Title: Mississippi State Bar v. Odom

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

573 So. 2d 710 (1990) MISSISSIPPI STATE BAR v. Joseph Rufus ODOM, a/k/a Joe R. Odom. No. 90-BA-1008. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 12, 1990. Michael B. Martz, Jackson, for petitioner. Joe R. Odom, Altamonte Springs, Fla., for respondent. En Banc. ROBERTSON, Justice, for the Court: Joseph Rufus Odom is before us again and this time we disbar him. Now 57 years of age, Odom has heretofore held a license to practice law and has maintained his office in Meridian, Mississippi. On August 22, 1990, this Court found that Odom, as a trustee and fiduciary, misappropriated funds of an estate he was handling, and we ordered his license suspended for a period of three years. See Mississippi State Bar v. Odom, 566 So. 2d 712 (Miss. 1990). The Bar now charges that in an unrelated matter, Odom has committed the crime of embezzlement and demands the ultimate disciplinary sanction. The proceedings before us reflect that on August 13, 1990, Odom appeared in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Mississippi, and entered a plea of guilty to the charge of embezzlement. See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-23-19 (1972). In his written application that his plea be accepted Odom acknowledges that On August 20, 1990, the Circuit Court entered an order reciting the facts and providing further that The Court then deferred sentencing for three years and imposed certain conditions upon Odom, including, in pertinent part, that he would close his law office and surrender his license to practice law. In the present complaint, the Bar invokes Rule 6, Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar (1984), and demands disbarment. In relevant part, Rule 6 provides We have enforced the Rule as it is written. Once the Bar has provided us with a duly authenticated and certified copy of a Judgment of Conviction, we have taken that as "conclusive evidence" that the attorney has committed a disbarrable offense, and we have forthwith stricken his name from the rolls. See Mississippi State Bar v. Cotter, 512 So. 2d 1288 (Miss. 1987); Holmes v. Mississippi State Bar, 498 So. 2d 837 (Miss. 1986); Mississippi State Bar v. Nixon, 494 So. 2d 1388 (Miss. 1986) and 562 So. 2d 1288 (Miss. 1990). Odom claims he has found an escape hatch from the rule's summary process. He answers and asserts that he "has not been found guilty of a crime of embezzlement or any other crime" and, therefore, the Bar's complaint "is outside the scope of Rule 6." He is right in his factual premise, for the Judgment before us expressly "withholds adjudication of guilt." Rule 6(a) authorizes summary disbarment in narrowly limited categories of cases. The rule proceeds on the premise that the final adjudication of the criminal process in a court of competent jurisdiction is reliable, and sufficiently so that there is no need for the Complaint Tribunal to hear anew the facts and circumstances of the offense charged. Moreover, there is the premise that a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is entitled to respect in the courts of this state. See Mississippi State Bar v. Young, 509 So. 2d 210, 217 (Miss. 1987); Mississippi State Bar v. Phillips, 385 So. 2d 943, 945 (Miss. 1980). By its terms, Rule 6(a)'s summary process becomes available not only where the attorney shall be convicted of a criminal offense, but also where he shall There can be no question but that on August 13, 1990, Odom entered a plea of guilty within the meaning and contemplation of Rule 6(a). What effects the Rule's process, however, is "a certified copy of the judgment of conviction. ..." The Circuit Court's order of August 20, 1990, is not technically a "judgment of conviction." It is an order accepting Odom's guilty plea but withholding an adjudication of guilt. Acting under the authority of Miss. Code Ann. § 99-15-26 (Supp. 1990), the Circuit Court deferred further proceedings for three years and in effect placed Odom on probation subject to reasonably strict conditions, not the least of which is the payment of restitution. In pertinent part, the Circuit Court's order provided In view of these provisions and the order accepting Odom's plea of guilty, we need not decide whether that order technically satisfies Rule 6(a)'s requirement that the Mississippi State Bar present to this Court a "certified copy of the judgment of conviction." What is important is that the order is one on its face well within the authority of the Circuit Court. It accepts Odom's guilty plea which brings him within the general scope of Rule 6(a)'s summary process. The order goes on to provide unequivocally that Odom will surrender his license to practice law and will "not contest the bar complaint that is currently pending against him and will agree to be disbarred." The order is certified and Odom has presented nothing questioning its authenticity or validity. Enough said. ORDER ENTERED THAT JOSEPH RUFUS ODOM BE DISBARRED, HIS LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RESCINDED, AND THAT ALL COSTS AND EXPENSES CONNECTED WITH THE FILING AND PROSECUTION OF THE FORMAL COMPLAINT ARE TAXED AGAINST APPELLEE. HAWKINS, P.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, PITTMAN and BLASS, JJ., concur. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., not participating.