Page 37 - MS_LawyerSummer2016

Final Disciplinary Actions਍ഀ
਍ഀ
violate the rules of professional conduct
or engage in conduct that is prejudicial to
the administration of justice.
Ronald D. Michael of Booneville,
Mississippi: A Complaint Tribunal
appointed by the Supreme Court of
Mississippi issued a Three (3) Year
Suspension in Cause No. 2015-B-1366
for violations of Rules 1.15(a) and (b) and
8.4(a) and (d), MRPC.
General Counsel filed a Bar complaint
against Mr. Michael based on information
received from a Chancery Judge alleging
Mr. Michael had taken an attorney’s fee
in an estate matter without first obtain-
ing approval from the Court. The Court
subsequently declined to approve the fee
and ordered the funds be returned to the
estate. However, Mr. Michael had already
converted the fee to his own use and was
unable to pay the funds back. He subse-
quently filed a petition under Chapter 11 of full for the representation, Mr. Eubanks
the United States Bankruptcy Code. The
Bankruptcy Court approved the Chapter
11 plan by which the residual beneficiary
in the estate would be paid over an extend-
ed period. Mr. Michael considered the fee
earned in spite of his knowledge that he
would have to return the fees to the estate
in the event the Chancery Court failed to
subsequently approve the fee. At the time
Mr. Michael received the fee from his
client, he was suffering from depression.
The Complaint Tribunal found that there਍ഀ
was no intent or selfish motive on the
part of Mr. Michael to convert the funds.
The Complaint Tribunal also found that
since the attorneys’ fee was subject to
the approval of the chancery judge, Mr.
Michael did not own the funds. As such,
the funds he received for his attorney fee
should have been placed in his lawyer
trust account and disbursed after the funds
were approved by the Chancery Court.
The Complaint Tribunal also noted that
Rule 1.15 of the Mississippi Rules of
Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) contains
no intent element. As such, a lawyer may
be subject to sanctions for negligently
handling funds that rightfully belong to a
client or third party.
Rule 1.15(a), MRPC, provides that a law-
yer shall hold the property of clients and
third parties separate from the lawyer’s
own property. Rule 1.15(b) requires a
Mississippi lawyer to promptly deliver
਍ഀ
The Mississippi Lawyer
funds held by the lawyer for the benefit
of a client. Rule 8.4(a) and (d), MRPC,
provides that it is professional miscon-
duct for a lawyer to violate or attempt
violate the rules of professional conduct
or engage in conduct that is prejudicial to
the administration of justice.
Eric J. Eubanks of Ocean Springs,
Mississippi: A Complaint Tribunal
appointed by the Supreme Court of
Mississippi entered a Default Judgment
and issued a Three (3) Year Suspension
in Cause No. 2015-B-1434 for violations
of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 8.1(b),
and 8.4(a) and (d), MRPC.
The Formal Complaint was filed based
on Bar complaints filed by two separate
grievants with essentially similar fact pat-
terns. In each case, Mr. Eubanks was
hired to handle matters in youth court.
In spite of having accepted payment in
failed to appear at scheduled hearings.
Neither client could contact Mr. Eubanks
by telephone or other method to deter-਍ഀ
mine the status of their respective cases.
For all intents and purposes, Mr. Eubanks਍ഀ
abandoned his law practice. Following
the filing of the Bar complaints, the Bar
sent numerous demands to Mr. Eubanks
to file a response to each complaint. Mr.
Eubanks either failed or refused to file a
response.
At the Formal Complaint stage, Mr.
Eubanks failed to file an Answer with the
Clerk of the Supreme Court of Mississippi
and did not otherwise defend the Formal
Complaint. On March 23, 2016, Mr.
Eubanks was given the opportunity to
show cause why the Complaint Tribunal
should not enter a final Judgment impos-
ing discipline. Mr. Eubanks failed to
respond to the show cause order.
Rule 1.2, MRPC, requires a lawyer to
abide by the client’s decisions concerning
the objectives of litigation. By abandon-
ing his clients Mr. Eubanks violated this
Rule. Rule 1.3, MRPC, requires a lawyer
to act with reasonable diligence in repre-
senting a client. Mr. Eubanks failure to
appear for hearing in court on behalf of
his clients is a violation of this Rule. Rule in July of 2010 while Mr. Clark was out਍ഀ
1.4, MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall
keep his or her client reasonably advised
of the status of the client’s matter. Mr.਍ഀ
Eubanks’ failure to communicate with and਍ഀ
to constructively abandon his clients is a਍ഀ
violation of this Rule. Rule 1.5, MRPC,਍ഀ
requires a lawyer to charge a reasonable਍ഀ
fee for his or her services. The lawyer’s਍ഀ
acceptance of a fee and failure to provide਍ഀ
any service is per se unreasonable and a਍ഀ
violation of this Rule. Rule 1.16, MRPC,਍ഀ
requires a lawyer to withdraw from repre-਍ഀ
sentation of a client only when the same਍ഀ
can be accomplished without harm to਍ഀ
the client and to return the papers and਍ഀ
property of the client, including unearned਍ഀ
fees. Mr. Eubanks failed to undertake਍ഀ
either of these tasks when he abandoned਍ഀ
his clients. Rule 8.1(b), MRPC, requires਍ഀ
a lawyer to respond to lawful demands਍ഀ
for information from a bar disciplinary਍ഀ
authority. Mr. Eubanks failed to respond਍ഀ
to the Bar complaints filed by his clients਍ഀ
and to respond to any pleading or motion਍ഀ
in this matter. Rule 8.4, MRPC, provides਍ഀ
that it is misconduct to violate any rule਍ഀ
of Professional conduct and to engage in਍ഀ
conduct that is detrimental to the admin-਍ഀ
istration of justice.਍ഀ
Public Reprimands਍ഀ
Frederick B. Clark of Greenwood,਍ഀ
Mississippi: The Committee on਍ഀ
Professional Responsibility imposed a਍ഀ
Public Reprimand in docket number਍ഀ
14-273-1 for violations of Rules 1.3 and਍ഀ
1.4(a), MRPC.਍ഀ
A client filed an informal Bar complaint਍ഀ
against Mr. Clark alleging Mr. Clark਍ഀ
failed to file a notice of claim in the cli-਍ഀ
ent’s employer’s bankruptcy case leading਍ഀ
to dismissal of his employment discrimi-਍ഀ
nation suit in District Court. Mr. Clark਍ഀ
initially agreed to help the client and਍ഀ
two other employees file an employment਍ഀ
discrimination suit pro se in 2007. The਍ഀ
complaint was drafted, filed and litigation਍ഀ
proceeded with the court and the attorney਍ഀ
for the employer communicating directly਍ഀ
with the client and his colleagues. In਍ഀ
December of 2008, after the employer਍ഀ
obtained an order compelling discovery,਍ഀ
Mr. Clark assisted in preparing discovery਍ഀ
responses and became listed as counsel਍ഀ
of record at that time. A motion for sum-਍ഀ
mary judgment was filed and granted਍ഀ
of the country. When he returned he਍ഀ
filed a motion to reconsider and the case਍ഀ
Continued on next page਍ഀ
Summer 2016 37