In re the Petition for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of Parsons


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-BR-01533-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-21-2003
Opinion Author: Waller, J.
Holding: Petition for Reinstatement, Denied.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Bar reinstatement - Unauthorized practice of law
Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Cobb and Carlson, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ.
Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J.
Dissent Joined By : Easley, J.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - BAR MATTERS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-05-1996
Case Number: 96-BD-0005

Note: Motions to Quash Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by First National Bank of Wiggins, Henry Fly, Rebecca C. Taylor and Nicholas Van Wiser are dismissed as moot.


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 reinstatement - Unauthorized practice of law

Summary of the Facts: The petition of Thomas Eddy Parsons to be reinstated to the practice of law is again before the Supreme Court for consideration after the Court referred the petition to a special master. The Special Master concluded that Eddy Parsons had sufficiently demonstrated his rehabilitation in conduct and moral character and recommended that Eddy Parsons be reinstated to the practice of law.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The hearing before the Special Master for the most part concentrated on determining whether Eddy Parsons engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while disbarred rather than on whether he was worthy of reinstatement from a moral and character standpoint. The Special Master opined that the issue of Parsons's unauthorized practice may not be properly before the Court. However, the issue of a disbarred or suspended attorney's unauthorized practice of law is a matter to be inquired into in reinstatement proceedings since such activity evidences a disregard of and contempt for the order of disbarment or suspension. Eddy Parsons maintained an office with his father, with whom he practiced until his disbarment, and his brother who was subsequently admitted to the Bar. The Bar presented credible evidence that Eddy Parsons did in fact perform proscribed work such as dictating letters and pleadings, signing his brother's name to documents, and meeting with clients. While this certainly is work paralegals do on a customary basis, Parsons was less than forthcoming about the extent of his legal work, and within the setting of his old law firm there is, at a minimum, the appearance of the practice of law in contravention of the order of disbarment. At the very least, Parsons should have kept his office separate and distinct from the offices of his father and brother and from their law practice. Continuing to do what is at the very least the appearance of law practice in his old office with current and former clients makes a mockery of the disbarment. With regard to whether a suspended or disbarred attorney can serve as a law clerk or paralegal, the better rule is that the attorney is permitted to work as a law clerk, investigator, paralegal, or in any capacity as a lay person for a licensed attorney-employer if the suspended lawyer's functions are limited exclusively to work of a preparatory nature under the supervision of a licensed attorney-employer and does not involve client contact. Under no circumstances would it be appropriate for a disbarred lawyer to work in his former office, for his former firm, with his former partners and associates or on files of former clients. Public service is preferred, such as working in a legal services office. Parsons’s petition is denied and he will be ineligible to file another petition for reinstatement until one year from the date of this opinion.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court