I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - S A- 0 1 6 1 0 - S CT I N RE AP

PL ICAT ION O F EARL S TEP

HEN DE AN: EA RL S T

EP HEN D EA N v. M I S S I S S I P P I BO AR D OF

BA R A DM

I S S IONS D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 23/ 2006 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. DE NI S E OW E NS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: EAR L STE PHEN DEA N ( PRO SE) A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL EE: M A RY J O W O O D S H A R O L D E D W A R D P IZ Z E T T A , III NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 01/ 17/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he M i s s i s s i ppi Boar d of BarA dm i s s i ons i s s ued an a dver s e det erm i nat i on as t o the c h a ra c teran d fitn e ss o f ap p lica n t E a rl S tep h e n D e a n . D e a n ap p e a led th e B o a rd d e c isio n to th e C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f H in d s C o u n ty , w h ich aff irm e d the B o a rd ’s d e c isio n . D e a n a p p e a ls the cha ncery courtj udgm ent , as s ert i ng thatthe B oar d’ s deci s i on w as notbase d on s uf f i ci ent evidence an d thati tviol at ed h i s const i tuti on al ri gh t s of f ree s peech and du e process.

### 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. A pp el l ant E arl S t eph en D ean rec ei ved hi s l aw degr ee f r om T hom as C ool ey L aw School i n L ans i ng, M i chi gan, i n Janua ry 2001. D ean f i l ed f oradm i s s i on t o the M i s s i s s i ppi B oar d of B arA dm i s s i ons ( “B oar d”) on M ar ch 21, 2002. T he C om m i t t ee on Char act erand Fi tness ( “C om m i t t ee” ) hel d a hea r i ng t o cons i derD ean’ s appl i cat i on on A ugus t23, 2002. T he C om m i t t ee s ubm i t t ed t o the B oar d i t s r ecomm endat i on to deny D ean’ s appl i cat i on. A ft er rev iew ing the a p p lica ti o n , o n N o v em b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 2 , the B o ard rem an d ed D ea n ’s appl i cat i on t o the C om m i t t ee f orpr oduct i on of

f i ndi ngs of

f actand conc l us i ons of

l aw . T he C om m i t t ee s ubm i t t ed a s ubs t i tut ed opi ni on, w hi ch aga i n r ecomm ended de ni al , and acc or di ngl y, the B oar d deni ed D ean’ s appl i cat i on on J anuary 30, 2003. ¶3. D ean pe t i t i oned the B oar d t o revi ew it s deci s i on pur s uantt o the R ul es G overni ng A dm i s s i on t o the B ar , R ul e 8, sec t i on 9. I n A pr i l 2003, the B oar d hel d a hea r i ng w her e D ean pr es ent ed hi s ar gum ent s as t o w hy t he B oar d s houl d r ever s e i t s pr evi ous deci s i on. T he hear i ng w as m ade publ i c atD ean’ s r eques t , and a numberof D ean’ s s uppor t er s att ended. B ef or e the B oar d i s s ued a de ci si on , in A ugus t2003, D ean f i l ed a pe t i t i on f

orw r i tof m andamus w i th thi s C our t . T he B oar d ent er ed an O r deron O ct ober2, 2003, s t ayi ng f ur ther ac ti o n o n D ea n ’s ap p li ca ti o n p en d ing the issu an ce o f th is C o u rt ’s de cisi o n . T h is C o u rt ent er ed an O r deron N ovember26, 2003, di s m i s s i ng D ean’ s pet i t i on as unt i m el y s i nce he f ai l ed t o exhaus tthe r emedi es avai l abl e f r om the B oar d. ¶4 . D ue t o t he com pl exi t y of the cas e, t he B oar d a ga i n r e mand e d the c a s e t o t he C om m i t t ee. T he C om m i t t ee conduct ed a s econd he ar i ng on A ugus t25, 2005. T he

### 3

C o m m itt e e fo u n d th a t D e a n ex h ibit ed co n d u ct ev iden cing : ( 1 ) dish o n esty ; ( 2 ) i rresp o n sib ili ty i n b u s i n e s s a n d p r o f

e s s i o n a l ma t t e r s ; ( 3 ) e n g a g e me n ti n th e u n a u th o r i z e d p r a c t i c e o f l a w; (4) v iolati o n o f th e re aso n ab le rules o f con d u ct go v ern ing m an y of h is acti v it ies; (5) fail u re t o ex erci se subst anti al sel f- con trol ; and (6) m ental and em o ti o n al i nst abil i ty. O n those gr ounds the B oar d agai n deni ed D ean’ s appl i cat i on on Sept ember22, 2005. ¶5. D ean f

i l ed a pet i t i on on O ct ober 3, 2005, t o the B oar d t o r econs i der i t s s econd de ni al pur s uantt o R ul e 8, s ect i on 9, butw i thdr ew hi s pet i t i on on O ct ober19, 2005. O n O ct ober 24, 2005, D ean appeal ed the B oar d’ s deci s i on t o t he H i nds C ounty C hance ry C our t , w hi ch af f i rm ed t he B oar d’ s deni al of D ean’ s appl i cat i on on A ugus t23, 2006. O n Sept ember18, 2 0 0 6 , D e a n a p p e a led th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt d e c isio n to th is C o u rt. DI S CU S S I ON ¶6 . T h is C o u rt , p o sses sing e x clus ive p o w er to a d m itp erso n s to p rac ti ce a s a tt o rne y s in the court s of thi s S t at e, adopt ed the R ul es G overni ng A dm i s s i on t o the M i s s i s s i ppi B ar( “B ar R u le s ” ) o n N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 1 9 7 9 . Miss . B d . o f B a rA dm iss io n s v . A

