Opinion ID: 1114549
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: appropriateness of discipline

Text: This Court, when reviewing sanctions for misconduct, considers: (1) Nature of the misconduct involved; (2) Need to deter similar misconduct; (3) Preservation of dignity and reputation of the legal profession; (4) Protection of the public; and (5) Sanctions imposed in similar cases. The Court also considers the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. ABA Standard 3.0 provides that the Court should consider: (1) the duty violated; (2) the lawyer's mental state; (3) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (4) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. Mathes, 637 So.2d at 847. Some cases in which this Court has imposed or upheld disciplinary sanctions are: Hall v. Mississippi Bar, 631 So.2d 120 (Miss. 1993) (Court upheld 90-day suspension for neglect resulting in judgment against client); Mississippi Bar v. Hall, 612 So.2d 1075 (Miss. 1992) (Court upheld 60-day suspension for neglect of client's case, after earlier discipline for similar conduct); Broome v. Mississippi Bar, 603 So.2d 349 (Miss. 1992) (30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement and public reprimand for failure to file claim within statute of limitations upheld); Fougerousse v. Miss. State Bar Ass'n, 563 So.2d 1363 (Miss. 1990) (affirmed two concurrent 90 day suspensions because of pattern of delay, tardiness and denial in representation of clients and in defense of disciplinary proceeding warrants); Steighner v. Mississippi State Bar, 548 So.2d 1294 (Miss. 1989) (180-day suspension appropriate for inadequate preparation and continual neglect of case resulting in summary judgment). It is worthy to note that Alexander has had significant prior discipline imposed upon him. Each of these earlier disciplinary actions concerned Alexander's neglect of cases, his lack of diligence or promptness, or his failure to adequately communicate with his clients. These same charges are brought against him in the case at bar. Alexander offered no mitigating circumstances as to his neglect of the Stewarts' case other than to say he had a heavy trial calender and it was hard to schedule appointments, especially with Mr. Stewart living out of state for a period of time. While we believe Alexander's misconduct does warrant sanctions, we do not feel it warrants suspension. Alexander can not be put totally at fault for the dismissal of the Stewarts' claim against the Davises. Although Alexander should have filed a motion to withdraw and probably should have notified the Stewarts of the Motion to Dismiss, once they terminated Alexander's services, it was up to them to prosecute their claim. It was three months after the Stewarts dismissed Alexander before the Jackson County Circuit Clerk filed the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. During that three month period the Stewarts could have checked into the status of the case on their own or hired another attorney to do so. They did neither, and subsequently the case was dismissed. However, Alexander did violate the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct. He neglected the Stewarts' case and failed to keep them properly informed. This is a serious breach and accordingly we hold that Alexander is to be publicly reprimanded. Also, we believe Alexander should not profit at the Stewarts' expense when he did virtually nothing to earn the $2,000.00 advance paid to him. Therefore, Alexander is hereby required to pay the Stewarts $2,000.00 in restitution instead of just the $1,000.00 ordered by the tribunal.