Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

A MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY, Respondent/Appellant v. MISSISSIPPI STATE BAR

JULY 18, 1984

A MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY, Respondent/Appellant
v.
MISSISSIPPI STATE BAR, Complainant/Appellee



EN BANC

SULLIVAN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

This is an appeal from a decision of a Mississippi State Bar Complaint Tribunal suspending a Mississippi attorney from the practice of law for 45 days. A complaint was lodged with the Mississippi State Bar against the Mississippi attorney alleging misconduct inside and outside the courtroom of a justice court judge. After investigation, investigatory hearing and further investigation, complaint counsel submitted his finding to the complaints committee. The complaints committee determined that there was a reasonable cause to believe that the Mississippi attorney was guilty of the alleged conduct and that if proven such conduct would warrant disbarment or suspension. The committee authorized complaint counsel to file a formal complaint which the Mississippi attorney answered by denying. A duly designated Complaint Tribunal held a formal hearing after which the Complaint Tribunal declared that the allegations against the Mississippi attorney were supported by clear and convincing evidence and the Mississippi attorney was suspended from the practice for 45 days. He perfects this appeal and assigns as error the following:

(1) The findings of the Complaint Tribunal were not supported by clear and convincing evidence;

 (2) Sufficient weight was not given to the fact that the justice court judge did not find the Mississippi attorney in contempt of court;

 (3) That it was error not to dismiss the complaint because of violations of his procedural rights; and

 (4) That the 45 days suspension was excessive.

 I.

 WAS THE EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE?

 The attorney is charged with violations of rules 1-102 (A) (5), 1-102 (A) (6), 7-106 (C) (6), and 9-101 (C).

 DR 1-102 (A) (5) and 1-102 (A) (6) read as follows:

 (A) A lawyer shall not:

 *****

 (5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

 (6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

 DR 7-106 (C) (6) states that:

 (C) In appearing in his professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not:

 *****

 (6) Engage in undignified or discourteous conduct which is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.