p p lica n t F , 582 So. 2d 377, 378- 379 ( M i s s . 1991) ( ci t i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. § 73- 3- 2 ( 1989, R ecompi l ed) ) . B ar R ul es , R ul e 8, s ect i on 10, pr ovi des that , on appeal o f a n adver s e B oar d deci s i on t o the chanc ery court , “[ t ] he B oar d’ s de ci s i on may be r ever s ed by the C hance ry Courtonl y i f the appl i cantp rove s by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence i n the r ecor d bef or e the B oar d that deni al of hi s appl i cat i on w as a rbi tr ary, c apr i ci ous , ormal i ci ous . ” Thi s i s t he fa m i l i ar s t andar d us ed i n j udi ci al r evi ew of otheradmi ni strat i ve l i cens i ng deci s i ons i n thi s s t at e. A p p lica n t F , 582 So. 2d at379 ( ci t i ng Melod y Ma n o r Co n va lesce n t Ctr. v. Miss. S tate D ep ’t

### 4

o f He a lth , 5 4 6 S o . 2 d 9 7 2 , 9 7 4 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ); Mainst r eam Savings & L oan A s s ' n v. W a sh in g to n Fe d

. S a v in gs a n d

L o a n A ss 'n , 32 5 S o . 2d 90 2 , 90 3 (M iss. 19 7 6 )). T h is C o u rt ap p li es th e sa m e stan d ard m an d ated to the ch an ce ry c o u rt; h o w ev er, i t r ev iew s the B o ard d e c is io n d e n o v o . A

p p lica n t F , 582 So. 2 d at3 79. Fur ther , thi s C our taf f or ds gr eat de f e r e nc e t o a n a ge nc y' s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of s t a tut e s a nd rul e s w hi c h g ov e rn i t s op e r at i on. H ayes v. P u b. E m

ployees R et

. S ys. , 960 So. 2d 471, 473 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng E lec. D ata Sys. Co rp . v. Miss . D iv. o

f Me dica id , 8 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 2 , 1 2 0 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )). T h ere fore , this C o u rt w i l l r ever s e the B oar d’ s deci s i on onl y upon f i ndi ng thati tw as “arbi tr ary, capr i ci ous or m al i ci ous ” i n thati tw as uns uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence orvi ol at ed a c ons t i tut i onal ri g h t o f t h e p a rt y . See H ayes 9 6 0 S o . 2 d a t 4 7 3 -7 4 ; A p p lica n t F , 582 So. 2d at379. ¶7. T he B arR ul es pr es cr i be the pr ocedur e f oradmi s s i on t o the M i s s i s s i ppi B ar , i ncl udi ng the gu i deli nes f

or sat i sf ying the ch aract er and fi tness port i on of the ad m i ssi on requi rem ents . R ule 8, sect i on 6, provides the st and ards f or di squali fi cat i on of an ap pli cant. Itreads: T h e C o m m itt e e s h a ll rec o m m e n d th a t th e a p p lica n t n o t b e a d m itt e d to pr act i ce l aw i n M i s s i s s i ppi i f , i n t he j udgm entof

the C om m i t t ee, the appl i cant has exhi bi t ed conduc ts ubs t ant i al l y evi denci ng an i ncl i nat i on: A . T o b e d ish o n e st; B . T o take un fai r advan t age o f others; C . T o be di s l oyal t o thos e t o w hom l oyal ty i s l egal l y ow ed; D . T o b e i rr espon si ble i n b usi ness or prof essi on al m at t ers ; E . T o s uppor tora dvocat e the overthr ow of the governm entof

the U ni t ed St at es by f

or ce; F . T o u nlaw ful l y en gag e i n the pract i ce of l aw w hil e not bei ng so l i cens ed; G . T o v io late re a so n a b le ru les o f c o n d u c t g o v e rn in g a c tiv ity in w hi ch appl i canthas engage d;

### Of the Board’ s s ix f indings, Dean spe ci fi cally addres se s only two, di shone sty and 1 

### mental e motional inst abi lity. 5

H . T o f

ai l t o exer ci s e s ubs t ant i al s el f - contr ol , i ncl udi ng exce s s i ve and con t i nu i ng vi ol at i on of tr af f i c rul es , the i m pr operus e of d ru g s, a n d th e e x c e ss iv e u se o f a lco h o l; I . To b e men t a l l y ore mot i on a l l y un s t a bl e t o the e xt entt hat a p p l i c a n ti s n o ts u i t e d f o rth e p r a c t i c e o f

l a w. R u le 8, § 6 . “T h e b u rde n is on the a p p li ca n t t o estab li sh to the rea so n ab le sati sfac ti o n o f a m ajority o f th e C o m m ittee tha t he p o sses ses s u ch ch ara cter an d q u a lificati o n s as to justi fy hi s admi s s i on t o the B arand qual i f y hi m t o per f

orm the dut i es of

an att orney and c ouns el or atl aw . ” R ul e 8, § 7. ¶8. T he C om m i t t ee det erm i ned D ean had e xh i bi t ed di s qual i f yi ng conductfr om R ul e 8, s ect i on 6, i ncl udi ng: di s hones ty ( s ect i on 6( A ) ) ; i rr es pons i bi l i ty i n bus i nes s orpr of es s i onal
m a tters (se c tio n 6 (D )); u n a u th o riz e d p ra c tice o f la w (s e c tio n 6 (F )); v io latio n o f re a so n a b le
rul es of conduc t(s ect i on 6(G ) ) ; f ai l ur e t o exer ci s e s el f

