Parrish v. Mississippi Bar, 94-BA-01178-SCT

• Decision Date: 05 December 1996
• Docket Number: No. 94-BA-01178-SCT,94-BA-01178-SCT
• Citation: 691 So.2d 904
• Parties: J. Ronald PARRISH v. THE MISSISSIPPI BAR.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 904

691 So.2d 904

J. Ronald PARRISH v. THE MISSISSIPPI BAR.

No. 94-BA-01178-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 5, 1996.

Travis Buckley, Ellisville, for appellant.

J. David Wynne, Jackson, for appellee.

En Banc.

McRAE, Justice, for the Court:

Attorney J. Robert Parrish appeals from an order of a complaint tribunal consisting of the Honorable Marcus D. Gordon, the Honorable Irvin L. Martin, Jr. and the Honorable Robert L. Crook, suspending Parrish from the practice of law for a period of two years from the date of the suspension. The suspension was based on a complaint that charged Parrish with engaging in unprofessional and unethical conduct during the representation of one of his clients, Donald Middleton. The issues in this appeal concern the existence of sufficient facts for the tribunal to make its findings and the propriety of the punishment imposed on Parrish. The tribunal's findings of fact and conclusions of law were correct, but we disagree that the two year suspension was the appropriate sanction for Parrish's misconduct. Accordingly, we affirm the finding of misconduct. However, we reverse the imposition of a two year sanction and suspend Parrish for one year.

FACTS

On October 16, 1986, Donald Middleton, an experienced logger, was injured when a tree fell on him while in the course and scope of his employment with Windham Logging Company. Middleton subsequently received temporary total workers' compensation benefits from the date of his injury until October 1987, when his doctor released him to light duty work. Accordingly, Middleton received no further benefits, including workers' compensation benefits. Upon his release to light duty work, Middleton returned to work at Windham Logging Company; however, there was no work available for him.

Middleton also hired E.K. Collins, an attorney from Laurel, to file a workers' compensation claim on his behalf. Collins transferred the case with Middleton's consent to Parrish in October 1987. Parrish then filed a petition to controvert on behalf of Middleton on December 1, 1987.

Unable to informally schedule a medical examination of Middleton, the employer/carrier filed a motion seeking an order that Middleton submit to a medical examination. The hearing on this motion, which was the first hearing in this workers' compensation case, was held in September 1990. On September 13, 1990, the administrative law judge ordered that Middleton submit himself for a medical examination by Dr. George Truitt within 60 days. Parrish did not forward a copy of the order or a copy of the employer/carrier's notice of the date and time of the medical examination to Middleton. Further, Parrish did not notify Middleton of the date and time of the medical examination.

The employer/carrier made arrangements in October 1990 for Middleton to be examined by Dr. Truitt. Middleton did not appear for this appointment and therefore failed to submit to a medical examination within the 60 day period ordered by the administrative law judge, resulting in the employer/carrier filing a motion to dismiss. At the December 18, 1990 hearing, Parrish provided no evidence as to why Middleton failed to appear for the ordered medical exam. The administrative law judge entered an Order of Dismissal on January 3, 1991.

On January 10, 1991, Parrish filed a petition to have the full Workers' Compensation Commission review the administrative law judge's dismissal of Middleton's workers' compensation case. The full Commission held a hearing on January 27, 1992, and affirmed the dismissal, finding that Parrish had failed at the May 20 hearing to present on-the-record proof of why Middleton did not appear at the ordered medical examination and that Parrish insufficiently defended his Middleton, his client.

Parrish appealed the decision on Middleton's behalf to the Jones County Circuit Court, which the employer/carrier answered with a motion to dismiss based on untimeliness. The court granted the employer/carrier's motion.

This Court has exclusive and inherent jurisdiction of matters pertaining to attorney discipline, reinstatement, and appointment of receivers for suspended and disbarred attorneys. Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar, Rule 1(a). On appeal, this Court "shall review the entire record and the findings and conclusions of the Tribunal and shall render such orders as the Court may find appropriate." Foote v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 517 So.2d 561, 564 (Miss.1987). When reviewing disciplinary matters, this Court reviews the evidence de novo, and no substantial evidence or manifest error rule shields the Tribunal from scrutiny. Watkins v. Mississippi Bar, 589 So.2d 660, 664 (Miss.1991); Foote, 517 So.2d at 564; Hoffman v. MS State Bar Ass'n, 508 So.2d 1120, 1124 (Miss.1987); Vining v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 508 So.2d 1047, 1049 (Miss.1987). However, this Court may give deference to the findings of the Tribunal. Mississippi State Bar v. Odom, 566 So.2d 712, 714 (Miss.1990).

We give deference to the Tribunal's findings based on its exclusive opportunity to observe the demeanor and attitude of the witnesses like the accused attorney. Broome v. Mississippi Bar, 603 So.2d 349, 353 (Miss.1992); Mississippi State Bar Ass'n v. Strickland, 492 So.2d 567 (Miss.1986). Nevertheless, this Court "will not hesitate to impose substantial sanctions upon an attorney for any act which evinces want of personal honesty and integrity or renders such attorney unworthy of public confidence." Foote, 517 So.2d at 564; Brumfield v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 497 So.2d 800, 808 (Miss.1986), cert denied, Brumfield v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 481 U.S. 1017, 107 S.Ct. 1896, 95 L.Ed.2d 502 (1987).

Whether the findings of the tribunal are supported by the facts of this case in several respects and whether facts before the tribunal support the conclusions or the sanctions imposed.

Appellant Parrish argues that the facts of this case do not support the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the tribunal because the tribunal provided facts whose inferences were not proven at the hearing.

This Court disagrees. The record supports the complaint tribunal's factual findings and conclusions that: 1) Parrish did not notify Middleton of the specific date, time, and place of Middleton's appointment with Dr. Truitt; 2) subsequent to Middleton missing his appointment, the employer/carrier filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the administrative law judge's order; and 3) on a hearing for the motion to dismiss, Parrish failed to present on-the-record proof before the administrative law judge as to why Middleton did not appear at the ordered medical examination, thereby insufficiently defending his client. Further, on January 10, 1991, Parrish filed a petition for full commission review of the administrative law judge's order of dismissal, without presenting any proof of why Middleton did not appear. The commission affirmed the administrative law judge's ruling. Moreover, Parrish failed to timely appeal Middleton's case from the full commission to the circuit court and failed to appear on a motion to dismiss the untimely appeal.

The complaint tribunal has the opportunity to observe the demeanor and attitude of witnesses, which is a crucial advantage that this Court does not have. Therefore, we will give deference to the complaint tribunal's findings. This Court has stated that differences found in the testimony of witnesses will not prevent evidence of attorney misconduct from rising to the level of clear and convincing evidence. A Mississippi Attorney v. Mississippi State Bar, 453 So.2d 1023, 1025 (Miss.1984). Accordingly, the facts provided in the record substantiate the...