Opinion ID: 1136922
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The motion for separate trials on each unrelated count of the complaint.

Text: Prior to the introduction of any evidence to the Tribunal, Emil moved for separate trials on the various unrelated counts on the ground that he would be prejudiced by the commingling of evidence from each count that would almost surely result if separate trials were not granted. The formal complaint contains seven counts of solicitation. However, all seven involve separate and distinct activities allegedly taking place over an eight year period extending from 1980 to early 1988. Emil now changes his argument from one of a criminal nature to a civil nature. He relies upon Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure to provide for the separation of trials in order to avoid prejudice to a party. M.R.C.P. Rule 42(b). Emil would have this Court apply the rights and procedure from a criminal trial and a civil trial. In essence, Emil would like any procedure that benefits him to be applied. We have held that the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure do not govern a disciplinary proceeding, but are applicable where the Rules of Discipline are silent. Harrison v. The Mississippi Bar, 637 So.2d 204, 215 (Miss. 1994). The Bar notes that Emil offers no authority or argument to support this allegation of error and that he has shown no prejudice by the counts all being tried together. Emil merely states that the commingling of the evidence as mentioned above, could, and in fact did, cause prejudice to his case. We find this argument void of any merit and it fails.