ΒΆ13. Additionally, while Lumumba claimed he was zealously representing his client, the Court of Appeals affirmed his criminal-contempt sanction and found his behavior was "disrespectful to the judge and disruptive to court proceedings." Lumumba v. State , 868 So.2d 1018, 1021 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). In another case, this Court affirmed a charge of criminal contempt where a lawyer simply had refused to apologize for stating alleged falsehoods before the court.
Further, the Court has on other occasions considered statements of attorneys as evidence. See Lumumba v. State, 868 So.2d 1018, 1020 (Miss. 2003) (finding statements of an attorney justified holding the attorney in contempt of court); Logan v. RedMed, LLC, 377 So.3d 956, 965 (Miss. 2024) (statements and conduct of attorneys considered in determining whether parties reached a settlement agreement). In the context of this case, on the issue of estoppel, we find no basis for the representations of Hetsco's counsel to Enterprise's counsel to be excluded from consideration.
See also Miss. Bar v. Lumumba, 912 So.2d 871, 880-82 (Miss. 2005); Lumumba v. State, 868 So.2d 1018, 1020 (Miss.Ct.App. 2003); Thomas v. State, 734 So.2d 339, 341 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). Finding another factual scenario that fits more squarely within the law than this one is hard to imagine.
Lumumba appealed the contempt citation to the Mississippi Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court on August 26, 2003. See Lumumba v. State, 868 So.2d 1018 (Miss.Ct.App. 2003). In its decision, the Court of Appeals stated: