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
The Mississippi Lawyer Spring 2015 37 client that she should seek independent legal advice about the transaction and failed to obtain the clients consent in writ- ing to the terms and conditions of the loan. Mr. Anderson then failed to repay the loan according to the term of the promissory note. The loan was of such a type that the parties interests immediately became adverse to one another. Essentially the attorney-client relationship became a debtor-creditor relationship. Mr. Ander- sons actions violate Rule 1.8a MRPC. L. Abraham Rowe of Jackson Missis- sippi The Committee on Professional Responsibility imposed a Public Repri- mand in Docket No. 13-203-1 for viola- tions of Rules 1.2a 1.3 1.4a and 1.16a2 MRPC. A client filed a Bar Complaint against Mr. Rowe alleging a lack of communication and that his landlordtenant case had been dismissed for want of prosecution. While the client often received a response from Mr. Rowe to his emails and text messages the responses did not indicate the true sta- tus of the case. At one point Mr. Rowe incorrectly informed the client of a trial date that had not actually been set. Mr. Rowe admitted that he had neglected the clients case and that he had not been truthful when informing the client of a trial date that he knew did not exist. Mr. Rowe asserted that a family matter had impacted his ability to pursue the case as a defense. After the dismissal for want of prosecution Mr. Rowe sought permission from the client to pursue reinstatement of his landlordtenant action. The client unequivocally stated that he did not want Mr. Rowe working on his case any further and directed Mr. Rowe to not pursue the case. Despite a clear directive from his client to take no further action Mr. Rowe subsequently filed a motion to reinstate the civil case. Rule 1.2a MRPC states that a lawyer shall abide by a clients decisions concern- ing the objectives of the representation and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they will be pursued. Rule 1.3 MRPC requires a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Rule 1.4a MPRC requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply with requests for information. Rule 1.16a2 MRPC states that a lawyer shall withdraw from representing a client if the lawyers physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyers ability to represent the client. Gerald D. Garner of Raleigh Missis- sippi The Committee on Professional Responsibility imposed a Public Repri- mand against Mr. Garner in Docket No. 13-291-2 for violations of Rules 1.9 and 8.4a MRPC. A former client filed a Bar complaint against Mr. Garner alleging Mr. Garner had a conflict of interest because Mr. Garner had previously represented him in a divorce from his now former spouse. The divorce case also included custody issues involving the former clients son from that marriage. Prior to the divorce the former clients parents became legal guardians for the former clients child. Mr. Garner drafted the guardianship docu- ments and represented the former client in the divorce. Later the former client met with Mr. Garner in August 2013 and ten- dered a 300.00 check for a retainer to represent him in filing a petition to termi- nate the former clients former spouses parental rights. During the meeting the former client alleges that he gave Mr. Garner confidential information about the case. Mr. Garner drafted a joint petition signed by the former client and his parents to terminate the parental rights of the for- mer clients former spouse but declined to file it after it was determined that the for- mer spouse opposed it. As a result the former client hired anoth- er attorney to file an action designed to terminate the rights of the childs mother. The petition filed by the former clients new attorney included the former clients parents as respondents. The petition did not request any relief against the former clients parents. Mr. Garner represented the former clients parents in that case over the objections of the former client who alleged a conflict of interest. The former clients parents through Mr. Garner opposed the petition and also filed a coun- terclaim for child support and visitation against the former client their son. Mr. Garner eventually withdrew from the case. Prior to the withdrawal the former clients new lawyer advised Mr. Garner that he had a conflict and asked him to voluntarily withdraw. The former client refused Mr. Garners request to waive the alleged conflict even though Mr. Garner did not believe such a conflict existed. When Mr. Garner either failed or refused to withdraw the former client filed a motion to disqualify. Prior to the hearing on the motion to disqualify Mr. Garner as counsel for the former clients parents withdrew from the case citing reasons other than a conflict of interest for doing so. Rule 1.9a MRPC provides that a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent anoth- er in the same or a substantially related matter in which that persons interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client con- sents after consultation. In this case Mr. Garner had previously represented the former client in his divorce and had represented the former client and his parents to establish the guardianship whereby the former clients parents became guardians of the former clients minor child. In order to determine whether Mr. Garner violated Rule 1.9a MRPC one must first determine if the petition to terminate the parental rights of of the former clients former spouse is the same or substantially related to either the divorce case or the establishment of the guardianship for the minor child. Second- ly if the matter is the same or substantial- ly related one must determine whether the interests of the former clients parents in the petition to terminate parental rights are materially adverse to the former clients interests. If the matter is the same or sub- stantially similar and the interests of the former clients parents and the former client are materially adverse the only way Mr. Garner could have represented the for- mer clients parents would have been to obtain the former clients consent to do so. The petition to terminate the parental rights of the childs mother is substantially related to both the divorce and the estab- lishment of the guardianship. The petition to terminate parental rights alleges that the mother has had no visitation or communi- Final Disciplinary Actions Continued on next page