Opinion ID: 1136922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: whether the complaint tribunal erred in basing its rulings on punishment in part on evidence presented to the same complaint tribunal in an unrelated trial of a formal complaint filed against emil by the mississippi bar.

Text: Emil contends that the Tribunal erred when it considered a prior disciplinary matter concerning Emil when it determined the sanction for Emil. The Tribunal relied upon a factor of Emil's prior disciplinary record under ABA Standard 9.2 of Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 ed.). The Tribunal looks to aggravating and mitigating circumstances when determining the sanction to be imposed upon the lawyer. Under aggravating circumstances the Tribunal included the following: 1. 9.2 Aggravation  9.22 Factors which may be considered in aggravation. Aggravating factors include: ABA Standards Gerald R. Emil (a) prior disciplinary offenses; In MSB v. Emil, No. 92-B-630, the Tribunal elected not to impose sanctions for interim financial assistance. Inexplicably, the complaining witnesses completely reversed their former statements on trial, completely negating any connection between Mr. Fountain and Respondent. This highly suspicious action remains unexplained. Emil notes that this matter was not before the present Tribunal. Disciplinary proceedings are inherently adversarial proceedings of a quasi-criminal nature. Thus, Emil contends that the prior disciplinary hearing may not be introduced into this hearing. He then argues that if the prior hearing is considered a conviction rather than acts of misconduct, it still cannot be admitted because it is not a final judgment. Regardless, of either of these arguments, this Court reviews the matter de novo and may consider the prior disciplinary proceeding because it is a final judgment having been handed down from this Court. The Bar notes that Emil injected the previous matter into the present hearing himself. When asked Have you ever received from the Mississippi State Bar or a Complaint Tribunal any adverse decision concerning your practice of law or conduct in practicing law? Emil revealed the informal admonition imposed upon him in Cause No. 92-B-630. Emil effectively waived his objection to this point when he himself introduced the evidence. The Tribunal correctly considered prior disciplinary offenses in its aggravating circumstances. We do not allow an attorney to continuously violate our rules and code of ethics without the repercussions becoming more serious each time. Also, Emil waived any objection when he himself introduced it by his testimony. There is no error in the Tribunal considering Emil's prior disciplinary record.