Stewart v. The Miss. Bar
| Decision Date | 06 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2022-BR-00382-SCT |
| Parties | JOE GREGORY STEWART v. THE MISSISSIPPI BAR |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
¶1. Before the Court is Joe Gregory Stewart's fourth petition for reinstatement to the practice of law following his disbarment in 2004. After a thorough review of the record this Court finds that Stewart has failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for reinstatement and has not met his burden of proving that he has rehabilitated his conduct and moral character. Accordingly, Stewart's fourth petition for reinstatement is denied.
Stewart v. Miss. Bar (Stewart II), 5 So.3d 344, 346 (Miss. 2008) (footnote omitted). Following Stewart's guilty plea, the Mississippi Bar filed a complaint recommending that Stewart be disbarred. Id. Stewart did not respond to the Bar's complaint. Id. On September 1, 2004, this Court disbarred Stewart, finding that his crime "[wa]s the type of crime contemplated by Rule 6 of the Rules of Discipline, in that the crime is a felony which warrants the imposition of disbarment." Miss. Bar v. Stewart (Stewart I), 890 So.2d 900, 900 (Miss. 2004).
¶3. Stewart filed his first petition for reinstatement on January 22, 2008. Stewart II, 5 So.3d at 346. The Bar opposed Stewart's petition, arguing that Stewart had committed too serious an offense to be considered for reinstatement.[2] Id. at 350. After reviewing the evidence presented by Stewart, this Court concluded that, "[d]ue to the seriousness of his offense, . . . the civic, church, and charitable involvement offered by Stewart lacked sufficient substance to clearly show a fundamental change in his character." Stewart II, 5 So.3d at 352. Accordingly, this Court denied Stewart's first reinstatement petition. Id.
¶4. Stewart filed a second petition for reinstatement on December 11, 2009. Stewart III, 84 So.3d at 11. The Bar again opposed Stewart's reinstatement, asserting that Stewart had been untruthful and misleading during the Bar's investigation of his petition. Id. at 11. This Court found that Stewart had not been forthcoming to the Bar about a prior conviction that had been expunged from his record and that he had not cooperated with the Bar in its investigation of the expungement. Id. at 20. As a result, the Court denied Stewart's second petition. Id.
¶5. On November 7, 2017, Stewart filed his third petition for reinstatement. Stewart IV, 326 So.3d at 390. The Bar opposed Stewart's reinstatement, stating "that Stewart's misconduct was too damaging to the structure of the legal system to allow him to return to the practice of law." Id.
¶6. On September 13, 2018, this Court, "ordered Stewart to produce additional documentation to the Bar for its review and further investigation." Id. "Upon completion of its duties, the Bar was ordered to file an amended answer, as well as all documents obtained, reviewed, and considered."[3] Stewart IV, 326 So.3d at 390. Stewart delivered the documents to the Bar as ordered by the Court. Id. The Bar later filed its amended answer, along with the requested documentation. Id.
¶7. On July 25, 2019, this Court denied Stewart's third petition for reinstatement to the practice of law, finding that "Stewart ha[d] not met the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 12 [] and ha[d] not provided clear and convincing evidence of his rehabilitation in conduct and character to convince a reasonable person that he has been reformed." Id. at 400. Approximately three years later, on April 20, 2022, Stewart filed the current petition.[4]
¶8. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over attorney-reinstatement cases. In re Morrison, 819 So.2d 1181, 1183 (Miss. 2001). This Court conducts a de novo review of the evidence in such cases, acting as the trier of fact on a case-by-case basis. Id. The petitioner "carries the burden of proving that he has rehabilitated himself and has established the requisite moral character to entitle him to the privilege of practicing law." Stewart II, 5 So.3d at 346-47 (citing In re Holleman, 826 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Miss. 2002)). The standard of proof in reinstatement cases is clear and convincing evidence. Wong v. Miss. Bar, 5 So.3d 369, 371 (Miss. 2008).
¶9. The fundamental issue in a reinstatement case is whether the petitioner has rehabilitated himself in conduct and character since the disbarment. In re Benson, 890 So.2d 888 890 (Miss. 2004). The petitioner demonstrates such rehabilitation "by meeting the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 12 []." Id. In Benson, this Court set forth five jurisdictional requirements that apply to Rule 12 reinstatement petitions. Id. 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.
Id. "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. (citing In re Holleman, 826 So.2d at 1248).
¶10. As in Stewart IV, this Court separately addresses each jurisdictional requirement, but we do so out of order. Stewart IV, 326 So.3d at 391. "The fourth requirement, whether Stewart has shown the necessary moral character for the practice of law, will be addressed last, because it is the most critical factor at issue in Stewart's petition." Id.
¶11. Stewart was disbarred after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right. Stewart I, 890 So.2d at 900. This Court found that Stewart's crime was one that warranted disbarment under Rule 6(a) of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar. Id.
¶12. In his petition, Stewart acknowledges he was disbarred after he pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right. But according to Stewart, the federal prosecution "was more about a matter from 1983[.]" He explains:
In 1998, Petitioner had paid Ferrell Hunter, a Tunica County Sheriff[']s deputy who had given citations to Stewart's clients for driving under the influence (DUI). Hunter was paid $100.00 per case by Petitioner to absent himself from the Justice Court proceedings which resulted in the dismissal of the cases against Stewart's clients. This occurred six times and after further contemplation of the impropriety of these actions, Petitioner self-reported his actions to the U.S. Attorney's office.[5] After 5 years, the FBI contacted Petitioner, and advised him that the case would be pursued. Stewart returned to the U.S. Attorney offices and met with John Hailman, Chad Lamar, and Curtis Ivy, who had authority in the matter as the Chief Prosecutor of the District office, Deputy prosecutor, and prosecutor, respectively. At some point in the conversation Hailman had asked Stewart if it were true that he had a run-in with the law before. Stewart assumed that the only person in the room that would remember it was Chad Lamar, who had graduated with Stewart from the same high school class, and attended Ole Miss at the same time of Stewart's trouble from 1983. Stewart was surprised that it was mentioned. At the conclusion of that meeting, and after several departures from the room, Hailman set forth that Stewart would be supervised by the U.S. Attorney's office for a period, and that the charges would not be pursued. Hailman's earlier repeated departures from the room were, at the time, curious to Stewart as Jim Greenlee the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District was the only person in the building that outranked Hailman, and anyone else assigned was in the room, at the table. Hailman set forth that Curtis Ivy would be assigned to Stewart, and Chad Lamar would be Ivy's supervisor. Stewart left the office and returned to work. After several weeks Ivy contacted Stewart by cell phone and advised him that the deal was no longer going to work, and gave no explanation. At that point Stewart contacted David Bell, an attorney in Oxford for representation. At some point in conversation with his attorney, David Bell revealed that Ivy had told him that the prosecution was more about a matter from 1983, that "Stewart had gotten away with" and that no one officially assigned...
To continue reading
Request your trial