In re Prisock, No. 2007-BR-00430-SCT.
| Decision Date | 05 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-BR-00430-SCT. |
| Citation | 5 So.3d 319 |
| Parties | In re Petition of Kerry L. PRISOCK for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
David C. Dunbar, Benny M. "Mac" May, Jackson, attorneys for appellant.
Adam Kilgore, Jackson, attorney for appellee.
EN BANC.
¶ 1. Attorney Kerry L. Prisock was suspended from the practice of law by a complaint tribunal for three consecutive, eighteen-month periods for separate violations. Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12, Prisock is before this Court seeking reinstatement to the practice of law. Under Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12.8, the Board of Bar Commissioners directed an investigation into Prisock's Petition for Reinstatement.1 After a preliminary investigation, a hearing was conducted. The Mississippi Bar ("the Bar") filed an answer supporting Prisock's reinstatement.
¶ 2. Finding the investigation to be lacking in substantive proof, the parties were ordered to supplement the record within forty-five days. The parties supplemented the record accordingly.
¶ 3. Prisock and the Bar were granted an opportunity to review the supplemental documents, and the Bar was ordered to conduct further investigation. The order stated in pertinent part,
Prisock shall have twenty (20) days from the entry of this Order to file an amended petition with attachments or to affirm his previously filed petition and attachments.
Upon the filing by Prisock, the Bar shall then have thirty (30) additional days to conduct further review and investigation and file an amended response or to affirm its previously filed response.
¶ 4. The Bar filed a motion for additional time to depose Prisock. This motion was granted, and his deposition was taken telephonically on January 29, 2008. On February 22, 2008, the Bar filed an amended answer recommending the reinstatement of Prisock.
¶ 5. Prisock's suspensions stemmed from three separate incidents in which Prisock violated various Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct:
¶ 6. In Cause Number 93-B-00697, Prisock was charged with violating Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4(a) in his representation of Mr. and Mrs. Lester Rainey. Prisock undertook representing the Raineys in a bankruptcy matter. While the Raineys' bankruptcy matter was proceeding, Prisock converted the Raineys' Chapter 13 bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The motion to convert resulted in the Raineys' bankruptcy proceedings being dismissed. Approximately six months passed before Prisock became aware that the proceedings had been dismissed. Once he gained knowledge, he failed to file the necessary motions to have the proceedings reinstated, and failed to advise his clients of this development. The Raineys' employers were served with garnishment papers on three occasions by the Covington County Sheriff. Prisock testified that the Raineys suffered no financial loss due to his failure to file, but he did acknowledge they suffered stress and embarrassment.
¶ 7. Prisock testified that Prisock blamed his lack of attention on personal problems and related that he "probably drank more than I would normally have done."
¶ 8. A complaint tribunal found Prisock guilty of violating Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4(a). Prisock was suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months. Pursuant to Mississippi Rules of Discipline 17 through 25, Prisock was also placed on disability status, was ordered to participate in a substance-abuse program and to complete a program of therapy.
* * *
¶ 9. In Cause Number 93-B-00950, Prisock was charged with violating Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(4), 3.4(b), and 4.1(a) and (b). In the underlying case which precipitated the complaint, Prisock was assisting another attorney, Jesse B. Goodsell. Prisock notarized a motion for temporary restraining order filed by Goodsell's client, Herschel Woodward. Prisock certified that the document was executed by Woodward. Chancery Court Judge Stuart Robinson entered a temporary restraining order, in reliance upon the sworn document. Subsequently, the opposing party filed a motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order, alleging Woodward's signature was forged and sought sanctions against both Goodsell and Prisock.
¶ 10. Chancellor Robinson conducted a hearing to determine the authenticity of the signature and notarization by Prisock. A signature expert opined that the signature was not Woodward's, but was likely that of Goodsell. To counter this evidence, Goodsell called Prisock as a witness. Prisock falsely testified he witnessed Woodward sign the document. Prisock further amplified his testimony by falsely testifying the document was signed by Woodward using his left hand, as Prisock recalled Woodward had had a cast on his writing hand, the right hand.
¶ 11. Following a recess of that hearing, Goodsell approached the chancellor and admitted to signing Woodward's name on the document. When the hearing resumed, Goodsell testified to same. Prisock was recalled to the stand and recanted his perjurous testimony. Prisock then said that while he was not aware that Goodsell had signed the document, he actually observed Woodward sign the document, although hedging his testimony with the statement that he thought Woodward did. Following the hearing, the chancellor barred Goodsell and Prisock indefinitely from practicing in the Fifth Circuit Chancery Court District, First Division.
