Opinion ID: 1837967
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Watkins Practiced Deceit by Entering an Unenforceable Contract?

Text: The Complaint Tribunal found that Watkins practiced deceit upon Carolyn Mullins and thus violated Miss.R.Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4(c) by entering a loan contract with her in which he could, if he chose, claim usury as an affirmative defense against repayment. (emphasis added). Unquestionably, it would have been unethical and unprofessional for Watkins to trick Mrs. Mullins into lending him money at an exorbitant rate of interest so that he could avoid repayment by asserting usury. But the fact is, there is no evidence whatsoever that Watkins agreed to usurious terms as a means for ultimately avoiding his contract. To this day, Watkins has never asserted usury as a defense against his debt to Carolyn Mullins. That a lawyer might do something unethical if he chose is not grounds for discipline. As the appellant aptly points out in his brief: In essence the majority [of the Complaint Tribunal] .. . would have this Court find that the fact that a possibility of misconduct was present is sufficient to impose discipline. The ramafications [sic] of such a finding are incredible in the area of attorney discipline. In short, an attorney can be disciplined for depositing money into his trust account because an attorney could embezzle those funds if he chose. There must be something more to an attorney disciplinary matter than the possibility of misconduct. In the total absence of non-speculative evidence, the Bar's claim that Watkins' agreement to pay usurious interest violated Rule 8.4(c) cannot stand.