Petition of Medley, 95-BR-01160-SCT

Decision Date30 January 1997
Docket NumberNo. 95-BR-01160-SCT,95-BR-01160-SCT
Citation687 So.2d 1219
PartiesIn re Petition of Donald W. MEDLEY for Reinstatement to Practice Law.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Andrew J. Kilpatrick, Jr., Hickman Sumners Goza & Gore, Jackson, for Petitioner.

Michael B. Martz, Jackson, for Respondent.

En Banc.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

MILLS, Justice, for the Court.

Donald W. Medley was indicted, tried and found guilty in the Forrest County Circuit Court on December 9, 1988, for the embezzlement of a $16,000 check from Engel Realty Company, Inc., which was made payable to his former employer, James K. Dukes. His direct appeal to this Court was denied on May 27, 1992. As a result, the Mississippi Bar filed a formal complaint seeking disbarment, and Medley was subsequently disbarred by order of this Court on July 1, 1992 on the basis of his felony conviction.

Medley filed this petition for reinstatement on November 6, 1995, at least three years after his disbarment became final as required by the Rules of Discipline 12.1. The Mississippi Bar admits Medley has made full amends for his conduct, and no restitution is owed or assessed against him. The Bar also admits, on information and belief, that there are no parties who suffered pecuniary loss due to the conduct for which Medley was disbarred.

Medley lists the following as reasons justifying his reinstatement: his conduct since the incident which led to disbarment, the need to earn a living for his family, and the fact that he possesses all qualifications for reinstatement. Medley maintains that he has the requisite moral character to be reinstated, and claims he has maintained his legal learning through continuing legal education.

The Bar maintains it has not discovered any reason to oppose reinstatement, but takes no position, either in support or in opposition of Medley's reinstatement. James K. Dukes, the individual from whom Medley was convicted of embezzling, has indicated he would not write a letter in opposition or in support of Medley's reinstatement.

LAW

Rule 12 of the Rules of Discipline governs the reinstatement of attorneys who have been disbarred or suspended. See Burgin v. Mississippi State Bar, 453 So.2d 689 (Miss.1984). The following jurisdictional items must be demonstrated by a petitioner in order to gain reinstatement: 1) full restitution and amends to all those who suffered a pecuniary loss; 2) the requisite legal learning of petitioner; and 3) rehabilitation and the requisite moral character of petitioner since disbarment. Rules of Discipline 12.7; Matter of Reinstatement of Nixon, 618 So.2d 1283, 1287 (Miss.1993). The fundamental issue posed by a petition for reinstatement is the attorney's rehabilitation in conduct and character since disbarment. Burgin, 453 So.2d at 691.

The Bar has admitted in its answer that Medley has included in his petition every individual who suffered pecuniary loss, and it is agreed that Medley has made full amends and restitution to these people. The Bar also concedes that Medley will have demonstrated the requisite legal learning when he is permitted to take and successfully passes the Bar Exam. See Rules of Discipline 12.5 (requiring attorneys suspended for six months or longer to pass Mississippi Bar Exam and Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam prior to reinstatement.) Therefore, the sole issue and focus of this Court's decision regarding reinstatement must focus on Medley's rehabilitation in conduct and character since disbarment. See, e.g, Haimes v. Mississippi State Bar, 551 So.2d 910, 912 (Miss.1989).

With his petition, Medley submitted many letters of recommendation for reinstatement based on his moral character. See Ex Parte Marshall, 165 Miss. 523, 551, 147 So. 791, 796 (1933) (opinion of those acquainted with individual is admissible evidence of character). After the incident which led to disbarment, Medley was employed at Delmar Industries, a company owned by his sister, and also by several oil companies for the purpose of performing title work. Medley's embezzlement conviction was then affirmed by this Court, and he began serving his ten-year sentence with the Mississippi Department of Corrections facility in Pascagoula. He worked as a clerk assisting in the day-to-day activities of the restitution center, and became involved in several Christian organizations which provided support to inmates and their families. He was transferred to the Harrison County Community Work Center after his first year where he performed work for the Gulfport Police Department in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • IN RE REINSTATEMENT OF PARSONS
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 22 August 2002
    ...commit money laundering); In re McHann, 691 So.2d 422 (Miss.1997) (reinstating attorney convicted of falsifying a document); In re Medley, 687 So.2d 1219 (Miss.1997) (reinstating attorney convicted of embezzlement of $16,000); In re Burgin, 654 So.2d 40 (Miss.1995) (granting conditionally p......
  • Stewart v. The Miss. Bar
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 6 April 2023
    ..."arguably comparable." Stewart II, 5 So.3d at 350. ¶58. In support of his petition for reinstatement, Stewart relies on In re Medley, 687 So.2d 1219 (Miss. 1997). Medley was convicted of "the embezzlement of a $16,000 check from Engel Realty Company, Inc., which was made payable to his form......
  • In re Reinstatement of Holleman, 2001-BR-01834-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 20 June 2002
    ...Court considers the Bar's position as to reinstatement as a factor in determining whether to grant reinstatement. See In re Medley, 687 So.2d 1219, 1220 (Miss.1997). This Court in In re Parsons, 797 So.2d 203, 207 (Miss. 2000) (quoting Haimes v. Miss. State Bar, 551 So.2d 910, 913 (Miss.198......
  • In re Petition of Parsons, No. 1999-BR-01591-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 27 July 2000
    ...should not be reinstated to the Bar and to the practice of law within this State. This operates in Parsons's favor. See In re Medley, 687 So.2d 1219, 1220 (Miss.1997) (Mississippi Bar's not asserting any opposition to petition for reinstatement as a factor in this Court's CONCLUSION ¶ 16. T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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