Jeffrey Dixon Knight of Pearl, Mississippi: The Supreme Court of Mississippi

Disbarred Mr. Knight from the practice of law in accordance with Rule 6(a) of the
Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar (MRD) in Cause No. 2020-BD-00428-
SCT based upon his felony convictions to the crimes of possession of more than two (2)
grams but less than ten (10) grams of methamphetamine as a lesser included offense of
possession of more than two (2) grams but less than ten (10) grams of
methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of more than one-tenth
gram but less than two (2) grams of methamphetamine, Mississippi Code Section 41-29-
139(b)(1)(B) (Rev. 2018). Pursuant to Rule 12(d), MRD, Mr. Knight is ineligible to seek
reinstatement to the practice of law.
Thomas W. Belleperche of Fort Wayne, Indiana: The Supreme Court of
Mississippi Disbarred Mr. Belleperche in Cause No. 2019-BD-00908 in accordance
with Rule 13 of the Rules of Discipline of the Mississippi State Bar (MRD) based upon
Mr. Belleperche’s resignation from the practice of law in Indiana due to his having pled
guilty to a felony.

Urura W. Mayers of Memphis, Tennessee: The Supreme Court of Mississippi

imposed a Public Reprimand in Cause No. 2019-BD-1229 in accordance with Rule 13
of the Rules of Discipline of the Mississippi State Bar (MRD) based upon Ms. Mayers’
public censure in Tennessee.
Ms. Mayers was the subject of a disciplinary complaint in Tennessee alleging that she
presented a check drawn on her lawyer trust account to a court clerk’s office for
payment of a filing fee before the client funds covered the cost of the filing fee had been
deposited into her lawyer trust account. The resulting investigation revealed that she
had failed to properly supervise a legal assistant who had used the lawyer trust account
to pay personal expenses.
Rule 1.15 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), generally referred to
as the “lawyer trust account rule”, requires attorneys to safeguard client funds and
property and keep it separate from the lawyer’s own funds and property. Rule 5.3,
MPRC, requires in part that attorneys make reasonable efforts to ensure that non-
lawyer assistants act in compliance with the professional obligations of the lawyer.
Richard Vaughn Johnson of Wiggins, Mississippi: A Complaint Tribunal
appointed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi Disbarred Mr. Johnson in
consolidated Cause No. 2007-B-2005 and 2008-B-171 for violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3,
1.4, 1.5. 1.15, 1.16, 3.3, 8.1 and 8.4 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct
(MRPC).
Mr. Johnson suffered a period of incapacitation between January 2007 and September
2007, during which time the affairs of his law office got out of order. Respondent
thereafter sought and began the rehabilitation process. The Mississippi Bar (“the Bar”)
filed a Formal Complaint against Mr. Johnson on November 9, 2007. Mr. Johnson was
placed on inactive-disability status on March 7, 2008. On July 23, 2019, the Supreme
Court of Mississippi found Mr. Johnson to have the personal capacity to be reinstated
from inactive disability status. The Court lifted the stay on the remaining pending
disciplinary proceedings so that the Complaint Tribunal could adjudicate the Formal
Complaints.
On September 5, 2019, Mr. Johnson filed Answers to each of the Formal Complaints.
Mr. Johnson does not have specific recollection of every Complainant, the
circumstances surrounding the Complaints, and does not have access to many records
from that time period. The two Formal Complaints contain allegations related to his
representation of twenty (20) clients in either divorce or bankruptcy matters. While Mr.
Johnson did not admit each and every allegation of the Formal Complaints, he
acknowledges that the Formal Complaints contain sufficient factual allegations to
warrant disbarment. Mr. Johnson has not practiced law since March 7, 2008 and will
continue to refrain from the practice of law through and until such a time as he is fully
reinstated by the Mississippi Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 12 of the Rules of
Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar.
Rule 1.2(a), MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning
the objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to the means by
which they are to be pursued. Rule 1.3, MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Rule 1.4(a), MRPC,
provides that a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a
matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Rule 1.4(b),
MRPC, which provides that a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Rule 1.5, MRPC, requires a lawyer’s fee to be reasonable. Rule 1.15(b), MRPC, provides
that a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds the client or
third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall
promptly render a full accounting regarding such property. Rule 1.16(d), MRPC,
provides that upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take reasonable steps
reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as surrendering papers and
property to which the client is entitled. Rule 3.3(a), MRPC, which provides that a lawyer
shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to a tribunal. Rule 8.1(b),
MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall not fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a
misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to
respond to a lawful demand for information by a disciplinary authority. Rule 8.4(a),
MRPC, which provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or
attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct. Rule 8.4(c), MRPC, provides that it
is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Rule 8.4(d), MRPC, provides that it is professional
misconduct to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Ramel L. Cotton of Jackson, Mississippi: A Complaint Tribunal appointed by the
Supreme Court of Mississippi Disbarred Mr. Cotton in Cause No. 2019-B-1180 for
violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16 and 8.4 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional
Conduct (MRPC).
Mr. Cotton was the subject of a three (3) count Formal Complaint, each involving
misappropriation and wrongful conversion of client funds in addition to other rules
violations. Rule 1.2(a), MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions
concerning the objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to the
means by which they are to be pursued. Rule 1.3, MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall act
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Rule 1.4(a), MRPC,
provides that a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a
matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Rule 1.15(a),
MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall hold the property of clients and third parties
separate from the lawyer’s own property. The lawyer must identify this other property
and safeguard it. The rule also provides that the lawyer shall maintain complete records
of trust account funds for a period of seven years following termination of the
representation. Rule 1.15(b), MRPC, provides that upon receiving funds in which a
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third
person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement
with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds
the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third
person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property. Rule 1.15(c),
MRPC, provides that a lawyer in possession of property in which both the lawyer and
another person claim an interest, the property shall be kept separate by the lawyer until
completion of an accounting and severance of their respective interests, the lawyer shall
distribute the portion not in dispute, and keep separate the portion in dispute until the
dispute is resolved. Rule 1.16(a), MRPC, provides a lawyer shall not represent a client
or, where representation has commenced shall withdraw from the representation of a
client if: (1) the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional
conduct or other law; (2) the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially repairs the
lawyer’s ability to represent the client; or (3) the lawyer is discharged. Rule 8.4(a),
MRPC, provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt
violate the rules of professional conduct or engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice. Rule 8.4(b), MRPC, provides that it is professional
misconduct to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; Rule 8.4(c), MRPC, provides
that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Rule 8.4(d), MRPC, provides that it is
professional misconduct to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice.

