Harrison v. Mississippi Bar

Decision Date26 May 1994
Docket Number91-BA-01223,Nos. 91-BA-01222,s. 91-BA-01222
Citation637 So.2d 204
PartiesGarnett HARRISON v. The MISSISSIPPI BAR (Two Cases).
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Garnett Harrison, pro se.

Robert B. McDuff, Jackson, Mary E. Howell, New Orleans, LA, for appellant.

Michael B. Martz, Jackson, for appellee.

EN BANC.

JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., Justice, for the Court:

I.

Introduction
A.

On February 2, 1990, the Mississippi Bar ("Bar") filed a formal complaint against attorney Garnett Harrison ("Harrison") alleging misconduct arising from her representation of Dorrie Lynn Singley. On April 2, 1990, the Bar filed a formal complaint against Harrison alleging misconduct arising from her representation of Karen Newsom. Harrison, then residing in Vermont, executed an Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summons and Formal Complaint on August 31, 1990, and filed two discovery requests in the Clerk's office in September of 1990. However, Harrison did not file answers to the complaints. On September 13, 1991, a hearing was held before a Complaint Tribunal on the Bar's Motions for Entry of Default Judgment and Harrison's Motions to Set Aside Entry of Default. Harrison, then residing in Florida, did not appear or send counsel. The Tribunal sustained the Bar's Motions for Default Judgment, and on November 14, 1991, two Orders of Disbarment were entered against Harrison. Harrison appeals, alleging the following errors:

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL IMPROPERLY GRANTED THE MISSISSIPPI STATE BAR MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT.

II. WHETHER THE MISSISSIPPI STATE BAR AND THE COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL VIOLATED HARRISON'S RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION OF 1890, ARTICLE III, SECTION 14.

III. WHETHER THE COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL IMPROPERLY IMPOSED THE SANCTION OF DISBARMENT AGAINST HARRISON.

Finding that Harrison's conduct merited disbarment, and that no violation of her state or constitutional rights occurred, we affirm both disbarment orders.

B.

Before proceeding the merits of these cases, we note Harrison's efforts to bring before this Court materials not contained in the appeal records. Harrison contends such supplemental materials are necessary for the Court to understand the circumstances which led to her defaults in the disbarment proceedings.

First, Harrison has filed "Exhibits to Appellant's Brief" for each case. These exhibits, which include newspaper articles, correspondence, depositions, court orders, press releases, etc., are presumably meant to support Harrison's contention that "the disbarment proceedings are inextricably intertwined with a maze of events and court proceedings beginning in the summer of 1986." Harrison has also submitted motions styled "Motion To Remand Or In The Alternative To Permit Supplementing Of Record Or Other Appropriate Relief." Supporting memos (and exhibits to the memos) were also filed. The Motions request that this Court remand her cases for de novo proceedings, or to accept into the record the various exhibits submitted with her brief.

For reasons discussed below, we decline to remand Harrison's cases, or to accept for consideration materials outside the appeal records.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF UNDERLYING CASES

A brief history of the Singley v. Foxworth and Newsom v. Newsom cases follows, to provide the context for the disciplinary proceedings against Harrison.

A. Singley v. Foxworth 1

Dorrie Lynn Singley and Timothy Foxworth were married in May of 1981, and one year later, their daughter Chrystal Marie Foxworth ("Chrissy") was born. Singley and Foxworth separated in August of 1984, and divorced on November 29, 1984. Singley was granted custody of Chrissy, and Foxworth visitation rights.

On March 8, 1985, Foxworth filed a motion for citation of contempt in the Marion County Chancery Court, alleging that Singley had refused to allow him to exercise his visitation rights with Chrissy. During an August 7, 1985, hearing before Chancellor Sebe Dale, Jr., allegations were made that Singley's refusal to allow Foxworth to visit Chrissy were based on her belief that Foxworth was sexually abusing Chrissy. Singley, having moved to Texas after the divorce, did not attend the hearing.

On August 22, 1985, the Chancellor found Singley in contempt for violation of the visitation provisions of the divorce decree, and entered an order for her arrest and incarceration upon her return to the court's jurisdiction. In May 1986, Singley returned to Mississippi, and moved to Bay St. Louis in Hancock County. Singley was arrested for contempt and jailed from July 8th through July 18, 1986.

On November 18, 1986, after a visit with her father, Chrissy was taken to the emergency room of the Hancock County Hospital. Following an examination of Chrissy, Dr. William Bradford filed a "Report of Suspected Battered Child" with the Hancock County Welfare Department. Dr. Bradford's report identified physical symptoms suggesting that Chrissy may have been sexually abused. A second doctor, pediatrician Bryant McCrary examined Chrissy on November 25, 1986. He filed a "Report of Suspected Battered Child" with the Welfare Department, stating that his findings were "very suspicious of child abuse."

On December 17, Foxworth filed a petition to transfer custody of Chrissy to him. He arranged to have Chrissy interviewed by psychologist Dr. Franklin Jones. On June 15, 1987, Singley filed a counterclaim, charging that Foxworth had sexually abused Chrissy, and seeking supervised visits between Foxworth and Chrissy. 2 Singley also requested that a guardian ad litem be appointed for Chrissy. 3 Singley arranged to have Chrissy examined by Dr. Catherine Meeks, a Gulfport psychologist, and on June 17, Dr. Meeks' deposition was taken. Foxworth continued to exercise his visitation rights between December 1986 through July of 1987.

