### 1 I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI

NO. 2 0 1 0 - CT - 0 0 3 8 0 - S CT IN T H E M A T T ER O F T H E ES T A T E O F L O U IS S T. M ART I N, DECEAS

ED: J AM ESR. FORBES v. EDLEY HI

XS ON AND S T. M

ART I N, M AHON EY & AS S OCI ATES , PROFES

S IONAL LA W CORP ORAT

ION ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 01/ 2009 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. GL E NN B AR L OW CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: HARRI S ON COU NTY CHANCERY COURT S T E P H E N J. M A G G IO AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : KYL E S . M OR AN JA M E S G . W Y L Y , III NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - LE GAL M ALP RACTI CE DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CH ANC E RY CO UR T OF HAR RI S ON C OUNT Y I S RE I NS T AT E D A N D A FFIRM E D - 05/ 22/ 2014 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 . Ja m e s F o rb e s se ttl e d h is p e rso n a l-in ju ry a c tio n w h ile h e w a s re p re se n ted b y L o u is S t. M art i n. Forbes l at ers ued St . M art i n, chal l enging t he val i di ty of hi s cont i ngency- f

ee arr angementw i th St . M art i n and t he as s oci at ed att orneys ’ f ees . T he C hance ry C our tof

### A de tail ed ac count of the fa ct s and proc eduralhis tor y is found at

F orb es v. M

artin , 1 

### 20 13 WL 79 18 47 (Miss. C t. Ap p. M arch 5 , 20 13 ). 2 H arr i s on C ount y gra nt ed s um m ary j udgm entt o St . M art i n; the C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed the chanc ery court ’ s deci s i on and rem anded the ca s e f orf ur therpr ocee di ngs . W e r ever s e the C our to f Appe a l s ’ j ud gmen ta nd f i nd tha ts umm a ry j ud gmen ti n f a vo ro f St . M a r t i n w as p rop er. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY 1 ¶2. In e a rly A u g u st 1 9 9 8 , F o rb e s w a s s e v e re ly in ju re d in a g a s-s tatio n e x p lo sio n in B ilo x i, M i s s i s s i pp i . H e w a s tr a ns po r t e d t o M ob i l e , A l a ba ma, f ormedi c a l tr e a t ment , w he r e he r emai ned i n a com at os e st at e f orseve r al w eeks . W hi l e Forbes w as comat os e, St . M art i n, an att orney l i cens ed i n L oui s i ana, vi s i t ed Forbes ’ s w i f e, L i s a, i n the hos pi t al i n M obi l e att he r eques tof

L i s a’ s f

ami l y m ember s . L i s a ent er ed i nt o a cont i ngency- f ee c ontr actf

or r epr es ent at i on w i th St . M art i n, underw hi ch St . M art i n w oul d r ece i ve one-t hi r d of any s ett l ementorj udgm entobt ai ned. St . M art i n ga ve L i s a $700 f orl i vi ng expens es on the day sh e e x e c u ted th e c o n tin g e n c y -fe e c o n tra c t. ¶3. T her eaf

t er , St . M art i n a s s oci at ed J on M ark W eather s , a M i s s i s s i ppi att orney, t o s erve as l ocal coun sel . W eat hers dr aft ed an d fi l ed a p ers on al -i njury com plai nt on beh al f of F orbes. St . M art i n di d nots i gn the compl ai nt , buthe w as l i s t ed as “of couns el . ” I n O ct ober1998, appr oxi m at el y t w o m onths af t erL i s a s i gned the i ni t i al cont r act , S t . M art i n m etw i th Forbes in th e M o b ile h o sp ital. S t. M a rtin a n d F o rb e s d isc u ss e d th e c o n tin g e n c y -fe e c o n tra c t an d S t. M a rtin ’s r e p re se n tatio n , b u t F o rb e s d id n o t e x e c u te a n e w c o n tra c t. O v e r th e c o u rse o f h is

### The c ompl aint a ls o nam ed We ather s and Weathe rs ’s firm , but it was late r di sm is se d. 2 

### 3 r epr es ent at i on, St . M ar t i n adv ance d the Forbes es appr oxi m at el y $100, 000 f orl i vi ng and m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s , v a c a tio n s , a c a r, a n d o th e r p e rs o n a l e x p e n s e s . ¶4. In J un e 199 9, the F orbeses travel ed t o S t . M arti n ’s L o u isi an a o ffi ce to dis cuss a s ett l ementof

f er , w hi ch they ul t i m at el y r ej ect ed. D ur i ng thatm eet i ng, the Forbes es exec ut ed a s econd c ont i ngency- f ee c ontr act , underw hi ch St . M art i n w oul d r ece i ve one- thi r d of any se ttl e m e n t o r fo rty p e rc e n t o f a n y s e ttl e m e n t o r ju d g m e n t o b tain e d if th e c a se w e n t to trial. Forbes ’ s cas e eve ntual l y w as s ett l ed f ormore than $13 mi l l i on. St . M art i n nevers i gned any pl eadi ngs and neve rent er ed an appe ar ance i n Forbes ’ s cas e; how ever , St . M art i n w as l i s t ed a s “ o f c o u n se l” o n the in iti a l co m p lain t an d d id a tten d d e p o sitio n s in M iss iss ip p i. S t. M a rtin tes tified th a t h e w a s li ste d o n th e in iti a l co m p lain t b y m ista k e a n d h is n a m e w a s p ro m p tly rem ov ed, and that, al tho ug h h e at t end ed, he d i d n ot par t i ci pate i n the dep osi t i on s. ¶5. N ear l y a yea r - and- a- hal f a f t erForbes s ett l ed hi s per s onal - i nj ury cl ai m , Forbes s ued St . M art i n al l egi ng br eac h of f i duci ary duty, f

r aud, and conve r s i on, and r eques t i ng r es ci s s i on of the contr act , im po s i t i on of a cons truct i ve trus t , att orneys ’ f ees , and ac tual and puni t i ve damages . H e amended hi s complai nt i n 2007 t o add an a l l egat i on of pr of es s i onal 2 n e g lig e n c e . F o rb e s a rg u e d th a t th e c o n tra c ts w e re v o id a n d s o u g h t to re c o v e r th e fe e s S t. M arti n rec e ived u n d er the co n tr ac ts. T h e p arti es fil ed co m p eti n g m o ti o n s for su m m ary ju d g m e n t. A fte r a h e a rin g , the c h a n c e ry c o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f S t. M a rt in . F o rb e s a p p e a le d , a n d w e a s s ig n e d th e c a s e to th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls .

### Prat t v . Gul fport- Bil oxi Re g’l Air port Auth. , 97 So. 3d 68, 71 (Miss. 2 01 2) 3 

### (citation s omitted ). Miss. R . Civ . P. 5 6(c). 4 

### Miss. R . Civ . P. 5 6(e). 5 

### 4 ¶6 . T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls fou n d tha t th e ch an ce ry c o u rt h ad e rred in g ran ti n g su m m ary j udgm enton al l cl ai m s , becaus e t her e w er e di s put ed ques t i ons of f act , and i tr emanded t he c a s e fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . W e g ra n te d c e rt io ra ri .

S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶7. W e r evi ew the gr antordeni al of a mot i on forsumm ary j udgm entde novo, vi ew i ng the evi dence “i n t he l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the party agai ns tw hom the m oti on has be en m ade.” S um m ary j ud gm ent i s approp ri at e and “shal l be ren d ered” if the “p l eadings, 3 dep osi t i on s, answ ers t o int err og at ori es and adm i ssi on s on fi l e, t og et her w i th the af fi dav i t s, if a n y , sh o w th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n y m a ter ial fa c t a n d th a t th e m o v in g p a rty is en ti tl ed to jud g m en t as a m att er o f l aw . ” Im p o rt an tl y , the p arty o p p o sing su m m ary 4 ju d g m e n t “m a y n o t re st u p o n th e m e re a lleg a tio n s o r d e n ials o f h is p lea d in g s, b u t h is re sp o n se , b y a ffid a v it o r a s o th e rw is e p ro v id e d in th is ru le, m u st s e t fo rth sp e c ific f a c ts sh o w in g th a t th e re is a g e n u in e iss u e fo r tria l. If h e d o e s n o t so re sp o n d , su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, if a p p ro p ria te, w ill b e e n ter e d a g a in st h im .” F u rth e rm o re , “s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t ‘is 5 app ropri at e w hen the n on -m ov i ng party h as f ai l ed to “m ake a sh ow i ng suff i ci ent t o est abli sh the exi s t ence of

an el emente s s ent i al t o the party’ s c as e, a nd on w hi ch thatpa r ty w i l l be art he

### Buckel v . Chane y , 47 So . 3d14 8, 1 53 (Miss. 2 01 0) (citatio ns o mitted). 6 Baker Donelson Bearman & Caldwell, P.C. v. Muirhead, 92 0 So . 2d 4 40, 449 (M iss . 7 20 06 ). 

### Muir

head, 920 So. 2d at

449. 8 

### Patt er son v . T. L. Wal

lace Cons tr

., Inc . , 133 So. 3d 325, 330 ( Mis s. 2013). 9 

### Muir head, 920 So. 2d at

449. 10 

### 5 b u rde n o f pro o f at tri al. ”’” 6 DI S CU S S I ON ¶8 . T h is is a lega l m alpra cti ce ca se. “In o rde r to rec o v er for lega l m alpra cti ce , a p lai n ti ff m us tpr ove by a pre ponder ance of the evi dence the exi s t ence of a l aw yer - cl i entr el at i ons hi p, negl i gence on the partof the l aw yeri n handl i ng hi s cl i ent ’ s af fai r s entrus t ed t o hi m , and s om e i nj ury pr oxi m at el y caus ed by the l aw yer’ s negl i gence . ” I ti s undi s put ed thatan 7 att orney- cl i entr el at i ons hi p exi s t ed betw een St . M art i n and Forbes ; ther ef or e w e begi n our analysi s by ad dress i ng F orbes’ s negli gen ce cl ai m s. ¶ 9 . “ Ne g l i g e n c e i s a f a i l u r e t o d o wh a t th e r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n wo u l d d o u n d e r th e s a me ors i m i l arci r cumst ance s . ” T o s t at e a ne gl i gence cl ai m , a pl ai nt i f f m us tpr ove thatt he 8 def endantow ed the pl ai nt i f f a dut y, t hatthe def

endantbr eac hed i t s duty, and thatthe br eac h ca u sed an injury to the p lai n ti ff. 9 G ener al l y, att orney s ow e t o thei rcl i ent s dut i es f al l i ng i nt o thr ee br oad cat ego ri es. F i rs t [ , ] h e ow es a duty of car e con si st ent w i th the l evel of exp ert i se he hol ds hi m s el f

outas pos s es s i ng. T hi s dut y of ca r e i m por t s notonl y s ki l l or e x p e rtise , b u t dilig e n c e as w e ll. S e c o n d [,] h e o w e s h is c lien t a d u ty o f lo y a lty and f i del i ty, w hi ch i ncl udes dut i es of conf i dent i al i ty, candorand di s cl os ur e. T h ird , h e o w e s a n y d u ties c re a ted b y h is c o n tra c t w ith h is c lien t. 10

### Wilb ou rn v. S tenn ett, Wilkinso n & Wa rd, 687 So. 2d 1205, 1215 ( Mis s. 1996). 11 

### Cri st v. Loyac ono , 65 So. 3d 837, 842 ( Mis s. 2011). 12 

### 6 F o rb e s a c c u se s S t. M a rtin o f v io latin g h is d u ty o f c a re a n d h is d u ty o f lo y a lty . T h e a n a ly sis i s di f f er entf orthe tw o dut i es , ther ef or e w e w i l l addr es s them sepa r at el y. I . D ut y of

C are ¶ 1 0 . A law y e r’s d u ty o f c a re re q u ire s h im “ to e x e rc is e th e k n o w le d g e , sk ill , a n d a b ili ty o rd in a ri ly p o ss e ss e d a n d e x e rc ise d b y th e m e m b e rs o f t h e le g a l p ro fe s s io n s im ila rl y s itu a te d .” T o rec o v er fo r a d u ty-o f-care v iolati o n , a p lai n ti ff m u st sho w that “b u t f o r th eir att o rne y ’s negl i gence , he w oul d have be en s ucce s s f ul i n the pr os ecut i on ordef ens e of the under l yi ng a c tio n .” T h is is c o m m o n ly k n o w n a s th e “ tr ia l- w ith in -a -t ri a l te s t.”

