Title: In Re Lambert
Citation: 421 So. 2d 1023
Docket Number: 53879
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: November 3, 1982

421 So. 2d 1023 (1982) In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Justice Court Judge Jerry V. LAMBERT. No. 53879. Supreme Court of Mississippi. November 3, 1982. Brunini, Grantham, Grower &amp; Hewes, George P. Hewes, III, R. Wilson Montjoy, II, Jackson, for appellant. Cumbest, Cumbest &amp; Hunter, John L. Hunter, Pascagoula, for appellee. En Banc. PATTERSON, Chief Justice, for the Court: Upon the recommendation of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 and the consent of Judge Jerry V. Lambert, this matter is before the court for disciplinary adjudication. The Commission found by clear and convincing evidence that: The Commission found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent: The Commission further found by clear and convincing evidence certain mitigating circumstances as follows: The Commission found by clear and convincing evidence that "Respondent's conduct constitutes wilful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office in disrepute within the purview of Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890." Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 provides in part as follows: By unanimous vote of the Commission and agreement of the respondent, it is recommended to this Court that Jerry V. Lambert be publicly reprimanded and fined $2,000.00. The question previously before the Court was whether the foregoing section of the Constitution permitted multiple sanctions of fine and public reprimand where the sanctions are divided by the disjunctive "or." The question has since been decided in the case of In Re Branan, 419 So. 2d 145, 146 (Miss. 1982), wherein we concluded that "Section 177A should be construed as if `or' was inserted between each sanction permitted." We further concluded that "[i]f the acts of the justice or judge complained of constitute more than one of the prescribed categories of conduct, (a) through (e), multiple sanctions may be imposed." 419 So. 2d at 146. In this case respondent's conduct constituted (c) willful and persistent failure to perform his duties and (e) conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute, therefore, multiple sanctions may be imposed against respondent. We therefore follow the recommendation of the Commission, by fining respondent $2,000 and publicly reprimanding him by publication of this opinion in the Southern Reporter. RESPONDENT FINED $2,000.00 AND PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED. SUGG and WALKER, P.JJ., and BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING, HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, JJ., concur.