Dean v. Miss. Bd. of Bar Admissions
| Docket Number: | 2006-SA-01610-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-17-2008 Opinion Author: LAMAR, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Bar application - Character and fitness of applicant - Rules Governing Admission to the Bar, Rule 8, section 6 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Easley, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-23-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Denise Owens Disposition: The trial court affirmed the Mississippi Board of Bar Admission's adverse determination as to the character and fitness of applicant Earl Stephen Dean. Case Number: G2005-2040 O/3 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | IN RE APPLICATION OF EARL STEPHEN
DEAN: EARL STEPHEN DEAN |
EARL STEPHEN DEAN (PRO SE) |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions | MARY JO WOODS, HAROLD EDWARD PIZZETTA, III | ||
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 application - Character and fitness of applicant - Rules Governing Admission to the Bar, Rule 8, section 6 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions issued an adverse determination as to the character and fitness of applicant Earl Stephen Dean. Dean appealed the Board decision to the chancery court, which affirmed the Board’s decision. Dean appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Rule 8, section 6, of the Bar Rules provides the standards for disqualification of an applicant. The Committee determined Dean had exhibited disqualifying conduct from Rule 8, section 6, including: dishonesty (section 6(A)); irresponsibility in business or professional matters (section 6(D)); unauthorized practice of law (section 6(F)); violation of reasonable rules of conduct (section 6(G)); failure to exercise self-control (section 6(H)); and mental and emotional instability (section 6(I)). Dean argues that the Board’s finding that he was dishonest was not supported by the record. The Committee notes four incidents which support its finding of dishonesty. Three of the four are false answers to questions on the Bar application. Dean failed to offer evidence in either the Board hearing or the trial court hearing to negate the Board’s finding that he was dishonest. There was sufficient evidence by which the Committee could have found Dean to exhibit conduct substantially evidencing an inclination to be dishonest. Dean argues that the Board violated his First Amendment right to free speech by holding against him his petition for redress of grievances. The Committee explained during the hearing that its concern was the validity of the suits and Dean’s conduct related to dealings with the legal system. The Committee found Dean’s pattern of litigation indicated that Dean has a habit of filing meritless and retaliatory suits. The chairman of the Committee stated in the hearing that the Committee would not dispute Dean’s right to file civil lawsuits. Dean has failed to show that by considering his litigation history, the Board’s denial of his application was arbitrary, capricious, or malicious or that his First Amendment right to free speech was violated. Dean argues that the Board violated his right to due process in that it failed to afford him an opportunity to be confronted with, and to cross-examine witnesses who supplied information adverse to him, since the Board never produced the witnesses whose statements it intended to use against him at the hearing. However, the Board adequately informed Dean of the evidence of adverse character to be considered and sufficiently provided Dean with an opportunity to respond during the hearing. Dean also argues the burden was on the Board to produce the evidence to support the Board’s finding. However, pursuant to section 73-3-2(2)(b), the burden is on Dean to demonstrate his fitness and not on the Board to show his lack thereof. Dean also argues that the Board relied heavily on hearsay in reaching its findings. Dean fails to state which testimony he believes was hearsay. Moreover, as the trial court pointed out, Dean failed to make a specific objection to the hearsay he named either in the hearing before the committee or in chancery court. Dean argues the Board violated Rule 8, section 6, by relying on allegations that Dean engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in 1987, twenty years ago. While the Board considered an act which occurred more than twenty years ago, it also considered additional conduct in making its determination. The unauthorized practice of law is only one of the six reasons. Dean argues that the Board made a medical determination without having a medical license. Since there is no requirement that the Board include a member with a medical degree, the Rules presuppose the Board is capable of evaluating an applicant’s mental and emotional state, not for the purposes of medical diagnosis, but for the purpose of determining whether he or she is mentally and emotionally fit to practice law. Dean’s repeated actions were sufficient for the Board, acting within its enumerated duties, to find that Dean was emotionally and mentally unstable to the extent that he was not suited for the practice of law. The Board’s denial of Dean’s application was supported by substantial evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