11 12 ¶1 1 . Itis un d ispu ted th at St. M art i n h el p ed F o rbe s o b tai n a fa v o rab le sett lem en t of F o rbe s’s p e rso n a l-in

ju ry a c tio n . F o rb e s re p e a ted ly tes tified tha t he w a s h a p p y w ith the res u lt o f h is cas e and thathe thoughtSt . M art i n di d an excel l entj ob. I n f act , i n hi s appel l at e br i ef , Forbes a ss e rts th a t: T hi s i s no ta l egal m al pr act i ce c as e i n the us ual s ens e. M r . Forbes i s not c l a i mi n g h i s l a wy e r s c o mmi t t e d e rr o rwh i c h a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d th e o u t c o me of hi s cas e. St . M art i n and hi s at t orneys pl ace gre atem phas i s on t he f actthat h e w as a sk ed o v er thirty ti m es w h ethe r he w as sa ti sfi ed w ith h is at torn ey ’s re p re se n tatio n a n d th e o u tco m e o f h is le g a l m a tter a n d in e a c h in sta n c e h e sa id he w as . H ow ever , thatar gum enti s m i s pl ace d. I f aske d a m i l l i on t i m es m or e, he w oul d a ns w erthe s ame. M r . Forbes ’ [ s ] s at i s f act i on w i th the r epr es ent at i on and the handl i ng of

the l aw s ui ti s notati s s ue. W e f i nd no evi dence thatSt . M art i n br eac hed hi s duty of car e. II. D u ty o f L o y a lt y

### Wilb ou rn v. S tenn ett, Wilkinso n & Wa rd, 687 So. 2d 1205, 1215 ( Mis s. 1996). 13 

### Cri st v. Loyac ono , 65 So. 3d 837, 842- 43 (Mi ss . 2011) . 14 

### Crist, 65 So. 3d at

842 (inte rna l quot es omi tt ed) . 15 

### 7 ¶1 2 . A n a tto rn ey ’s d u ty o f lo y alty is a lso k n o w n as h is fidu ciary d u ty. “W h en a leg al- 13 m al pract i ce claim is based o n an al l egati on of breach of f i du ci ary duty, the p l ai nti ff m ust es t abl i s h ( 1) the exi s t ence of an att orney- cl i entr el at i ons hi p; ( 2) the ac t s cons t i tut i ng a vi ol at i on of

the att orney’ s f

i duci ary duty; ( 3) thatthe br eac h pr oxi m at el y caus ed the i nj ur y; a n d (4 ) t h e fa c t a n d e x te n t o f t h e in ju ry .” H o w e v e r, u n lik e a d u ty -o f- c a re v io la tio n , a

14 pl ai nt i f f al l egi ng a duty- of

- l oyal ty vi ol at i on does nothave t o pr ove “that , butf orthe br eac h, th e p lain tiff w o u ld h a v e w o n th e u n d e rl y in g c a se . R a th e r, th e p ro o f o f p ro x im a te c a u se in s uch ca s es i s t o be t ai l or ed t o the i nj ury the cl i entcl ai m s and the r emedy he el ect s . ” H er e, 15 th e in ju ry F o rb e s a lleg e s is b e in g b o u n d b y a o n e -th ird c o n tin g e n c y -fe e a g re e m e n t w ith S t. M art i n, and the r emedy he s eeks i s the r eturn of the f ee he pai d t o St . M art i n. ¶13. T her e ar e tw o di s put ed contr act s , both of w hi ch cont ai n a one- thi r d cont i ngency- f ee pr ovi s i on. T he f

i r s tcontr actw as exec ut ed by St . M art i n and L i s a Forbes i n M obi l e, A lab a m a , o n A u g u st 1 1 , 1 9 9 8 (1 9 9 8 c o n tra c t) . T h e se c o n d c o n tra c t w a s e x e c u ted b y S t. M art i n, Li s a Forbes , a nd J ames Forbes i n N ew O r l eans , L oui s i ana, on J une 10, 1999 ( 1999 co n tr ac t) . F o rb e s p re se n ts m u lti p le c h a llen g e s to th e p ro p rie ty o f th e c o n tra c ts b a se d o n th e ir p ro v is io n s a n d S t. M a rt in ’s b e h a v io r. A . C ont r ac t pr ov i s i ons

### SeeZer kowsky v. Zer kowsky , 131 So . 64 7, 6 48 (Miss. 1 93 1); Co chra n v. H enry , 16 

### 65 So. 213, 216 (Mi ss . 1914) . Russ el l v . Perf ormance Toyota, Inc

. , 826 So. 2d 719, 725 ( Mis s. 2002) ( ci ting 17 

### Smit h v. Orki n Extermi

nati ng Co. , 79 1 F . Supp . 11 37 , 11 42 (S.D . Miss. 1 99 0); Richards v. All st ate Ins . Co. , 69 3 F . 2d50 2, 5 05 (5thCir. 1 98 2); Lawler v . Gover nment Employees Ins. Co. , 5 69 So . 2d11 51 , 11 53 (Miss. 1 99 0); Plaza A mu semen t Co. v. Ro then berg , 131 So . 35 0, 3 57 (Miss. 1 93 0); Adams v . St andard Oi

l Co. , 53 So. 692 (Mi ss . 1910) ). The Cour t of Appea ls er

rone ously conclud ed that t he inval id provis ions void t he 18 

### parties’ entire agreement. SeeZer kowsky v. Zer kowsky , 131 So. 647, 6 48 (M iss . 1931) (hol ding that a

cl ie nt ha s t

he right to di sm is s a

ca seover

his attor ney’ s obj ec ti on but not discu ssingthe effect o f an antiterminatio n clau se onan entire contract’s valid ity); Cochran v. Hen ry , 65 So. 213, 216 (Mi ss . 1914) (hol ding t hat a c ontrac t provis ion prohibi ting a c li ent 8 ¶ 1 4 . F o rb e s c la im s th a t b o th c o n tr a c ts c o n ta in tw o in v a lidp ro v isio n s th a t v o id th e c o n tra c ts i n thei r ent i rety. T he fi rs tprovis i on reads: M y ( O ur ) att orney i s t o have the excl usi ve handl i ng of thi s cl ai m and I ( w e) wi l l c o o p e r a t e wi th h i m. No c o mp r o mi s e c a n o rwi l l be ma d e wi th o u tmy ( our ) s i gnatur e( s ) a nd w i thoutthe appr oval and s i gnatur e of m y ( our ) att orney

. . . . T he seco nd provis i on reads: M y (O u r) a tto rn e y m a y b e fire d o n ly fo r n e g lig e n t ha n d lin g o f m y (o u r) c laim orf ai l ur e t o pur s ue my (our ) cl ai m w i th ordi nary l egal di l i gence . I n al l other cas es , m y (our) att orney i s ent i t l ed t o a f ul l f ee a s out l i ned above f

orany s ett l ementI ( w e) r ece i ve i n the above m att er , even though othercouns el m ay be cons ul t ed orhi r ed. I ( W e) have s i gned thi s agr eem ent only a f t err eadi ng and expl anat i on by the above m ent i oned att orney. ¶ 1 5 . W e a g re e th a t a n tise ttl e m e n t a n d a n tit e rm in a tio n c lau se s in c o n tin g e n t-fe e c o n tra c ts h av e b ee n h eld to b e u n en forc ea b le. H o w ev er, M issi ssipp i case law is ab u n d an t th at “if a 16 c o u rt strik e s a p o rtio n o f a n a g re e m e n t a s b e in g v o id , the re m a in d e r o f th e c o n tra c t is bi nd i ng . ” N ei therof thes e pr ovi s i ons w as ati s s ue i n thi s cas e. N o evi dence w as 17 , 18

### from se ttling her cl ai m wit hout her att orne y’s conse nt is void but sugges ting such a provi si on is no t fatal to th e rest of th e contract); Whit ti ngton v . H. T. Cot

tam Co. , 130 So. 745, 749 (Mi ss . 1930) (Ethri dge, J. , di ss enting) . The firs t provi si on c it ed abovec ontains t he languageupon whic h the diss ent 19 

