Opinion ID: 1117343
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Two Attorneys Who Signed Parker's Petition for Judicial Review Were Incapable of Independent Investigation Solely Due to Their Employment at the Same Firm

Text: ¶ 17. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 23-15-927 (Rev.2001), requires that two attorneys who have made an independent investigation certify the petition for judicial review. [2] Moore asserts that Parker's petition was certified by two attorneys who were incapable of independent investigation even though they were employees of the same firm. The question is to what and/or whom must the attorneys be independent  each other or the contest? Moore asserts that the attorneys must be independent from each other. However, to be independent an attorney only need be disassociated from the contest, not from the other certifying attorney. ¶ 18. The attorneys may not be associated with the contestant, as this Court has 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 judicial review is filed.' Pearson v. Jordan, 186 Miss. 789, 192 So. 39, 40 (1939) (quoting Pittman v. Forbes, 186 Miss. 783, 191 So. 490 (1939)). Further, the attorneys may not be associated with the contest. 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. Id. Further, this Court has stated that the only facts which would disqualify a certifying attorney are: Employment of the attorney, past, present, contingent or prospective, by or for the contestant as his attorney in respect to the matter involved in the contest, or such facts as would disqualify a judge. Upton v. McKenzie, 761 So.2d 167, 171 (Miss.2000) (citing Harris, 187 Miss. at 504-05, 193 So. at 343). ¶ 19. On numerous occasions, this Court has illustrated the meaning and purpose of the independent investigation requirement as detachment of the attorneys from the contest, not from each other. Compare Esco v. Scott, 735 So.2d 1002 (Miss.1999) (an attorney who is of counsel of the firm representing the contestant is not independent) and McDaniel v. Beane, 515 So.2d 949 (Miss.1987) (a member of the law firm representing the contestant is not independent) with Upton v. McKenzie, 761 So.2d at 171 (certifying attorney is independent where he does not represent the contestant with respect to the election contest, is not associated with contestant's counsel in any way, and is not precluded by Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Conduct); Harris, 187 Miss. at 504, 193 So. at 343 (an attorney who is a close friend of the contestant's attorney with whom he sometimes associates as counsel on cases and whose offices happen to be on the same floor of the building in which both work is independent). As indicated numerous times by this Court, whether each of the two certifying attorneys may perform an independent investigation is not determined by the nature of their relationship with each other but their association with the contest. We reject Moore's argument that attorneys employed by the same firm are incapable of performing independent investigations.