IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2019-BR-01672-SCT DAV ID CARTAN LOKER GIBBONS, JR.

v. THE MISSISSIPPI BAR ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER: ANDREW KILPATRICK, JR. KRISTIN SW EARENGEN ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: ADAM B. KILGORE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - BAR MATTERS DISPOSITION: REINSTATEMENT GRANTED - 08/06/2020 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

EN BANC. BEAM, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. David Cartan Loker Gibbons, J r., petitions t his C ourt f o r reinstatem ent to the practice of law i n the state of Mississippi and readm i ssion to the Mississippi B ar. The B ar supports Gibbons’s requests, subm itting that Gibbons has s atisf ied his burden to prove t h a t h e is worthy of reinstatem ent and that he has achieved the m oral and p rof essional rehabilitation to return to the practice of law. FACTS ¶2. O n J a n u a r y 8 , 2019, t he Louisiana Suprem e Court suspended Gibbons f r o m t h e practice of law in L ouisiana f or one y ear and one d ay , with all but six m onths def erred. The Louisiana Suprem e Court concluded that Gibbons had n e glected his client Greater New Orleans Federal Credit U nion (GNOFCU), had f ailed to tim ely com m

unicate with G

NOFCUand disclose h is m alpractice, and had m isled GNOFCU r egarding the m atters. GNOFCU had

retained G ibbons in 2006 to represent it in r ecovering m oney o wed to the c redit union f rom various outstanding l oan obligations, which m ainly involved c a r seizures an d d ef iciency suits. ¶3. On October 3, 2019, this Court “im pos[ ed] recip r o c a l d i s c i p l i n e e q u a l t o t h e suspension p eriod im

posed by the Louisiana Suprem e Court,” under Rule 13 of the Rules of Discipline f

or the Mississippi State Bar. M iss. B a r v. Gibbons , No. 2 019-BD-00629-SCT, 2019 W L 4877444, at *1 (Miss. Oct. 3, 2019). ¶4. T h i s C o u r t f

o u n d that a retroactive s uspension was appropriate and ordered t h e suspension period retroactive to January 8, 2019. Id. at *5. And this Court held that even

t h o u g h G ibbons’s L o uisiana suspension h ad been com p leted at the tim e of t his Court’ s decision, Gibbons was required to petition t his Court f or reinstatem ent in Mississippi under Rule 12 of

Rules of Discipline f

or the Mississippi State Bar. Id. ¶5. Gibbons f

iled a p e tition f

or reinstatem ent on Novem ber 4, 2019. In investigating the

m erits of Gibbons’s p etition, the Bar deposed Gibbons on January 22, 2020. The Bar f iled its response to Gibbons’s petition f or reinstatem ent on April 2, 2020. ¶6. Appl y i n g the requirem ents set f orth b y Rule 12.7 of the Rules of Discipline f or the Mississippi State Bar, t he Bar s ubm its that Gibbons satisf ied his burden of p roof of both

m oral a nd prof

essional rehabilitation by clear and convincing e v i dence. Thus, the Bar supports Gibbons’s reinstatem ent to the practice of law in Mississippi. DISCUSSION

2¶7. This Court “has exclusive and i nherent jurisdiction of m atters pertaining to attorney

discipline and reinstatem ent

. . .” In re M o r r ison , 8 19 So. 2 d 1181, 1183 ( Miss. 2001) (quoting I

n re Sm ith , 7 58 So. 2d 396, 397 (Miss. 1999)). W e review the e vidence in disciplinary m atters “de novo, on a case-by -case basis sitting a s triers of f act.” In re Sm ith , 758 So. 2d at 397 (quoting In re Pace , 699 So. 2d 593, 595 (Miss. 1997)). ¶8. Rule 12 governs the reinstatem e nt of suspended attorney s. M.R.D. 12. It states, (a) No person disbarred or suspended f or a period o f six (6) m onths or longer shall be reinstated to t he privilege of p racticing law except u pon petition to the Court, (b) Reinstatem ent to the practice of law f ollowing any other discipline shall be only upon proof

of com pliance with any

such sanctions[ .] M.R.D. 12. ¶9. In determ ining whether t o grant r einstatem ent, “[ t]he Court’s f undam ental inquiry

is whether [ t he atto r

n e y ] h a s r ehabilitated him self in conduct and character since t he suspension

was i mp o s e d .” In r e Steele , 722 So. 2d 662, 664 (Miss. 1998) (internal quotation m arks

om itted) (quoting In r e Mathes , 653 S o. 2d 928, 929 (Miss. 1995)). The petitioner bears the burden of proof t hat he or s he h a s rehabilitated him or herself and h as reestablished the requisite m oral character suf f icient f or reinstatem e n t. B urgin v. Miss. S tate Bar , 453 So. 2d 689, 691 (Miss. 1984). ¶10. The petitio n e r mu s t d e mo n s t r a t e t his by com ply ing with the f

ive jurisdictional requirem ents of

Rule 12, provided as f

ollows: (1) state the cause or causes f or suspension or disbarm ent; (2) give the nam e and current a ddress of all persons, parties, f i rm s, or legal e ntities who suf f e red pecuniary loss due t o t he im proper conduct; (3) m a k e f ull a m ends and

3restitution[ ;] (4) show that he has the n ecessary m oral character f o r the practice of law; and (5) dem onstrate the requisite legal education to be reinstated to the privilege of practicing law.
In re Benson , 890 So. 2d 888, 890 (Miss. 2004). ¶11. This Court considers t he Bar’s position as to reinstatem ent as a f actor in determ ining whether to r e i n s t a t e a s uspended attorney