### focu ses, that S t. Martinwas “to hav e exclu sive h and lingof th is claim.” Tyso n v. M

oo re , 613 So. 2d 817, 823 ( Mis s. 1992). 20 

### 9 pr es ent ed thatthes e provi s i ons caus ed any br eac h of duty ordamages t o Forbes . A s s uch, w e f i nd thatthe contr act s ’ t w o i nval i d provi s i ons shoul d be struck, butthatthe r emai nder 19 of the contr act s , i ncl udi ng the cont i ngency- f ee pr ovi s i on, i s s t i l l bi ndi ng. B . St . M art i n’ s B ehavi or 1 . F ili n g o f L a w su it ¶16. I ti s undi s put ed thatJ ames Forbes w as i n a medi cal l y- i nduced coma w hen hi s w i f e, L i s a Forbes , exec ut ed t he 1998 cont r actw i th S t . M art i n and w hen St . M art i n as s oci at ed l ocal counsel to fi l e a per s onal - i nj ury act i on on Forbes ’ s behal f . Forbes acc us es St . M art i n of t a k i n g u n d u e a d v a n t a g e o f h i m b y a s s u mi n g h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n wi th o u th i s c o n s e n ta ta t i me w hen he w as i ncompet entt o ent era c ontr act . W hi l e i ti s true that“ [ a] ny tr ans act i on i n w hi ch an att orney may have t aken undue advant age of the cl i enti s voi dabl e . . . an i nf or m ed and c o m p e te n t c lie n t, a c tin g v o lu n ta ri ly , m a y ra tif y a n y s u c h c o n tr a c t.” 20 R a tifica tio n is th e a ffirm a n c e b y a p e rso n o f a p rio r a c t w h ich d id n o t b in d h im b u t w h ich w a s d o n e o r p ro fe ss e d ly d o n e o n h is a c c o u n t, w h e re b y th e a c t, as to s o me o ra l l p e r s o n s , i s g i v e n e f f e c ta s i f o r i g i n a l l y a u th o r i z e d b y h i m. R at i f i cat i on m ay be e s t abl i s hed by af f i r m at i ve ac t s ori nact i on. B arn es, B room , D all

as & McL eod

, P L L C v. E state of

Cap pa ert , 991 So. 2d 1209, 1212

### Rockwell v. Pre ferred Ri

sk Mut . I ns. Co. , 710 So. 2d 388, 39 1 (Mi ss . 1998) 21 

### (quoting Adkinsv. NaborsAlaska Dri ll ing, Inc . , 609 P. 2d 15, 23 (Ala ska 1980)) . 10 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng A u try v. S ta te , 698 So. 2d 84, 87 ( M i s s . 1997) ) . T he t es tf orcompet ency i s “ w hethera pe r s on c oul d know orunde r s t and hi s l egal r i ght s s uf f i ci ent l y w el l t o m anage h is p e rs o n a l a ff

a ir s .” 21 ¶ 1 7 . T h e e v id e n c e s h o w s th a t, be fo re F o rb e s e x e c u ted th e Ju n e 1 9 9 9 c o n tra c t w ith S t. M a rtin , h e h a d re g a in e d h is m e n tal a n d p h y sic a l c a p a b ili ties a n d w a s c a p a b le o f h a n d lin g h is ow n af f ai r s . I n fac t , i n hi s m ot i on f orpart i al s um m ary j udgm ent , Forbes admi t s t hat “s om et i m e af

t erJ anuary 1999 [he] r egai ned hi s phys i cal and ment al capa bi l i t i es . ” The evi dence al s o show s t hatS t . M art i n di s cus s ed hi s re pr es ent at i on w i th F orbes i n O ct ober1998 w hi l e Forbes w as s t i l l i n the hos pi t al i n M obi l e. Forbes w as unabl e t o s i gn a contr actatt hat tim e b e c a u se h is h a n d s w e re b a n d a g e d . A lth o u g h th e p a rties d isp u te th e e x ten t o f S t. M art i n’ s expl anat i on dur i ng t he O ct ober1998 vi s i t , athi s depos i t i on, Forbes t es t i f i ed that he w as aw ar e thatL i s a had hi r ed St . M art i n t o r epr es entthem, thathe appr oved of the hi r i ng, and thathe under s t ood St . M art i n w oul d r ece i ve one- thi r d of any r ecove ry. T he f

ol l ow i ng exce rpt s f

r om Forbes ’ s depos i t i on ar e i l l us tr at i ve: Q . A nd I as s um e you t al ked t o yourw i f e aboutthe f

actthats he had s i gned a d o c u m e n t to h ire M r. S t. M a rtin ; is th a t co rre c t? A . Y es. Q . O k a y . A n d y o u c e rta in ly d id n ’t o b jec t to th a t; in fa c t y o u a g re e d to it di dn’ tyou?

. . . A . Y eah.

. . .

### 11

Q . A nd you di dn’ t– you di dn’ tr egi s t erany obj ect i on thatthe f ee w as s om ethi ng ot hert han w hatyou had agr eed t o, t hati tw as di f f er entthan w hatyou agr eed t o? A . T he s t andar d 33 per cent , you know , s o. Q . So t hatw as s at i s f act ory w i th you, beca us e that ’ s w hatyou agr eed t o; is th a t co rre c t? A . Y es. Q . A nd i tw as the st andar d 33 and a thi r d per cent , s o you thoughtthatw as r eas onabl e, di dn’ tyou? A . Y eah.

. . . Q . A nd di d you r eal i ze, w heneve ryou r egai ned cons ci ous nes s and you w er e – you know , w er e capabl e of under s t andi ng and appr eci at i ng w hat w as – w hathad happene d t o you, t hata l aw s ui thad bee n f i l ed on your behal f and L i s a’ s be hal f

, pur s uantt o the contr actthatL i s a had e nt er ed i nt o w i th M r . St . M art i n? A. L i k e I s a y , I me a n , I tru s t e d wh a ts h e d i d y o u k n o w. Q . A nd do you have any f aul torf i nd anythi ng unr eas onabl e aboutei ther the w ay thatM r. S t . M art i n orM r . W eather s pr os ecut ed yourcas e or the f actthatL i s a gotthem i nvol ved i n the ca s e ea r l y on? A . N o. A s s uch, w e agr ee w i th the cha ncery courtthatForbes r at i f i ed the A ugus t11, 1998, contr act th ro u g h h is s u b se q u e n t d e a lin g s w ith S t. M a rtin a n d b y e n ter in g th e Ju n e 1 9 9 9 c o n tra c t.

2. C as h A dvances ¶18. N ext , Forbe s f

a ul t s St . M a rt i n f

ora dv a nc i ng hi m appr oxi m at el y one hundr ed thous and dol l ar s i n the yea rbef

or e the ca s e s ett l ed. Forbes cl ai m s t he adva nces vi ol at ed R ul e 1. 8( e) o f t h e M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f P ro fe s s io n a l C o n d u c t a n d tw o c ri m in a l s ta tu te s . Mis s is s i ppiR ul es of

P r of es s i onalC onduct ¶ 1 9 . R u le 1 .8 (e ) sta tes , in p e rtin e n t p a rt, th a t: A law y e r sh a ll n o t p ro v id e fin a n c ial a ss ista n c e to a c lien t in c o n n e c tio n w ith p e n d in g o r c o n tem p late d lit ig a tio n . . . ex c e p t th a t:N ot abl y, the ca s h advanc es St . M art i n m ade a r e perm i s s i bl e underthe Loui s i ana 22 R u le s o f P ro fe s s io n a l C o n d u c t. See L S A -R .S . § 3 7 :2 1 8 ; see al so 

### The Mi

ss issi ppi Bar v. Att orne y HH , 67 1 So . 2 d 12 93 , 1 29 6 (Miss. 1 99 5) (o bserv ing that th e Lo uisian a Supreme Court “he ld t hat wher e an attor

ney a dvance s f

unds t o an indige nt c li ent for me dic aland living e xpens es , the a dvanc em ent does not r

un af oul of therul es ”) . 12 1. A l aw yermay adva nce courtcos t s and expe ns es of l i t i gat i on, i ncl udi ng but notl i m i t ed t o re as onabl e m edi cal expens es neces s ary t o t he pr epar at i on of the l i t i gat i on f

orhear i ng ort r i al , t he r epaymentof w hi ch m ay be cont i ngenton t he out come of

the mat t er ; and 2. A l aw yerr epr es ent i ng a cl i entm ay, i n addi t i on t o the abo ve, advance the fo llo w in g c o sts a n d e x p e n se s o n b e h a lf o f th e c lien t, w h ich s h a ll b e re p a id u p o n su cc essfu l con clus ion o f th e m att er. a . R e a so n a b le a n d n e c e ss a ry m e d ica l ex p e n se s a ss o c iate d w ith tr eatm entf

ort he i nj ury gi vi ng r i s e t o the l i t i gat i on or admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ng f orw hi ch the cl i ents eeks l egal r epr es ent at i on; and b. R eas onabl e and ne ces s ary l i vi ng expens es i ncurr ed.

. . . P a y m e n ts . . . sh a ll b e lim ited to $ 1 ,5 0 0 to a n y o n e p a rty b y a n y la w y e r . . . unl es s . . . appr oved by the St andi ng C om m i t t ee on E thi cs of the M i s s i s s i ppi B ar. St . M art i n’ s cas h a dvance s of a ppr oxi m at el y $100, 000 t o the Forbes es f orvaca t i ons , l i vi ng expens es , and ca r s w oul d no doubtv i ol at e R ul e 1. 8( e) i f he w as s ubj ectt o ourR ul es of Pr of es s i onal C onduct . But , e ven s o, w e have cl ear l y s t at ed thata vi ol at i on of ourR ul es of 22 P ro fe ss io n a l C o n d u c t: [ D ] oes notgi ve r i s e t o a ca us e of act i on nors houl d i tcr eat e any pr es um pt i on thata duty has been br eac hed. T h e R u les a re d e sig n e d to p ro v id e g u id a n c e to law y ers a n d to p rov ide a struc ture fo r reg u lat ing co n d u ct th rou g h d isci p li n ary agenc i es . T hey ar e notdes i gned t o be a ba s i s f orc i vi l l i abi l i ty. Fur therm or e, the purpos e of

the R ul es c an be s ubvert ed w hen they ar e i nvoked by oppos i ng

### 13

p arti es a s p roc ed u ral w ea p o n s. T h e fa ct th at a R u le i s a ju st ba sis f o r a l aw yer ’ s s el f

- as s es s m ent , orforsanc t i oni ng a l aw yerunderthe admi ni s tr at i on of a di s ci pl i nary author i ty, does noti m ply t hatan ant agoni s ti n a col l at er al pr ocee di ng ortr ans act i on has s t andi ng t o s eek e nf orcem entof

the R ul e. A ccor di ngl y, nothi ng i n the R ul es s houl d be dee m ed t o augmentany s ubs t ant i ve l egal duty of l aw yer s or t he extr a- di s ci pl i nary cons equenc es of vi ol at i ng s uch a duty. W il bo u rn v. S ten n ett

, W il kinson & W

ard , 687 S o. 2d 1205, 1216 ( M i s s . 1996) . T her ef or e, a vi ol at i on of R ule 1. 8( e) , s t andi ng al one, i s nota bas i s f orvoi di ng a cont i ngency- f ee a g re e m e n t. ¶20. T he C our t of A ppeal s f ound that ther e i s “cl ear and abundant M i s s i s s i ppi author i ty” thatthe i m pr operadvanc es w oul d “voi d the cont i ngency- f ee c ontr act . ” Forbes , 2 0 1 3 WL 791847, at*8 ( ci t i ng Sm ith v. Sim on , 224 So. 2d 565, 566 ( M i s s . 1969) ( “the court s have the duty and the pow ert o decl ar e voi d and unenf or cea bl e contr act s m ade i n vi ol at i on of l aw ori n contr avent i on of

the publ i c pol i cy of

the s t at e . . . . ”) ) . H ow ever , w hi l e ac know l edgi ng the C our t ’ s pow ert o voi d i l l egal contr act s , thi s C our tf ur thers t at ed that“notevery contr act w i th s om e i l l egal as pecti s voi d and unenf or cea bl e. ” Sm ith , 2 2 4 S o . 2 d a t 56 6 . T h e C o u rt of A ppeal s c i t ed no a uthor i ty i n s uppor tof i t s concl us i on thatthe i m pr operadvanc ementof funds w ou l d v oid the p art i es’ con tract s. C r i m i nalStat ut es ¶21. Forbes a l s o c l ai m s thatthe cas h a dvance s c ons t i tut e cr i m es pur s uantt o Sect i ons 97- 9- 11 and 73 -3- 57 of the M i ssi ssi pp i C od e. S ect i on 97 -9- 11 st at es: I ts hal l be unl aw f

ul f orany per s on, f

i r m , . . . ei therbef

or e oraf t erpr ocee di ngs comm ence d: ( a) t o pr om i s e, gi ve, orof f er , ort o cons pi r e oragr ee t o pr om i s e,