¶ 12. The complaint tribunal found Prisock violated Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct (a)(4), 3.4(b) and 4.1(a) and (b). The tribunal imposed an eighteen-month suspension to run consecutively with the eighteen-month suspension in the Rainey matter, and also placed Prisock on disability status according to Mississippi Rules of Discipline 17 through 25.
* * *
¶ 13. In Cause Number 93-B-1034, the complaint tribunal found Prisock violated Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4(a) in his representation of T.B. in a paternity matter.2 A hearing took place in November 1992, in which the father admitted the minor child was his son and agreed to pay to T.B. child support of $100 a month, as well as to provide medical insurance for the child. Prisock stated to the chancery court that he would draft an order reflecting same and submit the order to the chancellor and clerk for filing.
¶ 14. T.B. testified she tried to contact Prisock at his office, but was not able to reach him until two weeks after the hearing. When T.B. finally spoke with Prisock, Prisock told her he did not remember agreeing to draft the order, but he would check his file. When T.B. again did not hear from Prisock, she again contacted him. Prisock assured her he would prepare and file the order. After receiving this assurance from Prisock, T.B. did not hear from Prisock, despite making repeated calls to his office and finally sending him a letter.
¶ 15. In February 1993, the order still had not been entered. T.B. contacted Prisock's office and scheduled an appointment which Prisock subsequently cancelled. As of the date of Prisock's hearing before the complaint tribunal, the child's father had provided neither support nor medical insurance.
¶ 16. The complaint tribunal found that Prisock violated Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4(a) and suspended him for eighteen months, to run consecutively with his previous suspensions. The tribunal placed Prisock on disability status pursuant to Mississippi Rules of Discipline 17 through 25, and Prisock was required to participate in a substance-abuse program and complete a therapy program.
¶ 17. In addition to his suspension and participation in a substance-abuse program, Prisock also was ordered to pay restitution to T.B. in the amount of $100 a month for twelve months. The Bar stated in its answer to this proceeding that Prisock had made full restitution to T.B.
¶ 18. The waiting period within which to apply for reinstatement as mandated by Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12.2 has been met. Prisock now seeks reinstatement to the practice of law.
¶ 19. This Court has "exclusive and inherent jurisdiction of matters pertaining to attorney discipline [and] reinstatement...." M.R.D. 1(a). This Court reviews " " In Re Baldwin, 890 So.2d 56, 58 (Miss.2003) (quoting In Re Parsons, 849 So.2d 852, 854 (Miss.2002)).
¶ 20. Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12 and this Court's decision in In Re Benson, an attorney must meet five requirements before he or she may be reinstated. As set forth in Benson, the following factors are required of the petitioner:
(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.
In Re Benson, 890 So.2d 888, 890 (Miss.2004).
¶ 21. Furthermore, the burden rests with Prisock to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he has been sufficiently rehabilitated and possesses the requisite moral character to be reinstated to the practice of law. See In Re Coleman, 949 So.2d 680, 683 (Miss.2006); Benson, 890 So.2d at 890; In Re Baldwin, 890 So.2d 56, 58 (Miss.2003); In Re Holleman, 826 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Miss.2002).
¶ 22. The supplemental documents contain substantial facts not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daly v. Mississippi Bar
...months or longer must petition this Court for reinstatement. M.R.D. 12(a). We review petitions for reinstatement de novo. In re Prisock, 5 So.3d 319, 322 (Miss.2008) (quoting In Re Baldwin, 890 So.2d 56, 58 (Miss.2003)). On review, this Court sits as a trier of fact, and is not bound by sub......
-
Stanford v. Miss. Bar
...state or position.'" Id. (second, third, and fourth alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Prisock, 5 So. 3d 319, 323 (¶ 27) (Miss. 2008)). Today, however, Stanford has satisfied the amends-and-restitution requirement. He supported his petition with evide......
-
Stanford v. Miss. Bar
...a former state or position.’ " Id. (second, third, and fourth alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Prisock , 5 So. 3d 319, 323 (¶ 27) (Miss. 2008) ). Today, however, Stanford has satisfied the amends-and-restitution requirement. He supported his petitio......
-
In re Shah
...de novo. We also sit as trier of fact and therefore are not bound by substantial evidence or manifest error rules." In re Prisock, 5 So.3d 319, 322, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 287, *8 (Miss. June 5, 2008) (citations ¶ 6. Rule 12(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline states that "[n]o person disba......