In re Williamson
| Decision Date | 05 December 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2001-IA-00105-SCT, No. 2001-CA-00578-SCT. |
| Citation | 838 So.2d 226 |
| Parties | In re Edward A. WILLIAMSON and Michael J. Miller. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Edward A. Williamson, Philadelphia, Robert B. McDuff, Alex A. Alston, Jackson, attorneys for appellants.
Lee Davis Thames, Jr., R.E. Parker, Jr., Vicksburg, attorneys for appellee.
EN BANC.
WALLER, J., for the Court.
¶ 1. Bobby G. Reed, Jr., Teresa Powell Reed and Bobby G. Reed, Sr., seek review of the denial of the motion for admission pro hac vice of Michael J. Miller. The circuit court found that Miller, an attorney who is not licensed to practice law in the State of Mississippi, had participated in more than five cases within the immediately preceding twelve-month period, thereby violating M.R.A.P. 46(b)(6)(ii).1 The circuit court also found Miller and Edward A. Williamson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Mississippi, to be in contempt of court due to an affidavit filed in support of the motion for admission pro hac vice and due to their actions during a deposition of the defendant physician. Williamson and Miller seek review of the denial of the motion for admission pro hac vice and the contempt order. We affirm the denial of the motion for admission pro hac vice and reverse and remand the circuit court's judgments of contempt against Williamson and Miller.
FACTS
¶ 2. Miller, an attorney licensed in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, maintains an office in Alexandria, Virginia. Even though he is not licensed to practice law in Mississippi, he has advertised his legal services on television in the Greenville/ Greenwood, Mississippi area. The Reed family contacted Miller directly by calling the toll free telephone number mentioned in the advertisement. Miller and his office staff investigated the Reeds' claim and associated Williamson, with whom Miller had previously worked on several Mississippi cases. On behalf of the Reed family, Williamson filed a complaint against Terry McMillin, M.D., alleging medical malpractice. In that complaint, which was signed by Williamson but not by Miller, Miller's name and address were placed under Williamson's name and address as follows:
¶ 3. R.E. Parker, an attorney who was retained to represent Dr. McMillin, filed an answer and a motion requesting the circuit court to strike all of the pleadings2 since Miller, a foreign attorney, had not complied with M.R.A.P. 46 and was therefore guilty of the unauthorized practice of law.3 Williamson then filed a motion for Miller's admission pro hac vice; however, he failed to attach an informational affidavit as required by M.R.A.P. 46(b)(4). Parker again asked the circuit court to strike all of the pleadings. Miller then filed an informational affidavit and certificate. Miller's affidavit, in which he acknowledged his involvement in two other Mississippi cases over the past twelve months, stated as follows:
Affiant has appeared pro hac vice in the matter of Ford v. Baker, in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Mississippi and by agreement with defense counsel in this action in the case of La'Shantton Morris v. Gerald Rankin, M.D., et al., Cause No. 99-0181-CI, in the Circuit Court of Warren County in the last twelve months.
¶ 4. During a telephone conference on the motion for admission pro hac vice and the motion to strike, Parker informed the circuit court that within the last twelve months Miller had been involved in several other Mississippi cases not listed in the affidavit. The court directed Miller to file a second affidavit pursuant to M.R.A.P. 46 and list all the cases in which Miller had applied for admission pro hac vice or in which he had an interest.
¶ 5. Miller's second informational affidavit, which was filed on September 7, 2000, and which acknowledged other cases not previously disclosed, provided as follows:
¶ 6. The circuit court denied the motion for admission pro hac vice, finding that Miller had "appeared in six different cases during the last twelve months, and the present case would constitute the seventh," "appending [one's] name to pleadings in a cause constitutes an appearance as counsel of record as contemplated by Rule 46," and that Miller had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
¶ 7. Dr. McMillin's deposition was scheduled for the day following the entry of the order denying the motion for admission pro hac vice. Prior to the deposition, Williamson spoke to the circuit judge's law clerk, seeking permission for Miller's presence at the deposition.4 The law clerk told Williamson that the circuit judge would allow Miller to attend the deposition, but that Miller could not participate in the deposition. This oral instruction was never reduced to a written order.
¶ 8. During the deposition, Parker observed Miller taking notes and placing them on a flight bag which was underneath the table. When Williamson reached down for the notes, Parker objected and accused Miller of violating the circuit court's order. Miller stated that he had merely been taking notes and placing the notes on the floor. He denied that he had attempted to hand the notes to Williamson under the table. Williamson denied that he had ever had the notes in his hands. Parker called the circuit judge, who ordered Miller to leave the deposition.
¶ 9. The "notes" Miller took at the deposition are as follows:
¶ 10. Dr. McMillin filed a motion for contempt which accused Miller of violating the circuit judge's instructions at the deposition, as well as failing to mention another Mississippi case in which Miller had participated. Dr. McMillin did not accuse Williamson of contempt.
¶ 11. In response to the motion for contempt, Williamson averred that Miller did not participate except to respond to accusations of participation and that the three pages of notes fell on the floor:
¶ 12. During a hearing on the motion for contempt, Williamson and Miller changed their stories and testified that Miller was merely acting as a paralegal and not as an attorney, and that a paralegal, though not licensed to practice law, could suggest questions to the attorney taking the deposition. The circuit court granted the motion for contempt, finding, among other things, that: (1) Miller was practicing law without a license; (2) Miller made false representations to the court in the affidavits; (3) Miller blatantly and willfully disobeyed the court's order barring his participation at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Dobbs, Case No.: 15–11096–JDW
...of not only the MRPC, but also the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure (the “MRAP”), as well as the holding in In re Williamson, 838 So.2d 226 (Miss. 2002), wherein the Supreme Court of Mississippi delineated the instances in which a foreign attorney would be deemed to have improperly ......
-
In re Adoption Miss. Rules of Criminal Procedure
...is to enforce or coerce obedience to the orders of the court"); Mingo v. State, 944 So. 2d 18, 32 (Miss. 2006) (quoting In re Williamson, 838 So. 2d 226, 237 (Miss. 2002)) ("If the primary purpose of the contempt order is to enforce the rights of private party litigants or enforce complianc......
-
Miss. Sand Solutions, LLC v. Otis
...Morley , 874 So. 2d at 975 ), and "[w]e review questions of law de novo ...." Morley , 874 So. 2d at 975 (citing In re Williamson , 838 So. 2d 226, 233 (Miss. 2002) ).ANALYSISI. The Private Road Condemnation Statute¶6. Solutions based this action on Mississippi Code Section 65-7-201, seekin......
-
Newberry v. State
...¶ 10. Deprivation of counsel and pro hac vice requirements are questions of law, which we review de novo. In re Williamson, 838 So.2d 226, 233 (Miss.2002).I. Newberry was not denied counsel under the Sixth Amendment. ¶ 11. Newberry argues that he was denied counsel under the Sixth Amendment......