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-9- 11 (Re v. 2006) . 23 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 73-3- 57 (Re v. 2012) . 24 

### 14 gi ve, orof

f er , ( b) t o r ece i ve oracc ept , ort o agr ee orcons pi r e t o r ece i ve or acc ept , ( c) t o s ol i ci t , r eques t , ordona t e, a ny money, ba nk not e, ban k ch eck, chos e i n act i on, per s onal s ervi ces , oran y ot herper s onal orr eal pr operty, or any otherthi ng of va l ue, orany otheras s i s t ance as an i nducementt o any per s on to com m ence ort o pr os ecut e f ur ther , orf

orthe purpos e of

as s i s t i ng s uch per s on t o comm ence orpr os ecut e f ur ther , a ny pr ocee di ng i n any courtor bef or e a ny a dmi ni s tr a t i ve bo a r d o rothe ra ge nc y, r e ga r dl e s s of j ur i s di c t i on; pr ovi ded, how ever , thi s s ect i on s hal l notbe cons trued t o prohi bi tthe cons t i tut i onal r i ghtof

r egul arempl oym entof any att orney atl aw ors ol i ci t or i n chanc ery, f

orei thera f

i xed f ee orupon a cont i ngentbas i s , t o r epr es ents uch per s on, f i r m , partner s hi p, corpor at i on, gr oup, or gani zat i on, oras s oci at i on bef or e any c our toradmi ni s tr at i ve age ncy. 23 S ect i on 73 -3- 57 st at es: I ts hal l be unl aw f

ul f oran att orney atl aw l i censed i n t his orany others t at e, ei therbef

or e oraf t eract i on br ought , t o pr om i s e, orgi ve orof f ert o pr om i s e or gi ve, a val uabl e cons i der at i on t o any per s on as an i nducementt o pl aci ng, or i n cons i der at i on of

hav i ng p l aced i n hi s hands , ori n the hands of any part ner s hi p of

w hi ch he i s a mem ber , a demand of any ki nd, f

orthe purpos e of br i ngi ng sui tor m aki ng cl ai m agai ns tanot her , ort o empl oy a per s on t o s ear ch f orand pr ocur e cl i ent s t o be br oughtt o s uch att orney. 24 T hes e s t atut es m ake i tunl aw f ul f orany att orney t o gi ve ca s h oranythi ng of val ue t o another per s on t o ent i ce hi m or hert o com m ence a l aw s ui tagai ns tanot her . James Forbes t es t i f i ed th a t S t. M a rtin d id n o t p ro m ise h im c a sh to in d u c e h im to sig n th e 1 9 9 9 c o n tra c t o r to cont i nue the r epr es ent at i on, and F orbes pre s ent s no evi dence t o t he contr ary. In f act , Forbes t es t i f i ed i n hi s depos i t i on thatSt . M art i n di d nothi ng t o i nduce hi m or Li s a t o s i gn ei therof the contr act s . A s s uch, ther e i s no evi dence thatthe cas h a dvance s c ons t i tut ed a cr i m e under

### 15

these st atutes . 3. June 1999 C ont ract ¶ 2 2 . N e x t, F o rb e s a rg u e s th a t, d e sp ite h is s ig n a tu re , the 1 9 9 9 c o n tra c t w a s irre p a ra b ly t ai nt ed by St . M art i n’ s f ai l ur e t o di s cl os e thatthe contr acti ncr eas ed hi s f ee ( i . e. , t aki ng t he c a s e f r o m q u a n tu m m e ru it t o a one- thi r d cont i ngency f ee) and by hi s m i s gui dance r egar di ng a n h o u rly -ra te a rra n g e m e n t v e rsu s a c o n tin g e n c y -fe e a rra n g e m e n t. Failure t o D iscl ose ¶23. Forbes cl ai m s thatthe 1999 contr acti ncr eas ed St . M art i n’ s f ee f r om a q u a n tu m m e ru it f ee t o a one- thi r d co nti ng ency f ee a nd thatSt . M art i n f ai l ed t o di s cl os e thi s i ncr eas e. F o rb e s’s a rg u m e n t as su m e s th a t, pr io r to th e 1 9 9 9 c o n tra c t, S t. M a rtin w a s e n tit led o n ly to a q u a n tu m m e ru it f

ee, beca us e Forbes w as notbound by the one- thi r d conti ng ency- f ee p r o v i s i o n i n th e 1 9 9 8 c o n tr a c t . Ho we v e r , a s d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y , t h e r e c o r d c l e a r l y s h o ws thatForbes r at i f

i ed the f i r s tcontr act . A nd i f

Forbes w as bound by the 1998 contr act , t he 1 9 9 9 c o n tra c t d id n o t in c re a se S t. M a rtin ’s f e e , as it w a s th e sa m e a s in th e 1 9 9 8 c o n tra c t. Mis i nf or m at i on on H

our l y Rat e ve rs us C ont i ngency Fee ¶24. N ext , Forbes ’ s compl ai nt al l eges that St . M art i n m i s i nf or m ed hi m on the di f

f er ence s b e tw e e n a n h o u rl y -f

e e a rr a n g e m e n t a n d a c o n tin g e n c y -f e e a rr a n g e m e n t. H o w e v e r, a c o m p lete re a d in g o f th e re c o rd m a k e s it c lea r th a t, be fo re e x e c u tin g th e 1 9 9 9 c o n tra c t, S t. M a rtin a d v ise d F o rb e s o f th e d iffe re n c e s, an d F o rb e s te stifie d h e co u ld n o t affo rd to p a y S t.See Forbes , 2013 W L 791847, at*20. 

### Fo rbes testifiedas follo ws: 25 

### Q. Co uldyo u, infact, affordto p ay [M r. St. Martin ] onanho urlybasis to purs ue this cl ai m? Did you have the – any funds to do t hat with? A. No. No. 16 M art i n an hour l y r at e. Forbes r epea t edl y t es t i f i ed thathe thoughta one- thi r d cont i ngency 25 f ee w as r eas onabl e, thathe di d notthi nk St . M art i n had def r auded hi m , and thathe thought S t. M arti n h ad d o n e a n ex ce ll en t j o b . T h e follow ing ex ce rpts fr o m F o rbe s’s d ep o sit ion are i l l us tr at i ve: Q . . . . D id [M r. S t. M a rtin ] in d u c e y o u to d o so m e th in g a g a in st y o u r w ill

– to sig n th a t co n tra c t ag a in st y o u r w ill ? A . N o.

. . . Q . Is th e re a n y th in g – is it y o u r p o sitio n th a t M r. S t. M a rtin fa iled to di s cl os e t o you any i nf

or m at i on , b ef

or e as ki ng you t o s i gn [ the 1999] contr act , any i nf

or m at i on you neede d bef or e as ki ng you t o s i gn that c o n tra c t? A . A s f

aras I know , no. Q . A nd w e’ve alr eady be en thr ough the s ett l ement s , and you’ ve al r eady expl ai ned how thatw as cal cul at ed, a nd the f actthatyou agr eed t o that set t l em ent and agreed t o the am ou nts that w ere dedu ct ed for att orneys’ f ees , di dn’ tyou? A . Y eah. Q . A nd you agr eed t o the otherdeduct i ons w e’ ve bee n over ; i s that c o rre c t? A . Y es.

. . . Q . I n f

act , you don’ tknow of

a nythi ng i n the ac t i ons thatM r . St . M art i n, hi s f i r m , orthe ac t i ons of

J on M ark W eat hers a nd hi s f i r m , di d that w ere con trary t o yo ur bestint eres tin this l aw sui t , do yo u, M r. F orbes?

. . . A . I ’ m not– I don’ tknow . I mean, a s f ara s I know , a l l t hey sai d – you k n o w , I th o u g h t ev e ry th in g w a s c o o l an d e v e ry th in g w ith it an d a ll. Q . O k a y . B y th a t, yo u m e a n y o u – y o u th o u g h t t h e y d id e v e ry th in g in

### St. Martin te stif ie d that hedid not

parti cipat e in thedepos itions he att ende d. 26 

### 17 yourbes ti nt er es ti n r epr es ent i ng you i n thi s cas e, di dn’ tyou?

. . . A . I ’ l l have t o s ay, yeah, you know . Y eah. Y eah. Q . O kay. A nd you can’tsi ther e t oday and t el l m e, thi nki ng back, anythi ng t hey di d thatw as n’ ti n your bes ti nt er es ti n re pr es ent i ng you f oryouri nj ur i es ar i s i ng outof thi s f i r e, can you? A . Y eah. I m ean, I thought– I m ean, I w as happy the w ay thi ngs turned out , yeah. ¶25. A f

t err evi ew i ng the r ecor d, w e f i nd no ques t i ons of

f acta s t o w hetherSt . M art i n f ai l ed to d iscl o se in form ati o n p ri o r t o the p arti es’ Ju n e 1 9 9 9 co n tr ac t w h ich w o u ld ren d er the en ti re contr actvoi d. 5. U naut hor i z e d Pra c t i c e of Law i n M i s s i s s i ppi ¶26. Fi nal l y, Forbes cl ai m s that St . M art i n engage d i n the unauthor i zed pr act i ce of l aw by “appe ar i ng” i n hi s per s onal - i nj ury cas e w hen he w as notl i cens ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi a nd ha d not been a dm i t t ed pr o hac vi ce . H i s a l l egat i on i s ba s ed on St . M art i n i ni t i al l y be i ng l i s t ed as “of couns el ” on Forbes ’ s per s onal - i nj ury compl ai nt , att endi ng depos i t i ons i n M i s s i s s i ppi , and ad v isi n g the F o rbe ses o n M issi ssipp i l aw . F o rbe s g o es o n to arg u e tha t St. M arti n ’s 26 unauthor i zed pr act i ce of l aw voi ded any al l eged contr actbetw een the part i es . T he C our tof A p p e a ls fo u n d th a t th e re w a s “ a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t i n d is p u te a s to w h e th e r S t. M art i n and the St . M art i n f i r m w er e enga ged i n the unauthor i zed pr act i ce o f l aw i n t he r epr es ent at i on of

the Forbes es ” w hi ch pr ecl uded s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof St . M ar t i n. I n r eac hi ng thi s concl us i on, the C our tof A ppeal s r el i ed on Sect i on 73- 3- 55 of the M i s s i s s i ppi

