Opinion ID: 1895444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether due process and equal protection considerations will tolerate enforcement of State Bar suspension/disbarment procedure which, as written and as proposed to be applied to sole practitioner lawyer, allows unequal treatment as compared to attorney in multi-lawyer firm.

Text: In short order Hall manages to assert that the current system for attorney discipline in Mississippi violates his right to freedom of association, his right to equal protection, his right to due process, and the strictures of the Mississippi Constitution.
The following is the substance of Hall's assertion with regard to freedom of association and the right to equal protection: This Court's Disciplinary Rules and the Complaint Tribunal's Opinion and Judgment propose immediate suspension of this lawyer's practice, requiring him forthwith to notify his clients of the suspension, of his inability to practice and that they may come and pick up their files. There is no avenue afforded Hall  or any sole practitioner  to recoup for services rendered and expenses incurred prior to suspension. [cite omitted]. An attorney who chooses to associate with other attorneys and practice in a law partnership or other association is favored in Mississippi: If the client agrees, the law partners of a suspended or disbarred attorney may continue to represent any client affected by the suspension or disbarment.... Equal treatment is denied a sole practitioner such as Hall. (citations omitted). Procedure (11.4) under Rule 11 of the Rules of Discipline provides as follows: (11.4) Law Partners  Continuance of Representation.  If the client agrees, the law partners of a suspended or disbarred attorney may continue to represent any client affected by the suspension or disbarment, but notice thereof shall be given as set out above. (emphasis added). This issue may be disposed of without a prolix constitutional analysis. As the Bar points out, Rule 11 has an identical impact on all lawyers. Any suspended attorney's ability to collect fees for services rendered prior to suspension is dependent on the client selecting a replacement who is amenable to dividing revenues derived from the representation. Presumably, if the suspended attorney still has the ability to influence a client's choice, it would be easy enough to recommend a non-partner lawyer who would be willing to share the fee. [1] Absent some showing of unequal impact or some effect on Hall's associational freedom, there is no need to delve further into this issue.
Hall asserts that the current Rules of Discipline also violate the Mississippi Constitution, Section 33 of the 1890 Constitution vests all legislative power in the Mississippi Legislature. This power is recognized to include regulating the practice of law. [2] Contrary to Hall's assertion, however, such proceedings are an integral part of the functioning of the judicial branch and thus not properly subject to the legislative power vested in Section 33. This question was laid to rest when the Court adopted the Rules of Discipline. Rule 29 specifically states that the Rules of Discipline supersede all statutes on the subject. Accordingly, the issues raised by Hall under this point are without merit.