Opinion ID: 1707083
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the circumstances warrant an imposition of greater sanctions than assessed by the complaint tribunal.

Text: ¶ 33. Mr. Alexander's last issue and the Bar's issue on its cross-appeal have been consolidated as the discussion of one is dispositive of the other. Mr. Alexander argues that the two-year suspension imposed by the Bar was excessive given the circumstances surrounding the complaint. The Bar argues that the facts of the instant appeal, taken with Mr. Alexander's prior disciplinary record as aggravating factors, warrant a more severe sanction than a two-year suspension. ¶ 34. This Court views two sets of criteria when pronouncing the appropriate sanctions to be imposed for misconduct. The first set of criteria was developed through our case law which considers: (1) the nature of the misconduct involved; (2) the need to deter similar misconduct; (3) the preservation of the dignity and reputation of the profession; (4) the protection of the public; and, (5) the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Attorney R., 649 So.2d at 824-25; see also Mathes v. The Mississippi Bar, 637 So.2d 840, 846-47 (Miss.1994). The second set of criteria originates from the American Bar Association's guidelines, specifically Standard 3.0 which contemplates: (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the actual or potential injury resulting from the misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. L.S. v. Mississippi Bar, 649 So.2d 810, 815 (Miss.1994)(quoting Mississippi Bar v. Attorney ST, 621 So.2d 229, 233 (Miss.1993)). Alexander, 669 So.2d at 42. ¶ 35. As mentioned above, Mr. Alexander is no stranger to this Court. This Court has noted that prior sanctions against Mr. Alexander have failed to provide him with a wake-up call. Alexander, 697 So.2d at 1169. (This Court will not hesitate to impose substantial sanctions upon an attorney for any act which evinces a want of personal honesty and integrity or renders such attorney unworthy of public confidence.) Id. at 1170 (quoting Foote v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 517 So.2d 561, 564 (Miss.1987)). This Court has previously found ... that the conduct in which Mr. Alexander engaged despite his repeated disciplinary sanctions for similar conduct evinces a want of personal honesty and integrity and renders him unworthy of public confidence. Furthermore, his conduct evinces a flagrant lack of regard and respect for the directives both by the Bar and by this Court to cease engaging in such conduct. .... Although reluctant to use the cliche, one bad apple spoils the bunch, we believe that Mr. Alexander, as evidenced by his fifteen year history of unprofessional and unethical conduct, is one of the worst apples of them all. There can be little wonder why the dignity and reputation of the legal profession has come under fire in recent yearsit is because of conduct like Mr. Alexander's. We can only conclude that removing him from the practice of law is essential to preserving the dignity and reputation of the profession. .... Fortunately, we have decided no case in which the attorney has had such an extensive record of disciplinary sanctions, save the most recent case involving Mr. Alexander himself, The Mississippi Bar v. Alexander, 669 So.2d 40 (Miss.1996). Id. ¶ 36. This Court has held that consideration of subsequent sanctions as an aggravating factor does not violate any due process rights of Mr. Alexander. Alexander, 697 So.2d at 1169. Mr. Alexander's conduct has not subsided despite repeated sanctions by the Bar, the federal courts, and this Court. The last action by this Court regarding Mr. Alexander was entering an order, Alexander v. Mississippi Bar, No. 93-BA-00295-SCT, April 9, 1998, whereby the Court ordered Mr. Alexander to not be readmitted to practice law before the courts of Mississippi until all orders of suspension have expired, he has taken and passed the Bar Examination and has complied with all outstanding orders of this Court. He is once again before this Court, and once again his numerous past sanctions should be weighed against him as an aggravating factor in order to determine the appropriate sanction to impose upon him. ¶ 37. This Court has stated that the most important consideration in imposing sanctions is that the punishment be sufficient to `vindicate in the eyes of the public the overall reputation of the bar.' Hall, 631 So.2d at 125 (quoting The Mississippi Bar v. Hall, 612 So.2d 1075, 1077 (Miss.1992)). This Court has found disbarment proper for attorneys guilty of offenses involving acts of dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation. Harrison, 637 So.2d at 226. The Court in Harrison found that disbarment was merited where the attorney had engaged in a pattern of dishonest conduct toward the court and toward third parties. Id. ¶ 38. Without a doubt, Mr. Alexander is habitual in his offenses. He was sanctioned by this Court in Alexander v. The Mississippi Bar, 651 So.2d 541 (Miss.1995). There the Court noted Mr. Alexander had significant prior discipline imposed upon him. Each of these earlier disciplinary actions concerned Alexander's neglect of cases, his lack of diligence or promptness, or his failure to adequately communicate with his clients. Id. at 547. Prior actions by this Court have had little if any effect in deterring his repeated violations of the Rules of Discipline and Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Alexander was again before this Court in The Mississippi Bar v. Alexander, 669 So.2d 40 (Miss.1996) and Mississippi Bar v. Alexander, 697 So.2d 1164 (Miss.1997), for similar instances of misconduct. ¶ 39. The Bar and this Court have imposed almost every possible sanction upon Mr. Alexander, but he has repeatedly disregarded them in a most egregious manner. ¶ 40. The Tribunal suspended Mr. Alexander from the practice of law for two years. The Bar has cross-appealed arguing that a more severe discipline should be imposed, given Mr. Alexander's prior disciplinary record. This Court agrees with the Bar and believes that Mr. Alexander's repeated offenses merit the ultimate sanction of disbarment. This is the only remedy that will vindicate the Bar in the eyes of the public and prevent Mr. Alexander from further sullying the reputation of the legal profession in Mississippi.