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 73-3- 55 (Re v. 2012) . 27 

### See Darby

v. Missi ss ippi State Bd. of Bar Admi

ss ions , 185 So. 2d 684 (Mi ss . 1966) 28 

### (ho ldin g th at a chan cery clerkvio lated th e statute w h en sh e drafteddeed s, deed s of tru st, note s, bil ls of s al e, and titlece rtif ic at es to rea l property wi thout a l aw l ic ens e) . See Fought & Co. , Inc

. v. St eel Engi neeri ng Erect ion, Inc . , 95 1 P . 2d

48 7 ( Haw. 29 

### 1998). 18 C o d e , R u le 4 6 o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re , a n d th is C o u rt’s o p in io n in I n re W il liam s on , 8 3 8 S o . 2 d 2 2 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶27. Sect i on 73- 3- 55 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode pr ovi des that “[ i ] t s hal l be unl aw f ul f orany per s on t o engage i n the p ra c tice o f la w in th is s ta te w h o h a s n o t b e e n lic e n se d a c c o rd in g to l aw . ” Sect i on 73- 3- 55 f ocus es on the “pr act i ce of l aw in t his st at e” by nonl i cens ed 27 in d iv id u a ls s u c h a s c o u rt c ler k s o r a tto rn e y s n o t li c e n se d in M iss iss ip p i. B y its p lain 28 l anguage , i ts eeks onl y t o r egul at e the pr act i ce of l aw “i n thi s s t at e. ” A nd, as the tr i al j udge 29 as tut el y obs erved, T he ca s e s ub j udi ce s how s t hatthe contr act s w er e s i gned outof s t at e. T he pr oof has s how n thatthe i ni t i al contr actw i th L i s a Forbes w as obt ai ned i n the s t at e of A l abama . . . . T he pr oof has s how n thata M i ssi s s i ppi l aw f i r m w as as s oci a t e d. Fr om t hi s po i ntf orw a r d, W e a the r s f

i l e d the s ui ti n M i s s i s s i ppi w i th no p l e a di ng s o re ntr y of a ppe a r a nc e b y St . M a r t i n. I tc an onl y be d eterm ined w h at w as d o n e in M issi ssipp i w as d o n e b y a M issi ssipp i l aw y er. I n the abs ence of

evi dence t o the contr ary, as s t at ed i n St . M art i n’ s depos i t i on, thatSt . M art i n w as a go betw een f orForbes and W eather s , as w el l as , l acki ng a n y a c tiv ity o r fo o tp rin ts o f S t. M a rtin sh o w in g u p in M iss iss ip p i . . . . S t. M a rtin a lso in d ica ted th a t F o rb e s c o n fe rre d w ith h im se v e ra l ti m e s in h is L oui s i ana of

f i ce. The r ecor d i s voi d of any evi dence of

St . M art i n and Forbes e v e r in ter fa c e d [sic ] on th e c a se in M iss iss ip p i a n d c a n n o t b e a ss u m e d to h o ld otherw i s e. ¶ 2 8 . In a n a ly z in g F o rb e s’s u n a u th o riz e d -p ra c tice -o f-la w a lleg a tio n , th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls

### SeeM.R. A.P. 46(b) (3) . 30 

### 19 f ocus ed on R ul e 46 of

t he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e Proc edur e. R ul e 46 governs t he admi s s i on of

out - of - s t at e att orneys t o pr act i ce pr o hac vi ce , th a t is, to a llo w a n o u t-o f-s tate att orney s peci al perm i s s i on t o part i ci pat e i n a s peci f i c ca s e even though the att orney i s not l i cens ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi . R ul e 46( b) ( 2) provi des that“a f or ei gn att orney shall

no tap pea r in any ca us e exce ptas a l l ow ed pr o hac vi ce unde rthi s R ul e 46( b) . ” St . M art i n w as notadmi t t ed pr o hac vi ce , w hi ch w oul d have s ubj ect ed hi m t o M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s s t andards of pr of es s i onal conduct . So w e mustc ons i derw hetherhe “ m ade an appea r ance ” i n thi s s t at e i n vi ol at i on

30 of ourrul es . A nd i f

s o, w hatar e the cons equenc e of doi ng s o? ¶2 9. W e f

i r s ta dd r e s s e d w ha tc on s t i tut e s “ maki ng a n a pp e a r a nc e ” f orthe p urpo s e of r equi r i ng pro hac vi ce admi s s i on i n I n re W il l iam s on , 8 3 8 S o . 2 d 2 2 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ). W e expl ai ned that“an ‘ appea r ance by att orney’ i s def i ned as ‘ hol di ng o nesel f outt o be r epr es ent i ng a cl i ent . ’ ” I d. at235 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e t ook j udi ci al not i ce thati tw as comm on pr act i ce f

orat t orneys a tthatt i m e t o i ncl ude the names of f or ei gn att orneys on pl eadi ngs f

i l ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi , even w hen the f or ei gn att orney had no i nt enti on of be i ng admi t t ed pro hac vi ce . I d. W e e x p la in e d , “ i n the f uture , att orneys ar e her eby not i ced a nd caut i oned thata f

or ei gn att orney w i l l be de emed t o ha ve m ade an appea r ance i n a M i s s i s s i ppi la w s u it if

th e fo re ig n a tto rn e y . . . a llo w s h is o r h e r n a m e to b e l is te d o n th e p le a d in g s .” W il liam s on , 838 So. 2d at235 ( emphasi s a dded) . W e f ur there xpl ai ned thatan appe ar ance m a y b e m a d e b y “ p h y sic a lly a p p e a rin g a t . . . a d e p o sitio n . . . o r a n y o th e r p ro c e e d in g in

### Rule46 was am ende d in 2003, af te r Wil li amson . 31 

### 20 w hi ch the att orney announce s thathe ors he r epr es ent s a party t o the l aw s ui t. . . . ” I d. We hel d thats uch ac t i ons r equi r e a f or ei gn att orney t o be admi t t ed pr o hac vi ce underR ul e 46. 31 H o w e v e r , W

il liam s on w a s d e c id e d in 2 0 0 2 , an d , b y its e x p licit lan g u a g e , d o e s n o t ap p ly r etr oact i vel y t o the i ns t antact i on, as the compl ai nti n thi s per s onal - i nj ury ac t i on w as f i l ed in 1 9 9 8 . ¶30 . A s S t. M arti n ’s al l eged unau tho ri zed app earance i n M issi ssipp i occ u rred b efo re W il liam s on w as deci ded and be f or e R ule 46 w as amended t o def i ne “appear ance , ” the re lev a n t in q u iry is w h e th e r S t. M a rtin h e ld h im se lf o u t to b e re p re se n tin g a c lien t in M iss iss ip p i li tig a tio n . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re a so n e d th a t th e re w a s e n o u g h e v id e n c e to p rese n t a qu e stio n o f fac t as t o w h ethe r S t. M arti n p rac ti ce d law in M issi ssipp i, in p art b e c a u se h e p ro v id e d th e F o rb e se s w ith leg a l ad v ice o n M iss iss ip p i l a w . H o w e v e r, S t. M a rtin pr ovi ded the l egal advi ce a thi s of f i ce, locat ed i n L oui s i ana. W e f i nd no author i ty t hat s uppor t s a f

i ndi ng thatadvi s i ng a cl i enton M i s s i s s i ppi l aw atan of f i ce l ocat ed i n another s t at e cons t i tut es an appe ar ance i n M i s s i s s i ppi ort hatan at t orney w oul d be re qui r ed t o s eek admi s s i on pr o hac vi ce in M is s is s ip p i b e fo re ta k in g s u c h a c tio n . ¶31. A s t o w hether St . M art i n m ade an unauthor i zed appea r ance i n M i s s i s s i ppi by havi ng hi s name l i s t ed on the i ni t i al compl ai nt , al bei tw i thouthi s perm i s s i on, and appe ar i ng at depos i t i ons , w e f

i nd that , pr i ort o W

il liam s on , i tw as com m on pr act i ce f orf or ei gn att or neys t o al l ow thei rnames t o be l i s t ed on pl eadi ngs e ven i f they had nots oughtt o be admi t t ed pro

### M.R. A.P. 46(b) (11) . 32 

### 21 hac vi ce and di d noti nt end t o do s o. B eca us e St . M art i n’ s name w as l i s t ed on the compl ai nt w i thoutbei ng admi t t ed pr o hac vi ce bef or e s uch conduc tw as pr ohi bi t ed by t hi s C our tand R ul e 46, w e f

i nd thatthi s a ctdi d notr i s e t o the l evel of m aki ng an unauthor i zed appear ance i n M i s s i s s i p p i , e s p e c i a l l y c o n s i d e r i n g th a tS t . M a r t i n d i d n o ta u th o r i z e th e l i s t i n g o f h i s n a me a n d th a th e p r o mp t l y h a d i tr e mo v e d . As t o S t . M a r t i n ’ s a p p e a r a n c e a tth e d e p o s i t i o n s , we fin d th a t p a rticip a tin g a n d h o ld in g o n e se lf o u t t o b e rep re se n tin g a c lien t i n a d e p o sitio n in M i s s i s s i ppi w oul d have c ons t i tut ed an appear ance i n M i s s i s s i ppi even pr e- W il liam s on . W e agr ee thatther e is a ques t i on of f actas t o w hetherSt . M art i n hel d hi m s el f outt o be r epr es ent i ng the Forbes es a tde pos i t i ons i n M i s s i s s i ppi a nd, ther ef or e, m ade a n unauthor i zed a p p e a ra n c e in M is s is s ip p i. ¶3 2. H ow ever , a ques t i on of f a c ta s t o w het herSt . M ar t i n m ade a n unaut hor i zed appea r ance does notpr ecl ude the gr antof s um m ary j udgm enti n hi s favor beca us e that conductw oul d not“gi ve r i s e t o a caus e of act i on, ” nordoes i t“cr eat e any pr es um pt i on t hat a duty has been br eac hed. ” I ns t ead, the cons equenc es of an unauthor i zed appear ance i n a M iss iss ip p i ca se w o u ld b e fo r a c o u rt to d e n y S t. M a rtin th e rig h t t o a p p e a r, p o ss ib ly c ite h im f orcont empt , and r ef

erthe mat t ert o the di s ci pl i nary couns el of the M i s s i s s i ppi B arf

or appr opr i at e ac t i on underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 73- 51- 1. N othi ng i n Rul e 46 orSect i on 32 73- 51- 1 gi ves ri s e t o a ci vi l caus e of act i on, and w e f

i nd no s uppor tf

orthe conc l us i on t hat s uch a vi ol at i on w oul d oper at e t o voi d a contr acte nt er ed i nt o betw een the of f endi ng att or ney