Charlene Mauk-Williams of Terry, Mississippi: The Supreme Court of

Mississippi Disbarred Ms. Mauk-Williams from the practice of law in Cause No.
2020-BD-00222-SCT, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi
State Bar (MRD). Ms. Mauk-Williams pled guilty to and was convicted of the felony of
contributing to the neglect of a minor under Mississippi Code Section 97-5-39(1)(d).

Connie M. Easterly of Baton Rouge, Louisiana: The Supreme Court of

Mississippi imposed a ninety (90) day Suspension retroactive to May 6, 2019, in Cause
No. 2019-BD-01181-SCT, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules of Discipliner for the
Mississippi State Bar (MRD) for reciprocal discipline in Louisiana.
Randolph Walker of Corinth, Mississippi: A Complaint Tribunal appointed by
the Supreme Court of Mississippi Suspended Mr. Walker for six (6) months in
Cause No. 2020-B-216 for violations of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.8(e), 1.15(a) and (b),
8.1(b), and 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d), MRPC.
Mr. Walker was hired to represent a client in a personal injury matter in which she
sustained injuries from a car accident. Mr. Walker did not effectively represent her in
the personal injury case and failed to effectively communicate with the client. The
client signed a release agreement for the settlement amount for her case. Mr. Walker
failed to respond to the client’s telephone calls, voicemails and text messages after he
received the settlement proceeds from the insurance company. In July of 2017, Mr.
Walker provided the client with $1,000.00 that the client believed to be an advance that
would later be deducted from her settlement proceeds. Mr. Walker failed to submit a
report for the advance he provided to the client in the amount of $1,000.00 to the Bar’s
Ethics Committee. The client did not receive any of the settlement proceeds from Mr.
Walker regarding the settlement of the personal injury matter. Mr. Walker has also not
paid any of the client’s medical bills from the accident from the settlement proceeds.
The Bar sent Mr. Walker demands that he respond to the informal complaint on
October 16, 2018; November 9, 2018, and November 30, 2018. Mr. Walker either failed
or refused to answer the informal complaint or comply with the lawful demand of the
Bar. An Investigatory Hearing was held at the Bar Center on April 18, 2019, pursuant to
Rule 5, MRD, regarding informal (Bar) complaint. Mr. Walker failed and/or refused to
appear for the Investigatory Hearing.
Rule 1.2(a), MRPC requires a lawyer to abide by the decisions of his clients concerning
the objectives of the representation. Rule 1.3, MRPC requires a lawyer to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Rule 1.4(a), MRPC
requires a lawyer to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Rule 1.8(e), MRPC requires
a lawyer to report an advance payment to the Standing Committee on Ethics within
seven (7) days following the making of each such payment. Rule 1.15(a), MRPC requires
a lawyer to hold the property of third parties separate from the lawyer’s own property in
a separate trust account. Rule 1.15(b), MRPC requires a lawyer to promptly notify a
client and/or third party that he holds funds the client and/or third party is entitled to
receive and then promptly deliver those funds. Rule 8.1(b), MRPC requires a lawyer to
respond to a lawful demand for information concerning a disciplinary matter. Rule
8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d), MRPC provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to
violate or attempt violate the rules of professional conduct; to commit a criminal act that
reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; to
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; or to engage
in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Sibyl Byrd of Jackson, Mississippi: A Complaint Tribunal Appointed by the
Supreme Court of Mississippi accepted Ms. Byrd’s Irrevocable Resignation in Cause
No. 2019-B-800 pursuant to Rule 10.5 of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi
State Bar (MRD). Ms. Byrd is prohibited from seeking reinstatement to the practice of
law.
Issac K. Byrd, Jr. of Jackson, Mississippi: The Committee on Professional
