Opinion ID: 1895444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether the Complaint Tribunal should be afforded an opportunity to consider this matter, particularly mitigating factors, in light of lawyer's motion to set aside default, reopen hearing and alter or amend judgment.

Text: Hall finally became involved in his case once the default judgment was entered. He filed a total of four motions below seeking in one way or another to present his mitigation evidence before the Complaint Tribunal. The tribunal denied the first motion and apparently took no action with regard to the others. Hall also brought a Motion to Authorize Tribunal to Act before this Court in which he sought an order authorizing the Tribunal to consider his mitigation. This motion was denied by order dated March 25, 1992. Now on appeal Hall seeks an(other) opportunity to present his mitigating evidence to a Complaint Tribunal. He asserts that entering a default against a party to a lawsuit is a harsh and drastic action and that, consequently, even a slight abuse of discretion should warrant reversal of the order. He cites federal authority for both these propositions. The short answer to Hall's contention on this point is that, assuming applicability of Rule 55(c) and 60(b) as he contends, Hall has presented no evidence of anything approaching the good cause or such terms as are just requirements for setting aside a judgment under Rule 55(c) or 60(b), respectively. Instead, he focuses his efforts on asserting that no harm will come from giving him another chance to present his mitigation evidence. Rewarding attorneys who neglect matters as important as their own disciplinary hearings with another chance is harmful to the efficiency of such proceedings and further erodes public confidence in the legal profession. As this Court has stated, Yes, a default judgment is a serious matter but so is not taking the proper steps to avoid one. Fougerousse v. Mississippi State Bar, 563 So.2d 1363 (Miss. 1990). Accordingly, we are not at all inclined to remand the case to a Complaint Tribunal for the purpose of receiving Hall's evidence of mitigating factors. Whether to consider Hall's mitigation as part of the Court's de novo review of the discipline imposed is another matter. In Vining v. Mississippi State Bar, 508 So.2d 1047 (Miss. 1987), an attorney situated similarly to Hall was afforded consideration of mitigating circumstances raised in his brief and during his oral argument before this Court. Vining also failed to appear before the Complaint Tribunal, but the Court considered his health and personal problems in vacating a 120 day suspension. Thus, while relying on briefs and oral arguments is not the favored method for bringing the Court's attention to extenuating circumstances, it is an available method under Vining. Accordingly, Hall's asserted mitigating factors will be discussed below in conjunction with the determination of the proper discipline.