- contr ol ( s ect i on 6( H ) ) ; and ment al and emot i onal i ns t abi l i ty ( s ect i on 6( I ) ) . D ean r ai s ed f i ve i s s ues r ef

ut i ng the B oar d’ s f

i ndi ng. 1 I . W he t he r A ppl i c ant W as D i s hone s t wi t h t he Boar d. ¶9. D ean as s ert s that the B oar d’ s f i ndi ng that he w as di s hones t w as not s uppor t ed by the
r ecor d. T he B oar d r es ponds thatthi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed, al l egi ng thatD ean f ai l ed t o ra i s e the i s s ue i n t he tr i al cour t . T hi s C our tfi nds t hatD ean di d r ai s e thi s i s s ue i n the tr i al court . H e bega n the f

i r s ti s s ue i n hi s tr i al courtbr i ef r ef ut i ng the var i ous exampl es upon w h ich th e B o ard reli ed to affirm the C o m m ittee’s fi n d ing o f dish o n esty . A lso, i n D ea n ’s r epl y br i ef

t o the tr i al court , he t i t l ed a s ub- i s s ue “A ppl i cantH as N otE xhi bi t ed a T rai tf or

### 6

D i s hones ty” and pr ocee ded aga i n t o di s cus s the bas i s forthe B oar d’ s f i ndi ng thathe w as di s hones t . T hus , thi s C our tw i l l cons i derD ean’ s ar gum ent s conce rni ng the s uf fi ci ency of e v id e n c e fo r th e fin d in g th a t h e w a s d ish o n e st. ¶10. T he C om m i t t ee not es f ouri nci dent s w hi ch s uppor ti t s f i ndi ng of di s hones ty. T hr ee of the f ourar e f al s e ans w er s t o ques t i ons on the B arappl i cat i on. ¶ 11. Q ues t i on num ber 18 on the M i s s i s s i ppi B ar appl i cat i on as ked “[ h] ave you everbeen s us pended, pl ace d on di s ci pl i nary pr obat i on, expel l ed orr eques t ed t o r es i gn f r om hi gh s chool , col l ege, uni versi t y or l aw s chool , orotherw i s e s ubj ect ed t o di s ci pl i ne by any s uch sc h o o l o r o th e r in stitu tio n o r re q u e ste d o r a d v ise d b y a n y su c h sc h o o l o r in stitu tio n to di s cont i nue yours tudi es ther ei n f ordi s ci pl i nary r eas ons ?” The B oar d al l eges thatD ean f ai l ed t o di s cl os e he had been pl ace d on pr obat i on by Thom as C ool ey Law School f orf ai l i ng t o di s cl os e a pr i orcr i m i nal convi ct i on. D ean conc eded atthe C om m i t t ee he ar i ng thathe w as pl ace d on di s ci pl i nary pr obat i on f ora D U I . D ean c ont ends thathi s vol unt ary di s cl os ur e of the D U I t o the Thom as C ool ey Law School bef ore they di s cover ed the convi ct i on demonstr at es a l ack of

i nt ent i onal dece i t . T hi s cont ent i on i s m i s pl ace d. T he B oar d’ s f i ndi ng d id n o t con ce rn D ea n ’s dish o n esty w ith T h o m as C o o ley L aw S ch o o l, b u t r athe r D ea n ’s di s hones ty i n hi s f

ai l ur e t o pr oper l y di s cl os e thi s i nf orm at i on on hi s M i s s i s s i ppi B ar appl i cat i on. ¶12. A l s o, i n r es pons e t o ques t i on num ber 10, w hi ch i ns truct s the appl i cant t o “[ s ] t at e the
n a m e . . . . fo r e v e ry law sc h o o l w h ic h y o u h a v e a tten d e d ,” D e a n re sp o n d e d b y listin g o n ly T hom as C ool ey Law S chool . H ow ever , D ean l at erconce ded thathe al s o att ended W i l l i am

### 7

H ow ar d T af

tU ni ver s i ty L aw Sch oo l . D ean now cont ends thatthe omi s s i on of the corr es pondence cour s e he t ook atW i l l i am H ow ar d T af ti s i rr el evantt o hi s char act er s i nce th e c o rresp o n d en ce co u rse w as n o t asso ciated w ith an y m isco n d u ct. D ea n ’s argu m e n t is i rr el evant . R egardl es s of w hetherthe corr es pondence cour s e i n and of i t s el f i s as s oci at ed
w i th any mi s conduct , the f ai l ur e t o di s cl os e att endanc e ata nothers chool s uppor t s the f i ndi ng thatD ean w as dis ho nes tf orom i t t i ng r eques t ed i nf orm at i on on the M i s s i s s i ppi B ar appl i cat i on. ¶13. T he thi r d i ns t ance of di s hones ty i n the B ar appl i cat i on i nvol ved ques t i on num ber28,
w hi ch as ked “[ h] ave you e verbeen di s char ged, as ked t o r es i gn, orr es i gned f r om any empl oym entf

