Case Title: Foote v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n

Citation: 517 So. 2d 561

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1987-12-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
517 So. 2d 561 (1987) H. Lanier B. FOOTE v. MISSISSIPPI STATE BAR ASS'N Nos. 226, 218. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 2, 1987. Thomas J. Lowe, Jr., Jackson, for appellant. Michael B. Martz, Jackson, for appellee. En Banc: PRATHER, Justice, for the Court: This is a consolidated appeal from two decisions of the Mississippi State Bar Complaint Tribunals, wherein the appellant Lanier B. Foote, was found guilty of violating certain provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility of the Mississippi State Bar and Miss. Code Ann. § 73-3-35. For one of these violations, the Tribunals imposed the sanction of disbarment. Foote appeals both decisions which arise out of three separate sets of facts. In Conf.Misc. 226, the attorney, H. Lanier B. Foote appeals the sanction of disbarment, assigning the following as error: The appellant was disbarred for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility in connection with the misappropriation of client's funds handled by the appellant during a loan closing, which disbarment was a disproportionally severe sanction in light of previous cases decided by this Court. *562 In Conf.Misc. 218, the attorney appeals the sanctions of a public reprimand and a 90-day suspension, assigning as error the following: (1) The appellant was determined to have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for not having refunded $50.00 to a client and the sanction ordered is a public reprimand. This is essentially a fee dispute and the appellant should not be given any more than a private reprimand. (2) The appellant was suspended from the practice of law for ninety days for neglecting a criminal matter after having received a fee. The sanction is disproportionate to the severity of the infraction and should be reduced to, at most, a public reprimand. The appellant admits that since the allegations made in the complaint filed by Deryl Ferguson before the Mississippi State Bar Complaints Tribunal were uncontested, the facts as outlined in the opinion and judgment of the statutorily convened tribunal are the ones to be properly adopted by this Court. The attorney was duly noticed of the complaint filed against him, but elected not to file an answer or appear at the tribunal hearing. The allegations of the State Bar's complaint were taken as true by the tribunal and confessed by the attorney respondent. The tribunal adopted the allegations as the findings of fact in its opinion as follows: The Mississippi State Bar Complaint Tribunal found the attorney guilty of violating the following disciplinary rules: In addition, Foote was found guilty of violating Miss. Code Ann. § 73-3-35 (1972), which provides as follows: The State Bar argues that the most serious violation was that of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A). The tribunal ordered the attorney's disbarment. Assuming the undisputed facts alleged, the question becomes was the sanction of disbarment disproportionately severe to the conduct involved, amounting to an injustice? "Upon appeal, the Court shall review the entire record and the findings and conclusions of the tribunal, and shall render such orders as the Court may find appropriate." Rule 9.4 of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar. This Court reviews the evidence de novo, on a case-by-case basis, sitting as triers of fact, and no substantial evidence or manifest error rule shields the Tribunal from scrutiny. Hoffman v. Mississippi State Bar Association, 508 So. 2d 1120, 1124 (Miss. 1987); Vining v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 508 So. 2d 1047, 1049 (Miss. 1987); St. Bd. of Psychological Ex. v. Hosford, 508 So. 2d 1049, 1054 n. 4 (Miss. 1987). According to the Lawyers Manual on Professional Conduct, "factors generally considered for imposition of sanctions for misconduct are (1) the nature of misconduct, (2) the need to deter similar misconduct, (3) preservation of dignity and reputation of the profession, (4) protection of the public and (5) sanctions imposed in similar cases." Miss. State Bar v. A Miss. Attorney, 489 So. 2d 1081, 1083 (Miss. 1986). This Court will not hesitate to impose substantial sanctions upon an attorney for any act which evinces want of personal honesty and integrity or renders such attorney unworthy of public confidence. Brumfield v. Mississippi State Bar Association, 497 So. 2d 800, 808 (Miss. 1986). This Court must determine whether the misconduct of the attorney, his dishonesty and misrepresentation, was of such magnitude that disbarment is justified. See id. Two recent cases involving misuse of the funds of another party have concluded in orders of disbarment. In Brumfield, supra, while acting in a representative and fiduciary capacity which he had undertaken, the attorney deliberately cheated and defrauded his aunts, with whom he jointly owned property. In Clark v. Mississippi State Bar Association, 471 So. 2d 352 (Miss. 1985), the attorney converted funds which he held as a conservator. The American Bar Association recently promulgated Standards For Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986). While this Court does review the evidence on a case-by-case basis, it recognizes that such guidelines may be helpful. "Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client." ABA Standard 4.11. There is unrebutted evidence that the attorney converted the funds to his own use. Attached to the complaint was the check given to the attorney, which gives no