Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Attorney Q v. Mississippi State Bar

587 So. 2d 228 (Miss. 1991)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Attorney Q v. Mississippi State Bar

17 Citing cases

  1. Mississippi Bar v. Attorney R

    649 So. 2d 820 (Miss. 1995)   Cited 11 times
    Upholding requirement that attorney advertisement listing areas of practice include disclaimer that it "does not indicate any certification or expertise therein"

    The standard of proof for the Complaint Tribunal is clear and convincing evidence. Attorney Q. v. Mississippi State Bar, 587 So.2d 228, 231 (Miss. 1991). This burden of proof is on the Bar to show in disciplinary proceedings that the attorney violated the rule(s) in question.

  2. L.S. v. Mississippi Bar

    649 So. 2d 810 (Miss. 1995)   Cited 12 times

    The burden is on the Bar to show by clear and convincing evidence that an attorney's actions constitute professional misconduct. Attorney W.L., 621 So.2d at 237; Attorney Q. v. Mississippi State Bar, 587 So.2d 228, 232 (Miss. 1991). I. WHETHER L.S. VIOLATED RULE 3.5(A B).

  3. Mississippi Com'n v. Sanders

    708 So. 2d 866 (Miss. 1998)   Cited 24 times
    Finding a circuit court judge committed an ethical violation by acting "without authority or jurisdiction ... [when] [she] suspended the sentence of a former client and later released and placed a second inmate on probation after his conviction and sentence had been affirmed by a superior court."

    1992); Mississippi Bar v. Strauss, 601 So.2d 840, 844 (Miss. 1992); Attorney Q v. Mississippi State Bar, 587 So.2d 228, 234 (Miss. 1991); Fougerousse v. Miss. State Bar Ass'n, 563 So.2d 1363, 1366 (Miss. 1990). Having weighed each factor, we are of the opinion that a public reprimand is warranted.

  4. Fink v. Neal

    945 S.W.2d 916 (Ark. 1997)   Cited 11 times
    Concluding that accused lawyer was subject to discipline for negligently engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice

    Cf. In the Matter of Anonymous, 637 N.E.2d 131 (Ind. 1994) (an attorney's transgressions due to simple neglect and inattention to ethical guidelines will not be excused); State v. Martin, 646 P.2d 459, 463 (Kan. 1982) ("[G]ross carelessness and negligence constitute a violation of the oath of an attorney to `discharge your duties as an attorney . . . to the best of your knowledge and ability.'"); Attorney Q v. Mississippi State Bar, 587 So.2d 228 (Miss. 1991) (sanctions may be imposed based on incompetence, neglect, and other violations short of deliberate or intentional misconduct), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1098 (1992). [3] The guiding principle in this litany of cases appears to be that the level of improper conduct, whether negligent, reckless, or intentional, is relevant to the sanction levied as opposed to the classification of whether the conduct is unethical. See, e.g.

  5. Attorney U v. the Mississippi Bar

    678 So. 2d 963 (Miss. 1996)   Cited 4 times
    In Attorney U, the Complaint Tribunal issued a public reprimand, and this Court reversed, finding that the attorney was not required to report the misconduct because he did not have sufficient knowledge of it.

    Mississippi State Bar v. Varnado, 557 So.2d 558, 559 (Miss. 1990). Furthermore, although "Bar disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature," Attorney Q v. Mississippi State Bar, 587 So.2d 228, 231 (Miss. 1991), "[t]he beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard does not apply; rather, we require an intermediate level of certainty regarding the facts at issue, to-wit; a clear and convincing evidence standard." Id. at 232.

  6. Terrell v. Mississippi Bar

    662 So. 2d 586 (Miss. 1995)   Cited 12 times
    In Terrell v. Mississippi Bar, 662 So.2d 586 (Miss.1995), this Court suspended an attorney for six months for conduct amounting to neglect and failure to keep a client advised of the status of his case.

    In Bar Complaint matters this Court does not require a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, but rather, it is a clear and convincing standard that is required. Attorney Q v. Mississippi State Bar, 587 So.2d 228, 232 (Miss. 1991) (citing Mississippi State Bar v. Odom, 566 So.2d 712, 714 (Miss. 1990); Mississippi State Bar v. Nichols, 562 So.2d 1285, 1287 (Miss.

  7. Gex v. Mississippi Bar

    656 So. 2d 1124 (Miss. 1995)   Cited 10 times

    4, Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar. The Bar has the burden to "show by clear and convincing evidence that an attorney's actions constitute professional misconduct." Id., 621 So.2d at 237; Attorney Q. v. Mississippi State Bar, 587 So.2d 228, 232 (Miss. 1991). DISCUSSION

  8. Mississippi Bar v. Land

    653 So. 2d 899 (Miss. 1995)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that an attorney violated Miss. RPC 3.4, among other rules, by purposely withholding information in response to interrogatories

    Attorney W.L. v. Mississippi Bar, 621 So.2d 235, 237 (Miss. 1993); Attorney Q. v. Mississippi State Bar, 587 So.2d 228, 232 (Miss. 1991). The Bar met its burden against Land.

  9. Barrett v. Mississippi Bar

    648 So. 2d 1154 (Miss. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    In practical effect, we proceed ab initito. Attorney Q v. Mississippi State Bar, 587 So.2d 228, 231, (Miss. 1991), citing Mississippi State Bar v. Odom, 566 So.2d 712, 714 (Miss. 1990); Mississippi State Bar v. Nichols, 562 So.2d 1285, 1287 (Miss.

  10. Mississippi Bar v. an Attorney

    636 So. 2d 371 (Miss. 1994)   Cited 4 times
    In An Attorney, the Complaint Tribunal dismissed charges against an attorney on the grounds that he was denied a speedy resolution of the charges against him.

    1987). See Attorney Q v. Mississippi State Bar, 587 So.2d 228, 231 (Miss. 1991); Mississippi State Bar v. Attorney L, 511 So.2d 119, 121-22 (Miss. 1987); Attorney K v. Mississippi State Bar Association, 491 So.2d 220, 222 (Miss. 1986); In re Inquiry Concerning Garner, 466 So.2d 884, 886 (Miss.