orr eas ons otherthan ca r eeradvanc ementorf ul l - t i m e schoo l i ng?” D ean ans w er ed i n the nega t i ve. T he B oar d f ound thatD ean w as t erm i nat ed f r om eac h of

the thr ee in su ra n c e c o m p a n ies – Illin o is M u tu a l, M id lan d N a tio n a l L ife In su ra n c e , an d M a ss a c h u se tts M utual L i f

e I ns ur ance – w hi ch he l i s t ed as em ployers . D ean di s put es hi s s t atus as an empl oyee, clai m i ng thathe w as an i ndepende ntcontr act or ; thus , the ques t i on w as inap p li ca b le t o h im . T o the c o n tr ary , D ea n li sted the th ree insu ran ce co m p an ies as e m p loy ers on hi s appl i cat i on and s t at ed thathe had ne verbeen t erm i nat ed by any of the thr ee. E ach of the thr ee i ns ur ance compani es s ubm i t t ed document at i on s t a t i ng tha ti n f a c the w as t erm i nat ed fro m e m p lo y m e n t.Fo l l ow i ng a conve r s at i on w i th M i chi gan B arof f i ci al s w hi ch l ef

tD ean c oncerned 2 a bo utthe s uc c e s s of

hi s a pp l i c a t i on t o t he M i c hi ga n Bar , D e a n f i l e d a pr o s e 42 U . S. C. S. s ect i on 1983 compl ai ntagai ns tT hom as K . B yer l ey, couns el forthe M i chi gan B arw ho over s ees the B ar ’ s Char act era nd Fi tnes s D epartm ent , al l egi ng: ( 1) vi ol at i on of hi s Fi r s tand F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts b y thr e a ten in g arr e st o r re talia tio n ; (2 ) a ss a u lt; a n d (3 ) lib e l. T h e ju ry re

jec ted D e a n ' s c laim s. D e a n a p p e a led . T h e S ix th C irc u it aff irm e d th e trial c o u rt. 

### 8 ¶1 4. Furthe r , the Boa r d f ou nd tha tDea n w a s d i s ho ne s tr e ga r di ng h i s a ct i ons i n D ean v. B yerley , N o . 0 5 -11 5 5 , 2 0 0 5 U . S . A p p . L E X IS 17 8 3 0 (6th C ir . A u g . 17 , 20 0 5 ). T h e B o ard 2 fou n d that D ea n g av e fa lse t esti m o n y an d m ad e inc o n sist en t sta tem en ts du ri n g the c o u rt pr oc e e di ng s a s w e l l a s be f or e the Com mi t t e e . I n B yerl ey , D ean pi cket ed atthe home of T h o m a s B y e rl e y , a M ic h ig a n B a r o ff ic ia l. Id
. at*3. D ean all eged thatB yer l ey thr eat ened h im fo r p ic k e tin g a t B y e rl e y ’s h o m e . Id
. D e a n su e d fo r d a m a g e s, c laim in g th a t as a re su lt of B yer l ey’ s thr eat s , he w as a f r ai d t o c ont i nue exer ci s i ng hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s underthe F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. Id
. at*11. H ow ever , B yer l ey ent er ed evi dence t haton t he s ame day af t er l eavi ng hi s hous e, D ean c ont i nued t o pi cketa s econd ho use, the r es i dence of J ohn N u s s b a u m e r, a d e a n a t T h o m a s C o o le y L a w S c h o o l. S ee Id
. at *14. ¶15. T he B oar d s t at es thatw hi l e D ean deni ed attr i al havi ng pi cket ed the s econd hous e, he conce ded hi s act i ons t o the Si xth C i r cui t . W i th r egar d t o D ean pi cket i ng the s econd hous e, the Si xth C i r cui ts t at ed “D ean a ccur at el y not es [ on appeal ] t hatt he house he pi cket ed di d not b e lo n g to a s ta te a c to r a n d th a t h e w a s th e re fo re a t n o risk o f h a v in g h is fre e -sp e e c h rig h ts chi l l ed. ” Id
. at*14- 15. ¶16. Si m i l ar l y, D ean made i ncons i s t ents t at ement s t o the C om m i t t ee. T he B oar d cont ends D ean e f f ect i vel y admi t t ed i n a l ett ert o the C om m i t t ee t o pi cket i ng N us s baumer ’ s r es i dence

### 9

on the day i n ques t i on, M ar ch 27, 2001. N us s baumers t at ed i n a l ett er , w r i t t en on M ar ch 27, 2 0 0 1 , “I p e rso n a lly o b s e rv e d M r. D e a n a n d h is tw o h ire d h a n d s p ick e tin g m y h o u se th is
m o rn in g .” D e a n ’s le tter to th e C o m m itt e e sta ted in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

