Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Winfield Disbarment Opinion
Winfield Disbarment Opinion
JUN 06 2017
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
The Tribunal have convened on February 2, 2017, beginning at 9:00 a.m. in the
Court of Appeals Courtroom of the Mississippi Supreme Court Courthouse located at 450
High Street in Jackson, Mississippi and the parties having appeared in person and
through counsel and presented the evidence and arguments to the Tribunal and the
Tribunal having heard and considered the same renders the following Opinion and Final
Judgment, to wit:
VIOLATIONS
At the outset it should be noted that at the Trial of this matter there was no real
dispute that Michael E. Winfield violated the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct
("MRPC") and, in fact, Mr. Winfield and his counsel conceded such, but the Bar and
finds, as follows:
A. Rule 1.1, MRPC. This rule provides that a lawyer must provide competent
representation to a client. Here, the evidence showed that Mr. Winfield lacked the
estate matter, particularly with regard to determining the lawful heirs of the decedent, in
ATIEST
ATNICopy
Bar v Winfield Opinion and Final Judgment This 1he & 1 dBX_of
ai.A----- 20~
Office of ... C1erk
~cl>~
handling of an Estate in general and particularly the assets of an Estate. For the most
part, Mr. Winfield candidly admitted such. On September 12, 2013, Feletha Watson, a
granddaughter of the decedent, through Mr. Winfield, petitioned the Chancery Court of
Ms Watson alleged she and her brother were the two heirs at law of Aubrey Watson , as
his grandchildren. The problem was neither were the heirs at law of Aubrey Watson and,
in fact, their own mother was still living. As the daughter of Aubrey Watson, such would
exclude either of her children as heirs at law. The brother of Feletha Watson was not a
party to the Petition either. On the said date, the Chancellor issued an Order Appointing
Feletha Watson as Administrator and granting Letters of Administration upon her taking
the statutory oath, which she never did. Neither Ms Watson nor Mr. Winfield filed the
statutory oath therefore no Letters of Administration were ever issued granting her, or her
attorney, Mr. Winfield authority to act on behalf of the Estate of Aubrey Watson. Therefore
clearly there was no authority for either Ms Watson or Mr. Winfield to act on behalf of the
Despite such, Mr. Winfield applied for and received a $50 ,000.00 settlement, from
the "black farmers" class action on behalf of non-existent estate. No authority of the Court
as sought to approve said settlement. Winfield accepted the funds and deposited such
$5,000.00, again without any authority of the Court and without an Estate having been
finally opened. On November 18, 2013, he also wrote a check to Feletha Watson for
$43,000.00, again without Letters of Administration even being issued and without Court
order authorizing such. This check was written to Ms Watson personally which permitted
himself another check for $2,000.00 without authority. On the same day he sought and
obtained an order allowing him to withdraw as attorney for the Estate of Aubrey Watson ,
deceased. Ultimately, the Chancery Court discovered that the settlement funds had been
purloined from the Estate, recovered part from Feletha Watson and ordered Mr. Winfield
to repay the balance of $40 ,000.00. He did not do so until just before the tribunal trial.
Further, the evidence showed a complete lack of competence regarding rules of court
and professional responsibility and -compliance with the Orders of the Chancery Court.
B. Rule 1.S(a), MRPC. This rule provides that a lawyer's fee must be
reasonable. Mr. Winfield admits he paid himself a fee of $5,000.00 without court approval
and his trust account records show he received an additional $2,000.00 by check payable
to himself, although he claims he gave $1 ,000.00 cash to his client, who was not an heir
at law and not entitled thereto in any event. Regardless any fee to Mr. Winfield was per
se unreasonable, because the fee was paid without authority and never approved by the
Court in the estate matter as clearly required by law. The Chancery Judge, in fact,
ordered him to reimburse the estate for the entire amount of the fee because it had not
been so approved.
C. Rule 1.1 S{a), MRPC. This rule provides that a lawyer must hold the
property of clients and third parties separate from the lawyer's own property. When Mr.