Responsibility imposed a Public Reprimand in Docket No. 19-192-1 for violations of
Rules 1.4 and 8.1(b), MRPC.
Mr. Byrd was hired to pursue a wrongful death claim in 2012 on behalf of a client. The
client continued to ask Mr. Byrd and his office staff about her case status for over eight
(8) years. Mr. Byrd failed to respond to the informal (Bar) complaint.
Rule 1.4 provides that a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status
of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Mr. Byrd
violated Rule 1.4, MRPC, by failing to keep the client reasonably informed as to the
status of her legal matter. Rule 8.1(b) provides that a lawyer to respond to a lawful
demand for information concerning a disciplinary matter. Mr. Byrd failed to respond to
the informal [Bar] complaint.
Rule 8.4(c), MRPC, states it is professional misconduct to engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Rule 8.4(d), MRPC, states it is
professional misconduct to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice. The attorney notarized a legal document without the signer being personally
present at the time of notarization in violation of Rule 8.4(c) and (d).
Martin De Porres Perkins of Jackson, Mississippi: The Committee on
Professional Responsibility imposed a Public Reprimand in Docket No.17-415-2 and
Docket No. 18-061-1 for violations of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and 1.16(a)(2), MRPC.
In the first informal (Bar) complaint a client hired Mr. Perkins to handle a wrongful
death matter and an estate matter. Mr. Perkins failed to respond to the client’s
telephone calls, voicemails and text messages after she signed the initial petition to open
an estate. Mr. Perkins did not speak to his client for over two (2) years. Mr. Perkins
also failed to file the wrongful death lawsuit. While Mr. Perkins required additional
information from the client in order to file suit, he did not make any efforts to
communicate with the client to obtain the information or inform her that he was unable
to proceed.
In the second informal (Bar) complaint, Mr. Perkins was hired to handle a divorce and
custody matter. Mr. Perkins failed to respond to the client’s telephone calls, voicemails
and text messages. Approximately six (6) months after hiring Mr. Perkins, the client
met Mr. Perkins at the courthouse and learned that the divorce and child support matter
were still not finalized.
During the time of both representations, Mr. Perkins suffered from health issues. In
both cases Mr. Perkins failed to withdraw from the representation or communicate his
inability to diligently pursue his client’s matters during that time.
Rule 1.2(a), MRPC, requires a lawyer to abide by the decisions of the client concerning
the objectives of the representation. Rule 1.3, MRPC, requires a lawyer to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Rule 1.4(a), MRPC,
requires a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed as to the status of a matter and
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Rule 1.16(a)(2), MRPC,
requires a lawyer to withdraw form the representation of a client if the lawyer’s physical
or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client.
J. Adam Miller of Ocean Springs, Mississippi: The Committee on Professional
Responsibility imposed a Public Reprimand in Docket No. 19-132-10 for violations of
Rules 1.4 and 1.16, MRPC.
In January of 2019, a client retained Mr. Miller to defend her on a felony DUI charge.
Mr. Miller was subsequently suspended on September 6, 2019. At the time of his
suspension, Mr. Miller had not completed his representation and failed to inform his
client of his suspension.
Rule 1.4, MRPC, requires a lawyer to keep his client reasonably informed about the
status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Mr.
Miller failed to communicate his suspension to his client in violation of Rule 1.4, MRPC.
Rule 1.16, MRPC, requires a lawyer to withdraw from the representation of a client if the
representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct. Mr. Miller
was required to withdraw from his client’s representation upon suspension. Mr. Miller
failed to properly withdraw in violation of Rule 1.16, MRPC.