indication it was deposited into an escrow or trust account. The client's monies held by the attorney were unpaid by Foote to the bank due said funds for several months. When confronted with that failure, ultimately the attorney made restitution by payment of cash. Further, "[d]isbarment is generally appropriate when ... a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes serious or potential serious injury to a client... ." ABA Standard 4.41(b). It is clear that the attorney in the instant case knowingly failed to perform services for his client. Because restitution was eventually made, the actual injury was limited to Ferguson being forced to pay off the deed of trust with interest four and one-half months after the date that he thought it had been paid off. But the potential injury included loss of a sale, foreclosure, and the necessity of a civil suit against Foote. The attorney sets forth three factors which, he claims, warrant making the sanction *565 less severe than disbarment. He argues that there is nothing in the record to show any previous ethical violations on his part, that he made the client whole about two weeks after demand, and that he never attempted to mislead the Court or the Bar as to what he did. It is true that in the record of Conf. Misc. 226, there is no evidence of any previous ethical violations. The cases cited by the attorney do list certain positive mitigating factors. In re Fox, 296 So. 2d 701, 705 (Miss. 1974); Mississippi State Bar Association v. Strickland, 492 So. 2d 567, 573 (Miss. 1986). However, absence of previous ethical violations is not listed as a factor. The ABA Standards do list the absence of a prior disciplinary record as a mitigating factor, ABA Standard 9.32(a), but the presence of prior disciplinary offenses is listed as an aggravating factor, Standard 9.22(a). Thus, this mitigating factor is not especially strong since it consists in the mere absence of a certain aggravating factor. Full restitution was made after several personal and representative demands and the threat of a suit. "However, restitution by an attorney of funds previously misappropriated does not mitigate the offense, particularly where the restitution has been made under pressure." Clark v. Mississippi State Bar Association, 471 So. 2d 352, 357 (Miss. 1985). It is true that the attorney made no attempt to mislead the Bar or the Court as to what was done. Such is necessarily the case where there is a default judgment. In Clark, supra, the attorney did attempt to mislead the Bar, and this fact may well have been considered an aggravation of the offense. However, it does not follow that the absence of such an attempt mitigates the offense. Under the ABA Standards, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward the proceedings is a mitigating factor, Standard 9.32(e), and bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency is an aggravating factor, Standard 9.22(e). Neither is the case here. This Court holds that the mere absence of an attempt by the attorney to mislead the Bar or the Court as to what was done, particularly where there is a default judgment, is a neutral factor. The attorney has done little more than to note that there are no aggravating factors present in the instant case. But then neither are there mitigating factors. Again, such is necessarily the case where there is a default judgment. The order of disbarment should be affirmed as being proportionally balanced to this Court's holding to similar cases. Again, as admitted by the attorney, the allegations of the complaint, as to both counts in Conf.Misc. 218, must be accepted as true for the purposes of this appeal. Based upon the absence of an answer or pleading or appearance of the attorney and the entry of default judgment, the tribunal took the allegations of the complaint as true and confessed and adopted them as the findings of fact for its opinion. As to count 2, the tribunal found the following: The tribunal concluded that the attorney had violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(1, 4, 5 and 6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1, 2 and 3), and Miss. Code Ann. § 73-3-35 (1972). This includes engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means and failing to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client. The tribunal ordered that the attorney be suspended from the practice of law for ninety days. Was the ninety-day suspension imposed by the tribunal disproportionate to the severity of the offense? Vining, supra, indicated that a 120-day suspension was in keeping with the misconduct, where the attorney's neglect resulted in the running of the statute of limitations before anything was done in the case. This Court has ordered a two year suspension for deliberate abandonment of a criminal defendant at a crucial stage in the trial. *567 Myers v. Mississippi State Bar, 480 So. 2d 1080, 1094-5 (Miss. 1985). "Suspension is generally appropriate when: (a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or (b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client." ABA Standard 4.42. It is this Court's opinion that the ninety-day suspension was an appropriate sanction. As to Count 1 of this complaint, the tribunal found that attorney should be given a public reprimand. The complaint involved a fifty dollar ($50.00), fee dispute with a client. In view of the sanctions imposed in the foregoing discussions, this Court does not address this issue. ORDERS OF COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL AFFIRMED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED DISBARRING H. LANIER B. FOOTE FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., not participating.