Opinion ID: 1722841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: guidelines for consideration of a petition for reinstatement

Text: The guidelines for reinstatement to the Mississippi State Bar are set forth in Miss. Code Ann. § 73-3-337 and in Rule 12 of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi Bar. Rule 12 reads in pertinent part as follows: Rule 12.7 Contents of Reinstatement Petitions ... All reinstatement petitions shall be addressed to the Court, shall state the cause or causes for suspension or disbarment, give the names and current addresses of all persons, parties, firms, or legal entities who suffered pecuniary loss due to the improper conduct, the making of full amends and restitution, the reasons justifying reinstatement, and requisite moral character and legal learning to be reinstated to the privilege of practicing law. Upon filing, the petition shall be served on, and an investigatory fee of $500.00 shall be paid to the Bar, same to be in addition to any other sum due the Bar, or persons injured by the petitioner's improper conduct. The matters set out in this paragraph shall be jurisdictional. Upon examination of the record, it appears that Petitioner has satisfied each of the jurisdictional requirements contained in Rule 12.7 of the Rules. However, the Bar contends that Petitioner has not produced the additional documents and copy of the affidavit as requested during the deposition and that Petitioner has not fully complied with this Court's order of suspension. Mr. and Mrs. George Seymour and Mr. and Mrs. John Hebert were listed by Petitioner as the parties involved. Petitioner further alleges that there has been a full settlement made with the aforementioned parties. According to the record, restitution was not ordered by the tribunal or this Court and as stated above, there has been a settlement with the affected parties. Apparently, the Heberts and Seymours each received $12,500.00. Petitioner alluded to counseling for alcohol and medication for depression. However, he is no longer on the medication and it appears that his concerns about using alcohol were tempered via the counseling he received. The letters written for Petitioner fully support his Petition. Petitioner alleges that he has read and kept up with this Court's decisions by reading the advance sheets as well as law review articles at the Lincoln County Courthouse. He has not attended any CLE seminars since his suspension in February, 1993. Petitioner stated that if reinstated, he would not resume a full-time practice and that he had a job opportunity. In support of his Petition, Mr. Underwood also discussed other justifications such as his moral fitness, family life and future plans. Petitioner is married to Sarah Gail Underwood and has one son Stone Roberts Underwood. There are letters of recommendation from D. Ronald Musgrove, Mike Mills, Larry Speed and Ed Buelow, Jr., who have knowledge of Petitioner's previous and recent work experience as well as his family and personal life. The Rules of Discipline provide a wide range of disciplinary actions which may be taken in response to attorney misconduct. The two which prohibit the practice of law, suspension and disbarment, are distinguished by the duration of the probation. In cases of suspension, the prohibition against the practice of law is for a fixed period of time. Rules of Discipline 8(b)(iii); but see Rule of Discipline 11.1 (indicating that a suspension can be for an indefinite period of time). In cases of suspension, the Rules of Discipline also provide that the Complaint Tribunal may specify conditions precedent to reinstatement. Rule 8(b)(iii). In the matter sub judice, the Mississippi Bar opposes reinstating Mr. Underwood. As far as discipline is concerned, this Court has held that discipline is ... to protect the public, the administration of justice, to maintain appropriate professional standards, and to deter similar conduct. Mississippi State Bar v. A Mississippi Attorney, 489 So.2d 1081 (Miss. 1986). This Court has recognized that the misconduct giving rise to suspension differs from that giving rise to disbarment: Implicit in the judgment of suspension, stopping short of disbarment, is that the attorney's character has not been shown so deficient that proof of general moral and professional rehabilitation is required. Haimes v. Mississippi State Bar, 551 So.2d 910, 912 (Miss. 1989) The suspended attorney seeking reinstatement has the burden of proving to this Court that he has the requisite moral character for reinstatement to the practice of law. Haimes, 551 So.2d at 912. The showing to be made for reinstatement seems inextricably bound to the nature of the original offense. Rule 12.6 requires that the Petition contain reasons justifying reinstatement. The Rule also requires that the Petitioner maintain the requisite moral character and legal learning to qualify for reinstatement. Burgin v. Mississippi State Bar, 453 So.2d 689, 691 (Miss. 1984). This Court finds that Underwood has adequately explained his activity since disbarment and that he has minimally met the requirements of reinstatement. As far as the listing of parties harmed and Underwood making amends, there is proof that this has been accomplished. Additional cases dealing with petitions for reinstatement decided by this Court also prove to be helpful in determining whether a Petitioner has met the requisite standards. In Williams v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 492 So.2d 578 (Miss. 1986), this Court discussed the standard used in reinstatement proceedings: A court in such a proceeding, is not administering punishment; it is passing upon character. We do not believe it requires a long period to discipline and effect a rehabilitation of character. A firm resolve to live a correct life evidenced by outward manifestation sufficient to convince a reasonable mind clearly that the person has reformed is only required. Williams, 492 So.2d at 580.