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
36 Spring 2015 The Mississippi Lawyer Thomas E. Robertson of CotullaTexas A Complaint Tribunal accepted Mr. Robertsons Irrevocable Resignation in Cause No. 2014-B-1360. Public Reprimands Ivon Johnson of Jackson Mississippi A Complaint Tribunal imposed a Public Reprimand on Ivon Johnson for viola- tions of Rules 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.16 8.1b and 8.4a and d MRPC in Cause No. 2014-B-1384. A client filed a Bar Complaint against Mr. Johnson alleging that she had given Mr. Johnson all of the information she had regarding two possible law suits with the understanding that he would return the original documents to her two weeks later. Mr. Johnson failed to return the docu- ments. The client also alleged Mr. Johnson failed to reasonably communicate the sta- tus of her case and advised her that he had filed a complaint with the courts on her behalf when he had not actually done so. The Bar sent Mr. Johnson a copy of the Bar complaint and a letter requesting he file a response to the allegations contained in in the Bar Complaint. Mr. Johnson failed to file a timely response. The Bar then sent Mr. Johnson a demand letter dated June 4 2013. When Mr. Johnson failed or refused to accede to this demand the Bar sent a third demand for a response dated July 18 2013. When the Bar failed to receive Mr. Johnsons response follow- ing the third demand letter the Bar con- tacted Mr. Johnson by telephone. Follow- ing the telephone conversation the Bar sent Mr. Johnson a fourth demand letter confirming that Mr. Johnson understood a response was due. Notwithstanding Mr. Johnson failed to respond to the Bar com- plaint. Accordingly Mr. Johnson know- ingly failed or refused to respond to a law- ful demand for information from a disci- plinary authority. Pursuant to Rule 3b the Bar is a designated disciplinary agent of the Supreme Court of Mississippi. The Committee on Professional Responsibility then directed the Office of General Coun- sel to conduct an investigation of the mat- ter. A notice of the investigatory hearing was sent to Mr. Johnson but he failed or refused to appear. The Bar filed a Formal Complaint against Mr. Johnson on September 29 2014. Mr. Johnson was personally served with the Formal Complaint and a Summons on October 7 2014. Mr. Johnson failed to file an answer motion or other pleading in response to the Formal Complaint. The Clerk of the Supreme Court of Missis- sippi entered default against Mr. Johnson pursuant to Rule 55a of the Missis- sippi Rules of Civil Procedure on Novem- ber 25 2014. The Bar filed its Motion for Default Judgment on the same day. Mr. Johnson did not respond to the Motion for Default Judgment. The Complaint Tribu- nal deemed the allegations of the Formal Complaint admitted by virtue of Mr. Johnsons failure to answer or otherwise defend. Rule 1.2 MRPC requires attorneys to abide by a clients decisions concerning the objectives of the representation. Rule 1.3 MRPC requires an attorney to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Rule 1.4 MRPC requires an attorney to keep a client rea- sonably informed about the status of the matter to promptly comply with reason- able requests for information and to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the objec- tives of the representation. Rule 1.16 MRPC requires an attorney when with- drawing from a case to return papers and property to which the client is entitled. Rule 8.4 a and d MRPC states that it is professional misconduct to violate the rules of professional conduct or to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the admin- istration of justice. Rule 8.1b MRPC states that a lawyer in connection with a disciplinary matter shall not fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority. In this case Mr. Johnson failed to respond to the Bar Complaint despite proper notice and four 4 demand letters. Likewise Mr. Johnson failed to appear at a properly noticed Investigatory Hearing directed to take place by the Committee on Profes- sional Responsibility. Matthew D. Ross of Jackson Missis- sippi The Committee on Professional Responsibility issued a Public Repri- mand for violations of Rules 1.4 8.1b and 8.4a and d MRPC in Docket No. 13-367-2. A client hired Mr. Ross to handle a domes- tic relations matter on her behalf. The client alleged she had been unable to con- tact Mr. Ross for the four month period preceding the filing of the Bar complaint. She further alleged that Mr. Ross had cer- tain documents that he should have returned. Mr. Ross responded to the Bar complaint generally denying the commu- nications issues raised by the client and stating that he had hand delivered docu- ments to the client. The Bar requested Mr. Ross to supplement his answer to specify what documents he had delivered. Mr. Ross either failed or refused to sup- plement his response. The Committee on Professional Responsibility directed the Bar to conduct an investigatory hearing. Mr. Ross either failed or refused to appear at the duly noticed investigatory hearing. John H. Anderson of Hattiesburg Mis- sissippi The Committee on Professional Responsibility imposed a Public Repri- mand in Docket No. 13-377-2 for a viola- tion of Rule 1.8a MRPC. During Mr. Andersons representation of a client in a wrongful death claim Mr. Anderson solicited a 64118.50 personal loan from the client. Mr. Anderson expressed that he needed the funds imme- diately and the client lent Mr. Anderson the money as requested. Mr. Anderson did execute a promissory note however Mr. Anderson failed to give the client a rea- sonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel and failed to have client consent to the terms and conditions on the loan in writing. Mr. Anderson failed to repay the loan according to the term in the promissory note but did eventually repay the loan. Rule 1.8a MRPC provides that a lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an own- ership possessory security or pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless 1 the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interests are fair and reason- able to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which can be reasonably under- stood by the client 2 the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction and 3 the client consents in writing. Mr. Anderson failed to make it clear to the Final Disciplinary Actions