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
The Mississippi Lawyer Winter 2016 29 Suspensions Donald Jason Embry of Long Beach Mississippi A Complaint Tribunal appointed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi entered a Default Judgment and issued a three 3 year suspen- sion from the practice of law in Cause No. 2015-B-447 for violations of Rules 1.2a 1.3 1.4a 1.5a 1.15a 1.16d 8.1b and 8.4a and d of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct MRPC. Mr. Embry was hired to represent a cli- ent in an appeal of a DUI II convic- tion to the County Court of Harrison County Mississippi. Mr. Embry entered his appearance in the appeal. However Mr. Embry failed to advise the client of the court date for the trial. As a result neither the client nor Mr. Embry appeared for the trial and the judge issued a writ of procedendo. The client was placed in jail. The client was then forced to hire another lawyer to file a petition for a writ of habe- as corpus. The new lawyer attempted to retrieve the file from Mr. Embry but Mr. Embry failed or refused to communicate with the client or the new attorney. In essence Mr. Embry abandoned his client. Mr. Embrys contract of representation with the client provided that he would represent him at a rate of 150.00 per hour and charge him for a nonrefundable retainer in the amount of 1500.00. The funds received for the retainer should have been placed in Mr. Embrys lawyer trust account and billed against at the hourly rate. On information and belief Mr. Embry failed to put the retainer funds into his lawyer trust account. Further Mr. Embry did not earn the amount of the fees received for the retainer. On September 2 2014 the Bar sent Mr. Embry a copy of a Bar complaint and a demand for a response. The Bar resent the Bar complaint and demand to Mr. Embry on September 16 2014. On September 30 2014 Mr. Embry sent the Bar a request for additional time to respond to the Bar complaint. In spite of his request for additional time to respond and subse- quent demands for a response Mr. Embry failed to respond to the Bar complaint. In addition to the written demands the Bar unsuccessfully attempted to contact Mr. Embry by telephone to solicit a response. The Bar left messages for Mr. Embry on at least two occasions. On a third occa- sion Mr. Embry initially answered the telephone but disconnected the call upon the Bars disclosure of its identity. Rule 1.2a MRPC provides that a law- yer shall abide by a clients decisions concerning the objectives of representa- tion and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. Rule 1.3 MRPC provides that a lawyer shall act with reasonable dili- gence and promptness in representing a client. Rule 1.4a MRPC provides that a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Rule 1.5a MRPC requires a lawyers fee to be rea- sonable. Rule 1.15a MRPC which pro- vides that a lawyer shall hold the property of clients and third parties separate from the lawyers own property. The lawyer must identify this other property and safe- guard it. The rule also provides that the lawyer shall maintain complete records of trust account funds for a period of seven years following termination of the repre- sentation. Rule 1.16d MRPC provides that upon termination of representation a lawyer shall take reasonable steps rea- sonably practicable to protect a clients interests such as surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled. Rule 8.1b MRPC provides that a law- yer shall not fail to disclose a fact neces- sary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information by a disciplinary authority. Rule 8.4a 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. Ronald D. Michael of Booneville Mississippi A Complaint Tribunal appointed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi issued a three 3 year sus- pension in Cause No. 2015-B-1366 for violations of Rules 1.15a and b and 8.4a and d MRPC. The Bar filed a Bar Complaint at the directionoftheCommitteeonProfessional Responsibility against Mr. Michael based on information received from a Chancery Judge alleging Mr. Michael had taken an attorneys fee in an estate matter without first obtaining 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 subsequently filed a petition under Chapter 11 of 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 extended 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 1.15a MRPC provides that a law- yer shall hold the property of clients and third parties separate from the lawyers own property. Rule 1.15b requires a Mississippi lawyer to promptly deliver funds held by the lawyer for the benefit of a client. Rule 8.4a 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. Final Disciplinary Actions