Chancellor Dale held a hearing on the motions on June 22, 1987. On August 4, 1987, he issued his opinion, finding that "there is no credible evidence that Chrissy has been sexually abused or molested by Tim (Foxworth) or by any other person." The chancellor ordered custody transferred from Singley to Foxworth, with visitation rights granted to Singley. Foxworth and Singley agreed that Chrissy would be transferred on August 9, 1987, but Singley did not turn Chrissy over on the appointed day.

On August 10, 1987, Chrissy was taken by her mother to Children's Hospital in New Orleans, and was examined by Dr. Rebecca Russell. Dr. Russell stated in her evaluation that Chrissy had given her "an age appropriate history consistent with sexual molestation." Singley filed a motion in the chancery court for a new trial. Chancellor Dale denied the motion.

Harrison noticed the deposition of Dr. Russell on August 18, 1987. On August 21, 1987, Foxworth obtained a protective order prohibiting the taking of Dr. Russell's deposition. Nevertheless, Harrison took the deposition on August 23, 1987. 4 Singley then filed a motion to reopen the custody hearing "for review of new evidence", namely, Dr. Russell's report.

In late August of 1987, Foxworth filed a petition for contempt against Singley, alleging that she had failed to turn Chrissy over to him pursuant to the chancellor's August 4th order. Singley's Answer asserted the affirmative defense of necessity. Singley also filed a second motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem for Chrissy, and a motion for recusal of Chancellor Dale.

Chancellor Dale held a hearing on Foxworth's petition on August 28, 1987. Singley did not appear at this hearing, having gone into hiding. The chancellor found Singley "in willful, flagrant, intentional and unlawful contempt of this Court" in refusing to deliver Chrissy to her father, and ordered that Singley be incarcerated in the Marion County Jail until she purged herself "to the satisfaction of this Court" that she would obey the court's August 4th order.

On October 7, 1987, the chancellor entered nunc pro tunc an order denying Singley's motions to reopen the case, to appoint a guardian ad litem, and for his own recusal.

Singley was admitted to Charity Hospital in New Orleans under an assumed name on October 14, 1987. She died of a brain aneurism later that day.

On December 5, 1987, Harrison's paralegal Gail Martin phoned Donna Medley, director of the San Francisco Victim Witness Assistance Program, from the San Francisco airport, where she was with Chrissy. On December 11, the San Francisco Department of Social Services filed a petition on Chrissy's behalf in the San Francisco Juvenile Court, charging that Chrissy would be at risk of abuse if she were returned to her father's custody. Judge Weinstein issued a detention order, placing Chrissy under the temporary custody of the Department of Social Services in Medley's home.

On December 15, 1987, Judge Dale issued an order directing District Attorney Douglas to obtain custody of Chrissy in San Francisco, and bring her back to Mississippi. On December 16, Judge Weinstein issued an order declining jurisdiction over Chrissy, and placing temporary custody of Chrissy with Douglas. On December 17, 1987, Douglas and Chrissy returned to Mississippi. Judge Dale issued an order finding it in Chrissy's best interest to have her examined "by competent professionals and under the direction of the Court" before Chrissy was returned to Foxworth. Judge Dale also ordered that the Youth Court Division of the Court oversee such proceedings, and that his August 4th order granting Foxworth custody of Chrissy be delayed until the Youth Court had finished its work.

Garland Upton, Marion County Youth Court Referee, appointed two public defenders as guardians ad litem for Chrissy in the Youth Court proceedings. On December 18, 1987, Judge Dale ordered that Chrissy be examined by physician Dr. Kimble Love and psychologist Dr. Franklin Jones, both of whom had previously examined Chrissy at Foxworth's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Norelus v. Denny's Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 28 Diciembre 2010
    ...truthful testimony; otherwise, the attorney wrongfully "assists" his client in testifying falsely. See, e.g., Harrison v. Miss. Bar, 637 So.2d 204, 225 (Miss.1994) (finding that attorney violated Mississippi's professional responsibility rule 3.4(b), the language of which mirrors Florida's ......
  • Rogers v. The Mississippi Bar, 97-BA-01388-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 21 Enero 1999
    ...the Bar. Due process requires that in Bar matters an attorney is afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard. Harrison v. Mississippi Bar, 637 So.2d 204, 218 (Miss.1994). Notice must be reasonably calculated to inform the respondent of the charges against which he must defend. See Booth ......
  • Emil v. The Mississippi Bar
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 9 Enero 1997
    ...are only quasi criminal and not criminal. See Alexander v. The Mississippi Bar, 651 So.2d 541, 546 (Miss.1995); Harrison v. The Mississippi Bar, 637 So.2d 204, 218 (Miss.1994); and Attorney K v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 491 So.2d 220, 222 (Miss.1986). Ergo, § 99-7-2 does not apply to th......
  • Liebling v. The Mississippi Bar, 2004-BA-01565-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 23 Marzo 2006
    ...(Miss.1995), this Court held, "a pattern of misconduct, and multiple offenses are aggravating circumstances." See also Harrison v. Miss. Bar, 637 So.2d 204 (Miss.1994). CONCLUSION ¶ 30. "Upon appeal, the Court shall review the entire record and the findings and conclusions of the tribunal, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Testimony
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Building Trial Notebooks - Volume 2 Building Trial Notebooks
    • 29 Abril 2013
    ...Mitchell , 262 SE 2d 89 (Ga. Sup.Ct. 1979); Goodsell v. Mississippi Bar , 667 So.2d 7 (Miss. Sup.Ct. 1996); Harrison v. Mississippi Bar, 637 So. 2d 204 (Miss. Sup.Ct. 1994); In re Oberhellmann , 873 S.W.2d 851 (Mo. Sup.Ct. 1994); In re Edson , 530 A.2d 1246 (NJ Sup.Ct. 1987); In re Stroh , ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT