Opinion ID: 1826499
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the punishment imposed on Parrish was disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Text: As to this issue, Parrish argues that this Court has imposed far less sanctions on negligent attorneys than in the case here, and in those cases where lesser sanctions were imposed, there was no dispute that the neglect had occurred. Thus, Parrish concludes that the sanction, if imposed, should be much less severe than the two year suspension given in this case. This Court is free to evaluate the discipline imposed on an attorney and on review modify punishment as needed to best serve the interest of the Bar and the public. Mississippi State Bar v. Blackmon, 600 So.2d 166, 173 (Miss. 1992). In determining what discipline, if any, is appropriate we look to several factors. These factors include: (1) the nature of the misconduct involved; (2) the need to deter similar misconduct; (3) the preservation of the dignity and reputation of the profession; (4) the protection of the public; and (5) the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Additionally, the ABA has approved a set of standards for imposing lawyer sanctions which includes the following factors a court should consider when imposing sanctions: (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. Id. at 173. In this case, the appellant's neglect is sufficient to support imposition of a suspension. See Broome v. Mississippi Bar, 603 So.2d 349 (Miss. 1992) (attorney issued 30 day suspension and reprimanded publicly for neglect of client's case); Fougerousse v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 563 So.2d 1363 (Miss. 1990) (attorney issued 90 day suspension for neglect); The Mississippi Bar v. Hall, 612 So.2d 1075 (Miss. 1992) (attorney issued 60 day suspension for incompetence, neglect, failure to communicate and failure to adequately protect client's interest upon withdrawal); Steighner v. Mississippi State Bar, 548 So.2d 1294 (Miss. 1989) (attorney issued 180 day suspension for neglect of case and failure to respond on behalf of client to motion for summary judgment, resulting in dismissal of client's case); and Vining v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 508 So.2d 1047 (Miss. 1987) (attorney issued 120 day suspension which was reduced to public reprimand by presentation of specific mitigating circumstances). Moreover, this Court has stated in the past that the most important consideration in imposing sanctions is that the punishment be sufficient `to vindicate in the eyes of the public the overall reputation of the Bar.' Terrell v. The Mississippi Bar, 662 So.2d 586, 593 (Miss. 1995) (citations omitted). [W]hen neglect of a client arises, the `need to deter similar misconduct is great.' Id. To deter Parrish from similar conduct in the future, the imposition of sanctions implicates the need to preserve the reputation of the legal profession. Id. This Court has not hesitated to impose suspensions simply for acts of neglect when prejudice or harm are done to the clients. Id. However, punishment for any violation of the Rules of Discipline is considered and imposed on a case-by-case basis and is not governed by a set standard. A Mississippi Attorney, 453 So.2d at 1028. On appeal, this Court reviews the evidence, the law, the findings and conclusions of the Complaint Tribunal, and then renders such order as the Court may find to be appropriate based on the entire record. Id. This case is more attuned to our holding in Broome, where, eight years prior to the filing of a complaint, attorney Broome had been privately reprimanded by the Mississippi Bar for representing two parties with conflicting interests. Broome, 603 So.2d at 350. This Court deemed a 30 day suspension appropriate in that case. Id. at 354. In light of Parrish's one year suspension from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi for contempt of court in 1991, his reciprocal reprimand from this Court based on the U.S. District Court's order, and his private reprimand from a complaint tribunal in 1993, we feel that imposition of a suspension is appropriate here. Although we are compelled to impose more than a 30 day suspension, we are not so compelled to the extent of the Tribunal's two year suspension. We therefore vacate the two-year suspension and order that the attorney receive a one year suspension from the practice of law. COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL FINDINGS OF MISCONDUCT AFFIRMED. IMPOSITION OF A TWO (2) YEAR SENTENCE REVERSED. J. RONALD PARRISH IS SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR ONE (1) YEAR. DAN LEE, C.J., and PITTMAN, BANKS and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ., concur. SULLIVAN, P.J., dissents with separate written opinion joined by PRATHER, P.J., and SMITH and MILLS, JJ.