Opinion ID: 1775574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was the discipline imposed by the complaint tribunal excessive?

Text: This Court has independent authority to reassess the punishment imposed in the Bar disciplinary proceedings and modify the punishment as it deems proper. Vining v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 508 So.2d 1047 (Miss. 1987). In Mississippi State Bar v. Phillips, 385 So.2d 943 (Miss. 1980) this Court vacated an order of the Tribunal which called for suspension of an attorney and ordered instead that he be disbarred. Conversely, in A Mississippi Attorney v. Mississippi State Bar, 453 So.2d 1023 (Miss. 1984) we vacated a 45-day suspension and ordered that the attorney receive a private reprimand. According to Myers v. Mississippi State Bar, 480 So.2d 1080, 1087 (Miss. 1985) and A Mississippi Attorney v. Mississippi State Bar, 453 So.2d 1023 (Miss. 1984) there is no standard as to what punishment for particular misconduct ought to be and cases are considered on a case-by-case basis. This Court has meticulously considered Goeldner's conduct and finds it to be in direct violation of the chancellor's orders in that he charged an amount in excess of that allowed by the chancellor. We find the conduct constituted a fraudulent misrepresentation to the court and to the client. However, finding disbarment too severe, this Court vacates the order of the Complaint Tribunal disbarring Goeldner and orders instead that he be suspended for a period of two years from the date this decision becomes final. See: Mississippi State Bar v. Young, 509 So.2d 210 (Miss. 1987). COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL ORDER REVERSED AND APPELLANT SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.