James v. Miss. Bar
| Docket Number: | 2005-BA-01622-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-BA-01622-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-18-2007 Opinion Author: Diaz, J. Holding: PUBLIC REPRIMAND |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Bar discipline - Previous involvement in case - Miss.R.Prof.Conduct 1.12 - Public reprimand Non Participating Judge(s): Waller, P.J., and Graves, J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - BAR MATTERS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-28-2005 Case Number: 2005-B-411 |
|
| Note: | Motion for Damages for Filing Frivolous Appeal filed by The Mississippi Bar is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ceola James |
CEOLA JAMES (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | The Mississippi Bar | JAMES RUSSELL CLARK ADAM BRADLEY KILGORE GWEN COMBS |
|
|
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 - Previous involvement in case - Miss.R.Prof.Conduct 1.12 - Public reprimand |
| Summary of the Facts: | Attorney Ceola James served as a Chancellor in the Ninth Chancery District, which is composed of Humphreys, Issaquena, Sunflower, Warren, and Washington Counties. The case of J.N.W.E. v. W.D.W. arose in the Chancery Court of Washington County, where Ms. James was chancellor. After leaving her position as chancellor, an ex parte order was entered substituting Ms. James as counsel of record for J.N.W.E. in a divorce action. Opposing counsel filed a motion to disqualify Ms. James as attorney of record, citing her previous involvement in a related child abuse case. After the failure of Ms. James to respond to the motion or appear at the hearing, the trial court disqualified her as J.N.W.E.’s attorney. Ms. James responded with a motion to reconsider that ruling. The trial judge found that Ms. James had violated Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.12 and, accordingly, could not represent J.N.W.E. Ms. James appealed, and the Supreme Court assigned the case to the Court of Appeals for decision, but notified the Mississippi Bar of the possible violation of Rule 1.12. The Committee on Professional Responsibility found a violation of Rule 1.12 had occurred, and a public reprimand for violation of Rule 1.12 was issued to Ms. James. Ms. James requested a formal proceeding to review the decision of the committee, and the Complaint Tribunal found that Ms. James had violated Rule 1.12. It recommended a public reprimand as penalty for the violation. Ms. James appealed this decision, at which time the Bar filed a motion asking for damages, as the Bar considered the appeal frivolous. The Court denied the motion. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Rule 1.12(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct provides that “a lawyer shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge.” Ms. James argues that she did not participate substantially in the case as a judge. The extent of the judge’s interaction with the case and the litigants is the primary focus of the inquiry. The facts are undisputed that while acting as chancellor Ms. James entered three orders in the child abuse case in Washington County and presided over two hearings. Ms. James questioned both attorneys about the case and specifically directed inquiries to W.D.W. about whether he had indeed abused his child or signed a statement admitting he had. One of the orders crafted a temporary injunction against W.D.W. preventing him from having any unsupervised visitation with his child. Another converted this temporary injunction to a permanent one pending the outcome of the Yazoo County divorce case. Accordingly, Ms. James substantially participated in the case. She read motions, conducted hearings, heard testimony, and entered orders. Ms. James further argues that even if she had participated substantially as a judge in the Washington County child abuse case, the Yazoo County divorce case is not the same “matter” as contemplated by Rule 1.12. The two cases were greatly intertwined. The parties, J.N.W.E. and W.D.W., are the same. The initial pleading filed before Ms. James by J.N.W.E., styled a “Petition for Protection from Domestic Abuse,” discusses the evolution of the divorce case in Yazoo County. Because she substantially participated in the custody matter as a judge, Ms. James cannot now represent J.N.W.E. Ms. James has violated Rule 1.12, which is designed to preserve the integrity of the legal system from real or potential conflicts of interest. There is a compelling need to deter members of the Bench and Bar from this type of conduct and protect the public from this type of behavior. Ms. James has been a member of the Mississippi Bar for 29 years, and the record shows that the Bar has never instituted disciplinary proceedings against her before. The Bar suggested that Ms. James receive a public reprimand as the sole punishment because of her violation of Rule 1.12. This is not an excessive punishment under the facts of this case. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
