IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2019-BD-01229-SCT THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

v. URURA W. MAY

ERS

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MELISSA SELMAN SCOTT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: URURA W . MAYERS (PRO SE) NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - BAR MATTERS DISPOSITION: PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - 04/16/2020 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:
EN BANC. ISHEE, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. This m atter is bef o re the Court on a com plaint o f t h e M i s s i s s i p p i B a r s e e king d i s c i plinary action against Urura W

. May ers, a n attorney licensed to practice l a w i n T e n n e s s e e and Mississippi, based on t he Suprem e Court of Tennessee’s i m position of a public c e nsure. T he Bar asks this C ourt to discipline May ers appropriately under R ule 13 of the Rules of Discipline f

or t he Mississippi State Bar. It also asks that i t r ecover f rom May ers
t h e c o s t s and expenses incurred in f iling its f orm al com

plaint. W e f

i nd that the reques t e d relief should be granted.
FACTS¶2. A d isciplinary com p l ain t a r o s e a g a i n st May ers in Tennessee af ter she presented a check drawn on her trust account to a court clerk’s of f ice f or pay m ent o f a f

iling f ee bef ore the client f

unds covering the cost of the f iling f ee had b een deposited into her trust account. This r esulted in a n overdraf t on the account. An i nvestigation by the Board of Prof essional Responsibility of the Suprem e Co u r t of Tennessee (the Board) revealed t hat May ers had
f ailed t o properly supervise a l egal assistant, who had used the trust account to pay personal
expenses. ¶3. Af ter considering this m atter, the Board d eterm i ned that May e r s “ violated Rules of Prof essional Conduct 1.15 (Saf ekeeping Property and Funds) and 5.3 (Respons ibilities Regarding Nonlawy er Assistants)

. . . .” May ers was publicly censured f or these violations. The Mississippi Bar f

iled a f orm al com

plaint against May ers under R ule 13 of t he Rules of Discipline f

or the Mississippi State Bar because she was an active m em ber of the Mississippi Bar during the tim e of

the underly ing conduct.

DISCUSSION ¶4. May ers is a licensed attorney in Mississippi and is theref ore subject to the disciplinary authority o f t h i s C o urt. Rule 13 of t he Rules of D iscipline f o r the M ississippi State Bar governs reciprocal discipline and provides, (a) Upon being disciplined in another jurisdiction, a n attorney adm itted to p r a ctice in the State of Mississippi shall f orthwith, but no later than 15 da y s upon the im

p osition of s uch discipline, provide Com plaint Counsel a certif

ied copy of the disci p l i n e . Failure to provide the certif ied copy f

orthwith shall, upon petition b y Com

plaint Counsel, result in the im m ediate s uspension of the attorney pending f

inal r esolution by the Court. The three (3) y ear lim itations period provided in R

ule 4 (d) of these Rules shall not begin to run until the Bar

2has bee n given written notice of the discipline im posed by a Bar or court of another jurisdiction. (b) Upon notif

i cation f rom any source that a n attorney adm itted to practice i n t he State of M ississippi has been disciplined in a nother jurisdictio n , Com p laint Counsel shall obtain a certif ied c o py o f the order and f ile it with the Court. A f

inal adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney adm itted to practice in t he State of Mississippi has been g uilt y o f m isconduct shall establish conclusively the m isconduct f or p u rposes of a disciplinary proceeding in the State of Mississippi. The sole issue to be d eterm ined in the disciplinary proceeding in the State of Mississippi shall be the extent of the f inal discipline to be im

posed upon the attorne y i n t h i s State, w hich m ay be m ore or less severe than the discipline im posed by the other jurisdiction. “Under Rule 13, the certif i ed copy o f t h e j udgm ent of public r eprim and is ‘conclusive evidence o f the guilt of the of f ense or unprof

essional con d u c t on which said s anction was ordered.’” Miss. Bar v. Burtoff , 269 So. 3d 85, 87 (Miss. 2 018) (quoting M.R.D. 13). “This
Court will not engage in f urther f a ct-f inding w h e n a sanction is im posed by another jur i s d i c t i o n.” Id. (citing Miss. Bar v. Shah , 749 S o. 2d 1047, 1049 ( Miss. 1999)). Theref ore, “[ t]he sole issue bef

o re this Court is ‘the extent of f inal discipline to be im

posed on the attorney

in this jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting S hah , 749 So. 2d at 1049). ¶5. “In this Court’s application of the reciprocity doctrine, the sanction im p osed in this
State generally m irrors the s anction im p osed in the s ister state, a bs e n t extraordinary circu m stances which c om pel, justif y o r support variance f

rom t he f oreign j urisdiction’s sanction.” Miss. Bar v. H odges , 949 So. 2d 683, 6 86 (Miss. 2006) ( c i t i n g M i s s. Bar v. Drungole , 9 13 So. 2 d 9 6 3 , 9 7 0 (Miss. 2005)). “W e m ay im pose sanctions less than or greater than those im

p osed by another jurisdiction.” I

d . (citing Miss. Bar v. Gardner , 730 So. 2d 546, 547 (Miss. 1998)).

