Opinion ID: 1592241
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was the evidence of misconduct supported by clear and convincing evidence?

Text: The attorney is charged with violations of rules 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 7-106(C)(6), and 9-101(C). DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6) read as follows: (A) A lawyer shall not:       (5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. (6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. DR 7-106(C)(6) states that: (C) In appearing in his professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not:       (6) Engage in undignified or discourteous conduct which is degrading to a tribunal. DR 9-101(C) provides that: (C) A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official. The evidence indicates that the Mississippi attorney both outside and inside the courtroom of the justice court judge engaged in a verbal confrontation with the complainant in this cause, who was the opposing party in the litigation before the justice court. That verbal confrontation involved the use of profane language both by the complainant and the Mississippi attorney. When his conduct was repeated inside the courtroom the record reflects that the trial judge threatened the Mississippi attorney with contempt of court, though he was never held in contempt. Outside the courtroom, but in the presence of opposing counsel and the justice court judge, the Mississippi attorney stated that the judge would not have held him in contempt since he helped to get him elected. The record reflects that the justice court judge involved testified on behalf of the Mississippi attorney and that the judge is retired and elderly and could not remember anything about the incident due to extensive cancer treatments. Based on this record, we find that the Complaints Tribunal properly applied in its opinion the clear and convincing standard as directed by this Court. Netterville v. Mississippi State Bar, 397 So.2d 878 (Miss. 1981). Further, we are of the opinion that the conduct, clearly and convincingly shown by the evidence, is a violation of the Disciplinary Rules cited above. The argument presented by the appellant is that the evidence presented by the Bar does not rise to the level of clear and convincing because the testimony of the witnesses against him was both confusing and inconsistent. There are differences in the testimony of the witnesses but they are slight, particularly when viewed through the spectrum of the three years that have passed from the time of this incident. We find no merit to appellant's first assignment of error.