In re Benson
| Decision Date | 19 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2004-BR-00072-SCT.,2004-BR-00072-SCT. |
| Citation | 890 So.2d 888 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Petition of Edward O. BENSON for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Edward O. Benson, Pro Se.
Adam Kilgore, attorney for appellee.
EN BANC.
¶ 1. Edward O'Neal Benson petitions for reinstatement to the practice of law. The Mississippi Bar opposes his petition for reinstatement. We deny Benson's petition.
¶ 2. On November 19, 1999, we entered an order disbarring Benson from membership in the Mississippi Bar and revoking his license to practice law in the State of Mississippi. Miss. Bar v. Benson, 749 So.2d 1052, 1053 (Miss.1999). We automatically disbarred Benson in accordance with Mississippi Rule of Discipline 6(a) after he pled guilty to the felony of information embezzlement. Id. The Circuit Court of Pike County convicted Benson of information embezzlement and ordered him to be placed on probation for five years, perform 150 hours of community service, pay a fine of $1,000.00, pay court costs, and make full restitution. Id.
¶ 3. We have exclusive and inherent jurisdiction over matters regarding attorney discipline, reinstatement, and appointment of receivers for suspended and disbarred attorneys. In re Morrison, 819 So.2d 1181, 1183 (Miss.2001). We review the evidence in disciplinary matters de novo on a case-by-case basis as triers of fact. Id.
¶ 4. Under Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12, an attorney who has either been suspended or disbarred for six months or longer must petition this Court in order to be reinstated and demonstrate compliance with any related sanctions. Miss. R.D. 12. In making his petition for reinstatement, the petitioner carries the burden of proving that he has rehabilitated himself and established the requisite moral character to entitle him to the privilege of practicing law. In re Holleman, 826 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Miss.2002).
¶ 5. Before we will reinstate, the fundamental issue we must address is the attorney's rehabilitation in conduct and character since the disbarment. Id. at 1246-47. The petitioner must demonstrate this by meeting the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 12. Id. at 1247.1
¶ 6. In past decisions, we have stated varying versions of the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 12.2 Today, for the sake of jurisprudential clarity, we enunciate the following five jurisdictional requirements which will henceforth apply to Rule 12 reinstatement petitions. The petitioner must: (1) state the cause or causes for suspension or disbarment; (2) give the name and current address of all persons, parties, firms, or legal entities who suffered pecuniary loss due to the improper conduct; (3) make full amends and restitution, (4) show that he has the necessary moral character for the practice of law; and (5) demonstrate the requisite legal education to be reinstated to the privilege of practicing law. Though not a jurisdictional requirement, we consider the Bar's position as to reinstatement as a factor in determining whether to grant the petition. Id. at 1248.
¶ 7. First, in giving the cause for disbarment, Benson merely states that he "pled guilty to information embezzlement" and that he does not dispute the facts warranting discipline. Though Benson may not dispute the facts warranting discipline, he leaves us wholly uninformed as to what those facts are. Benson is not required to give a meticulous account of his past indiscretions, but he does have a responsibility to give us a clear description of what improper actions led to his disbarment. Merely mentioning the act for which he pled guilty does not suffice, and he has therefore failed this prong of the jurisdictional requirement.
¶ 8. Second, Benson totally neglects to give the names and current addresses of those who suffered pecuniary loss as a result of his improper conduct. Instead, without explaining who "The Brumfield[s]" are, he flatly alleged that the pecuniary loss he had caused them had either been settled or compromised. The Bar also noted that the Brumfields were not the only parties who suffered pecuniary loss as a result of Benson's conduct; yet he neglected to mention any others. He then gave the Court the name, address, and phone number of his probation officer and the District Attorney who handled his case. The information provided is clearly insufficient, and Benson fails this prong of the jurisdictional requirement as well.
¶ 9. Third, as a prerequisite to fully making amends and restitution, the circuit court required Benson to, among other things, remain on probation for a period of five years, perform 150 hours of community service work, and make full restitution. The Bar noted that Benson did pay investigation and prosecution costs, and Benson provided evidence which showed that the circuit court placed him on non-reporting probation status in January 2002 after finding that Benson "had complied with all the requirements while on probation."
¶ 10. However, rather than providing further proof of his making amends and restitution, Benson baldly asserts that restitution was a condition to his being placed on non-reporting status, and apparently believes that a copy of the circuit court's order is sufficient to establish that he satisfied the third prong of the jurisdictional requirement. It is not. Furthermore, in regard to our 1999 order that Benson file affidavits stating that he complied with the order, Benson says that he cannot "confirm or deny whether an affidavit was filed with the Court" within the prescribed time. Solid proof of a disbarred attorney's full completion of restitution to those he harmed is required before an attorney may be reinstated, and without further proof of such restitutionary measures, Benson has not met the third jurisdictional requirement for reinstatement.
¶ 11. Fourth, in attempting to show that he has the necessary moral character to be reinstated to the practice of law, Benson asserts, among other things, that he is married with three children. He also claims to have held an interest in a number of businesses, been involved in local political campaigns, and abstained from tobacco, drugs, alcohol, and gambling....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. The Miss. Bar, 2009-BR-01954-SCT
...involves meeting the jurisdictional requirements under Rule 12 of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline. Miss. R. Disc. 12; In re Benson, 890 So. 2d 888, 890 (Miss. 2004) (citing In re Holleman, 826 So. 2d 1243, 1247 (Miss. 2002)). ¶7. Rule 12 requires a petitioner to (1) state the cause or c......
-
Stewart v. Mississippi Bar
...continuing thereafter until such time as he passes the Multi-State Professional Responsibility exam. ¶ 29. This Court in In re Benson, 890 So.2d 888, 890 (Miss.2004), set forth the requirements, under Rule 12 of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline, for reinstatement after suspension. In acc......
-
Stewart v. The Miss. Bar
...such rehabilitation "by meeting the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 12 [of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar]." Id. Benson, this Court set forth five jurisdictional requirements that apply to Rule 12 reinstatement petitions. Id. The petitioner must: (1) state the cau......
-
In re Shelton
...law and (7) demonstrate the requisite legal education to be reinstated to the privilege of practicing law. In the case of In re Benson, 890 So.2d 888, 890 (Miss.2004), we enunciated that, for the sake of jurisprudential clarity, the latter five in this list are "jurisdictional requirements ......