Winfield took a fee without court approval and failed to reimburse the estate for a period
of almost three (3) years , he converted at least $5,000.00 to his own use and a another
check payable to Mr. Winfield personally for $2,000.00, which rightfully belonged to the
estate. This constitutes a violation of this rule, as he did not keep $7,000.00 belonging to
estate the week before and the day before tribunal trial such does not diminish the fact
that he converted funds of the estate without Court authority. See Cotton v. Miss. Bar,
D. Rule 1.1 S(b), MRPC. This rule provides that a lawyer must notify a client
or third party that he has received funds in which they have an interest. In this case, Mr.
Winfield failed to notify one of the two alleged heirs he erroneously listed in his petition
as being the sole heirs of the estate that he had received funds to which the alleed heir
might be entitled. Feletha Watson erroneously told Winfield her brother was also an heir
but Winfield never had any contact with him or advised him of the receipt of purported
funds in his possession which he might have an "interest" in. Further, he paid himself
$7,000.00 and wrote a check to Feletha Watson for $43,000.00 without ever having at
least contacting or advising her brother his purported interest therein. He also failed to
investigate and determine who, in fact, the proper heirs to the Estate were and to notify
those heirs, he had received funds to which the alleged heirs might be entitled.
Additionally, he failed to notify the Chancery Court that he had received funds on behalf
of the Estate, in order that the Court could protect the unknown heirs and set a bond as
required by law.
E. Rule 3.3(a)(1), MRPC. This rule provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly
make a false statement of material fact to a tribunal. This rule was violated irrespective
misled the Court by his silence. Although the evidence submitted raises serious issue of
an affirmative misrepresentation by Mr. Winfield. Mr. Winfield testified the he was having
Estate. Despite admittedly knowing that he was having a problem making his client
understand that she could not just spend the money, on November 18, 2013 wrote a
check payable to "Feletha Watson" personally instead of ''The Estate of Aubrey Watson ".
Doing so permitted "Feletha Watson" to "just spend the money" and convert the Estate
assets to her own use. The very next day (November 19) after writing a $43,000.00 check
payable to "Feletha. Watson" personally rather than the Estate, Mr. Winfield appeared
before the Chancery Judge and obtained an order allowing him to withdraw. Mr. Winfield
and the Chancellor testified that the stated reason for withdrawing was his inability to
communicate with his client, Feletha Watson. Mr. Winfield neglected to advise the
Chancery Judge that the day before (November 18, 2013) he had, in fact, communicated
with his client and had delivered to her a check payable to "Feletha Watson" personally
rather than the Estate in the amount of $43,000.00. On same day his trust account shows
he also wrote a check to himself for $2,000.00 "For: Aubrey Watson". Mr. Winfield's
failure to candidly advise the Chancery Court what had occurred within hours of his
Watson, and paying himself another $2,000.00 strains all credibility and common sense
F. Rule 3.3(a)(2), MRPC. This rule provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly
fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting
a criminal or fraudulent act by the client. Mr. Winfield testified the he was having a
problem making his client understand that she could not just spend the money, therefore
Estate. Knowing that he was having a problem making his client understand that she
could not just spend the money, on November 18, 2013 he still wrote a check payable to
"Feletha Watson" personally instead of "The Estate of Aubrey Watson ". Doing so allowed
"Feletha Watson" to "just spend the money" and convert the Estate assets to her own
use. The very next day after writing a $43,000.00 check payable to "Feletha Watson"
personally rather than the Estate, Mr. Winfield appeared before the Chancery Judge and
obtained an order allowing him to withdraw. Mr. Winfield and the Chancellor testified that
the stated reason for withdrawing was his inability to communicate with his client, Feletha
Watson. Mr. Winfield did not advise the Chancery Judge that the day before (November
18, 2013) he had, in fact, communicated with his client and had delivered to her a check
payable to "Feletha Watson" personally rather than the Estate. On same day his trust
account shows he also wrote a check to himself for $2,000 .00 "For: Aubrey Watson ". Mr.
