Opinion ID: 1100343
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was Gnemi's circuit court petition for judicial review properly certified by two practicing attorneys?

Text: ¶ 33. Waters next claims that Gnemi's petition for judicial review lacked the proper accompanying certificates from two practicing attorneys. The applicable statute states in relevant part: [S]uch petition for judicial review shall not be filed unless it bear the certificate of two (2) practicing attorneys that they and each of them have fully made an independent investigation into the matters of fact and of law upon which the protest and petition are based and after such investigation they verily believe that the said protest and petition should be sustained and that the relief therein prayed should be granted.......... Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-927. This statutory requirement furthers the goal contemplated by the legislature in its promulgation of Section 23-15-927. Accordingly, it provides yet another express obstacle to the initiation of frivolous partisan litigation. In Harris v. Stewart, 187 Miss. 489, 193 So. 339 (1940), this Court discussed this statutory requirement, stating: [T]he evident and material purpose of the requirement of the certificate of two independent practicing attorneys was to prevent, or at least to minimize, the bringing before the courts of captious or unsubstantial political contests of primary elections,  that such a certificate would dependably show that there was real merit from a substantial legal standpoint in the proposed contest, and would tend to forestall, in a large measure, spiteful partisan litigation which would needlessly cast doubt upon the future title of the successful candidate to the nomination for the public office involved. 193 So. at 343. ¶ 34. This two-practicing attorney requirement has been strictly construed and held to be jurisdictional. In Pearson v. Jordan, 186 Miss. 789, 192 So. 39 (1939) we cited our decision in Pittman v. Forbes, 186 Miss. 783, 191 So. 490 (1939) and once again stated, that the certificate should be signed by unbiased lawyers; and that `Such a purpose eliminates attorneys who represent a contestant at the time their investigation of the matter is made, or at the time his petition for a judicial review is filed.' Pearson, 192 So. at 40. In dismissing the petition for judicial review in Pearson, we held the statutory certificate of two disinterested practicing attorneys to be jurisdictional: It follows, therefore, that the special tribunal was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause; and that this Court is therefore without jurisdiction to hear it on appeal. The statute is mandatory, using as emphatic language as could be employed, under the circumstances           The right of a contestee to an office to some extent is tainted by the proceeding; and it is important that this independent investigation should be made by disinterested attorneys, having no connection with the case. The certificate of the two disinterested attorneys is just as important as the petition itself, and is jurisdictional. Id. ¶ 35. While Waters has submitted the issue and the appropriate rule for our review, she has failed to support her contention with any evidence of a failure on the part of Gnemi to meet the statutory mandate. Attached to Gnemi's petition are two separate certificates, each signed by a different attorney. Other than the name of the attorney, the attorney's Mississippi Bar number, and the attorney's mailing address, both certificates are identical. Each certificate states that the attorney is a licensed and practicing attorney in the state of Mississippi and that: 1. I have fully made an independent investigation into the matters of fact and of law upon which the foregoing protest and petition are based; and, 2. After such investigation, I verily believe that the protest and petition should be sustained and that the relief therein prayed should be granted. The language of paragraphs one and two of the attorneys' certificates is identical to the language of the statute. We are at a total loss as to what else Waters believes these two attorneys and Gnemi could have done, or should have done, to strictly comply with the pertinent provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-927 regarding the attorneys' certificates. Moreover, the record evidences not only that two attorney certificates were attached in support of Gnemi's petition but that such submissions were made by disinterested attorneys based on independent investigation. ¶ 36. We thus find this issue to be without merit.