Opinion ID: 1722763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the penalty is appropriate

Text: This Court has independent authority to reassess the punishment imposed in the Bar disciplinary proceedings and modify the punishment as it deems proper. Goeldner v. Mississippi State Bar, 525 So.2d 403, 407 (Miss. 1988). The Bar's position is that the only real issue on appeal is the appropriateness of the discipline imposed by the Tribunal, a thirty (30)-day suspension. The Bar then goes on to take the untenable position that the sanction is too lenient. In light of this Court's decision in Attorney M which eliminated part of the Tribunal's basis for the penalty imposed, the position taken by the Bar cannot be justified. The Bar cites numerous cases in which greater sanctions have been imposed for attorney misconduct, but none of these cases even remotely resembles the present case. This is not a case involving misappropriation of funds ( Haimes v. The Mississippi Bar, 601 So.2d 851 (Miss. 1992) and Reid v. Mississippi State Bar, 586 So.2d 786 (Miss. 1991)), deliberately misrepresenting attorney's fees ( Goeldner v. Mississippi State Bar ), defrauding family members ( Brumfield v. Mississippi State Bar, 497 So.2d 800 (Miss. 1986)), misrepresenting law school credential and admission to another state bar in applying for employment ( Barfield v. Mississippi State Bar, 547 So.2d 46 (Miss. 1989)), or misrepresenting terms of a settlement ( Culpepper v. Mississippi State Bar, 588 So.2d 413 (Miss. 1991)). L.S.'s conduct did not involve any monetary loss or other specific harm to anyone involved. The Bar further errs in comparing this present case to Mississippi Bar v. Mathis, 620 So.2d 1213 (Miss. 1993), and Underwood v. Mississippi Bar, 618 So.2d 64 (Miss. 1993). Mathis was suspended for one year for misrepresenting to the court and opposing counsel that no autopsy had been performed in a civil case. Mathis' deceit involving knowing misrepresentations to the court and to counsel opposite can hardly be compared to L.S.'s. Similarly, Underwoods' lying to his clients about the terms of a settlement and the existence of a settlement to the other parties is a disingenuous comparison by the Bar to the case sub judice. L.S.'s conduct did not involve misrepresentation to the court or to parties involved in a case likely to be harmed by the misrepresentation. The present case falls most nearly within the rationale of Mississippi Bar v. Attorney ST, 621 So.2d 229 (Miss. 1993), wherein this Court stated: In assessing the nature of the sanctions to be imposed upon Attorney ST, we consider: 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. Sanctions imposed in similar cases. The ABA has approved further guideline for courts to consider when imposing sanctions on attorneys. They include: (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. Id. at 233. The Court imposed a private reprimand on Attorney ST for misrepresenting that a telephone conversation was not being taped when in fact the conversation was being taped. The Court stated that a private reprimand was appropriate because Attorney St's conduct was not premeditated or planned, but a spontaneous, albeit incorrect, judgment call intended to protect his client and uncover the truth. Id. Also cited in Attorney ST is Mississippi Bar v. Attorney D, 579 So.2d 559 (Miss. 1991), where an attorney misrepresented to his client that a lawsuit had been filed. This Court gave a private reprimand because of the attorney's candor and humility in admitting misconduct were mitigating factors. In Attorney Q v. Mississippi State Bar, 587 So.2d 228 (Miss. 1991), a private reprimand was given for ex parte communications with an unrepresented party opponent. L.S.'s conduct, which is similar to ST's, can be construed as a bad judgment call intended to protect his client and uncover jury misconduct. L.S.'s hearing loss and fatigue possibly contributed to a misunderstanding of the judge's instructions. L.S. made an attempt to contact the judge prior to talking to the jurors and when confronted by the judge, L.S. apologized and turned over the tapes of the conversations. Under our recent cases, the appropriate penalty for L.S. would be a private reprimand.