IN RE: PETITION OF JACK PARSONS FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW
NO. 1999-BR-01591-SCT
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
2000 Miss. LEXIS 179
July 27, 2000, Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:
[*1]
Counsel Amended July 28, 2000.
PRIOR HISTORY:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL.
DISPOSITION: REINSTATEMENT GRANTED CONTINGENT UPON PASSAGE OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR EXAM AND
THE MULTI-STATE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAM.
COUNSEL: FOR APPELLANT: REBECCA C. TAYLOR.
FOR APPELLEE: MICHAEL B. MARTZ.
JUDGES: COBB, JUSTICE. PITTMAN AND BANKS, P.JJ., McRAE, WALLER AND DIAZ, JJ., CONCUR.
PRATHER, C.J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. SMITH AND MILLS, JJ.,
NOT PARTICIPATING.
OPINIONBY: COBB
OPINION:
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - BAR MATTERSEN BANC.
COBB, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
P1. On October 20, 1994, Jack Parsons was indicted by a federal grand jury on
four counts, for offenses involving the laundering of illegal drug money
through various real estate transactions. Eighteen months later he pled guilty
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
to one count of conspiracy to commit
money laundering, a felony. Based upon this plea, he was
disbarred by an Agreed Order of
Disbarment entered by this Court on June 13, 1996.
P2. Parsons filed his Petition for
Reinstatement on September 27, 1999, more than three years after his
disbarment, and the Mississippi Bar conducted an investigation
[*2] and filed its Answer on October 25, 1999, all pursuant to Rule 12 of the
Mississippi Rules of
Discipline.
P3. Subsequent to the receipt of the petition and answer, but prior to this
Court's final decision, a letter (with attached documents related to the
underlying federal criminal proceedings which led to Parsons'
disbarment) was sent to this Court by Circuit Court Judge Kosta N. Vlahos, joined by
former Chancellor Robert H. Oswald. In it they requested this Court to
appoint a board of inquiry or
special master to develop the facts relevant to the criminal charges. Immediately thereafter,
counsel for Parsons sent a responsive letter to this Court (also with attached
documents). After due consideration of the nature and gravity of
reinstatement proceedings, pursuant to the authority of M.R.D. 12.8 this Court directed the
Bar to file a response to the letters within 30 days, and Parsons to file a
reply to the Bar's response within 10 days thereafter. Both filed timely
responses.
P4. We do not deem it necessary to
appoint a board or
special master. Having considered all matters before this Court en banc, we find that Jack
Parsons's petition for
reinstatement should be granted,
[*3]
contingent upon his passage of the Mississippi Bar Examination and the Multi-State
Professional Responsibility Exam as required by M.R.D. 12.5.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
P5. Following his guilty plea, Parsons served four months in
confinement at the United States prison facility at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Upon
completion of the
confinement period, he was placed on supervised release for three years, during four
months of which he was subject to electronically monitored home
confinement. Parsons was also ordered to forfeit the $ 200,000 which was the amount of the
down payment paid to him for real property owned by him which he had attempted to transfer
in the
money laundering transaction, n1 and to pay a $ 50,000
fine.
Parsons has now completed all the obligations imposed upon him by the federal
court.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 As part of its investigation of Parsons in connection with his petition for
reinstatement, the Bar deposed him and inquired about the transaction involving the $
200,000. Parsons stated that he agreed to sell the family strip mall in
Gulfport, but
"would not sell it for cash", because there would be a substantial gain and he did not want to pay the
taxes. It was to be paid in installments, with the $ 200,000 to be the
"down payment" according to Parsons. Upon further questioning Parsons acknowledged that
nothing ever happened to the real property, stating
"It's still ours."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[*4]
P6. In his Petition for
Reinstatement, Parsons listed numerous reasons he felt justify his
reinstatement. He also stated that his attorney during the original
disbarment proceedings had represented to him that he would be
reinstated without objection from the Mississippi Bar upon the passage of the three years
mandated by M.R.D. 12.1.
In its Answer, the Mississippi Bar neither admitted nor denied Parsons's
allegations regarding the original
disbarment proceedings and any agreements made therein, and stated that it was without sufficient
information to admit or deny many of the other various statements. It did,
however, provide details of its investigation, and listed the ways in which
Parsons had complied with the requirements for
reinstatement.
P7. The Bar did not take a position concerning Parsons' petition for
reinstatement in the Bar and the
reissuance of his license to practice law in this State.
ANALYSIS
P8. The
reinstatement of
suspended or
disbarred attorneys is governed by Rule 12 of the Rules of Discipline.
Burgin v. Mississippi State Bar, 453 So. 2d 689, 690 (Miss. 1984). The burden of proving that he has
rehabilitated himself
[*5] and re-established the
requisite
moral character sufficient to entitle him to
reinstatement is upon the Petitioner.
Id., at 691 (citing
Ex parte Marshall, 165 Miss. 523, 147 So. 791 (1933)). The fundamental question to be addressed before
reinstatement is the attorney's
rehabilitation in conduct and character since the
disbarment.
453 So. 2d at 691 (citing
Mississippi State Bar Ass'n v. Wade, 250 Miss. 625, 167 So. 2d 648 (1964)). Requirements for
reinstatement, as provided by Rule 12 and expounded upon in
Burgin, are that the petitioner shall state the cause or causes for
suspension or
disbarment; give the name and current address of all persons, parties, firms, or legal
entities who suffered
pecuniary loss due to the improper conduct; make full
amends and restitution; state the reasons
justifying
reinstatement; and show that he has the
requisite
moral character and
legal learning to be
reinstated to the privilege of practicing law.