### 22

a n d h is c lie n t, w h ic h a lr e a d y h a s b e e n fu lly p e rf o rm e d . ¶33. A ddi t i onal l y, w e f i nd no s up po rtfor t he C ou rto f A ppeal s ’ det erm i nat i on that the contr actm ay notbe enf or cea bl e bec aus e St . M art i n ent er ed i nt o the contr actknow i ng t hat h e co u ld n o t rep re se n t th e F o rb e se s w ith o u t m a k in g an ap p e a ra n c e in M iss iss ip p i, w h ich h is lac k o f a M iss iss ip p i la w lice n se p re c lu d e d h im fro m d o in g . A tto rn e y s ro u tin e ly e n ter in to contr act s f

orr epr es ent at i on w i th c l i ent s i n m att er s thatthey know m ay be l i t i gat ed i n f or ei gn j ur i s di ct i ons i n w hi ch t hey m ay notbe l i cens ed t o pr act i ce. T hi s i s the purpos e of ourrul es r equi r i ng at t orneys t o ass oci at e l ocal counse l and t o be admi t t ed pr o hac vi ce , and nothi ng in o u r ru les o r la w in d ica te a c o n tra c t fo r le g a l r e p re s e n ta tio n is illeg a l o r v o id m e re ly b e c a u se a n a tto rn e y e n ter e d in to it w ith th e k n o w led g e th a t h e lik e ly w ill h a v e to a ss o c iate l ocal couns el and/ orbe admi t t ed pr o hac vi ce t o f ul f i l l t he repr esent at i on. T her e i s no evi dence thatSt . M art i n c oul d nothave be en s ucce s s f ul l y admi t t ed pr o hac vi ce i n thi s m att er i f he had c hosen to b e. Fur therm or e, i ti s notunus ual f ors om e mat t er s t o be r es ol ved th ro u g h se ttl e m e n t b e fo re li tig a tio n co m m e n c e s, in w h ich ca se an atto rn e y w o u ld b e ab le to f ul f i l l hi s r epr es ent at i on w i thouteverm aki ng an appe ar ance i n court . T her ef or e, w e f i nd that , abse ntsome evi dence of f r aud orm i s r epr es ent at i on, a contr actf orl egal r epr es ent at i on is n o t v o id m e re ly b e c a u s e th e a tto rn e y k n o w s o r sh o u ld k n o w th a t h e m a y b e re q u ire d to ent eran appe ar ance i n a f or ei gn j ur i s di ct i on. ¶ 3 4 . F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, w e fin d n o q u e s tio n s o f fa c t a s to w h e th e r S t. M a rtin br eac hed hi s dut y of l oyal ty. M or eover , becaus e w e f i nd no ques t i ons of f

actas t o w hether

### 23

S t. M a rtin v io late d e ith e r h is d u ty o f c a re o r h is d u ty o f lo y a lty , F o rb e s’s n e g lig e n c e c laim f ai l s . Forbes ’ s cl ai m s f

orf r aud and c onver s i on al s o fa i l , as both ar e m er el y re s t at ement s of hi s br e a c h- of

- f i du c i a r y- du ty a r gu ment s . Forthe s e r e a s on s , the j ud gmen tof the Cour tof A ppeal s i s r ever s ed and the j udgm entof the cha ncery courti s r ei ns t at ed and a f f i r m ed. ¶35. T HE J U D GME N T O F T HE C OU R T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE JU D G M E N T O F T H E C H A N C E R Y C O U R T O F H A R R ISO N C O U N T Y IS R E I N S T A T E D A N D A F F I R M E D . W A L L E R , C .J ., K I T C H E N S A N D K I N G , J J ., C O N C U R . K I T C H E N S , J ., S PECI ALLY C ON CUR S W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY L A M A R A N D K I N G , J J .; W A L L E R , C .J ., J O I N S I N P A R T . D I C K I N S O N , P .J ., DI S S EN TS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED B Y CHANDL ER AND CO LEM AN, J J . CO LEM AN, J . , DI SS ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y D I C K I N S O N , P .J ., A N D C H A N D L E R , J . R A N D O L P H , P .J ., AN D P I E RC E , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶3 6 . W h il e con curr i ng w i th the w el l -r easone d m aj ori ty o pinion au tho red b y Ju sti ce L am ar, I w r i t e s epar at el y t o u nd er s cor e ce r t ai n of the exc el l entpoi nt s m ade by he r , and t o m ake a d d iti o n a l o b se rv a tio n s w h ich I d e e m p e rtin e n t. ¶ 3 7 . T h e late L o u is S t. M a rt in ’s a d m itte d ly s a tis fi e d c lie n ts, Ja m e s R . F o rb e s a n d h is sp o u se, L isa F o rbe s, see k to h av e the irca k e a n d ea t i t t o o b y d isgo rgin g from S t. M arti n ’s es t at e the att orney f

ee w hi ch the att orney ha d earned and t o w hi ch the Forbes es had contr actual l y agr eed. In the f i r s ti ns t ance , t he Forbe s es at t empt t o re pudi at e the contr actof empl oym ents i gned by Li s a Forbes i n M obi l e, A l abama, on A ugus t11, 1998, s hor t l y af t er the a cc iden t in w h ich Ja m es F o rbe s h ad b ee n injured . Interes ti n g ly, bu t erron eo u sly, L isa’s

### 24

enter i ng i nto this con tracti s charact eri zed as h aving be en u nd ert aken on beh al f of J am es; and, i n a very re al sens e, i tw as undoubt edl y t o James ’ s advant age f orcompet entatt or neys t o be gi n i nv e s t i ga t i ng a nd p r e pa r i ng h i s c a s e i mm e di a t e l y, r a the rtha n c omm e nc i ng t hat p roc ess a ft er Ja m es h im self co u ld sig n a co n tr ac t, w h ich w o u ld n o t occ u r un ti l m o n ths later. I n truth, how ever , J am es i s notm ent i oned i n the M obi l e contr act . R ather , i ti s a contr act betw een St . M art i n’ s l aw f i rm and L isa F orbes onl y. T he acc i denti n w hi ch J ames ha d been i n j u r e d i s d e s c r i b e d i n t h a ta g r e e me n ta s “ e x p l o s i o n a tT e x a c o Ga s S t a t i o n i n Bi l o x i . ” As J ames Forbes ’ s s pous e, L i s a w as w el l w i thi n herr i ght s t o empl oy the att orney( s ) of her c h o ice to re p re se n t h e r in th e p u rsu it o f h e r o w n c laim fo r lo ss o f c o n s o rt iu m , p u rsu a n t to M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 93- 3- 1. W i th J ames i n a c om a and thus compl et el y i ncapa ci t at ed, L i s a’ s l egi t i m at e entr y i nt o a c ontr actof e m pl oym entw i th a n a t t orney w ho had been recom m end ed and sent t o her by m em bers of her ow n fam i l y served the i m po rt ant purpose o f p ro m p tly g e tti n g a la w y e r o n the job o f g a th e rin g an d p re se rv in g v ital ev id e n c e tha t li k e ly w oul d have di s s i pat ed r api dl y. ¶38. Som e t en m onths l at er , af t er J ames’ s condi t i on had gr eat l y i m pr oved and un der f ar les s e x ig e n t c irc u m sta n c e s, b o th h e a n d L isa sig n e d a s e c o n d c o n tra c t o f e m p lo y m e n t w ith St . M art i n’ s f

i r m . Thi s oc curr ed atSt . M art i n’ s l aw of f i ce i n T err ebonne Par i s h, L oui s i ana, o n Ju n e 1 0 , 1 9 9 9 . A s c a n b e g lea n e d fro m a re a d in g o f th e m a jo rity o p in io n , b o th c o n tra c ts w i th the St. M art i n fi rm app ea r to h av e b een en t ered i nto by inf orm ed an d w i l l i ng part i es, a n d a ll o f th e atte n d a n t circ u m sta n c e s w e re ab o v e b o a rd a n d w ith o u t an y h in t o f im p ro p rie ty

### I must al so not e theconfus ion that s ure ly res ult s f rom thi s Cour t’ s pl ac em ent

of the 33 

### rul es to obt ain pro hacvi ceadm is si on to trial courts in i ts Rule s of Ap

pella teProc edur e. In L ou isiana, at th e time the F orb eses retainedSt. M artin’s serv ices, an o ut-o f-state 34 

### attorn ey who wish ed to be invo lvedin a case inLo uisian a was requ ir edon ly to associate 25 on the partof anyone . I ndeed, not hi ng aboutS t . M art i n’ s conducts tr i kes m e as unus ual or i nappr opr i at e. ¶ 3 9 . S t . M a r t i n wa s f o r ma l l y h i r e d i n Al a b a ma a n d i n L o u i s i a n a t o r e p r e s e n t t wo M issi ssipp i r esid en ts w h o b eli ev ed they w ere en ti tl ed to co m p en sati o n for a seriou s injury thathad bef

al l en one of

them–James–i n M i s s i s s i ppi . A l though I gr eat l y r es pectthe opi ni on of m y val ued col l eague , J us t i ce Col eman, thatthe enga gementof St . M art i n by the Forbs es w as i l l egal, I cou l d no tdis agree m ore. A tthe ti m e t he F orbses r et ai ned S t . M art i n’s s ervi ces, n o thing i n the j uri spruden ce of M i ssi ssi pp i prohibi t ed it s ci t i zens fr om em ployi ng ou t -ofs t at e att orneys f

r om ot herU . S. j ur i s di ct i ons t o handl e l egal m att er s f orthem w i thi n thi s s t at e, pr ovi ded thos e att orneys j um ped thr ough the hoops of as s oci at i ng M i ssi ssi ppi - l i cens ed couns el –w hi ch St . M art i n pr om pt l y di d–and, w hen appr opr i at e, acqui r ed pr o hac vi ce st atus. In 1 9 9 8 , w h en the F o rbe ses firsth ir ed S t. M arti n , M issi ssipp i R u le o f A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 46 di d notc ont ai n a de f

i ni t i on of w hata n “appe ar ance ” w as i n the cont extof the r equi r ement o f pr o hac vi ce a d m iss io n . C lea rly , S t. M a rtin h a d g o o d re a so n to u n d e rsta n d th a t h is ro le 33 i n handl i ng the Forbs es ’ cl ai m s coul d l egal l y be f ul f i l l ed by as s oci at i ng M i s s i s s i ppi couns el and ac t i ng i n an advi s ory capa ci ty w i thoutpart i ci pat i ng i n M i s s i s s i ppi courtpr ocee di ngs or depos i t i ons . I ndeed, as obs erved by the maj or i ty, atthe t i m e he part i ci pat ed i n the l i t i gat i on,

