Opinion ID: 1776520
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did a genuine issue of fact exists concerning whether haimes was acting in the capacity of an attorney when the alleged misappropriation occurred, and if so, was the fact material?

Text: Haimes argues in his brief that no attorney/client relationship existed between Mr. Haimes and the ward and that he served strictly as guardian. Haimes further contends that his duties as guardian did not involve the practice of law. Despite Haimes' contentions, the record is replete with petitions and decrees prepared and signed by Haimes on behalf of the guardianship. Moreover, the annual accountings filed in Chancery Court all include requests for attorney's fees. In the First Annual Accounting, for example, Haimes prays for a reasonable fee as compensation as Attorney Guardian. The Decree Approving First Annual Accounting, a document presumably prepared by Haimes, provides that Terry M Haimes, Attorney Guardian, be and he is hereby allowed the sum of $310.10, as attorney fee for services rendered. In the Second Annual Accounting, Haimes prays that he be authorized to pay himself a reasonable attorney's fee for legal services rendered since June 1, 1974. The decree approving the second annual accounting awards Terry M. Haines a fee of $1,400.00 for his legal services rendered during the period of this second annual accounting. All succeeding accountings and decrees contain the same or similar language. Haimes either provided legal services to the guardianship or else he did not. He cannot have it both ways. Haimes represented in his annual accountings that he was entitled to fees for legal services rendered. The chancery decrees approve the requests and thus, in effect, embody findings of fact that Haimes served as both guardian and attorney. In Smith v. Smith, 52 So.2d 1 (Miss. 1951), this Court said: The sworn allegations of a bill by which a litigant seeks to move a court to its relief may not be lightly disavowed by affiant when, in another proceeding, its recitals rise to plague him in an inconsistent course. Indeed, in the absence of special circumstances or explanation, a court has the right, if not the duty, to hold a litigant to the position which he takes in seeking its aid and, by assuming in his behalf utter good faith in the first instance, to reproduce such assumption later, even to his hurt. Certainly, insincerity or bad faith may never be pleaded in a tribunal which demands the contrary. Smith, 52 So.2d at 6. Haimes will not be heard to assert that he did not serve the guardianship in the capacity of an attorney. Even if no attorney-client relationship had existed between Haimes and his ward or between Haimes and the guardianship, his conduct would still be subject to discipline. The Preamble to the Rules of Discipline for the State Bar states: It is the duty of every ... [licensed attorney] to conduct himself at all times, both professionally and personally, in conformity with the standards imposed upon members of the bar as conditions for the privilege of practicing law. Acts or omissions by an attorney, individually or in concert with any other person or persons, which violate the Attorney's Oath of Office or the Code of Professional Responsibility... shall constitute misconduct and shall be grounds for discipline whether or not the acts or omissions occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship. (emphasis added). In Reid v. Mississippi State Bar, 586 So.2d 786 (Miss. 1991), this Court observed: There can be no legal profession in the absence of scrupulous honesty by attorneys with other people's money. Public confidence here is vital. There may be worse sins, but the ultimate wrong of a lawyer to his profession is to divert clients' and third parties' funds entrusted to him to an unauthorized use. A lawyer guilty of such conduct exhibits a character trait totally at odds with the purposes, ideals and objectives of our profession. If creditors are hounding a lawyer, he can take bankruptcy. If he is hungry, he can go to the Salvation Army. But mishandling other peoples' money is a thought he should never entertain. Reid, 586 So.2d at 788. Haimes' conduct would thus be worthy of reproach even in the absence of an attorney/client relationship. His having represented himself as an attorney for the guardianship of Felix Warner renders his deeds all the more reprehensible.