Torrance J. Colvin of Washington, D.C.: The Supreme Court of Mississippi

permanently Disbarred Mr. Colvin based upon his Disbarment in Washington,
D.C. in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi
State Bar (MRD).

Sean P. Mount of Metarie, Louisiana: The Supreme Court of Mississippi imposed a

one (1) year and one (1) day Suspension, with the entire suspension deferred, based
upon his suspension by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in accordance with Rule 13,
MRD.
Eduardo A. Flechas of Jackson, Mississippi: A Complaint Tribunal Disbarred
Mr. Flechas in Cause No. 2016-B-1155 for violations of Rules 1.2(d), 1.8(a),
1.8(b), 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(c), 3.3, 3.4(a), 3.4(c), 3.4(d), 4.1, 5.3(a), 5.3(c)(1),
5.4(a), 7.2(i), 7.3(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d), MRPC.

Three (3) informal [Bar] complaints were filed based upon reports from two
Mississippi lawyers and a federal judge alleging that Mr. Flechas had engaged in
professional misconduct in his dealings with certain litigation funding companies
and his subsequent misconduct in federal court.

Mr. Flechas represented Davion Norton, Petra Ches and Ken’Driana Gibbes along
with others in a mass tort action in Jefferson County, Mississippi styled Simon, et
al. v. Texaco, Inc., et al.; Cause No. 2007-110 (“the Simon matter”). The plaintiffs
in the Simon matter obtained a jury verdict in their favor of $19 million in 2009,
which the defendants appealed. While the Simon matter was on appeal, plaintiffs
Norton, Chess and Gibbs entered into a Confidential Judgment and Sale
Agreement (“the Agreement”) with a litigation funding company on June 29, 2011.
The Agreement provided that the company would advance $200,000 on a non-
recourse basis in exchange for a $400,000 interest in any judgment proceeds
ultimately recovered by Norton, Chess and Gibbs. The Agreement also provided
that any judgment proceeds would be paid directly to Mr. Flechas, who agreed to
disburse the funds to the company.

