Catledge v. Miss. Bar


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-BA-00840-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-24-2005
Opinion Author: Dickinson, J.
Holding: NINETY-DAY SUSPENSION
Additional Case Information: Topic: Bar discipline - Commingling of client’s money - Sanctions - Suspension - M.R.P.C. 1.15 and 8.4 (a) and (c) - Additional testimony
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J. and Randolph, J.
Non Participating Judge(s): Waller, P.J., Diaz and Carlson, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Graves, J.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley, J.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - BAR MATTERS
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-14-2003
Appealed from: COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL
Case Number: 2002-B-477
  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: William E. Catledge




 JAMES LAWTON ROBERTSON LAURA G. McKINLEY



  
Appellee: The Mississippi Bar MICHAEL B. MARTZ 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 - Commingling of client’s money - Sanctions - Suspension - M.R.P.C. 1.15 and 8.4 (a) and (c) - Additional testimony
Summary of the Facts: The Mississippi Bar filed a formal complaint against attorney William Catledge, alleging that he violated Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, and 8.4 (a), (c) and (d). These alleged violations arose from Catledge’s representation in the wrongful death litigation of the mother of a two-year-old child killed in a house fire. The litigation was settled, and the mother's portion of the settlement ($7,871.43) was sent to Catledge. Catledge obtained the mother’s endorsement of the settlement check at a correctional facility where she was an inmate and, four days later, deposited the check into his payroll account. Catledge paid $500 to the mother’s correctional facility account, leaving a balance due to the mother of $7,371.43. Catledge and his bookkeeper wrote checks on the payroll account for firm expenses, causing the balance of Catledge’s payroll account to fall below $7,371.43 on several occasions. The charges against Catledge were investigated by a Complaint Tribunal which concluded that Catledge should be suspended from the practice of law for one year. Both Catledge and the Mississippi Bar appeal.
Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sanctions Catledge argues his sanction should be no greater than a public reprimand. Catledge admits that he allowed the client’s money to become commingled with his firm's money for a period of about two weeks, but he claims that his bank’s mistakes caused the problem. He says he had no intention of converting client funds, and he points out that, because of undeposited funds in his office, he had no need to convert client funds to his own use. He also says that he has addressed the problem by hiring a C.P.A. to implement controls for safeguarding client funds. Catledge’s actions constitute per se violations of M.R.P.C. 1.15 and 8.4 (a) and (c), even though the Tribunal found only a violation of Rule 1.15. Catledge has had twelve prior adjudications of misconduct. Although he does offer legitimate mitigating factors, his disciplinary record is, according to the Bar, the third worst record in the history of the Mississippi Bar. Catledge has already been publicly reprimanded for commingling client funds with his own. The same lenient punishment for the same offense only a few years later would lessen the public’s confidence in the Bar’s resolve to police the profession. Catledge had three bank accounts: a firm general operating account, a payroll account and a trust account. Catledge offers no explanation why he paid firm bills and a loan payment from his payroll account (where client money had been deposited) rather than his firm operating account. Catledge offered no evidence to substantiate the bank error which led to his use of the payroll account as a temporary trust account. However, this factor does not weigh too heavily against Catledge, since the Bar offered no witnesses or evidence concerning the issue. It is not clear whose money covered the client’s checks. Catledge takes comfort in the fact that they were paid and that he always had money available to cover his obligations to her. Although intent and ability to repay have never been defenses to commingling trust funds with personal funds, the Bar has provided no evidence that the money in the trust account belonged to anyone but Catledge. Therefore, Catledge is given the benefit of the doubt. The evidence suggests that Catledge’s conduct was not intentional, but was the result of negligence and lack of attention to his law firm’s business and his client. Based on Catledge’s prior history of discipline, Catledge shall be suspended from the practice of law for ninety days. Issue 2: Rule violations The Bar argues that the Tribunal found Catledge only violated M.R.P.C. 1.15 and not M.R.P.C. 8.4(a) and (c) as well, while Catledge argues that M.R.P.C. 1.15 is a rule within M.R.P.C. 8.4(a). The Tribunal opinion clearly outlined all three alleged violations of M.R.P.C. 1.15, 8.4(a) and 8.4(c). The Tribunal knew of the other alleged violations and chose to find that Catledge violated only M.R.P.C. 1.15 and sanctioned Catledge for the violation. Issue 3: Additional testimony The Bar argues that the Tribunal abused its discretion by allowing Catledge to present additional testimony, because Catledge should have submitted the information within the 180 days provided by Rule 8 M.R.D. The Tribunal granted Catledge's motions to allow for additional time and depositions, testimony and exhibits by order. Therefore, the Tribunal knew and ruled upon the motions and determined that despite the delays in the case, Catledge should have the opportunity to give further evidence and the Bar had the right to cross-examine the witnesses. This was not an abuse of discretion.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court