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
38 Spring 2015 The Mississippi Lawyer cation with the child for a period of years and had effectively abandoned the child. The petition also referenced that the for- mer clients parents had been appointed legal guardians of the child. The divorce decree provided for visitation by the moth- er. The matters are therefore substantially related. The analysis of whether this is a violation of Rule 1.9a does not end there. In order for a violation of Rule 1.9a to occur the interests of the parties must be materially adverse. Here the interests of the parties became materially adverse when the for- mer clients parents filed their counter- claim against the former client for child support and that the former client be allowed visitation but only under the for- mer clients parents supervision. The fil- ing of the counterclaim put the former client and the former clients parents in a materially adverse position. Mr. Garners response to the Bar complaint acknowl- edges the fact that they are at odds with each other. Having found that the matter is substan- tially related and that the interests of the parties are materially adverse the only method by which Mr. Garner could have proceeded with the representation of the former clients parents to obtain his former clients consent. When the former client refused to consent Mr. Garner had a duty to immediately withdraw from the repre- sentation. Mr. Garner failed or refused to withdraw after the former clients lawyer requested him to do so informally and failed to withdraw for more than two months following the former clients motion to disqualify him as counsel for the former clients parents. Mr. Garners mo- tion to withdraw failed to acknowledge the conflict of interest under Rule 1.9a but did cite that he might have been a materi- al witness in the case. Rule 8.4a MRPC states it is profession- al misconduct to violate or attempt to vio- late the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having violated Rule 1.9a Mr. Garner likewise violated Rule 8.4a MRPC. Private Reprimands An attorney received a Private Repri- mand for a violation of Rule 8.1b MRPC in Cause No. 2013-B-1686. The attorney was the subject of a Bar Complaint alleging inter alia a lack of communication and neglect and was direc- ted to file a response. The attorney failed to do so despite three demand letters. As a result the Committee on Professional Responsibility directed that a Formal Complaint be filed for possible violations of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. Through discovery it was deter- mined that there was no merit to the Bar Complaint. The attorney admitted violat- ing Rule 8.1b MPRC. Rule 8.1b MRPC states that a lawyer in connection with a disciplinary matter shall not fail to respond to a lawful demand for informa- tion from a disciplinary authority. An attorney received a Private Repri- mand for two violations of Rule 8.1b MRPC in Cause No. 2013-B-1791. The attorney was the subject of two Bar Complaints. The first Bar Complaint alleged a lack of communication and neg- lect. The Bar conducted an investigatory hearing that Mr. Perkins failed to attend. The second Bar complaint alleged a lack of communication and neglect as well as theft of client funds. The attorney failed to respond to the second Bar complaint even after requesting additional time to res- pond. As a result the Committee on Professional Responsibility directed that a Formal Complaint be filed for possible violations of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. Through discovery it was determined that there was less than clear and convincing evidence of substan- tive rule violations except for Rule 8.1b MPRC. 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 discipli- nary authority. An attorney received a Private Repri- mand for a violation of Rule 1.8e MRPC in Docket No. 13-344-2. One of the attorneys clients alleged the attorney had stolen funds from a settlement and that the attorney had advanced funds to her for medical expenses associated with the treatment for the injury giving rise to the litigation. The attorney responded to the Bar complaint and demonstrated the client had received all of settlement funds due. The attorney also admitted that he had improperly advanced funds to the client by failing to report advances to the Standing Committee on Ethics for amounts that total 1500.00 in the aggre- gate and by failing to get approval for advances in excess of 1500.00 in the aggregate. Rule 1.8e provides in part that a lawyer may advance reasonable and necessary medical expenses to a client associated with treatment for the injury giving rise to the litigation or administrative proceeding for which the client seeks legal representa- tion. Such advances may be advanced for dire and necessitous circumstances and may be advanced after 60 or more days from the date the client signs a contract of representation. For payments that are less than 1500.00 in the aggregate the lawyer must advise the Standing Com- mittee on Ethics of the advance. For pay- ments that aggregate more than 1500.00 in total the lawyer must have such pay- ments approved by the Standing Commit- tee on Ethics. The Committee on Professional Responsi- bility imposed a Private Reprimand in Docket No. 13-316-2 for a violation of Rule 8.4c MRPC. The Bar received information from a District Attorney that an assistant district attorney in the office had used office let- terhead to correspond with a personal creditor. The contents of the letter misrep- resented the nature of the debt. The attor- ney claimed in the letter to be waiting on approval from the state for payment of the debt and that the delay in payment was due to bureaucratic red tape. The attorney knew this statement was false the debt was personal and delinquency was due to the attorneys personal financial situation. Rule 8.4c MRPC provides it is profes- sional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty fraud deceit or misrepresentation. The attorneys misrepresentation as to the nature of the debt and the reasons for its delinquency is a violation of Rule 8.4c MRPC. I Final Disciplinary Actions