Our analysis of these requirements in the present case leads us to conclude
that Parsons's petition complies with M.R.D. 12.7.
P9. First, the petition
clearly
[*6] stated the causes for Parsons's
disbarment. Second, although it only indirectly addressed the issue of
pecuniary loss, the statement that
"there was no victim in the crime" is sufficient in this case.
Because the criminal violation for which Parsons was convicted did not
directly involve
pecuniary loss to any person, party, firm or legal entity, and the United States District
Court did not order restitution of any type, we do not here address any
possible indirect
pecuniary loss. Under the instant factual situation this requirement
is not applicable.
P10. Third, Parsons was ordered to pay and did pay the Bar's costs and expenses
associated with its investigation and prosecution of the
disbarment proceeding. Parsons also paid the $ 200,000
"forfeiture" and the $ 50,000
fine, and also completed the probation as ordered by the federal court. Thus the
requirement that Parsons make full
amends has been met.
P11. Fourth, in support of his petition for
reinstatement Parsons listed the following as
reasons
justifying his
reinstatement: he had practiced law approximately forty years with a clean record; there was
no victim in the crime; he had paid all
fines in
[*7] a timely manner; he had
rehabilitated his character and conduct since the incident which led to his
disbarment; he needs to be able to perform part-time legal work, particularly for his
family corporation for which he has worked in a non-legal capacity consistently
for the past three years; and he has continued to kept abreast of the law.
P12. Fifth, in support of his having the
requisite
moral character, he cited his membership in the First Baptist
Church of Wiggins for over forty years, his current attendance at both
church services on Sunday and most Wednesday night services, and his teaching Sunday
School and holding various other offices in the
church. He provided seven letters of recommendation from attorneys, one from his
pastor and one from the
Executive Director of the Jackson County Baptist Association. He also stated
that he had been married to Mrs. Parsons for over forty years.
P13. Finally, with regard to his
legal learning, Parsons stated that during the period of his
disbarment he had read various periodicals and articles concerning matters of legal
interest to him, although not on a scheduled basis. We do not find this to be
sufficient to meet the
legal learning
[*8] requirement, but do find that this requirement will be satisfied if Parsons
takes and passes the Mississippi Bar Exam and the Multi-State Professional
Responsibility Exam pursuant to Rule 12.5 of the
Mississippi Rules of Discipline.
P14. In its investigation, the Bar went beyond the specific requirements set
forth in M.R.D. 12 .7 and addressed additional factors, including Parsons's
mental and physical status, future plans, and financial status. n2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 One factor considered summarily by the
Bar was whether Parsons had been personally involved in any lawsuits. In the
deposition of Parsons, he acknowledged that he had been sued for
malpractice regarding a chancery case, and that he had countersued, stating that
"...it's been so long, I've
forgotten about it." This suit was filed sometime prior to Parsons being incarcerated in July,
1996, and apparently is still pending, but inactive, based on the Bar's
statement in its Answer that the suit is
"pretty much on hold". Although we do not today condition Parsons's
reinstatement upon conclusion of this
malpractice case, we strongly urge that this
"forgotten" matter be resolved as soon as possible, and in no event later than his passing
of the bar exam.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[*9]
P15. Apparently finding all the factors which were included in its
investigation to be within an acceptable range, the Bar did not take a position
concerning Parsons's
reinstatement.
In
Haimes v. Mississippi State Bar, 551 So. 2d 910, 913 (Miss. 1989), we stated:
This Court has the ultimate responsibility for the discipline of members of the
Mississippi State Bar and for assuring that only those who adhere to the
profession's high ethical standards are permitted the privilege of providing
legal services to the public. On the other hand, we may not wholly sacrifice on
the altar of bar integrity one
suspended who thereafter complies with our rules regarding the conditions of
suspension and the procedure for
reinstatement. . . . If there be substantial reasons (unrelated to the conduct for which the
suspension was originally imposed) why the
suspended attorney should not be
reinstated, it is incumbent upon the Bar to advise this Court of those facts with
specificity so that this Court might determine whether a proper balancing of
the relevant interests requires appointment of a master for an evidentiary
hearing on the
reinstatement request.
[*10]
Clearly, the petitioner in
Haimes sought
reinstatement after
suspension and not after
disbarment as does Parsons. However, both of these critical situations vest in the
Court the same grave responsibility. This Court sets great store in the
Mississippi Bar's opinion of specific facts concerning evidence of the
petitioner's merit of
reinstatement or the lack thereof. Although the Bar has chosen not to take a position
regarding Parsons's petition for
reinstatement and the
reissuance of his license, it presents this Court with
no evidence that Parsons 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
consideration.).
CONCLUSION
P16.
The offense for which Parsons was
disbarred was very serious.
However, he has fulfilled all the
requisite jurisdictional requirements for
reinstatement and has demonstrated
rehabilitation in conduct and
moral character since the incident which led
[*11] to his
disbarment. For these reasons, Jack Parsons is
reinstated to the
practice of law in the State of Mississippi
contingent upon his passage of the Mississippi Bar Exam and the Multi-State Professional
Responsibility Exam, as required by Rule 12.5 of the
Mississippi Rules of Discipline.
P17.
REINSTATEMENT GRANTED
CONTINGENT UPON PASSAGE OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR EXAM AND THE MULTI-STATE PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY EXAM.
PITTMAN AND BANKS, P.JJ., McRAE, WALLER AND DIAZ, JJ., CONCUR. PRATHER, C.J.,
DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. SMITH AND MILLS, JJ., NOT
PARTICIPATING.