. In re Hollem an , 826 So. 2d 1243, 1248 (Miss. 2002). 1. Cause for Suspension ¶12. Gibbons stat e s i n h i s p e t i t i o n f o r r einstatem ent t hat he was suspended f rom the practice of law in Mississippi by this Court f ollowing h i s s u s p e n s i o n in Louisiana by the Louisiana Suprem e Court. G ibbons states that the Louisiana Suprem e Court f ound that he had neglected his c lient’s legal m atters, had f ailed to com m

u nicate with GNOFCU a

n d t i m e ly disclose h is m alpractice, and had m isled his client regarding the sta t u s o f c ertain m atters. Gibbons specif

ically notes that he had allowed a num b er of legal m atters entrusted to him to f all outside the applicable p r e s c r i ption period. And his conduct constituted a violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 8.4(c) of the Louisia n a Rules of Prof essional Conduct. As this Court noted, “ [ t]he sam e rules are f ound in the M ississippi R ules of Prof

essional Conduct.” Gibbons , 2019 W L 4877444, at *4 (citing M.R.P.C. 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 8.4(c)). 2. Pecuniary Loss ¶13. Gibbons provides the address a nd telephone n um b er of his clie n t G

NOFCU, which suf f e red a pecuniary

loss as a result of

Gibbons’s conduct. 3. Full Am ends and Restitution

4¶14. GNOFCU f i led a prof

essional-m alpractice suit against Gibbons t hat ultim ately was settled. As noted by this C ourt, the joint petition f or consent discipline subm i tted by Gibbons and the Of

f ice of D isciplinary Counsel ( ODC) f or the Attorney Disciplina r y B o a r d i n Louisia n a s t a ted t hat “the settlem ent f ully rectif i ed the dam ages incurred by G NOFCU.” Gibbons , 2019 W L 4877444, at *2. 4. Moral Character ¶15. Gibbons accepted responsibility f or his conduct and closed h is law practice in August 2016, seeking em

ploy m ent outside t he practice of law. G ibbons adm itted to becom ing overwhelm ed b y t he volum e of def iciency loans GNOFCU was ref erring to h im , and he was

em barrassed by his inability to keep u p w i t h h i s c a se load. Gibbons was s u f f ering f rom

a n x i e t y a nd associated depression during this period, which had driven him to a d e e p

em otional state of

avoidance. And Gibbons sought prof essional help. ¶16. Gibbons adm itted that he had m ade gross m istakes that harm ed his c lient GNOFCU. The ODC acknowledged Gibbons’s rem orsef ulness d uring its investigation into the m atter, and the O DC considered it to b e a m itigating f actor in its recom m endation to the Louisiana Suprem e Court f

or discipline. ¶17. Gibbons has com

plied w ith all the term s of the suspension im posed by the Louisiana Suprem e Court and has since been reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana. Gibbons subsequently sought reinstatem ent b e f o re t he U nited States District Court f or the Eastern District of

Louisiana, which was granted.

5¶18. Gibbons say s that he does no t i n tend to return t o the private p ractice of law, but he

wants to use his license i n other em ploy m ent opportunities. Since Gibbons closed his law practice in 2016, he has worked f u ll tim e f o r a bank in L ouisiana a s a loan of f icer. Gibbons testif i ed at his deposition bef

ore the Mississippi Bar that attorney s are notaries in Louisiana. And Gibbons inf

orm ed h is em

ploy er that he could not notarize any docum entation f or t hem during his suspension period in L ouisiana. Gibbons t estif ied that he plans to rem ain with his

current em

ploy er. He also stated that he would like t o be a ble to do legal work i n Mississippi f or his f am ily

. ¶19. Gibbons testif

ied that he has b e e n a c t i v e in his son’s travel b aseball t eam , having previously s erved as coach a nd team m ana g e r . G ibbons serves as an usher at his church, provides f

ood support f

or a boy s’ hom e and perf

orm s school-related volunteer work. ¶20. T h e B a r notes that Gibbons appeared m entally a nd em otionally st a b l e d u r i n g h i s deposition. And Gibbons testif ied that the anxiety and depression he experienced previously has not m anif

ested in his current job. G i b b o n s w a s not required by Louisiana to enroll or report to their lawy er-assistance program . The Bar states in its answer that G ibbons’s petition and his testim ony at d eposition adequa t e l y s u p port that he has the requisite m oral character and m ental health f or the practice of

law.
5. Legal Learning ¶21. Gibbons subm itted docum entation showing that he has m aintai n e d h i s continuinglegal-education requireme nts, including taking courses o n a ttorney m o rality and attending the procrastinator’s program

.

6¶22. The B ar states in its answer t h a t i t supports Gibbons’s r einstatem ent to the practice

of law in Mississippi. The Bar acknowledges that while Gibbons’s ethical violations were of a serious nature warranting discipline, Gibbons’s aggressive and honest pursuit of rehabilitation o f his own lif e, as well as his ability to overcom e anxiety and depression and to balance his lif

e and work obligations are noteworthy

. ¶23. W e f

ind t h a t G i b b o n s h a s s a t i s f i e d a l l t h e jurisdictional requirem ents and has

com plied with all the sanctions im posed by this Court. W e a gree with the Bar that Gibbons has satisf ied his burden of proof of both m oral and prof essional rehabilitation required o f a suspended attorney

. And Gibbons has m et his b urden of presenting evidence warranting his reinstatem ent to the practice of law. CONCLUSION ¶24. For these reasons, this Court grants Gibbons’s petition f o r reinstatem ent, and Gibbons is hereby reinstated to the practice of the law. ¶25. P E T I T I O N O F D A V I D C A R T A N L O K E R G I B B O N S , J R . , F O R REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE O F L AW IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IS GRANTED. RANDOLPH, C .J., KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ., COLEMAN, M AX WELL, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.

7