Miss. Bar v. Turnage
| Docket Number: | 2004-BA-00324-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-16-2005 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: Albert H. Turnage is suspended from the practice of law in the State of Mississippi for four (4) months from and after the date of this opinion, and shall pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding. Albert H. Turnage taxed with costs of appeal. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Bar discipline - Solicitation - Suspension Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - BAR MATTERS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-27-2004 Appealed from: COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: Imposed a six- month suspension from the practice of law, of which four months were stayed on the condition that Turnage not violate any Rule of Professional Conduct during the effective six months. Case Number: 2003B1678 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | The Mississippi Bar |
ADAM BRADLEY KILGORE, GWEN COMBS |
||
| Appellee: | Albert H. Turnage | JAMES C. PATTON, JR. |
|
|
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 - Solicitation - Suspension |
| Summary of the Facts: | Albert Turnage pled nolo contendere to charges brought against him by the Mississippi Bar for violation of Rule 5.3(b), Rule 7.2(I), Rule 7.3(a), and Rule 8.4(a) and (d) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, but challenged the Bar’s charge of violation of Rule 5.3(c). The Tribunal found that Turnage violated each of the rules, including 5.3(c) and imposed a six-month suspension, of which four months were stayed on the condition that Turnage not violate any Rule of Professional Conduct during the effective six months. The Bar appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Bar argues that the two-month suspension imposed by the Tribunal was too lenient and insufficient to deter like and similar conduct from being committed by Mr. Turnage and other lawyers. Turnage argues that a suspension is not a reasonable sanction for a first offense of solicitation and that he should receive only a public reprimand. In measuring the appropriateness of attorney punishment for violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, factors to be weighed include the nature of the misconduct involved; the need to deter similar misconduct; the preservation of the dignity and reputation of the profession; the protection of the public; the sanctions imposed in similar cases; the duty violated; the lawyer’s mental state; the actual or potential injury resulting from the misconduct; and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. Although Turnage’s violation of the rule against solicitation involved 100 potential clients, the infractions occurred over a very short period of time, and more importantly, Turnage took immediate action to acknowledge the error of his ways and to rectify the problem. There was no proof presented to the Tribunal of any harm to any of the many people who were solicited. Turnage received no pecuniary gain. In disciplinary proceedings there is a strong need to rectify abuses in order to preserve the dignity and reputation of the profession. The public needs protection from lawyers who find it appropriate to solicit business at any time or place. In testimony before the Tribunal, Turnage admitted that he knew it was unethical to solicit cases, but said he did not know using another person to solicit cases was also an ethical violation. No specific evidence or testimony was presented of any actual or potential injury to the persons contacted or those who signed contracts to become clients of Turnage. Turnage has shown remorse by his mitigating actions and nolo contendere plea. He cooperated in the investigation. Considering all of these factors, Turnage shall be suspended from the practice of law for four months. While the Court has previously stated that a public reprimand is the appropriate punishment for the first time offense of solicitation, in this case a suspension is warranted since Turnage also paid a person to solicit cases for him. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