Mr. Flechas also entered into similar agreements with other litigation funding
companies regarding the expected judgment proceeds from the Simon matter. In
order to obtain funding from these litigation funding companies, Mr. Flechas
misrepresented the nature and extent of previous liens and other claims on the
judgment in the Simon matter. Ultimately the Simon matter was settled for $3.5
million while on appeal and funds were received by Mr. Flechas in September of
2013. Mr. Flechas failed to disclose the settlement to the litigation funding
companies. Likewise, he failed to remit any funds from the September 13, 2013
settlement to the litigation funding companies. Eventually, Mr. Flechas sent the
company a letter stating the settlement funds were insufficient to pay the company
under the Agreement. As a result, the lenders sued Mr. Flechas in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Cause No. 3:13-CV-00621-
DPJ-FKB consolidated with Cause No. 3:13-CV-636CWR-FKB.

On October 15, 2013, the federal court entered an order (the “Asset Freeze Order”)
requiring Mr. Flechas to provide an accounting of the total amount of funds
received in the Simon matter, any disbursements, any remaining funds, the identity
and location of accounts holding such funds and enjoining the distribution of any
remaining funds with limited exception. In response to the Asset Freeze Order, Mr.
Flechas submitted an affidavit on October 16, 2013, indicating that he transferred
$400,000.00 of the settlement funds to an account held by Flechas Family
Holdings, LLC.

The federal court then held a status conference on September 9, 2015 ordering Mr.
Flechas to submit an affidavit confirming that all funds remained deposited in the
same accounts. On September 23, 2015, Mr. Flechas submitted an affidavit
revealing $390,000.00 in the Flechas Family Holdings, LLC Account had been
disbursed. The funds held in the Flechas Family Holdings, LLC Account were
disbursed to Flechas Law Firm and then spent.

Mr. Flechas claimed to the federal court that he did not have control of these funds
to prevent the disbursement as required by the federal court’s Asset Freeze Order.
Flechas Family Holdings, LLC is owned in part by Mr. Flechas’ wife, a non-
lawyer. He submitted an affidavit to the federal court indicating that his wife
disbursed the funds without knowledge of the Asset Freeze Order and an affidavit
from his wife that she was not aware of the Asset Freeze Order in an attempt to
mislead the Court. Ultimately, Mr. Flechas admitted that he signed his wife’s name
on the checks from the Flechas Family Holdings, LLC account that were deposited
into the Flechas Law Firm operating account.

The federal court entered an Agreed Judgment of Contempt on October 19, 2015,
finding the transfer of funds was a violation of its October 15, 2013 Order. A
separate cause number for the contempt action was created by the federal court,
Cause No. 3:16-CV-722-DPJ-FKB. In the contempt action, Mr. Flechas admitted
to the federal court that he pays an individual to find and refer cases to him. He
also admitted to the federal court that he pays for personal items out of his firm
operating account to avoid tax liability.

Ultimately, as to these three informal [Bar] complaints, Mr. Flechas obtained

funding by making false statements and then converted funds intended for others to
his own use. He has no lawyer trust account records showing the amount on
deposit for each individual client. And he submitted false statements of material
fact to the United States District Court. Throughout the disciplinary proceedings,
Mr. Flechas refused to cooperate or participate in discovery, unnecessarily
delaying the proceedings.
Additionally, On October 16, 2018, General Counsel of the Mississippi Bar filed
an informal [Bar] complaint against Mr. Flechas based on information received
from a Mississippi attorney alleging Mr. Flechas instructed his clients to hide
assets from a judgment creditor. Mr. Flechas instructed his former clients, Robert
and Beverly Lang (“the Langs”), to convey real property to a limited liability
company controlled by Mr. Flechas. The property was conveyed by Warranty
Deed on March 11, 2008. At the time of the conveyance, Teresa Beasley had
already filed a lawsuit against the Langs on December 28, 2006. In January of
2013 the Langs also transferred $63,000.00 in funds to Mr. Flechas to be similarly
held to hide assets from creditors and potential creditors.

Ultimately, Ms. Beasley was awarded a significant judgment against the Langs.
When the Langs demanded the return of their property, Mr. Flechas refused to
return it. Mr. Flechas actually pledged some of the Langs’ property as collateral for
a loan. Mr. Flechas also converted the Langs’ funds for his own benefit. When
questioned about these transactions in a deposition, Mr. Flechas refused to answer
despite being directed to answer by the Magistrate Judge. Mr. Flechas also failed to
produce documents in discovery despite an Order from the Magistrate Judge that
the documents be produced.

