Shah v. Miss. Bar
| Docket Number: | 2004-BA-01245-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-BA-01245-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-23-2005 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: DISBARRED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Bar discipline - Provision of legal services - Misrepresentation - Dishonesty - Miss.R.Prof.Conduct 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a and d) - Disbarment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - BAR MATTERS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-27-2004 Appealed from: COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL Judge: Robert H. Walker Disposition: Recommended a two year suspension and payment of restitution. Case Number: 2004B79 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Azki Shah |
HIAWATHA NORTHINGTON |
||
| Appellee: | The Mississippi Bar | ADAM BRADLEY KILGORE, GWEN COMBS, JAMES R. CLARK |
|
|
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 - Provision of legal services - Misrepresentation - Dishonesty - Miss.R.Prof.Conduct 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a and d) - Disbarment |
| Summary of the Facts: | After being represented at trial by another attorney, Colon Vaughn retained attorney Azki Shah to perfect and prosecute an appeal of Vaughn’s criminal conviction in October of 1998. Vaughn paid Shah $3,750 to pursue the appeal. Notwithstanding his duty to perfect and prosecute the appeal on Vaughn’s behalf, Shah failed to take the required, necessary and appropriate actions to file the notice of appeal and other documents to perfect and pursue an appeal of Vaughn’s criminal convictions in a timely manner. Shah filed a motion to file an out-of-time appeal on behalf of Vaughn in 2000. On October 1, 1998, the United States Bankruptcy Court issued an injunction prohibiting Shah from practicing in that court for six months. Shah was ordered to take the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination and achieve a score as provided for in Rule 12.5 of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline. As a reciprocal disciplinary matter to the bankruptcy suspension, on July 29, 1999, Shah was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Mississippi for six months. Shah never advised Vaughn of either of these suspensions. Vaughn filed a complaint against Shah with the Mississippi Bar. The Complaint Tribunal adjudged that Shah had violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a and d) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct and that Shah had engaged in several instances of dishonesty and misrepresentation. The Tribunal found that Shah should be suspended from the practice of law in the State of Mississippi for two years and pay restitution to Colon Vaughn in the amount of $3,750.00; and that, as a condition precedent to his resumption of the practice of law, Shah should petition the Court for reinstatement, take and pass the entire Mississippi Bar Examination administered by the Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions and achieve the score then required of new attorneys for admission to the Bar, and take and pass the Multi State Professional Responsibility Examination with the score required for admission of new lawyers. Shah appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Shah argues that his actions and failures to act do not support the imposition of a suspension for any length of time, and that only a public reprimand should be given. In determining the sanction to be applied, the Court considers the nature of the conduct 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 caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Vaughn retained and paid Shah to perform certain legal services. Shah kept Vaughn’s money and never performed the legal services. Shah lied to Vaughn about the status of the legal matter. Because of Shah’s actions, Vaughn lost a very valuable right – that of a timely appeal from a criminal conviction. Shah attempted to thwart the Bar’s investigation into Vaughn’s complaint by failing to respond to repeated requests for production of documents. Shah’s responses to questions were not credible because, depending on the occasion, the responses were different. Attorneys representing criminal defendants must adhere to high standards when their clients’ basic civil rights are at stake. An attorney like Shah who fails to perform any legal services to a client who has paid the attorney for the legal services denigrates the dignity and reputation of the profession. Shah’s pattern of misconduct and lack of true remorse indicate that there is no assurance that Shah’s future conduct will meet professional and ethical standards. Attorneys in other similar cases have been disbarred. There is no evidence that Shah was suffering from any emotional or mental disability at the time of his actions. Vaughn did not receive legal services for which he paid $3,750. As an aggravating circumstance, Shah has had disciplinary action taken against him previously. As a second aggravating circumstance, Shah actively misled Vaughn as to the status of the appeal. Shah failed to be forthcoming before the investigatory committee and the Tribunal, a third aggravating circumstance. A fourth aggravating circumstance is Vaughn’s vulnerability because Vaughn was in prison without freedom and was unable to protect his own rights. No mitigating circumstances are present. Therefore, disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter. Shah is ordered to pay restitution to Colon Vaughn in the amount of $3,750. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