. . . . D ean N us s baumer ’ s l et t er dat ed 3/ 27/ 01 r ef err i ng t o m y non t ar get ed pi cket i ng of

hi s hom es s t at ed among ot herthi ng s thatI w as very court eous ( E xhi bi tH ) . ( s i c) H e corr ect l y s t at ed thatI pa i d tw o pe opl e t o acc om pany me. M y r eas on f

ordoi ng s o w as thatI w ant ed w i tnes s es on m y behal f pr es entat al l t i m es. W h e n D e a n w a s a sk e d in th e A u g u st 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , C o m m itt e e h e a rin g w h e th e r th e sta tem e n t in the l ett erw as an admi s s i on thatD ean pi cketed N us s baumer ’ s hous e on M ar ch 27, 2001, D ean r es ponded “[ i ] tw oul d ha ve been i f I ha d the dat e corr ect . ” D ean a cknow l edged thathe h a d p a id tw o p e o p le to a c c o m p a n y h im in p ic k e tin g N u ss b a u m e r’s h o u se b u t fa iled to comm enton N us s baumer ’ s al l eged i nacc ur acy of the pi cket i ng dat e, an i s s ue w hi ch w as s i gni f i cantduri ng t he tr i al and the appe al . D es pi t e hi s pr evi ous conce s s i on by l ett er , D ean d en ied d u ri n g th e C o m m ittee h ea ri n g o n A u g u st 25 , 2 0 0 5 , that h e p icke ted N u ssb au m er’s hom e on M ar ch 27, 2001. ¶ 1 7 . D e a n fa iled to o ffe r e v id e n c e in e ith e r th e B o a rd h e a rin g o r th e trial c o u rt h e a rin g to negat e the B oar d’ s f

i ndi ng thathe w as di s hones t . Ther e w as s uf f i ci entevi dence by w hi ch the C om m i t t ee c oul d have f ou nd D ean t o exhi bi tconducts ubs t ant i al l y evi denci ng an i ncl i nat i on t o be di s hones t . C ons equent l y, w i th r egar d t o the f i ndi ng of di s hones ty, D ean ha s fai l ed to show the B oard’s den i al of hi s app l i cat i on w as arbi trary, cap ri ci ou s, o r m al i ci ou s. I I . W he t he r t he Boar d V i ol at e d A ppl i c ant ’ s R i ght t o Fr e e Spe e c h.

### 10

¶18 . D ean co ntends that the c h an ce ry co u rta ffi rm ed the B oard, w hich “pu t[ his ] F i rs t A m end m ent pr act i ces and p ers on al v i ew s on tr i al . ” D ean assert s the B oard viol at ed h i s Fir st A m end m ent r i gh tt o fr ee spe ech by h oldi ng againsthim his peti t i on forredr ess of gri evan ces. D ean al l eges the B oard r et al i at ed againsthi m due t o his having f i l ed vari ou s law su it s, i ncludi ng tw o ag ai nstthe M i ssi ssi pp i B oard of B ar A dm i ssi on s. ¶19. T he C om m i t t ee expl ai ned dur i ng the hear i ng that i t s conce rn w as the val i di ty of the su its a n d D e a n ’s c o n d u c t re late d to d e a lin g s w ith th e leg a l sy ste m . T h e C o m m itt e e b a se d its d e ter m in a tio n o f m isc o n d u c t on the fo llo w in g fin d in g s: (1 ) D e a n o ffe re d fa lse tes tim o n y to the C om m i t t ee r egar di ng t he event s under l yi ng the D ean v. B yerley cas e; ( 2) f

i ve days pr i or to the co m m ittee h ea ri n g , D ea n m ad e thre ats t o D av id S torl ie, a w itn ess s ch ed u led to test if y atthe C om m i t t ee he ar i ng w ho w as G ener al C ouns el of I l l i noi s M utual , a form erempl oyer o f D e a n ’s; a n d (3 ) D e a n a d m itt e d to e n g a g in g in th e u n a u th o riz e d p ra c tice o f la w in nu m erous l aw sui t s. ¶20 . T he C om m i t t ee further f ou nd D ean’s pat t ern of l i t i gati on i nd i cat ed thatD ean h as a habi tof f i l i ng mer i t l es s a nd r et al i at ory s ui t s . O n D ean’ s appeal of the j ury ver di ctr ej ect i ng hi s cl ai m s , the Si xth C i r cui tf ound D ean’ s ar gum ent s t o be “i m pr obabl e” w i th “no
m eani ngf

ul author i ty. ” D ean v. B yerley , N o. 05- 1155, 2005 U . S. A pp. L E X I S 17830 at*7 ( 6th C i r . A ug. 17, 2005) ( “N otonl y i s i ti m pr obabl e thata di s tr i ctcour t ' s re l i ance on m odel j ury i ns truct i ons w oul d amountt o pl ai n err orbutD ean a l so h as of f er ed no meani ngf

ul author i ty t o s how thatthe us e of thes e m odel i ns truct i ons w as i n f actm i s t aken” ) . D ean s ued tw o empl oyees of

the M i s s our i Conservat i on Com m i s s i on af t erthe C om m i s s i on obt ai ned a