34

### “wi th s omeatt orne y duly l ic ens ed to pra ctic e law by thesuprem e c ourt of [ Louis iana] .”La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:214. The Suprem e Cour t of Louis iana l at er

changed that

rul e t o re quire stri ct er pro hacvi ceadmissio n stan dard s. See La. Sup. Ct . R. XVII§ 13. Pri or t o thi s Cour

t’ s f inding fa ult with thi s prac ti ce , a s e xplaine d by the ma jorit y, 35 

### inc luding as soc iate d out -of -s tateatt orne ys on pl ea dings wa s of te n done, and wa s thought by manyreputable atto rn ey s to b e a go odandcourteou s practice interms of d isclosure to opposing couns eland t o courts of a llattor neys who would beinvolved in the li ti gation, eve n if that involve me nt woul d be nom ina l and/or would not

ent ai l c ourt

appe aranc es by al l l is te d counsel. 26 he coul d not ha ve know n thathe coul d be atr i s k i n m aki ng an “appear ance ” by the p lace m en t of h is na m e o n a p lead ing o r by sim p ly sh o w ing up at a d ep o sit ion , as th is C o u rt 35 had n ot yet deci ded w hat“appe ar ance ” means i n the pr o hac vi ce c o n te x t. See In re W il liam s on , 838 So. 2d 226, 235 ( ¶ 22) ( M i s s . 2002) . A ccor di ngl y, I do not see how t he contr act s betw een the Forbes es and St . M art i n coul d have be en i l l egal , as ther e w as no l aw pr ohi bi t i ng t he pr om i s es m ade by St . M art i n w hen they w er e cr eat ed. T hats ai d, I do not d isa g re e w ith th e m a

jo rity ’s c o n c lu s io n s re sp e c tin g c e rta in in v a lid p ro v isio n s in b o th con tract s. ¶40. A ddi t i onal l y, w i th abi di ng r es pect f or J us t i ce C ol eman and hi s i nt erpr et at i on of the contr act s t o t he ef

f ectt hatS t . M art i n cont r actual l y obl i gat ed hi m s el f t o be the onl y l aw yer o n E a rth w h o w o u ld w o rk o n th e F o rb e se s’ c a se , a re a d in g o f th e tw o c o n tra c ts in th e ir ent i r ety r ef

ut es t hi s not i on. T he l anguage i n the openi ng pa r agr aph of both document s m akes i tabundant l y cl earthatthe w or d at t or ney does notr ef ert o one l aw yer : “. . . [ cl i ent ] her eby empl oy[ s ] and r et ai n[s ] St . M art i n, M ahoney & A s s oci at es ( A Pr of es s i onal L aw

### 27

C o rp o ra tio n ), ( h e re in a ft e r r e fe rr e d to a s ‘a tto rn e y ’) to h a n d le a n y a n d a ll c la im s . . . .” W ith o u t d o u b t, th is la n g u a g e in fo rm s th e re a d e r th a t n o t ju s t o n e law y e r, b u t a f i r m of law yers i s bei ng hir ed b y the cl i ents . ¶41. T he cl aus e i n the contr act s w hich seem s t o s t and betw een J us t i ce C ol eman and the r eal i t i es of

the agr eementbetw een thes e part i es i s , “M y (O ur) att orney i s t o have the ex c lu s iv e h a n d lin go

f th is c la im . . . . ” ( E m phas i s add ed. ) T he meani ng of thi s contr actual pr ovi s i on turns on one’ s u nd ers t andi ng of the w or d handl i ngin the co n text o f th e w o rk p e rfo rm e d b y p lain tiffs’ a tto rn e y s a n d , a s I h a v e c o m e to u n d e rsta n d it, m e a n s a tten d in g to and over s eei ng the pr os ecut i on of the cl ai m . I tdoes notpr ecl ude t he i nv olvem entof att orneys i n addi t i on t o L oui s St . M art i n i n the pr os ecut i on of the Forbes es ’ cl ai m s . I ndeed, the co ntr act s w ere betw een the cl ai m ants and the l aw fi rm of w hich L ou i s St. M art i n w as a m em ber, no tj ustw i th S t . M art i n as an indivi du al law yer. N o o ne co uld r ead the fi rs t p a ra g ra p h o f th e co n tra c ts a n d g lea n an y ex p e c tatio n th a t L o u is S t. M a rtin w o u ld b e th e o n ly law y er w o rkin g o n b eh alf of the F o rbe ses. T h e p u rpo se o f th e p rov isi o n that “M y (O u r) att orney i s t o have the exc l us i ve handl i ng of thi s cl ai m . . . ” is t o pr eventthe cl i ent s f r om hir i ng a dif

fer ent l aw yer or s etof l aw yers i n addi t i on t o the St . M art i n fi rm and the M i s s i s s i ppi - l i cens ed l aw yer s t o be a s s oci at ed by thatf i r m . T hi s cl aus e i n now i s e pr ecl udes St . M art i n and h i s fi rm f r om enl i s t i ng w hat everatt orneys out s i de hi s l aw f i r m they mi ght deem neces s ary t o t he pr operhandl i ng of the ca s e. ¶42. Fi nal l y, i n l i ghtof the st at e of ext r eme vul ner abi l i ty of cont i ngency- f

ee a t t orneys w ho

### 28

a re re m in d e d b y to d a y ’s d e c isio n th a t th e y a re p ro h ib ited fro m in c lu d in g so -c a lled “ a n tis ett l ement ” and “ ant i - t erm i nat i on” cl aus es i n thei rempl oym entcontr act s , M i s s i s s i ppi pr act i t i oner s ar e caut i oned t hati tbehooves t hem t o keep ac cur at e t i m e r ecor ds , even i n cas es i n w hi ch they hope t o earn a cont i ngency f ee. Such r ecor ds m ay bec om e of vi t al i m por t ance i n an att orney’ s att empt t o be pai d on a q u a n tum m eru it b a s is if a c lien t se ttl e s w ith o u t h is att orney’ s know l edge ori f a cl i entt erm i nat es hi s l aw yer ’ s empl oym entbef or e the cl ai m has been c oncluded b y sett l ementorj udgm ent . A nd, of cour s e, i tal w ays i s es s ent i al thatt he a t t o rn e y k e e p d e t a i l e d r e c o r d s o f o u t - o f - p o c k e te x p e n s e s i n f

u r th e r a n c e o f

th e c l i e n t ’ s c l a i m. O bvi ous l y, thi s i s nece s s ary f orthe att orney t o obt ai n re i m bur s ementfr om the cl i entatt he end of a cont i ngency- f

ee cas e ( and cas es w i th di f f er entf ee a rr angement s as w el l ) , and ca n t ake on gr eati m por t ance t o a di s char ged att orney w ho w i s hes t o i m pr es s a l i en upon a f or m er cl i ent ’ s cl ai m and/ orm oni es in t he hands of al l eged t or tf

eas or s and/ orthei ri ns ur ance carr i ers . ¶ 4 3 . A w o rd to th e w ise is s u ffic ien t. L A M A R A N D K IN G , JJ. , JO I N T H I S O P I N IO N . W A L L E R , C . J. , JO IN S T H IS OPI NI ON I N PART. DI CK I NS ON , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶44. W hi l e I do not deny the accur acy of J us t i ce C ol eman’ s w el l - r eas oned di s s ent , I am n o t p rep are d t o say th at St. M arti n ne ce ssaril y sho u ld be or – h ad th e m ajo rity c o rre c tly d e c id e d th is c a se – w o u ld b e d e n ied c o m p e n sa tio n fo r a n y s e rv ice s h e m a y h a v e re n d e re d to the Forbes fam i l y. St . M art i n s houl d be deni ed r ecove ry underthe i l l egal contr act . B ut

### See Ground Control, LLC v. Caps co Indus trie s, Inc . , 120 So. 3d 365 (Mis s. 2013). 36 

### 29 nothi ng pre vent s hi m fr om purs ui ng com pens at i on t hr ough a cl ai m of unj us tenr i chmentand q u a n tu m m e ru it. S o fo r th e s a m e re a so n s sta ted b y J u stic e C o lem a n , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. 36 CHANDL ER AND COL EM AN, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. CO L E M AN , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶45. A t t orney Loui s St . M art i n w as neverl i cens ed t o pra ct i ce l aw i n M i s s i s s i ppi , and he n ev er so u g h t or rece ived p erm issi o n to ap p ea r pr o hac vi ce i n the l i t i gat i on ati s s ue. N e v e rth e les s, h e e n ter e d in to a c o n tra c t in 1 9 9 8 w ith L isa F o rb e s w h e re in h e p ro m ise d “ to handl e any a nd al l cl ai m s that[ the Forbes es ] m ay have a gai ns tT exac o. ” Pur s uantt o the l anguage of

the contr act , St . M art i n w as “t o have e xcl us i ve handl i ng of [ the] cl ai m . ” The c o n tra c t pr o v id e d tha t S t. M a rtin w o u ld p ra c tice law o n b e h a lf o f th e F o rb e se s in th e S tate o f M is s is s ip p i. ¶46. A s he w as notl i cens ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi and nevera chi eved admi s s i on t o pr act i ce pro hac vi ce , S t. L o u is’ s p rom ise w as a n il lega l on e. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 3 -3-5 5 (R ev . 2 0 1 2 ); s ee al s o D arby v. Mis s . State Bd. of BarAdm is s i ons , 1 8 5 S o . 2 d 6 8 4 (M is s . 1 9 6 6 ). T he obj ect i ve of

bot h the l egi s l atur e and the court s i n s upervi s i ng admi s s i ons t o the bar i s the p rot ect i on of the pu bli c agai nsti njur i es f rom act s or services , pr of es s i onal i n natur e, const i tut i ng t he pr act i ce of l aw , and done orper f

or m ed by thos e notdeemed t o be qual i f i ed t o per f

or m them. . . . T he w el far e of the p u b lic is th e p ri n c ip a l c o n s id e ra tio n . D arby , 185 So. 2d at687. T he court s “have the duty and t he po w er t o decl ar e voi d and unenf or cea bl e contr act s m ade i n vi ol at i on of l aw ori n contr avent i on of the publ i c pol i cy of