Rule 1.2(d), MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or
assist a client, in conduct that a lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent; Rule
1.8(a), MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction
with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or pecuniary
interest adverse to a client unless certain safeguards are present; Rule 1.8 (b),
MRPC requires a lawyer shall not use information relating to representation of a
client to the disadvantage of the client; or to the advantage of himself or a third
person, unless the client consents after consultation; Rule 1.15(a), MRPC, provides
that a lawyer shall hold the property of clients and third parties separate from the
lawyers own property. The lawyer must identify this other property and safeguard
it. The rule also provides that the lawyer shall maintain complete records of trust
account funds for a period of seven years following termination of the
representation; Rule 1.15(b), MRPC, provides that upon receiving funds in which a
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or
third person and promptly deliver those funds; Rule 1.15(c), MRPC, provides that
when a lawyer is in possession of property in which both the lawyer and another
person claim an interest, the property shall be kept separate until the dispute is
resolved; Rule 3.3, MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false
statement of material fact to a tribunal; Rule 3.4 (a), MRPC provides that a lawyer
shall not: unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully
alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary
value; Rule 3.4(c), MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an
obligation under the rules of a tribunal; Rule 3.4 (d), MRPC that a lawyer shall not
in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make reasonably
diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing
party; Rule 4.1, MRPC provides that in the course of representing a client a lawyer
shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third
person; or fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is
necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client; Rule 5.3(a),
MRPC, provides that a partner in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to
ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurances that the
conduct of its non-lawyer staff is compatible with the professional obligations of
the lawyer; Rule 5.3(c)(1), MRPC, provides that a lawyer is responsible for the
conduct of his non-lawyer staff that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct
when the lawyer orders or ratifies the conduct; Rule 5.4(a), MRPC, prohibits
sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer; Rule 7.2(i), MRPC, prohibits a lawyer from
giving anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services; Rule
7.3(a), MRPC, prohibits a lawyer from soliciting professional employment from a
particular prospective client by in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic
means, with whom the lawyer has no prior professional relationship when a
significant motive is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain; Rule 8.4(a), MRPC, provides
that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt violate the rules
of professional conduct; Rule 8.4(b), MRPC, provides that it is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; Rule 8.4(c), MRPC,
provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and Rule 8.4(d), MRPC,
provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of justice.

John H. Anderson of Hattiesburg, Mississippi: The Committee on Professional

Responsibility imposed a Public Reprimand in docket no. 18-268-2 for violations
of rules 1.2(a) and 1.3, MRPC.

Mr. Anderson was hired to stop a garnishment related to forged loan documents in
2012 and seek redress from the client’s ex-wife who forged the documents. Mr.
Anderson failed to take any steps to stop the garnishment or file suit against the
client’s ex-wife prior to his disciplinary suspension in 2017. The client did not
learn that Mr. Anderson had allowed the statute of limitations to expire until he
attempted to hire another attorney after Mr. Anderson’s suspension.
Rule 1.2(a), MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions
regarding the objectives of the representation. Mr. Anderson failed to complete the
work he was retained to perform. Rule 1.3, MRPC, provides that a lawyer shall act
with reasonable diligence in representing a client. Mr. Anderson’s failure to act
with reasonable diligence allowed the statute of limitations period to expire on his
client’s claim.

Kenneth J. Grigsby of Tupelo, Mississippi: The Committee on Professional

Responsibility imposed a Public Reprimand in docket no. 15-396-2 against Mr.
Grigsby for a violation of Rule 8.1(b), MRPC. Rule 8.1(b), MRPC, requires a
lawyer to respond to the Bar’s lawful demands for information related to a
disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Grigsby was the subject of an informal [Bar]
complaint which required him to file a response. Mr. Grigsby responded, but was
later directed to submit additional information, which he failed to do. As a result,
the Committee directed that an Investigatory Hearing take place, which Mr.
Grigsby did not attend. Mr. Grigsby violated Rule 8.1 when he failed to respond to
the Bar’s request for additional information and failed to appear at the
Investigatory Hearing.