Opinion ID: 1953270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sufficiency of the Sanction Imposed By the Complaint Tribunal

Text: ¶ 22. We find that the facts and circumstances of this case warrant a sanction more severe than a Public Reprimand. Aside from constituting a weighty aggravating factor unto itself, Mr. Alexander's extensive record of prior sanctions is implicated in each of the common law factors considered by this Court when determining disciplinary measures. ¶ 23. Nature of the Conduct Involved. In this case, Mr. Alexander neglected his duties to his clients while assuring them he was working on their case, blatantly ignored their pleas for action and communication, and failed to cooperate with the disciplinary authority in its investigation of the matter. This Court will not hesitate to impose substantial sanctions upon an attorney for any act which evinces a want of personal honesty and integrity or renders such attorney unworthy of public confidence. Foote v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 517 So.2d 561, 564 (Miss. 1987). We find that the conduct in which Mr. Alexander engaged despite his repeated disciplinary sanctions for similar conduct evinces a want of personal honesty and integrity and renders him unworthy of public confidence. Furthermore, his conduct evinces a flagrant lack of regard and respect for the directives both by the Bar and by this Court to cease engaging in such conduct. ¶ 24. Need to Deter Similar Misconduct. Aside from the obvious importance of deterring attorneys from neglecting the representation of their clients and failing to cooperate with the Bar, there is an equally important need to deter attorneys from failing to heed sanctions imposed for such conduct. ¶ 25. Preservation of the Dignity and Reputation of the Profession. Although reluctant to use the cliche, one bad apple spoils the bunch, we believe that Mr. Alexander, as evidenced by his fifteen year history of unprofessional and unethical conduct, is one of the worst apples of them all. There can be little wonder why the dignity and reputation of the legal profession has come under fire in recent years  it is because of conduct like Mr. Alexander's. We can only conclude that removing him from the practice of law is essential to preserving the dignity and reputation of the profession. ¶ 26. Protection of the Public. The record reflects that Mr. Alexander's prior disciplinary sanctions, including three Public Reprimands, have done little or nothing to protect the public from his apparently compulsive unprofessional and unethical conduct. There can be little doubt something more than a Public Reprimand is needed. ¶ 27. Sanctions Imposed in Similar Cases. Fortunately, we have decided no case in which the attorney has had such an extensive record of disciplinary sanctions, save the most recent case involving Mr. Alexander himself, The Mississippi Bar v. Alexander, 669 So.2d 40 (Miss. 1996). In that case, we noted Mr. Alexander's federal court sanctions in at least twenty separate cases involving neglect and imposed a reciprocal six-month suspension on top of the district court's conditional two-year suspension. Alexander, 669 So.2d at 40-42. Likewise, the time has come to act upon Mr. Alexander's history of misconduct in our state courts as well. ¶ 28. In Terrell v. Mississippi Bar, 662 So.2d 586, 588-89 (Miss. 1995), the attorney had engaged in conduct virtually identical to that of Mr. Alexander in this case, i.e., neglect, failure to keep client advised of status of case, and refusing to return fee even though no work had been performed on client's behalf. The Complaint Tribunal imposed a six-month suspension to run concurrently with an earlier suspension. Terrell, 662 So.2d at 592. Noting the gravity of the misconduct and the attorney's history of professional misconduct, we enhanced the Complaint Tribunal's sanction by imposing a six-month suspension not to run concurrently with any other discipline. Id. at 592-94. ¶ 29. In The Mississippi Bar v. Hall, 612 So.2d 1075, 1078 (Miss. 1992), we held that the attorney's neglect of a client's case, after having been previously disciplined for similar conduct, warranted a sixty-day suspension. A year later, we imposed a ninety-day suspension on the same attorney for similar conduct involving neglect. Hall v. Mississippi Bar, 631 So.2d 120, 127 (Miss. 1993). ¶ 30. In Fougerousse v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 563 So.2d 1363, 1366-67 (Miss. 1990), we imposed two ninety-day suspensions to run concurrently for the attorney's pattern of delay and neglect in the representation of clients and in the defense of disciplinary proceedings. In Foote v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 517 So.2d 561, 566-67 (Miss. 1987), we held that a ninety-day suspension was an appropriate sanction for neglecting a criminal matter after having received a fee, failing to keep the client adequately informed, failing to return the client's telephone calls, and misleading the client as to the status of the case. ¶ 31. Considering the sanctions imposed in similar cases, we agree with the Bar that a Public Reprimand was insufficient under the facts and circumstances of this case.