Opinion ID: 1776497
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Analysis of the Issues

Text: Miss. Code Ann. § 73-3-341 (1972) and Rule 13 of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar, (1984), provides the basis for imposing reciprocal discipline: [w]hen an attorney should be subjected to disciplinary sanctions in another jurisdiction, such sanction shall be grounds for disciplinary action in this state, and certification of such sanction by the appropriate authority of such jurisdiction to the Executive Director of the Bar or to the Court, shall be conclusive evidence of the guilt of the offense or unprofessional conduct on which said sanction was ordered, and it will not be necessary to prove the grounds for such offense in the disciplinary proceedings in this state. The sole issue to be determined in the disciplinary proceeding in this state shall be the extent of the final discipline to be imposed on the attorney, which may be less or more severe than the discipline imposed by the other jurisdiction. (Emphasis added). The Procedure for filing disciplinary actions under Rule 13.1 provides: Upon receipt by the Executive Director of a certified copy of disciplinary sanctions imposed in another jurisdiction upon an attorney subject to these rules, the Executive Director shall immediately docket same as a complaint, charge or grievance and shall immediately forward the matter to Complaint Counsel. If such sanctions from the other jurisdiction come within the provisions of Rule 6, Complaint Counsel shall present same to the Court as provided therein. If the sanctions do not come within Rule 6, Complaint Counsel shall prepare and file a Formal Complaint for trial before a Complaint Tribunal wherein the sole issue to be determined shall be the extent of final discipline to be imposed on the attorney in this state, which discipline may be less or more severe than the discipline imposed by the other jurisdiction. (Emphasis added). Under Miss. Code Ann. § 73-3-341 and Rule 13, a certified copy of disciplinary sanctions from another jurisdiction is `conclusive evidence' of the attorney's guilt of the offense, Mississippi State Bar v. Young, 509 So.2d 210, 217 (Miss. 1987), and provides grounds for disciplinary action in this state. The Court interprets the suspension of the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of Louisiana as an appropriate other jurisdiction from which to consider reciprocal disciplinary action in this state. The sole issue in this state `shall be the extent of the final discipline' which we ought impose. Mississippi State Bar v. Edwins, 534 So.2d 218, 219 (Miss. 1988); Miss. Code Ann. § 73-3-341 (1972); Rule 13, Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar, (1984). The procedure set forth for Rule 13.1 allows for the sanctions from the other jurisdiction to be presented by the Complaint Counsel directly to the Court if such sanctions come within the provisions of Rule 6... . (Emphasis added). However, if the sanctions imposed by the other jurisdiction do not come within Rule 6, the procedure under Rule 13 directs the Complaint Counsel to prepare and file a Formal Complaint for trial before a Complaint Tribunal wherein the sole issue to be determined shall be the extent of final discipline to be imposed... . Rule 13.1, Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar, (1984). Rule 6 provides: Rule 6. Suspensions and Disbarments Based on Other Proceedings (a) Whenever any attorney subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Court shall be convicted in any court of any state or in any federal court, or enter a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere therein, of any felony (other than manslaughter) or of any misdemeanor involving fraud, dishonesty, misrepresentation, deceit, or willful failure to account for money or property of a client, a certified copy of the judgment of conviction shall be presented to the Court by Complaint Counsel and shall be conclusive evidence thereof. The Court shall then forthwith strike the name of the attorney and order his immediate suspension from the practice of law. (Emphasis added). The sanction imposed upon Strauss by the Eastern District of Louisiana was a three year suspension from practice before that court. [3] The Bar argues that the federal court suspension gives rise to the imposition of sanction in Mississippi under Rules 6 and 13, submitting that the determining issue is the type of sanction imposed in the other jurisdiction. The Bar contends that since the federal court imposed a suspension, a sanction which come[s] within the provisions of Rule 6, no Complaint Tribunal need be convened under Rule 13.1. This Court, suggests the Bar, should decide this case. This case has pinpointed an ambiguity within the Mississippi Rules of Discipline. Rule 13 states that when a Mississippi licensed attorney is subjected to discipline in another jurisdiction, the sanction imposed in the other jurisdiction is ground for a disciplinary action in this state. Rule 13.1 sets forth the procedure to be followed, again, using the term sanction from the other jurisdiction. The rule provides if the sanction comes within the provision of Mississippi Disciplinary Rule 6, which rule is entitled Suspensions and Disbarments Based on Other Proceedings and deals exclusively with sanctions of suspension and disbarment, then the Bar Counsel shall present the complaint directly to the Supreme Court as Rule 6 provides. Otherwise, if the sanction does not come within Rule 6, then a Tribunal is convened to recommend to the Supreme Court a discipline on the attorney. However the text of Rule 6 deals with convictions of felonies or certain misdemeanors which are not present here, but the violations of a local court rule. The procedures of both Rules 6 and 13 have been followed. In the first instance, this Court referred the issue of sanction to a Tribunal under Rule 13.1 and the Tribunal has made the recommendation of a three year suspension which record is now before the Court. The issue is now before the Court under the procedure of Rule 6. Therefore, no prejudice to Strauss results since both procedures have been followed here. This Court interprets Rule 13 to mean that when another jurisdiction has imposed on a Mississippi lawyer a sanction of suspension or disbarment, (which are the sanctions coming under the provisions of Rule 6), the matter of reciprocal discipline is to be presented directly to this Court and not to a Complaint Tribunal. Edwins, supra ; Young, supra . This procedure should be followed in future cases. Because we see no principled reason for different treatment of suspensions, disbarments and lesser sanctions imposed by another jurisdiction, we hereby modify the procedure of Miss.R. Discipline 13.1 to provide that all requests for discipline based on sanctions imposed by other jurisdictions shall be presented to this Court with the sole issue to be the extent of final discipline to be imposed on the attorney in this state. Since Rule 13 provides that a certified copy of sanctions imposed by another jurisdiction shall be conclusive evidence of the guilt of the offense or unprofessional conduct on which such sanction was ordered, there is no need for any fact-finding in this state as to the offense. As in Edwins, supra, at page 219, there is no suggestion that Strauss received less than full due process in Louisiana. The lawyer who is subject to reciprocal discipline may respond to the Bar's request for reciprocal discipline and may, at that time, offer any mitigating factors which he thinks serve to diminish his culpability and therefore diminish the necessity for, or severity of, sanctions to be imposed by this Court. While this Court will on certification of another jurisdiction's sanctions, take as proven the offense in the other jurisdiction, this Court has the authority to impose sanctions which are more or less severe than those imposed by the other jurisdiction or to impose no sanction at all.