3¶6. W h en determ ining reciprocal discipline, this Court has outlined nine criteria that m ay

be considered: (1) the natu r e o f the m isconduct i nvolved; (2) the need to deter sim i lar m isconduct; (3) the preservation of t h e d i gnity and reputation of the prof ession; (4) protection of t h e p ublic; (5) the sanctions im posed in sim i lar cas e s ; ( 6 ) the duty violated; (7) the lawy er’s m ental state; ( 8) the a ctual or potential injury resulting f rom the misconduct; and (9) the existence of aggravating and/or m itigating f actors. Hodges , 949 So. 2d at 686 (citing Miss. Bar v. Inserra , 855 So. 2d 447, 450 (2003)). 1
1. Misconduct ¶7. The nature of

May ers’s m i sconduct am ounts to a f ailure to saf

eguard the f

unds of a
trust account a nd f

ailure to supervise her nonlawy e r assistant. May ers adm its that the two violations asserted in the p ublic cen s u r e b y t he State of Tennessee a r e accurate and m ay constitute grounds f

or the im position of

discipline. But she also avers in her response that these a ctions were unintentional and that she is not unprof essional a n d u n e t h ical. She cooperated f

ully with the disciplinary

authorities.
2. Mitigating Factors ¶8. “An attorney ‘who is s ubject to reciprocal discipline m ay . . . o f f er any m itigating
f actors which he thinks serve to dim inish his culpability and theref ore dim inish the necessity
f or, or severity of

, sanctions to b e im

posed b y this Court.’” Burtoff , 2 6 9 S o . 3 d at 88 (quot i n g Miss. Bar v. Strauss , 6 01 So. 2d 8 40, 8 44 (Miss. 1992)). I n determ ining the

1 “So l ong as each is t a ken into consideration, t his Court n eed not address each criterion separately .” Burtoff , 269 So. 3d at 87 (citing Miss. B ar v. Ogletree , 226 So. 3d 79, 83 (Miss. 2015)).

4appropriate sanction to im pose u pon May ers f

or violating her duties, we note that it was the assistant who m isused t he trust f unds—not May er s . T h i s i s not a case of a n attorney

com m ingli n g h e r own f

unds w ith client f

unds or pay ing her o wn personal expenses out of the trust account. “Consistent patterns of s uch com m ingling and m isap p r o p r i a t i on . . . generally are deserving o f harsh sanctions, w hich serve to protect the public f r om greater harm .” Ogletree , 226 So. 3d at 83–84 (internal quotation m arks om i tted) (quoting McIntyre

v. Miss. Bar , 38 So. 3d a t 625–26 (Miss. 2015)). Having considered the f acts here, including the f a ct that there was n o reported actual or p otential injury resulting f rom the m isconduct, this C ourt does not f

ind it necessary to im

pose a m ore severe sanction than that o f Tennessee in order to preserve the dignity and reputation of the prof ession or to protect the public.
CONCLUSION ¶9. W e support the Suprem e Court of T ennes s e e ’ s im position of t he sanction of public reprim and. W e l ikewise order a public reprim and. May ers’s R esponse to Form al Com plaint indicates that her address i s 100 N orth Main Building, Suite 1904, M em ph is, Tennessee. Theref ore, w e f ind that DeSoto County would be a r e a s o n a b l e place f or May ers to be disciplined. I t is f

urther ordered that May er s s h a l l p a y to the Mississippi Bar $212.25 as requested in the Bar’s Motion f or Reim bursem ent of

Costs and Expenses. ¶10. URURA W . MAYERS SHALL BE PUBLICLY REPR I M A N D E D I N OPEN COURT BY T HE PRESIDING JUDGE ON THE F IRST D AY O F THE NEX T TERM OF THE CIRCUI T C O U R T OF DESOTO COUNTY AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE COURT’S M ANDATE, WITH MAYERS IN ATTENDANCE. MAYERS SHALL BE ASSESSED ALL COSTS AND EX PENSES. RANDOLPH, C .J., KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ., COLEMAN, M AX WELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.

5