Opinion ID: 1126950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Other Cases Involving Misrepresentation

Text: Mathes' conduct may best be described as misrepresentation  specifically, misrepresentation to the bankruptcy court and the Trustee that he intended to turn over the attorneys fees paid to him by the Loftons. In Mississippi Bar v. Mathis, 620 So.2d 1213 (Miss. 1993), we increased the sanction from public reprimand to a one-year suspension, [4] where an attorney had misrepresented to the court and opposing counsel that he and his client were awaiting the results of an autopsy, when in fact he had already caused the autopsy to be performed. The Complaints Tribunal and this Court found that by creating the impression that no autopsy had been performed, Mathis had violated Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a), (c), and (d), as well as the Mississippi attorney's oath. We stated: The nature of Mathis' misconduct was deceit. The need to deter such acts is clear and pressing. Proliferation of similar actions would undoubtedly product serious adverse consequences for the reputation and dignity of the profession as well as a general erosion of the principle that our society accomplishes justice through adherence to the rule of law. Mathis, 620 So.2d at 1222 (Miss. 1993). In Goeldner v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n., 525 So.2d 403, we reduced sanctions from disbarment to two years suspension, where an attorney had willfully misrepresented to his client and the court the amount of fees due, as well as the number of hours spent working on a conservatorship, in order to obtain an hourly rate in excess of that allowed by the chancellor's order. This Court labelled such conduct a fraudulent misrepresentation to the court and client, and held this a violation of DR1-102(A)(1, 4, 5, and 6), which correspond to the current Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4. In Mississippi State Bar v. Smith, 577 So.2d 1249 (Miss. 1991), we increased sanctions from public reprimand to 60-day suspension and probation for 180 days, where an attorney had disobeyed a court order not to dispense of settlement funds without court order, and had deceived the court by filing false acknowledgement of a bank's receipt of settlement funds. We found that Smith had violated DR1-102(A)(1, 3, 4, 5, and 6). See also Pitts v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n., 462 So.2d 340 (Miss. 1985) (sanctions reduced from a 180-day suspension to a 30-day suspension and public reprimand, where attorney had failed to establish savings account with client's funds, as directed by court, for nine years after receiving funds; failed to account for these funds; and misrepresented to the client and chancellor as to the whereabouts of these funds during the interim). We find that Mathes' conduct was not as egregious as that of the attorneys in Mathis and Goeldner, above, whose dishonesty harmed their clients as well as misleading the court. We find that Mathes' behavior is roughly analogous to that of the attorneys in Smith and Pitts. In imposing a suspension longer than those meted out to Smith (60 days) and Pitts (30 days), we note the following: 1) Mathes made no recorded efforts to obtain an extension of time in which to turn over the fees on grounds of hardship; 2) Mathes never truly acknowledged his wrongdoing. Throughout the hearing, his answers were evasive and uncooperative, and reflected a lack of interest in both the rules of discipline and bankruptcy. Such indifference ill-befits an attorney. A six-month suspension may seem severe in light of the relatively small amount of money involved, and lack of harm to third parties. It is Mathes' indifference, compounded with his wrongdoing, which prompts the imposition of such penalty.