Stewart v. The Miss. Bar
| Docket Number: | 2006-BA-01438-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-20-2007 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Peter A.C. Stewart, III, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the State of Mississippi for a period of one year from the date this decision becomes final, and thereafter until such time as he passes the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Bar discipline - Scheduling order - Miss. R. Disc. 26 - Notice - Suspension Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Diaz, P.J., and Graves, J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - BAR MATTERS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-10-2006 Judge: Beverly Mitchell Franklin Disposition: At the close of the evidence, the Complaint Tribunal suspended Stewart from the practice of law for a period of ninety days. Case Number: 2006-B-00245 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Peter A. C. Stewart, III |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | The Mississippi Bar | GWENDOLYN G. COMBS ADAM BRADLEY 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 - Scheduling order - Miss. R. Disc. 26 - Notice - Suspension |
| Summary of the Facts: | On April 1, 2004, the Mississippi Bar issued Peter Stewart III two public reprimands for violation of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b), and 8.4(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. Stewart failed to appear at the investigatory hearing. On June 30, 2004, the Bar issued Stewart a public reprimand for violation of Rule 8.1(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. Again, Stewart failed to appear at the investigatory hearing. On June 30, 2004, the Bar issued Stewart a private reprimand for violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 8.1(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. On April 8, 2005, the Bar issued Stewart another public reprimand for violation of Rules 1.4, 5.3(a) and 8.1(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. On November 15, 2005, the Bar issued Stewart a public reprimand for violation of Rules 1.1, 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.16(d), and 8.1(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. When an informal Bar complaint was filed against Stewart in August of 2005, the Bar sent a copy of the informal complaint to Stewart, and requested that he respond to its allegations. Stewart failed to respond to any request for information during the informal complaint process. Another informal complaint was filed against Stewart in September of 2005 and again, Stewart failed to respond to any request for information during the informal Bar complaint process. In response to the informal complaints, the Bar filed a formal complaint. Stewart filed a response to the formal complaint. The Bar served Stewart with interrogatories, a request for admissions, and a request for the production of documents. After receiving no response to discovery within thirty days, the Bar filed a Rule 37(d) motion. Thereafter, Stewart filed untimely responses to the discovery request. The trial went forward without Stewart when he failed to appear. The Tribunal found that Stewart violated Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(a) and 8.4(d). The Complaint Tribunal suspended Stewart from the practice of law for a period of ninety days. Stewart appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Stewart argues that he is entitled to a new hearing because the Court did not issue a scheduling order within ten days and because the Tribunal signed its Opinion and Judgment after the date specified in the scheduling order. His argument fails since Miss. R. Disc. 26 provides that failure to observe directory time interval may result in contempt of the agency having jurisdiction but will not justify abatement of any disciplinary investigation or proceeding. Stewart claims he never received the scheduling order setting the date and time for his hearing. However, the Bar claims it sent the required notice, and counsel for the Bar claims to have had discussions with Stewart about the hearing. Furthermore, Stewart admits he received the formal complaint. A review of the rules would lead any reasonable attorney who had received no notice of the hearing date as the 180-day deadline approached, to at least inquire as to the hearing date and the absence of notice. Stewart argues that the Tribunal erred in granting the Bar’s motion for summary judgment. The record clearly reflects that the Tribunal took into account all of Stewart’s responses and answers, whether timely or not. Therefore, any argument by Stewart that the Court erred in granting summary judgment because the Tribunal did not consider his untimely answers and responses is without merit. Stewart argues that a ninety-day suspension is too harsh, because it would work an undue financial hardship on him and his mistake was not intentional or deceitful. While it may be true that Stewart made a mistake as to the nature of the claim, and his initial violations may well have been unintentional and innocent, he does not account for his failure to act after he unquestionably knew both the nature of the claim and the fact that his clients were unable to contact him (because his phone and e-mail were out of order). Furthermore, Stewart showed utter and complete disrespect for the Bar and the disciplinary process by ignoring the informal complaint process. In addition, this action marks Stewart’s sixth disciplinary action and sixth violation of Rule 8.1(b). The appropriate punishment for Stewart’s sixth violation of the Rules is a suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year, and continuing thereafter until such time as he passes the Multi-State Professional Responsibility exam. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
