Miss. Bar v. Lumumba
| Docket Number: | 2003-BA-02418-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-BA-02418-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 12-07-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-17-2005 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR SIX MONTHS UNTIL HE RETAKES & PASSES THE ETHICS PORTION OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR EXAMINATION; FINED $1,000 AND PAY COSTS OF THIS CAUSE |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Bar discipline - Misconduct - Miss.R.Prof.Conduct 3.5(c) - Miss.R.Prof.Conduct 3.5(a) - Miss.R.Prof.Conduct 8.2(a) - Miss.R.Prof.Conduct 8.4 - Sanctions - Suspension Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Dickinson, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - BAR MATTERS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-22-2003 Appealed from: Mississippi Bar Complaint Tribunal Judge: Robert H. Walker Disposition: Imposed a public reprimand. Case Number: 2002B1292 |
|
| Note: | Chokwe Lumumba is Suspended from the Practice of Law for Six (6) Months and Until he Re-Takes and Passes the Ethics Portion of The Mississippi Bar Examination, Fined $1,000.00 Which is Due and Payable to the Clerk of this Court Within Thirty (30) Days, and all Costs of this Appeal. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | The Mississippi Bar |
Michael B. Martz; Gwendolyn G. Combs; Adam Bradley Kilgore |
||
| Appellee: | Chokwe Lumumba | Imhotep Alkebu-Ian; Adjoa Artis Aiyetoro; Jeffrey L. Edison |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Bar discipline - Misconduct - Miss.R.Prof.Conduct 3.5(c) - Miss.R.Prof.Conduct 3.5(a) - Miss.R.Prof.Conduct 8.2(a) - Miss.R.Prof.Conduct 8.4 - Sanctions - Suspension |
| Summary of the Facts: | Chokwe Lumumba, an attorney licensed to practice law in Mississippi, appeared before Leake County Circuit Judge Marcus Gordon for a hearing on post-trial motions in a criminal case. During the course of the hearing, Lumumba made the following statement to Judge Gordon: “Look, Judge, if we’ve got to pay for justice around here, I will pay for justice. I’ve paid other judges to try to get justice, pay you, too, if that’s what is necessary.” Other statements were also made to Judge Gordon. Judge Gordon cited Lumumba for contempt, fined him $500, and ordered him to serve three days in the Leake County Jail. Lumumba appealed the contempt citation to the Mississippi Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court. A reporter for the Jackson Clarion-Ledger newspaper, interviewed Lumumba by phone concerning the contempt citation. During the interview, Lumumba told Gates that Judge Gordon “had the judicial temperament of a barbarian.” As a result of these events, the Mississippi Bar filed a formal complaint against Lumumba. The Complaint Tribunal found Lumumba had violated Rules 3.5©, 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. The Tribunal determined a public reprimand was an appropriate punishment. The Mississippi Bar appeals, and Lumumba cross-appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Misconduct The Bar argues that Lumumba’s comments to Judge Gordon were abusive and went beyond advocacy, and that his conduct was belligerent and theatrical. Rule 3.5© provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. There is no indication that Lumumba seriously disputes he disrupted the proceedings. Rather, he says that the disruption was not his intent but that he felt he needed to “make a record.” If Lumumba’s true purpose was to “protect the record” by presenting some new issue which could not have been raised at trial, he could easily, and certainly more thoughtfully, have presented the matter in his written motion. His verbal argument at the hearing on his post-trial motions was solely for the purpose of attempted persuasion of Judge Gordon, not “making a record.” Lumumba’s statements to the trial judge regarding paying off judges were intended to disrupt, and in fact did disrupt, the court proceedings. Since it is glaringly obvious that Lumumba’s conduct violated Rule 3.5©, it is equally as obvious to conclude that his conduct also violated Section (a) of Rule 3.5. Lumumba’s menacing, belligerent attitude was an unmistakable attempt to “bully” Judge Gordon into making decisions that were in accordance with Lumumba’s ultimate intentions. Further, when Lumumba remarked that he was “proud to be thrown out of your courtroom,” this was an unambiguous, open admission of Lumumba’s lack of respect for Judge Gordon as well as the judiciary as a whole. The Tribunal was correct in finding that Lumumba’s conduct also violated Rule 8.4 which provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct or engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. All of Lumumba’s statements, those made in the courtroom and those to the Clarion -Ledger, are prejudicial to the administration of justice and indicates conduct which is connected to judicial proceedings. Conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice is that conduct which is connected to judicial proceedings. Lumumba’s statement and behavior in the courtroom directly affected the judicial proceeding. An attorney may not seek refuge within his own First Amendment right of free speech to fill a courtroom with a litany of speculative accusations and insults. Rule 8.2(a) prohibits a lawyer from making a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge. All of Lumumba’s statements were made with wilful, reckless disregard as to their truth concerning Judge Gordon’s qualifications and integrity as a judge. By expressly stating that payment for justice was a feasible option, Lumumba unequivocally and recklessly undermined Judge Gordon’s judicial integrity or his moral code, ability to be unimpaired, or impartial. Lumumba’s “barbarian” comment also falls under the purview and meaning of Rule 8.2. By comparing Judge Gordon’s temperament to that of a barbarian, Lumumba wilfully and knowingly undermined the presumed integrity and qualifications of Judge Gordon. Issue 2: Sanctions The Mississippi Bar seeks a more severe punishment than a public reprimand. In measuring the appropriateness of punishment of an attorney for violation of the rules of professional conduct, the Court considers the nature of the conduct involved; the need to deter similar misconduct; the preservation of the dignity and reputation of the profession; the protection of the public; and sanctions imposed in similar cases. A review of the transcript leaves no reasonable doubt that Lumumba chose truculent language for the purpose of inciting anger. Such tactics are never appropriate when addressing a court. Were Lumumba’s conduct to be overlooked, other members of the Bar would be encouraged to exhibit less respect for the courts. The public is entitled to know that when lawyers engage in such conduct, their clients are not well served. Lumumba’s conduct in this case, as well as his extensive history of similar misconduct, most assuredly constitutes serial misconduct. Lumumba has continued to demonstrate to the courts of this state, as well as the courts of Michigan and New York, that he does not respect the courts, judges, or justices. As shown by his serial, willful misconduct, a public reprimand will not serve as a deterrent for Lumumba. For the violations of Rules 3.5, 8.2, and 8.4, Lumumba is suspended from the practice of law for six months and until he retakes and passes the Ethics portion of the Mississippi Bar Examination, fined in the amount of $1000, and required to pay all costs accrued by the Bar. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
