Miss. Bar v. Walls
| Docket Number: | 2002-BA-01255-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-05-2004 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: PUBLIC REPRIMAND |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Bar discipline - Nolo contendere plea - Public reprimand Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Dickinson, J. Dissent Joined By : Cobb, P.J., and Randolph, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - BAR MATTER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-07-2002 Appealed from: COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL Disposition: Public reprimand. Case Number: 2002B00035 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | The Mississippi Bar |
ADAM BRADLEY KILGORE
MICHAEL B. MARTZ |
||
| Appellee: | Johnnie E. Walls, Jr. | HIAWATHA NORTHINGTON, II RENIA AELAIN ANDERSON |
|
|
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 - Nolo contendere plea - Public reprimand |
| Summary of the Facts: | Johnnie Walls, Jr. entered a nolo contendere plea pursuant to Rule 10.2, Mississippi Rules of Discipline. The Complaint Tribunal imposed the sanction of public reprimand against Walls. The Mississippi Bar appeals arguing that a public reprimand is insufficient. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | When assessing the sanction to be imposed against an attorney in a disciplinary action, the Court considers 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. Walls neglected his duties to his client while assuring her he was working on her case and he blatantly ignored her pleas for action and communication. Once she had filed a complaint with the Bar, Walls failed to respond or cooperate with the disciplinary authority in its investigation of the complaint. There is a need to deter similar misconduct, as attorneys should not neglect their clients and then fail to cooperate with the Bar in resulting disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal considered all of the evidence in this case, including its personal observation of the witnesses as well as Walls’s mitigation testimony. Under the facts of this case, a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
