Daly v. Miss. Bar
| Docket Number: | 2010-BR-00716-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-BR-00716-SCT ; 2010-BR-00716-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-20-2011 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Petition of Barrett B. Daly for reinstatement to the practice of law in the State of Mississippi is conditionally granted. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Bar discipline - Reinstatement - Miss.R.Disc. 12 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens and Pierce, JJ. Nature of the Case: Bar Discipline |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Barrett B. Daly |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | The Mississippi Bar | ADAM B. 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: | A complaint tribunal suspended Barrett Daly from the practice of law in Mississippi for three years. The suspension resulted from Daly’s omissions during his representation of a client and from his failure to fulfill certain requirements imposed on him in a prior disciplinary matter. Daly petitions the Court for reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Miss.R.Disc. 12. The Bar has filed a motion to dismiss the petition. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In determining whether to grant reinstatement, the Court's fundamental inquiry is whether the attorney has rehabilitated himself in conduct and character since the suspension was imposed. Before an attorney may be reinstated under Rule 12, he or she must 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. Daly filed a petition followed by six supplemental and amended petitions. The Bar contends that Daly did not state the cause or causes for his suspension in the petition. It is true that Daly’s initial petition did not provide the meaningful detail about the cause or causes for his suspension that is required for reinstatement. However, Daly’s Fifth Supplemental and Amended Petition for Reinstatement provided a clear description of the causes of his suspension for misconduct in the representation of the Storey estate. Nothing in the record indicates that any person, party, firm, or legal entity suffered pecuniary loss as a result of Daly’s improper conduct. Daly states that he already has paid the $41.27 assessed by the Committee on Professional Responsibility. He attaches a bank account statement showing the check has cleared. Daly also states that, although the complaint tribunal has not entered an order of costs and expenses, he will pay the amount assessed within thirty days of the entry of the order. Daly submitted seven letters from attorneys recommending his reinstatement, including one letter from the complainant. Each letter states that the writer personally knows that Daly has the moral character to practice law, and that Daly has learned not to take on projects that he does not have the time to fulfill. Daly also submitted his own affidavit, attesting that he regularly attends church with his family and assists at his son’s school. He has thoroughly acknowledged his misconduct and expressed remorse. In the petition, Daly stated that between January 8, 2007, and March 23, 2010, he completed 77.5 hours of continuing legal education. He stated that, since before January 26, 2007, he regularly has read new state and federal caselaw and statutes, and has kept abreast of developing patent law and tax law. In Daly’s Sixth Supplemental and Amended Petition for Reinstatement, he averred that he had attended an additional 7.5 hours of continuing legal education. The Bar contends that Daly has failed to comply with the condition precedent of filing affidavits in the Court within thirty days of his suspension stating he has notified all clients, courts, agencies and adverse parties of his suspension. In his petition, Daly admits he never filed the required affidavits. He states that the reason he did not file the required affidavits was that, because he had no Mississippi clients or cases, he was unable truthfully to swear that he had made the required notifications. Daly avers that the Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions prevented him from sitting for the MBE without a reinstatement order. The complaint tribunal imposed this additional requirement, which is appropriate in this case. Therefore, the Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions is ordered to allow Daly to sit for the MBE. Daly’s petition for reinstatement to the practice of law is granted on the condition that he take and pass the Mississippi Bar Examination. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
