her
behalf and that they had agreed she
would proceed pro se on the case.
Mr. Thompson admitted that he later
learned that his name had appeared
on the pleadings and contacted the
court to have it removed. Mr. Thompson
acknowledged that he was paid $500
for the preparation of the lawsuit.
Rule 5.5, MRPC, states that a lawyer
shall not practice law in a jurisdiction
where doing so violates the regulation
of the legal profession in that jurisdic-
tion; or assist a person who is not a
member the bar in the performance of
activity that constitutes the unautho-
rized practice of law.
Private Reprimands
The Committee on Professional
Responsibility imposed a Private
Reprimand against an attorney in docket
number 23-323-4 for violation of Rule
8.4(d), MRPC, based upon information
received from a chancery court judge.
In 2017, the clients, husband and
wife and foster parents to two (2) minor
children, retained the attorney in con-
nection with the couples’ adoption of
the children. The attorney is admitted
to the Mississippi Bar and is also a
notary public. On August 15, 2017, the
attorney, on behalf of her clients, filed
a Complaint for Adoption (“Adoption
Complaint”). The Adoption Complaint
included several attachments includ-
ing: 1) notarized forms signed by vari-
ous representatives of the Mississippi
Department of Child Protection Services
(“MDCPS”) consenting to the adoption;
and 2) a report from MDCPS show-