### Dean sue d under 42 U.S.C. S. § 1983, claiming that Mis souri stat e of fi ci al s vi olate d 3 

### his F ourth Amendment rig hts b y tresp assingonto h is p ro p erty an d p ho tog raph inghis partiallycon structedho me with out a warrant. 11 p re lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n p ro h ib iti n g D e a n fro m im p ro v in g a ro a d lea d in g to h is p a rt ia lly cons truct ed hom e. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm entf orthe C om m i s s i on. T he 3 E ig h th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re jec ted a s “ friv o lo u s” D e a n ’s a rg u m e n t th a t h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts h a d b e e n v io la te d . D e a n v. D u c k w o rth , 99 F ed . A p p x . 76 0 , 76 1 (8th C ir . A p ri l 26 , 2 0 0 4 ). ¶ 2 1 . F u rth e r ex a m p les o f re talia to ry su its o c c u rre d . A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f a crim in a l trial, the tr i al courtor der ed thatD ean a nd hi s w i f e be pai d re s t i tut i on. D ean, al ong w i th hi s w i f e, br oughtan emot i onal di s tr es s cl ai m agai ns tthe pr es i di ng ci r cui tcourtj udge and the p ro s e c u to r, a lle g in g th e j u d g e a n d p ro s e c u to r r e fu s e d to re le a s e th e re s titu tio n . D ean v. Ca rle , N o. 4: 96C V 00292FR B , s l i p op. at1 ( E . D . M o. A pr . 22, 1996) . T he att orney and ju d g e w e re d is m is s e d o n th e b a s is o f i m m u n ity . Id
. at2- 3. T he tr i al court ’ s O r dernot ed: I n addi t i on t o the l egal s hor t com i ng s of thi s cas e, the Pl ai nt i f

f s w oul d have di f f i c ul ty s ho w i ng d a mage s a ttr i a l s i nc e M r . Pa rke rh a s a l r e a dy t e nd e r e d a n of f ert o pay the r es t i tut i on butthe Pl ai nt i f f s have r ej ect ed t hatm oney. T he Pl ai nt i f f s m ay w i s h t o r ethi nk thei rdeci s i on. Id
. at4. A lso, afterthe M i ssouri A t t orney G eneral ob t ai ned a con senti njunct i on against D ean a nd a cha r i ty he di r ect ed on the bas i s of de cept i ve pr act i ces , D ean s ued tw o as s i s t ant a tto rn e y s g e n e ra l f

o r t h e S ta te o f M is s o u ri fo r d a m a g e s a n d i n ju n c ti v e re lie f. D ean v. T hurm an , N o. 87- 0089C ( 6) , s l i p op. at1( E . D . M o. A pr . 30. 1987) . D ef endant s m oved f

or s u m m a ry ju d g e m e n t o n th e g ro u n d o f i m m u n ity . Id
. T he f eder al tr i al courtdi s m i s s ed the

### 12

c a se b e c a u se th e c laim fo r d a m a g e s w a s b a rre d b y p ro se c u to ria l im m u n ity a n d th e c o u rt d id notf i nd c i r c ums t a nc e s w a rr a nt i ng i t s i nt e rve nt i on i n a n o ng oi ng s t a t e c i vi l e nf or cement a c tio n . Id
. a t 2 . S u b se q u e n tly , D e a n w ith d re w th e c o m p lain t h e h a d filed in sta te c o u rt. ¶22 . T he B oard ci t es I n the Matterof

A dm is s ion to the B ar , 82 8 N . E . 2d 48 4, 49 4 (M ass. 20 05 ) ( c on du c ti n p r e vi ou s l i t i ga t i on i s pr op e r l y c on s i de r e d t o d e t e rmi ne w he the rthe appl i canthas a “s ens e of r eal i ty” i n deal i ng w i th the l egal s ys t em) a nd I n r e Appe al

of Lane , 5 4 4 N . W . 2 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 6 (N eb . 1 9 9 6 ) (an ap p li ca n t’ s threa tenin g an d irrati o n al ac ti o n s are r e l e va nta nd may d i s c l os e a “ pa t t e rn a nd way of l i f e ” r e ga r di ng the app l i c a nt ’ s nor m al
r eac t i on t o oppos i t i on a nd di s appoi ntm ent ) i n s uppor tof the cont ent i on thatcons i der at i on of s uch s t at ement s and ac t i ons w hen dea l i ng w i th the l egal s ys t em i s prope r, as they may be i ndi cat or s of

how the appl i cantw i l l conducthi m s el f as an att orney. ¶2 3 . T h e C o m m itt e e s tate d in its re c o m m e n d a tio n th a t its c o n ce rn w as n o t “D ea n ’s t endenc i es t o pi cketor otherw i s e exer ci s e any of hi s const i tut i onal ri ght s . ” T he cha i rm an of th e C o m m itt e e sta ted in th e h e a rin g tha t th e C o m m itt e e w o u ld n o t d isp u te D e a n ’s r ig h t to file c iv il l a w su its. “It’s th e v a lid ity o f th e law su its th a t ca u se s c o n c e rn , n o t th e rig h t to file l aw s ui t s . ” D e a n h as fa il ed to sh o w that b y co n side ri n g h is l it igation h ist o ry, th e B o ard ’s deni al of hi s appl i cat i on w as arbi tr ary, capr i ci ous , orm al i ci ous orthathi s Fi r s tA m endment
r i ghtt o f r ee s peec h w as vi ol at ed. III . W h ether the B oa rd V i olat ed D ean ’s R i gh t t o D u e P rocess. ¶2 4 . D ea n co n tend s tha t th e B o ard v iolated h is r igh t t o d u e p roc ess in that itfail ed to affo rd hi m an opportuni ty t o be conf r ont ed w i th, and t o cross- exam i ne w i tnes s es w ho s uppl i ed

### 13

in fo rm a tio n a d v e rse to h im , sin c e th e B o a rd n e v e r p ro d u c e d th e w itn e ss e s w h o se sta tem e n ts i ti ntended t o u se agai nsthi m atthe heari ng . D ean cit es W il l nerv. Com m ittee on Charac ter & Fitn ess , 373 U . S. 96, 83 S. C t . 1175, 10 L . Ed. 2d 224 ( 1963) , i n w hi ch the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d thatthe admi s s i ons pr ocedures fai l ed t o af f or d due pr oces s w hen no hear i ng w as pr ovi ded and the appl i cantw as deni ed an oppor tuni ty t o re vi ew t he r eportof the char act ercomm i t t ee r es ul t i ng i n deni al of hi s appl i cat i on. T he Supr eme C our tcons i der ed

