Opinion ID: 1774377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: was the sanction imposed upon carter by the complaint tribunal for 91-ba-1096, disbarment, excessive, or would the 20 month period of suspension which carter served be adequate and sufficient imposition of sanctions?

Text: Sanctions are imposed under the following factors: (1) the nature of the misconduct involved; (2) the need to deter similar misconduct; (3) the preservation of dignity and reputation of the legal profession; (4) the protection of the public; and (5) sanctions imposed in similar cases. Harrison v. Mississippi Bar, 637 So.2d 204, 222 (Miss. 1994). Additional guidelines, as suggested by the American Bar Association (ABA), include (1) the duty violated; (2) the lawyer's mental state; (3) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (4) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. Harrison, 637 So.2d at 222. The nature of the misconduct involved goes to one repeated set of facts. Carter took money from clients, promised to act as their counsel, and did nothing. By doing so, he violated Rules 1.1 (competence); Rule 1.3 (diligence); Rule 1.4 (communication with client), and Rule 3.2 (duty to expedite litigation). In addition, taking a client's money while promising to work for the client, and doing nothing, is deceitful, violating Rule 8.4(a), (c) and (d). The Tribunal found that Carter had violated these rules in his representation of Mr. Bardo. Likewise, the Tribunal had found that Carter had violated the same rules earlier in his representation of another client, which earned him a private reprimand. Furthermore, Carter had received a warning to the effect that he should communicate with his clients more effectively and promptly. This Court has stated when neglect of a client arises, the need to deter similar misconduct is great. Hall v. Mississippi Bar, 631 So.2d 120, 126 (Miss. 1993). [D]ishonest conduct by an attorney with his own client goes to the very core of a lawyer's fitness to practice law. Reid v. Mississippi Bar, 586 So.2d 786, 788 (Miss. 1991). The failure to follow the Rules involving duties to clients, which Carter has violated, involve the most important ethical standards this profession espouses. Stegall, 618 So.2d at 1294. Third, the imposition of sanctions in this case is absolutely necessary to bolster the confidence of the general public in the ability of society to govern itself. Pitts v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 462 So.2d 340, 343 (Miss. 1985). Thus, this Court's imposition of sanctions implicates the need to preserve the reputation of the legal profession, the third factor in imposing sanctions. Stegall, 618 So.2d at 1294. Fourth, the protection of the public is at risk in this case. Carter's repeated failure to act in Mr. Bardo's interests, both in his lawsuit against another party, and Mr. Bardo's bankruptcy suit, conceivably cost Mr. Bardo proceeds from his lawsuit, and protection against garnishment and creditors in the bankruptcy suit. Indeed, even Carter recognized his debt to Mr. Bardo when he paid Mr. Bardo compensation for part of Mr. Bardo's garnished wages. Through Carter's inaction, Carter demonstrated a complete lack of concern for the potential injuries they (his clients) might suffer due to his failure to act on their behalf. Stegall, 618 So.2d at 1294. Carter's actions since the imposition of disbarment, including more violations of duties to clients, while suspended from practice, is more reason to protect the public from Carter. Fifth, regarding sanctions imposed in similar cases, at least one other case has involved the disbarment of an attorney for multiple violations of his duty to a client. Stegall v. Mississippi Bar, 618 So.2d 1291, 1296 (Miss. 1993). But see Fougerousse v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 563 So.2d 1363, 1366-67 (Miss. 1990) (pattern of delay and tardiness warrants 90 day suspension). As this Court has noted, the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions state that it is appropriate to disbar an attorney for a knowing failure to perform services for a client, causing serious or potentially serious injury to that client. Stegall, 618 So.2d at 1295. It is true that this Court has meted out only a public reprimand in one case of neglect, where the attorney suffered from personal problems. Vining v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 508 So.2d 1047, 1048 (Miss. 1987). However, in this case this Court notes a pattern of client neglect, in times of depression and also in times when Carter himself stated he was capable of practice. Professional discipline may be warranted where the attorney shows a continuing pattern of neglect to his clients. Broom v. Mississippi Bar, 603 So.2d 349, 356 (Miss. 1992) (McRae, J., dissenting). In addition, the four American Bar Association Guidelines for Sanctions merit discussion. Harrison, 637 So.2d at 222. First, the duty violated is neglect of an attorney's obligations to his clients. This violation is grave, particularly in this case, and is covered in detail above. As to the lawyer's mental state, Carter alleges his mental state should be a mitigating factor. Carter submits the affidavit of Dr. William C. McQuinn, who states that Carter told him that his depression affected both his personal and professional life in May 1991, when Dr. McQuinn began treating Carter. Dr. McQuinn stated that this depression had been ongoing for two years prior to 1991. Dr. McQuinn hospitalized Carter twice for depression, once from October 22, 1991, to November 8, 1991, and once on December 5, 1991, after a drug overdose. Dr. McQuinn told Carter he should refrain from law practice in December 1991, but stated that Carter had regained the ability to practice in April 1992. However, Carter's representation with Mr. Bardo began in 1986, and Bardo's lawsuit was dismissed for lack of prosecution in 1988, well before Carter complained of depression. Even assuming that Carter was depressed from 1989 to 1991, if he found that his illness had affected his ability to practice law, Carter had the affirmative duty to remove himself from representation. Miss. R.Pro.Cond. 1.16 (mandating lawyers terminate representation of client when lawyer's mental condition materially impairs ability to represent client). Carter's depression lasted a significant period of time. Carter cannot complain of a suddenness in his condition. As a result, his mental condition is only a slight mitigating factor. This Court has stated that personal or emotional problems may be a mitigating factor, but has also stated that a pattern of misconduct, and multiple offenses are aggravating circumstances. Harrison, 637 So.2d at 227. Carter violated these rules concerning duties to clients, over two separate incidents and a substantial amount of time. Considering his actions after the imposition of suspension, which include two more complaints for violations of these same rules, a pattern of misconduct is clearly discerned. These circumstances are aggravating factors against Carter. The potential injury caused by Carter's misconduct is severe. As stated above, Carter's misrepresentation of Bardo caused Bardo's loss of potential recovery for a lawsuit, and protection against creditors for garnishment. The existence of mitigating and aggravating factors is discussed above. On balancing, the test goes against Carter, because of his repeated violations of these fundamental rules. Carter makes the argument that this Court's order suspending him from the practice of law while he was recuperating his ability to practice is punishment enough. This argument is particularly specious when Carter himself admits practicing throughout this period of suspension. This assignment of error is without merit. As a result, this Court properly finds that disbarment is warranted under the circumstances of this case.