Case Title: Holmes v. MISS. STATE BAR ASS'N

Citation: 498 So. 2d 837

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1986-12-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
498 So. 2d 837 (1986) Paul H. "Bud" HOLMES v. MISSISSIPPI STATE BAR ASSOCIATION. No. CM-211. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 3, 1986. *838 Muarice Dantin, Forest M. Dantin, Dantin & Dantin, Columbia, for appellant. Michael B. Martz, Jackson, for appellee. Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and ANDERSON and PRATHER, JJ. ROY NOBLE LEE, Presiding Justice, for the Court: The Mississippi State Bar filed a formal complaint against attorney Paul H. "Bud" Holmes on December 1, 1985, representing to the Mississippi Supreme Court that Holmes should be disbarred from the practice of law within the State of Mississippi. Copies of the guilty plea, sentencing proceedings and judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi involving Holmes were made exhibits to the complaint. This case is intertwined with, and grew out of, facts surrounding the Walter L. Nixon case in the same U.S. District Court. The complaint here was filed prior to the suspension of Walter L. Nixon's license to practice law in the State of Mississippi. The present complaint proceeded under Rule 6(a) of the Rules of Discipline adopted by this Court, effective from and after January 1, 1984. Pertinent portions of the Rules of Discipline follow: Rule 6(a), Rules of Discipline Rule 6.1, Rules of Discipline Rule 6.2, Rules of Discipline The basis of the Bar's complaint is 18 U.S.C. § 401(1), which provides: Section 401 was the authority for bringing the charge against Holmes in the U.S. District Court for which he entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to one (1) year's imprisonment and the payment of a ten-thousand-dollar ($10,000) fine. A bill of information was filed in the said district court, which charged Holmes with a crime coming within Rule 6 of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline. After Holmes entered the guilty plea to the bill of information, the U.S. District Judge signed a judgment and probation/commitment order which recited that Holmes had entered a plea of guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) and that he was sentenced to one year in the custody of the Attorney General of the United States and fined the sum of $10,000. The order also recited, on motion of counsel for the government, that the original indictment, which contained four (4) felony counts, was dismissed. Holmes argues two assignments of error, i.e., (a) that the complaint tribunal failed to properly apply the provisions of Rule 6, Mississippi Rules of Discipline, and Mississippi Code Annotated § 73-3-339 (1972), and (b) the complaint tribunal denied appellant due process. He contends that, *839 proceeding as a Rule 6 hearing, the complaint should be dismissed, since the court could look to nothing except the judgment of conviction, which recited that Holmes was convicted of a 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) violation, and that the court could not consider the underlying charge, i.e., the bill of information and guilty plea. In the alternative, he argues that the disbarment should be overturned and that the cause should be remanded for a Rule 8 hearing, where he should be permitted to show that his guilty plea to 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) was a result of prosecutorial and judicial process abuse, compromise, and misleading representations. We reject those contentions of Holmes. In Mississippi State Bar v. Walter L. Nixon, 494 So. 2d 1388 (Miss. 1986), decided September 24, 1986, by this Court, the Mississippi State Bar filed its formal complaint presenting as an exhibit thereto a certified copy of the judgment of conviction dated March 31, 1986, adjudging Nixon guilty of two counts of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 623. Proceeding under Rule 6(a), Rules of Discipline, the Court ordered the suspension of Nixon until his pending appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit District was finally determined. The Court said: 494 So. 2d at 1390. As stated hereinabove, the transcript of Holmes' plea of guilty was attached to the formal complaint and is a part of the record. Before accepting the plea of guilty to the bill of information, the United States District Judge read the information to Holmes, a former district attorney for the 12th Circuit Court District of Mississippi, and thoroughly questioned him about the voluntariness of his plea. A part of those proceedings follow: The formal complaint in this cause correctly proceeded as a Rule 6 matter. The reasons why Holmes entered a plea of guilty to the bill of information, whether for leniency, fear of harsher punishment, or other, are irrelevant to the complaint filed under Rule 6. When the complaint *841 was brought to the attention of the then Chief Justice, he entered an order designating a tribunal to hear the matter. Certainly no prejudice could result to Holmes on account of a tribunal, consisting of a trial judge and two eminent lawyers, considering the complaint and recommending that this Court enter an order disbarring Holmes from the practice of law in the State of Mississippi. Actually, after the complaint and responses of the respondent had been filed, this Court properly could have entered an order of disbarment without further procedure. 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) confers broad general powers upon a court of the United States to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, criminal contempt of its authority. The specific act or acts of criminal contempt, under § 401(1) must be stated in a bill of information filed in the U.S. District Court. That bill of information specifically sets forth the criminal conduct, acts and things which constituted a violation of § 401(1). Holmes pled guilty to every charge in the bill of information. That plea of guilty also constituted a guilty plea to § 401(1), which is inseparable from the bill of information. Without question, the plea of guilty to the bill of information and § 401(1) was for a crime, whether felony or misdemeanor, which involved fraud, dishonesty, misrepresentation and deceit under Rule 6(a), Rules of Discipline. The complaint with exhibits of the judgment, bill of information and guilty plea, together with appellant's response, are before this Court. They require Holmes' disbarment. See Miss. State Bar v. Nixon, 494 So. 2d 1388 (Miss. 1986); Miss. State Bar v. Attorney A, 475 So. 2d 1164 (Miss. 1985); Miss. State Bar v. A Mississippi Attorney, 437 So. 2d 1227 (Miss. 1983) Miss. State Bar v. Phillips, 385 So. 2d 943 (Miss. 1980); Bramlett v. Burgin, 382 So. 2d 284 (Miss. 1979). APPELLANT DISBARRED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. WALKER, C.J., and DAN LEE and SULLIVAN, JJ., not participating.