“ w h a t p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s re q u ir e s if th e lic e n s e [to p ra c tic e la w ] is to b e w ith h e ld .” W il l ner , 37 3 U . S . at1 03 . T he C ou rtheld that “pet i t i on er w as denied proced ural du e process w hen he w as deni ed admi s s i on t o the B arby the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on w i thouta he ar i ng on the char ges f i l ed aga i ns thi m bef

or e ei thert he C om m i t t ee ort he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on. ” I d. at106. T h e re q u isite h e a rin g sh o u ld h a v e in c lu d e d n o tice o f w h a t th e g o v e rn m e n t in ten d e d to p re se n t at th e h e a rin g a n d th e o p p o rtu n ity fo r th e c h a rg e d p e rso n to b e h e a rd a n d to re fu te th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s a rg u m e n ts a t th e h e a ri n g . I d. at105. ¶25. T he B oar d r es ponds that D ean w as pr ovi ded w r i t t en no t i ce pr i or t o the hear i ng and an opportuni ty t o ans w erand r ef ut e ac cus at i ons atthe he ar i ng. T he B oar d f axed D ean a l ett eron A ugus t19, 2005, not i f yi ng D ean thatboth D avi d St or l i e f r om I l l i noi s M utual and Sar a W r i tm an f

r om the M i s s our i L egal E thi cs C ouns el w er e pot ent i al w i tnes s es f orthe A ugus t25, 2005, hear i ng and l i s t i ng t he document s thatm i ghtbe i ntr oduced. T hus , the B oar d not es thatD ean ha d an opportuni ty t o addr es s the evi den ce b utf ai l ed t o cal l any w itn esse s o n h is be h alf.

### 14

¶ 2 6 . Th i s c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m W il l n er. T h is C o u rtfi n d s the B o a rd a d e q u a tely in fo rm e d D e a n o f th e e v id e n c e o f a d v e rse c h a ra c terto b e c o n sid e re d a n d su ffic ien tly pr ovi ded D ean w i th an opportuni ty t o r es pond dur i ng the hea r i ng. ¶2 7 . D ea n furthe r co n tend s the b u rde n w as o n the B o ard to p rod u ce the e v iden ce to su p p o rt the B oar d’ s f

i ndi ng. H ow ever , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 73- 3- 2( 2) ( b) ( R ev. 20 04 ) pr ov i des: T he appl i cants hal l bearthe bur den of es t abl i s hi ng hi s orherqual i f i cat i ons f or a d m is s io n to th e s a tis fa c tio n o f t h e B o a rd . . . . R u le 8 , § 1 0 ; W

at kins v. Mis s . Bd. of

BarAdm is s ions , 65 9 S o. 2d 56 1, 56 8 (M i ss. 19 9 5 ). W ith o u t q u e stio n , the b u rd e n is on D e a n to d e m o n stra te h is fitn e ss an d n o t o n th e B o a rd to sh o w h is la c k th e re o f. T h e re fo re , this a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶28 . D ean al so con t end s that the B oard rel i ed heav i l y on hearsay i n reachi ng i t s f i nd i ng s, and s uch r el i ance i s i n vi ol at i on of Rul e 8, s ect i on 5( d) , w hi ch decl ar es he ar say evi dence “s hal l notbe s uf

f i ci ents t andi ng al one t o s uppor ta f i ndi ng unl es s i tw oul d be admi s s i bl e over object i on in ci vi l act i ons . ” D ean f ai l s t o s t at e w hi ch t es t i m ony he bel i eves w as hear s ay. M or eover , a s the tr i al c our tpoi nt ed out , D ean f ai l ed t o make a s peci f

i c obj ect i on t o the h ea rsay h e n am ed eith er in the h ea ri n g b efo re the co m m ittee o r in ch an ce ry co u rt . T h is C o u rt cons i s t ent l y has s t at ed thatf ai l ur e t o obj ectt o hear s ay con st i tut es a w ai verof the i s s ue on a p p e a l. Moor e v. P arker , 962 So. 2d 558, 566 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng R u b e n ste in v. Sta te , 941 So. 2d 735, 764 ( M i s s . 2006) ) . W e f i nd thatD ean’ s obj ect i on t o s uch evi dence i s w ai ved.

