When imposing the sanctions, this Court will also consider the American Bar Association's guidelines, specifically Standard 3.0 which considers: "(a) the duty violated, (b) the lawyer's mental state, (c) the actual or potential injury resulting from the misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." L.S. v. Mississippi Bar, 649 So.2d 810, 815 (Miss. 1994) (quoting Mississippi Bar v. Attorney ST, 621 So.2d 229, 233 (Miss. 1993)).

The Mississippi Bar v. Labovitz, No.2007–B–2163 at *9 (Miss. May 20, 2008) (citing L.S. v. Mississippi Bar, 649 So.2d 810, 815 (Miss. 1997) ).Considering the seriousness of the violations, the ineffectiveness of Mr. Labovitz's past public and private reprimands, and the need to deter future conduct, the Complaint Tribunal found it appropriate to impose further sanctions.

(d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.L.S. v. Mississippi Bar, 649 So. 2d 810, 815 (Miss. 1997); Goodsell v. Mississippi Bar, 667 So. 2d 7 (Miss. 1996).

¶ 41. Rule 8.4(a), (d), provides that it is professional misconduct to violate or to attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct and to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. M.R.P.C. 8.4(a), (d). Whenever there is a violation of any other rule, there will always be a violation under Rule 8.4. L.S. v. The Miss. Bar, 649 So.2d 810, 814 (Miss. 1994). ¶ 42. Having found that Thompson violated Rules 1.15, 5.3, and 5.5(b), we necessarily find that she violated Rule 8.4(a) as well. Furthermore, Thompson's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice, because McGaughy was deprived of his right to file a habeas corpus petition and paid for non-existent representation.

The Bar argues that the harm suffered by Turnage's clients and those he contacted cannot by "undone" by Turnage's subsequent actions. However, this Court looks favorably on attorneys who acknowledge their ethical violations and who voluntarily take remedial action to lessen any harm caused or potential harm created. See L.S. v. Miss. Bar, 649 So.2d 810, 813, 815 (Miss. 1994). CONCLUSION

See Miss. Bar v. Logan, 726 So.2d 170, 178 (Miss. 1998) (an attorney's ex parte communication with a magistrate for purposes of obtaining procedural advice was not a violation of Rule 3.5(a) prohibiting ex parte communication with judge or other official, in light of the fact that it appeared to be a common and accepted practice at the time the attorney did so); Attorney L.S. v. Miss. Bar, 649 So.2d 810, 813 (Miss. 1994) (an attorney's contact with jurors post-verdict when such conduct is prohibited by court order, and misrepresenting his authority to talk to jurors violated Rule 3.5(b) and warranted a private reprimand). ¶ 60. Without any guiding precedent, we look to case law from our sister jurisdictions.

The defendants relied on two of this Court's cases to argue that it is not tortious for a person to secretly record a conversation in which the person is participating. L.S. v. Miss. Bar, 649 So.2d 810 (Miss. 1994); Attorney M. v. Miss. Bar, 621 So.2d 220 (Miss. 1992). Both of those cases were before this Court on questions of whether attorneys violated the rules of professional conduct.

(c) the actual or potential injury resulting from the misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.L.S. v. Mississippi Bar, 649 So.2d 810, 815 (Miss. 1994) (quoting Mississippi Bar v. Attorney ST, 621 So.2d 229, 233 (Miss. 1993)).

(3) the actual or potential injury resulting from the misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.Alexander, 669 So.2d at 42; L.S. v. Mississippi Bar, 649 So.2d 810, 815 (Miss. 1994) (quoting Mississippi Bar v. Attorney ST, 621 So.2d 229, 233 (Miss. 1993)).

(c) the actual or potential injury resulting from the misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.Alexander, 669 So.2d at 42; L.S. v. Mississippi Bar, 649 So.2d 810, 815 (Miss. 1994) (quoting Mississippi Bar v. Attorney ST, 621 So.2d 229, 233 (Miss. 1993)).