Opinion ID: 1722841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Petitioner's Activities Subsequent to the Suspension

Text: In his deposition, Petitioner discussed his employment, pending litigation, activities, financial obligations, family and civic life. Petitioner discussed his employment during the suspension period and stated that he had been working for the Brookhaven Public School system as a substitute teacher and also doing construction and labor work. Petitioner stated that initially after the suspension, his income was derived from outstanding fees that were coming, and in May, he began doing construction work for various individuals. Petitioner began substitute teaching in January, 1994 and has sporadically been called to substitute, earning $45.00 per day. Petitioner stated that he had no other source of income. Petitioner testified that he owed the I.R.S. approximately $5,000.00 in back taxes and his income for that year (1992) was between $50,000.00 and $60,000.00. He also discussed his upcoming 1993 return and that his wife grossed approximately $18,000.00 and he grossed approximately $7,000.00. Petitioner revealed that he had initiated two law suits in the Lincoln County justice court for collecting fees owed to him and he had obtained judgments in the amount of $1500.00. Petitioner discussed the change in his earning capability and his financial obligations. His income had been reduced by half and he owed: 1) $800.00 for his house note; 2) $350.00 for a car note; 3) $5,000.00 to the I.R.S.; 4) $2,500.00 for credit card debt; and 5) $3,000.00 in medical bills incurred when his son was in the hospital. Petitioner is involved with the Brookhaven Little Theater and is a member of the Chamber of Commerce. Petitioner stated that his actions were flat wrong and that he is facing up to what he did and taking responsibility for his actions. He also said he would not put myself into a position like that again. Petitioner also believed that the suspension forced him to clear up certain problems that he had in the past in dealing with management and his other professional activities. Petitioner said that he regrets that he contested the findings and recommendation of suspension of the tribunal and that his actions were wrong. Petitioner does not assert that he deserves to be reinstated, only that he has met the requirements; he realizes that misleading his clients was wrong and states he states that he will never repeat that type of conduct. In sum, Petitioner appears to have complied with the Rules of Discipline, namely Rule 12. The Mississippi Bar has answered and opposes the reinstatement. Accordingly, this Court must inquire as to whether Petitioner has satisfied certain conditions which are prerequisites to reinstatement.