Opinion ID: 1759192
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the tribunal wrongfully bifurcate discipline in these proceedings?

Text: Subsequent to its denial of Terrell's Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment, the Tribunal rendered a judgment stating: 1. Ms. Terrell shall be and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law in the State of Mississippi for one (1) year and this Opinion and Judgment shall constitute such suspension. 2. As a condition for Ms. Terrell's reinstatement to the practice of law, she must and shall make a full accounting of client funds as set out in the Formal Complaint. In the event such accounting reveals misappropriation of client funds, this Tribunal shall retain and retains jurisdiction to reconsider the imposition of additional discipline. Terrell claims this violates due process, citing Rule of Discipline 8(b)(iii). The basis for this argument comes from the language of the Rule which states that an attorney suspension will be for a fixed period of time. It is clear from paragraph one of the judgment that Terrell's period of suspension is for one (1) year. Rule 8(b)(iii) goes on to say that the judgment of the Tribunal may suspend the attorney for a fixed period of time and may specify conditions precedent to reinstatement. ... Id. (Emphasis added). Terrell complains that the Tribunal should have held a separate hearing on the issue of the imposition of discipline, but she neither filed a motion to bifurcate the hearing, nor does she cite any authority in her brief to substantiate her claim that it was error for the Tribunal not to bifurcate the hearing on its own. Rule 8 of the Rules of Discipline does not require a bifurcated hearing. This assignment is without merit.