### 15

¶29. D ean f

ai l ed t o s how by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatdeni al of hi s appl i cat i on by the B oard w as arbi trary, cap ri ci ou s, o r m al i ci ou s or i n viol at i on o f hi s du e p rocess ri gh t s. I V . W h e t h e r t h e B o a r d R e l i e d S o l e l y o n C o n d u c t T o o R e mo t e I n T i me ¶ 3 0 . D e a n a lso a ss e rts th a t th e B o a rd v io late d R u le 8 , se c tio n 6 , w h ich sta tes : T he f ol l ow i ng conductw i l l noti n and of i t s el f be cons i der ed as i ndi cat i ng a l ack of m or al orethi cal qual i f

i cat i on:

. . . . 4 . M isc o n d u c t re m o te in ti m e u n les s fe lo n io u s in n a tu re o r re c e n tly

repeat ed in si m i l ar act s. ¶31. D ean ar gues the B oar d vi ol at ed thi s rul e by r el yi ng on al l egat i ons that D ean e ngaged i n the unauthor i zed pr act i ce of l aw i n 1987, tw enty year s ago. T he B oar d acknow l edges the
rul e and e xpl ai ns thati tdi d notvi ol at e the rul e. W hi l e the B oar d cons i der ed an actw hi ch o c c u rre d m o re th a n tw e n ty y e a rs a g o , ita lso c o n sid e re d a d d iti o n a l co n d u c t in m a k in g its det erm i nat i on. A s m ent i oned, the B oar d bas ed i t s deni al on s i x re as ons : ( 1) di s hones ty; ( 2) i rr es pons i bi l i ty i n bus i ness orpr of es s i onal m att er s ; ( 3) unauthor i zed pr act i ce of l aw ; ( 4) vi ol at i on of

r eas onabl e rul es of

conduct ; ( 5) f

ai l ur e t o exer ci s e s el f

- contr ol ; and ( 6) m ent al a n d e mo t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i ty t o th e e x t e n tth a tth e ap p l i c a n ti s n o ts u i t e d f o rth e p r a c t i c e o f

l a w. T h e u n au tho ri ze d p rac ti ce o f l aw is on ly o n e o f th e six rea so n s. T h ere fore , the B o ard ’s in c lu sio n o f re m o te c o n d u c t a m o n g n u m e ro u s o th e r in sta n c e s o f d isq u a lify in g c o n d u c t in s uppor tof

i t s deci s i on does notvi ol at e R ul e 8, s ect i on 6. V . W he t he r t he B oar d Pro pe r l y Det e r m i ne d D e an W as M e nt al l y a nd E m ot i onal l y U nst abl e.

### 16

¶ 3 2 . R u le 8 , se c tio n 6 a llo w s d is q u a lif ic a tio n fo r th e d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e a p p lica n t is “ment al l y or em ot i onal l y uns t abl e t o the ext entthatappl i canti s nots ui t ed f orthe pr act i ce of l aw . ” D ean a s s ert s t hatt he B oar d m ade am edi cal det erm i nat i on w i thouthavi ng a medi cal l i cens e. H ow ever , the B arR ul es decl ar e that“[ i ] ts hal l be the duty of the B oar d t o admi ni s t er th e se R u les a n d to d e ter m in e th e fitn e ss a n d q u a lifica tio n s o f p e rso n s s e e k in g a d m iss io n to pr act i ce l aw i n the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi . ” B arR ul es , R ul e 2, §2. Si nce ther e i s no re qui r ement th a t th e B o a rd in c lu d e a m e m b e r w ith a m e d ica l d e g re e , the R u les p re su p p o se th e B o a rd is capabl e of

eval uati ng an appl i cant ’ s m ent al and emot i onal s t at e, notf orthe purpos es of m edi cal di agnos i s , butf orthe purpos e of

det erm i ni ng w hetherhe o r she i s m ent al l y and e mo t i o n a l l y f

i tt o p r a c t i c e l a w. ¶33. T he B oar d bas ed i t s f i ndi ng that D ean w as emot i onal l y and m ent al l y uns t abl e on the f ac t s tha t : ( 1) D e a n wr ot e a nu mberof thr e a t e ni ng l e t t e r s , i nc l ud i ng tho s e t o h i s f or m er empl oyerI l l i no i s M utual and t o the dea n of T hom as C ool ey Law School ; ( 2) l aw s chool a d m in istra tio n stro n g ly u rg e d tha t D e a n u n d e rg o p sy c h iatric ex a m in a tio n ; a n d (3 ) D e a n p a id
m ember s of

the publ i c t o att end thi s comm i t t ee he ar i ng on A ugus t25, 2005. ¶34. T hi s C our t f

i nds that D ean’ s r epea t ed act i ons w er e s uf f i ci ent for t he B oard, act i ng w i thi n i t s e num er at ed dut i es , t o f i nd thatD ean “ exhi bi t ed conduc ts ubs t ant i al l y evi denci ng an i ncl i nat i on” thathe w as “em ot i onal l y and m ent al l y uns t abl e t o the ext entthat[ he] w as not su ited fo r th e p ra c tice o f la w .” D e a n fa iled to s h o w th a t th e B o a rd ’s d e n ial w ith re sp e c t to the fi nd i ng of hi s m ental and em oti on al st at e w as arbitrary, capri ci ou s or m al i ci ou s. CO NC L US I ON

### 17

¶3 5. T he Boar d’ s de ni a l of D e a n’ s a pp l i c a t i on w a s s up po r t e d b y s ubs t ant i al evi dence . Fur ther , D ean ha s s ho w n no rul e- bas ed orcons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons comm i t t ed dur i ng the B o ard ’s co n side rati o n s. T h ere fore , this C o u rtaffirm s the jud g m en t of the C h an ce ry C o u rt o f H ind s C o u n ty w h ich d en ied D ea n ’s ap p li ca ti o n for a d m issi o n to the M issi ssipp i B ar. ¶ 3 6 . AFF I RM ED . S M I T H, C. J . , W AL L E R A ND DI AZ , P . J J . , CA RL S ON, GRAVE S , DI CK I NS ON AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . , CO NC UR . E AS L E Y, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .