In re Prisock
| Docket Number: | 2007-BR-00430-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-05-2008 Opinion Author: RANDOLPH, J. Holding: PETITION OF KERRY L. PRISOCK FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW DENIED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Bar discipline - Reinstatement - Miss.R.Disc. 12 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Lamar, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J., Easley and Graves, JJ. would grant Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - BAR MATTERS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-19-1994 Case Number: 93-B-697 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | IN RE: PETITION OF KERRY L. PRISOCK FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW |
DAVID C. DUNBAR,
BENNY M. "MAC" MAY |
||
| Appellee: | Unknown | ADAM KILGORE |
|
|
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 - Reinstatement - Miss.R.Disc. 12 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kerry Prisock was suspended from the practice of law by a complaint tribunal for three consecutive, eighteen-month periods for separate violations. Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12, Prisock is seeking reinstatement to the practice of law. The Bar filed an amended answer recommending the reinstatement of Prisock. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12, an attorney must meet five requirements before he or she may be reinstated including: state the cause or causes for suspension or disbarment; give the name and current address of all persons, parties, firms or legal entities who suffered pecuniary loss due to the improper conduct; make full amends and restitution; show that he has the necessary moral character for the practice of law; and demonstrate the requisite legal education to be reinstated to the privilege of practicing law. The supplemental documents and comments gleaned from the deposition of Prisock suggest the Bar was misinformed or misled regarding Prisock’s “road to rehabilitation.” The documents further evince a lack of understanding by the Bar of its investigative role to completely and fully develop the facts and to verify the petitioner’s offer of proof prior to apprising the Court of its findings and recommendations. The testimony and supporting documents of a petitioner should be verified for truthfulness and accuracy. The role of the Board of Bar Commissioners and the Bar to conduct a thorough investigation of a candidate as well as the legitimacy and propriety of the petitioner’s request is a role which should not be taken lightly or as a matter of routine. Prisock has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to reinstatement. Prisock has adequately stated the causes for his suspension. Three parties suffered harm due to Prisock’s conduct. Only one of these parties suffered any actual pecuniary loss due to Prisock’s conduct. Prisock and the Bar correctly pleaded that the party received restitution from Prisock, albeit without illuminating the truth, i.e., Prisock’s untimeliness in complying with the tribunal’s restitution order. Prisock failed to make restitution until twelve years after being ordered to do so. Prisock has been held in contempt for failing to pay child support. He currently is in a dispute with the IRS regarding taxes on his income for 1987, 1988 and 1992. Also included in the supplemental pleadings was a history of misdemeanor criminal charges against Prisock. Prisock is employed with Richmond Title Services. His job title and actions during this employment raise additional substantial impediments to his reinstatement. Two of the letters attached to Priscock’s petition for reinstatement referenced Prisock as “Senior In-House Counsel” for Richmond Title. The use of this title is in contradiction with the suspension order. In his petition for reinstatement, Prisock stated he was licensed to practice in Tennessee, but he failed to mention that reciprocal discipline had been imposed. The reciprocal action by the Tennessee Bar was brought to light only after the Bar and Prisock were ordered to supplement the record. While the Bar states it expressed concern about Prisock’s use of the title “Senior In-House Counsel,” the Bar asserted in its initial answer that there was no clear and convincing evidence that Prisock engaged in the practice of law while suspended. The Bar’s conclusion is manifestly in error based upon the overwhelming weight of the evidence to the contrary. Becaue the Court cannot agree with the Bar’s conclusion that Prisock has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, that he is rehabilitated and possesses the requisite moral character for reinstatement to the practice of law, Prisock’s Petition for Reinstatement is denied. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
