Opinion ID: 1825871
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Complaint Tribunal erred in imposing a Public Reprimand on Mr. Liebling

Text: ¶ 23. Sanctions are imposed based on the following factors: (1) The nature of the misconduct involved; (2) the need to deter similar misconduct; (3) the preservation of dignity and reputation of the legal profession; (4) the protection of the public; (5) sanctions imposed in similar cases; (6) the duty violated; (7) the lawyer's mental state; (8) the actual or potential injury resulting from the misconduct; and (9) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. Miss. Bar v. Walls, 890 So.2d 875, 877 (Miss.2004) (quoting Miss. Bar v. Inserra, 855 So.2d 447, 450 (Miss.2003)). ¶ 24. In attorney disciplinary matters, the Tribunal is required to examine the aforementioned factors. This Court has previously stated (perhaps not as clearly as we believed), that the Tribunal should include its analysis of these factors in its opinions and judgments. While this does not turn on this oversight, this Court will require such inclusion in the opinions of all Tribunals which conduct hearings after today's decision. ¶ 25. Based upon the record, this Court examines the nine factors necessary to impose a sanction against an attorney in a disciplinary action. (1) The nature of the misconduct involved: Liebling argues that the nature of the misconduct involved constitutes a highly questionable claim that a seasoned practitioner made three promises regarding specific dates of when a prisoner would receive early release and this factor supports a lesser sanction than that imposed by the Complaint Tribunal. The Bar argues the imposition of a Public Reprimand is appropriate as Liebling violated his duty of candor by guaranteeing Cori's early release and accepting $5,400 to accomplish the same. The Bar argues the Tribunal was correct in sanctioning Liebling after the Tribunal considered Liebling's misrepresentation along with his two previous violations. ¶ 26. In its Opinion, the Tribunal stated, [b]ased upon clear and convincing evidence, it is the opinion of the Tribunal that Mr. Liebling has demonstrated unprofessional and unethical conduct involving misrepresentation by guaranteeing on three separate occasions that he would be able to effectuate the early release of Cori by a certain date, guarantees which he knew or should have known that he could not make. ¶ 27. The nature of the conduct involved in this case is a false guarantee. Liebling did not have the authority to guarantee the date of Cori's release, nor should he have promised such for $5,400. This Court has held, dishonest conduct by an attorney with his own client goes to the very core of a lawyer's fitness to practice law. Id. at 512. (quoting Reid v. The Miss. Bar, 586 So.2d 786, 788 (Miss.1991)). (2) The need to deter similar misconduct: Liebling was not forthright with Stewart about his ability to have Cori released from prison. When a client is misled by his attorney, the need to deter similar misconduct is great. Liebling has previously received not only a Private Reprimand for charging an excessive fee for a will, but an Informal Admonition for violating M.R.P.C. 1.2(a), 1.3 and 1.4. The dissent states these previous violations are not similar in nature to the violation now charged. However, the rules Liebling have been accused of violating are rules regarding his relationship and diligence towards a client. The failure to follow the Rules involving duties to clients, which [Attorney] has violated, involve the most important ethical standards this profession espouses. Stegall, 618 So.2d at 1294. (3) The preservation of the dignity and reputation of the profession: The sanctions imposed by the Tribunal should be upheld in order to preserve the dignity and reputation of the legal profession. The legal profession today is under an extreme amount of pressure. It is constantly being scrutinized by the public. Public policy demands that we adequately discipline unethical attorneys to preserve the dignity and reputation of the legal profession. Emil v. The Miss. Bar, 690 So.2d 301, 327 (Miss.1997). As this is Liebling's third ethical violation, this factor warrants the sanctions imposed by the Tribunal. (4) The protection of the public: Liebling argues that protection of the public may be achieved through a lesser sanction. This Court has repeatedly held that the public needs protection from attorneys who are not honest with their clients. See Carter v. The Miss. Bar, 654 So.2d 505, 512 (Miss.1995). Liebling should not have guaranteed, for the sum of $5,400 that he could have Cori released from prison. There is a need to protect clients from false promises knowingly made by their attorneys. [T]he purpose of bar disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the respondent lawyer but to vindicate in the eyes of the public the overall reputation of the bar. Levi, 436 So.2d at 786. (5) The sanctions imposed in similar cases: [T]he public's confidence and faith in the integrity of the entire Bar is dependent upon our willingness to impose appropriate sanctions on our members who have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Pitts v. Miss. State Bar Assoc., 462 So.2d 340, 343 (Miss.1985). Liebling argues if any sanction in this matter is necessary, the Public Reprimand should be reduced to lesser discipline. ¶ 28. This Court has held, [d]eceit, whether visited on a court or an officer of the court or a private citizen, should be dealt with in a firm manner. Robb, 684 So.2d at 622. Considering Liebling's present violation, with his previous violations, the Tribunal found the imposition of a Public Reprimand to be appropriate. In Foote v. Miss. State Bar Assoc., 517 So.2d 561, 564 (Miss.1987), this Court held, [t]his Court will not hesitate to impose substantial sanctions upon an attorney for any act which evinces want of personal honesty and integrity or renders such attorney unworthy of public confidence. ¶ 29. In Alexander v. The Miss. Bar, 651 So.2d 541, 547 (Miss.1995), this Court issued a Public Reprimand for an attorney's failure to communicate with clients and to bring matters to trial. In Miss. Bar v. Mathis, 620 So.2d 1213 (Miss.1993), this Court set aside a Public Reprimand and issued a one year suspension where it was found an attorney was dishonest with his client, opposing counsel and the court. In Stegall v. The Miss. Bar, 618 So.2d 1291, 1296 (Miss.1993), this Court disbarred an attorney who, after receiving two private reprimands and two informal admonitions, continued to fail to keep his clients informed, misrepresented his explanation of services and failed to return property and render an accounting of funds. This Court found Stegall failed to learn any lesson from his previous sanctions. Id. Liebling has been the subject of an Informal Admonition and a Private Reprimand, and has now been found in violation of M.R.P.C. 8.4(a) and (c). The sanction imposed by the Tribunal is proportionate to sanctions imposed in similar cases. (6) The duty violated: The Tribunal found Liebling violated portions of M.R.P.C. 8.4, which governs professional misconduct. Liebling's guarantee that, for a fee, he would have Cori out of prison by a certain date, demonstrated unprofessional and unethical conduct involving misrepresentation. (7) The lawyer's mental state: Liebling's mental state is not at issue in this case and therefore, is not considered by this Court. (8) Actual or potential injury resulting from misconduct: In addition to William Stewart losing $5,400, Liebling's guarantee to the Stewarts to obtain an early release was not fulfilled. (9) The existence of aggravating or mitigating factors: The existence of aggravating and mitigating factors has been discussed supra. When examining these factors, this Court finds Liebling's multiple violations outweigh the mitigating factors Liebling presented. In Carter v. Miss. Bar, 654 So.2d 505, 513 (Miss.1995), this Court held, a pattern of misconduct, and multiple offenses are aggravating circumstances. See also Harrison v. Miss. Bar, 637 So.2d 204 (Miss.1994).