Page 38 - Demo

The Committee on Professional Responsibility imposed a Private Reprimand in Docket No. 23-196-1 for violations of Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct.Attorney%u2019s former co-worker was retained to pursue an action arising under the Mississippi Torts Claim Act. After the co-worker%u2019s departure the attorney assumed the representation. The clerk filed a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution and the attorney failed to file a response. Attorney also failed to communicate with client about the motion. The Committee found the attorney violated Rule 1.3 to provide diligent representation by failing to file a response to the clerk%u2019s motion and Rule 1.4 to keep the client reasonably informed by failing to advise the client of the motion.The Committee on Professional Responsibility imposed a Private Reprimand in Docket No. 23-303-3 for violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct.Attorney was hired to pursue a medical malpractice action in 2020. He researched the matter in 2021 and determined there was no viable cause of action but failed to convey this to the client until 2024. The Committee found the attorney violated Rule 1.2 to abide by the client%u2019s decision as to the objectives of the representation, Rule 1.3 to act with reasonable diligence and Rule 1.4 to keep the client reasonably informed as to the status of the matter when he failed to determine whether there was a viable cause of action until a year after he was hired, failed to then timely communicate the results of his research to the client and deprived the client of the opportunity to determine whether to pursue the action.The Committee on Professional Responsibility imposed a Private Reprimand in Docket No. 23-434-6 for violations of Rules 1.3 and 1.4of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct.Attorney was hired to pursue a claim on a notary bond. The statute of limitations expired within a month of the attorney%u2019s initial meeting with the client. No suit was filed within the statute of limitations to preserve the client%u2019s claim. The attorney also failed to respond the client%u2019s requests for information. The Committee found the attorney violated Rule 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligent and promptness in representing his client and Rule 1.4 by failing to respond promptly to his client%u2019s requests for information.The Committee on Professional Responsibility imposed a Private Reprimand in Docket No. 23-437-6 for violations of Rules 1.7(b), 1.8(b) and 1.16(d) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct.Attorney entered into an agreement with the client to provide general counsel and consulting services, including oversight of a commercial transaction. Attorney also had an ownership interest in a corporate entity involved in the same commercial transaction. Attorney began a romantic relationship with the client during the representation. When Attorney resigned from the engagement, the client requested certain documents which were necessary to complete the commercial transaction. Attorney did not promptly deliver the requested documents, instead attempting to negotiate a settlement related to the attorney%u2019s interest in the commercial transaction. The Committee found the attorney violated Rule 1.7(b) by representing a client when the representation was materially limited by the attorney%u2019s own interest and engaging in a romantic relationship with the client; Rule 1.8(b) by using client information to disadvantage of the client and to the advantage of the attorney; and Rule 1.16(d) by failing to take steps to protect the client%u2019s interest upon withdrawal from the representation by surrendering papers and property to which the client was entitled.The Committee on Professional Responsibility imposed a Private Reprimand in Docket No. 23-469-7 for violations of Rules 1.6(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct.Attorney initially represented the client in a divorce but withdrew. The client then posted a negative online review about the attorney on a public platform that generally complained about the attorney%u2019s client communication and fees and warned others to avoid attorney. Attorney responded to the Client%u2019s review on the same online public platform with information related to the representation including client communications, statements about the relief the client desired and the validity of that relief, descriptions of the work performed, and references to the client%u2019s medical records and mental health, among other things. The client did not consent to the disclosure of this information related to the representation on a public online forum. The Committee found the attorney violated Rule 1.6(a) by revealing information related to the representation without the client%u2019s informed consent and expressly rejected the attorney%u2019s claim that the disclosure was allowed to establish a claim or defend on behalf of the attorney in a controversy between the attorney and the client under the exception to Rule 1.6(a) contained in Rule 1.6(b)(5). Online criticism in a public platform is not a proceeding that would allow disclosure of information relating to the representation of a client, nor is an online response in a public forum %u201cnecessary%u201d to establish a defense to a civil or criminal claim. A negative online review is informal in nature and not a %u201ccontroversy between the lawyer and the client%u201d within the meaning of the Rule. FINAL DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS38 SPRING 2025