### 30

the s t at e. ” Sm ith v. Sim on , 224 So. 2d 565, 566 ( M i s s . 1969). B eca us e the contr actw as f or se rv ice s S t. M a rtin c o u ld n o t l e g a lly p ro v id e a n d in c o n tra v e n tio n o f e sta b lish e d p u b lic p o l i c y , I wo u l d h o l d i tt o b e v o i d a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. ¶ 4 7 . In h is se p a ra te o p in io n , Ju stic e K itc h e n s tak e s th e p o sitio n th a t, b e c a u se S t. M a rtin as s oci at ed l ocal couns el , nothi ng w as w r ong w i th the contr act . W i th r es pect , I di s agr ee, a lth o u g h I m ig h t ag re e if th e c o n tra c t allo w e d S t. M a rtin to a ss o c iate lo c a l c o u n s e l. S t. M art i n contract ed t o per f or m a s ervi ce he coul d notl egal l y per f or m pr eci s el y beca us e the contr actpr ovi ded he w oul d e xcl us i vel y ha ndl e the cl ai m . W hathe actual l y di d orw hatthe part i es m ay have i nt ended a s t o the hi r i ng of l ocal counse l i s notre l evantt o t he t erm s of the c o n tr a c t, w h ic h a re u n a m b ig u o u s in th e in s ta n t r e g a rd . B r others v. W instead , 12 9 So . 3d 906, 913 ( ¶ 13) ( M i s s . 2014) ( “O urconcern i s notnear l y so m uch w i th w hatthe part i es m ay have i nt ended, butw i th w hatthey s ai d, s i nce the w or ds empl oyed ar e by f arthe bes tr es our ce fo ra s c e rt a in in g th e in te n t a n d a s s ig n in g m e a n in g w ith fa ir n e s s a n d a c c u ra c y .” ). See a l so I vis on v. I

vis on , 76 2 S o. 2d 32 9, 33 5 (¶ 17 ) ( M i ss. 20 00 ) ( “W hen this C ou rtinterpret s a contr act , w e l ook t o t he contr actfori t s m eani ng, notw hata party ther et o m ay have thought i tmea nt . The s t a nd a r d i s ob j e c t i ve , mea s ur e d b y the l a ng ua ge of the c on tr a c t , no tby t he s ubj ect i ve i nt entorbel i ef of a party w hi ch conf

l i ct s w i th m eani ng ascer t ai ned by the obj ect i ve s t andar d. ”) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . S t . M art i n contr act ed t o do thatw hi ch he c oul d not leg a lly d o – p ra c tice law in th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i. Ju stic e K itch e n s’s p o sitio n , tha t S t. M a r t i n c o u l d l e g a l l y h a n d l e th e c l a i m pr o hac vi ce , err s i n that , had St . M art i n r eques t ed

### 31

admi s s i on pr o hac vi ce , he w ol d have been r equi r ed by R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 46( b) ( 4) to re tain lo c a l co u n se l, w h ich in tu rn w o u ld h a v e v io late d th e ter m s o f th e c o n tra c t. ¶4 8. J us t i ce K i t chens cor r ect l y p oi nt s ou ttha tthe c on tr a c tde f i ne s the “ a t t orne y” w ho w oul d re pr es entt he Forbes es as St . M art i n’ s f i r m , St . M art i n, M ahoney & A s s oci at es , and n o tS t . M a r t i n h i ms e l f

. W i th r e s p e c t , I n o n e th e l e s s d i s a g r e e wi th h i s c o n c l u s i o n th a t , a s we d o n o tk n o w i f

a n y o th e rme mb e r s o f S t . M a r t i n ’ s f

i r m w e r e l i c e n s e d i n M i s s i s s i p p i , we cannots ay the contr actw as i l l egal . Fi r s t , w hi l e cert ai nl y notc oncl us i ve, ther e i s no evi dence in th e re c o rd th a t an y o th e r a tto rn e y in S t. M a rtin , M a h o n e y & A s s o c ia te s w a s lic e n se d in M i s s i s s i ppi . I tw as a s m al l f i r m and the f

i r m ’ s l ett erhead, w hi ch appea r s i n the r ecor d, does noti ndi cat e any of

the att orneys w er e l i cens ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi . Sec ond, a pe r s on cannothave a law y e r-c lien t re latio n sh ip w ith a law firm ; o n ly w ith a law y e r m a y su c h a re latio n sh ip e x ist. See M i s s . Ru l e s o f

P r o f’ l Co n d u c t1 . 2 . Atmo s t , th e f a c tth a tth e c o n tr a c td e f i n e s th e f i r m, r atherthan St . M art i n, as the at t orney cr eat es an ambi gui ty r egar di ng w ho the part i es i nt ended w oul d r epr es entthe Forbes es , a nd a ny s uch ambi gui ty i s e as i l y cl ear ed up upon an e x a m in a tio n o f t h e re c o rd , w h ic h c o n ta in s , in tera lia , the fol l ow i ng : (1) a lett er dat ed A ug ust 1 3 , 1 9 9 8 , fro m S t. M a rtin to lo c a l co u n se l d e ta ilin g h is fin d in g s m a d e p u rsu a n t to in v e stig a tin g th e fa c ts u n d e rly in g h is c lien ts’ c laim s, c o n firm in g th a t S t. M a rtin w o u ld advanc e the Forbes es ’ l i vi ng expens es t o them, and conf i r m i ng al l otherexpens es w oul d be di vi ded f i f ty- f i f ty; ( 2) a l et t erf

r om l ocal couns el t o St . M art i n, dat ed A ugus t16, 1998, w her ei n l ocal couns el r eques t ed thatSt . M art i n revi ew a pr opos ed compl ai nt , di s cus s i ng

### 32

l i t i gat i on s tr at egy, and r eques t i ng s ugges t i ons f r om St . M art i n; (3) anot herl ett erf r om l ocal couns el , dat ed A ugus t17, 1998, t o St . M art i n acknow l edgi ng thatSt . M art i n had author i zed the f i l i ng of t he compl ai nt ; and ( 4) a J une 10, 1999, l ett erf r om St . M ar t i n t o l ocal couns el t o the ef f ectthatSt . M art i n had couns el ed the cl i ent s r egar di ng a s ett l ementof f er , i ncl udi ng the l egal r ami f

i cat i ons of

the of f er , a nd thatthe cl i ent s ha d r ej ect ed the of f er . T he J une 10, 1 9 9 9 , letter b e a rs th e sig n a tu re s o f S t. M a rtin a n d b o th c lien ts. S t. M a rtin te s tif ie d v ia h is ow n depos i t i on t hathe at t ended de pos i t i ons t aken i n the ca s e. G i ven the f or egoi ng f

act s of r ecor d, no ot herr eas onabl e conc l us i on can be r eac hed than the part i es t o the contr act i ntended forS t . M art i n to r epresentthe F orbeses. ¶4 9. N oto nl y di d the c on tr a c tc on t a i n a n i l l e ga l p r omi s e –the p r omi s e t o pr act i ce l aw w i tho ut a l i cense – ou r l aw s agai nstpract i ci ng l aw i n M i ssi ssi p p i w i tho ut a l i cense undoubt edl y w er e br oken i n the per f or m ance of

the contr act . I n I

n re W il liam s on , w e h e ld th a t th e fo llo w in g ac tio n s b y an o u t-o f-s tate atto rn e y co n stitu ted the p ra c tice o f law in M i ssi ssi pp i : the cases in qu est i on o ri ginat ed fr om the att orney’s off i ce and w ere “hi s” cases, the cases cam e to hi s of f i ce vi a a t ol l - f

r ee phone num berhe adve r t i s ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi , he r evi ew ed the ca s es t o det erm i ne thei rm er i t , he pr ovi ded expe r tw i tnes s es , and he w or ked w ith lo c a l c o u n s e l to fi le a c o m p la in t. I n re W il liam s on , 838 So. 2d 226, 235- 236 ( ¶¶ 23- 24) ( M i s s . 2002) . T he C our tf ur therw r ot e, [T h e a tto rn e y in q u e s tio n ] c le a rly c o n fe rre d w ith c lien ts, a d v ise d th e m a s to th e ir leg a l rig h ts a n d th e n e n g a g e d th e se rv ice s o f a n o th e r a tto rn e y to lit ig a te the cl ai m . H e pr ocur ed ea ch and e very cl i ent thr ough comm er ci al s on the tel ev isi o n . O n ce their claim s w ere inv esti g ated b y M il ler an d h is offi ce staff,

### 33

h e c o n t a c t e d W i l l i a ms o n . M i l l e rc h a r a c t e r i z e d th e s e c a s e s a s “ h i s ” c a s e s . He cont i nued t o advi s e W i l l i amson on the ca s e and, i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce, att ended a de po si t i on. M i l l eral s o had a f i nanci al i nt er es ti n the out come of these cases. I d. at236 ( ¶ 27) . T he W

il liam s on Courte xpl i ci t l y he l d thats uch f act or s s uppor t ed a f

i ndi ng of the unl i cens ed pr act i ce of l aw i r r es pect i ve of

w hetherthe unl i cens ed att orney’ s names a p p e a re d o n th e p le a d in g s . I d. at 23 5 (¶ 2 3 ). ¶50. I f the f act s under l yi ng t he W

il liam s on C our t ’s co nclusi on co nst i tut ed a s uf f i ci ent b a sis fo r h o ld in g th a t an u n lice n se d atto rn e y en g a g e d in th e p ra c tice o f la w in M iss iss ip p i, then cert ai nl y t he f

act s i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce pr ovi de an e ven gr eat erbas i s f ors uch a f

i ndi ng. T he conc l us i on t hatSt . M art i n di d, i n fa ct , pra ct i ce M i s s i s s i ppi l aw w i thouta l i cens e t o do s o del i ve r s me t o my f

i na l po i ntof

di s a gr e e mentw i th the maj or i ty. The maj or i ty o pi ni on appea r s t o i ndi cat e thata f or ei gn att orney, s uch as St . M art i n, w ho av ai l s hi m s el f of M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s court s a nd l aw t o ga therand handl e ca s es , i s nots ubj ectt o M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s R ul es o f P ro fe ss io n a l C o n d u c t. C e rta in ly , in th e in sta n t ca se , h e w o u ld h a v e b e e n . S t. M a rtin undi s put edl y w as an att orney l i cens ed i n L oui s i ana. R ul e 5. 5( a) o f Loui s i ana’ s R ul es of Pr of es s i onal Conductpr ovi des , “ A l aw yers hal l notpr act i ce l aw i n vi ol at i on of the r egul at i on of the l egal pr of

es s i on i n thatj ur i s di ct i on, or as s i s tanot heri n doi ng s o. ” So i m por t anthas R ul e 5. 5 been de emed t o be, thatt he Loui s i ana Supr eme C our thas di s barr ed att orneys f or its v io lat io n . D in e t v . G a v ag n ie , 948 So. 2d 1281, 1284 ( ¶ 9) ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng In re Stam ps , 8 7 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 , 1 2 5 (L a. 20 0 4 )). ¶51. A l though I w oul d re ach a di ff erent res ultt han t he m aj or i ty str i ct l y on the bas i s t hat

### 34

th e c o n tra c t it se lf c o n tain s a n il leg a l p ro m ise , I als o d isa g re e a n d b e liev e th a t S t. M a rtin engage d i n the unl i cens ed pr act i ce of l aw and s ubj ect ed hi m s el f t o M i s s i s s i ppi ’s R ul es of P ro fe ss io n a l C o n d u c t. ¶ 5 2 . A c c o rd in g ly , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , AND CHAN DL ER , J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.