Winfield had a continuing duty to advise the Chancery Court of that fact as well as the
fact that he had already received and distributed the money of the estate pursuant to Rule
3.3(b), but failed to do so. At the very least, this constitutes evidence of his knowledge
that he failed to disclose material facts to the Chancery Court. As further evidence, Mr.
Winfield knowingly assisted his cl ient in taking estate funds she was not entitled to , he
paid part of the funds to her in cash so she could pay some bills immediately. Mr.
Winfield's actions were contrary to his own testimony he was having a problem making
his client understand that she "could not just spend the money". He actually assisted his
client in converting the estate asset to her personal uses and admits paid her "cash " to
in an ex parte proceeding of all material facts known to the lawyer which will enable the
tribunal to make an informed decision. In this case, Mr. Winfield failed to inform the
tribunal of material facts regarding his withdrawal from the case, the reasons for his
withdrawal, the hearing on the petition he filed to determine heirs, his receipt of the
settlement proceeds, and his disbursement of the estate funds to Feletha Watson in her
to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Mr. Winfield was
hired to open an Estate to obtain authority to settle a claim of the Estate. He failed to
properly investigate and determine who the heirs at law were of the decedent therefore
who was entitled to inherit the proceeds of the claim of the Estate. He received the
settlement funds ($50,000.00) on November 6, 2013 from the settlement of the Estate
claim and deposited them into his ''trust" account. He immediately, the same day and
without court approval, paid himself $5,000.00 from the 'Watson Settlement". He testified
he and his client were having communication problems related to trying to get her to
understand she could not "just spend the money". He decided to withdraw from
representing the Estate. On November 18, 2013 he wrote a check payable to his client
personally, which permitted her to "just spend the money". On November 19, 2013 he
presented a Motion and Order withdrawing to Chancery Court, but did not advise the
Chancery Judge what he had done with the Estate assets. On the same day, he wrote a
check to himself for $2,000.00 from the Watson Settlement funds. Mr. Winfield was also
ordered by the Chancery Court to pay the missing money back to the Estate in 2013. He
Winfield's actions and inaction clearly demonstrate he engaged in conduct that was
During the course of the tribunal trial, the tribunal requested Mr. Winfield to provide
a copy of his trust account records if available. Subsequent to the tribunal trial, Winfield 's
trust account records were filed with the Supreme Court Clerk by Mr. Winfielcl and
. provided to the tribunal for consideration. A copy of his bank account statement at River
Hills Bank was filed on or about March 6, 2017. The account from which Mr. Winfield
disbursed funds does not appear to be "IOLTA trust account" as required by Rule 1.15,
MRPC. A review of the account shows it earns interest on his client funds, which would
not be paid to the Bar, but to Mr. Winfield, a form of commingling. General Counsel has
verified that at the present time, the Bar Foundation has no record of Mr. Winfield's having
an IOLTA account as mandated by Rule 1.15. Mr. Winfield also testified at trial he took
a $6,000 fee out of the estate funds when he deposited the check to his trust account.
According the bank statement, he deposited the Settlement check to his account on
November 6, 2013. In fact, he took $5,000 on the same day, November 6, 2013 , and
then November 19, 2013 wrote himself a check another $2,000 for "Aubrey Watson". This
is the same day he appeared before the Chancery Judge to present an order to withdraw.
Such also conflicts with his testimony that he was paid $5,000.00 for his fee without court
Mr. Winfield also failed to file Request for Admissions, therefore the Bar requested
they be deemed admitted, Mr. Winfield admits he did not respond but claimed he was
therefore as a result of Mr. Winfield's failure to respond the same are deemed admitted.
Conduct.
None of the above violations were seriously contested by Mr. Winfield and Mr.
Winfield candidly admitted that he had violated the Mississippi Rules of Professional
Conduct and that he agreed discipline was appropriate. The dispute primarily is on the
discipline to be imposed not whether discipline is appropriate or not. The Bar submits
DISCIPLINE
There are nine factors which must be examined before imposing discipline:
The nature of the misconduct here is threefold. Mr. Winfield obviously lacked the
unwilling to be candid with the Chancery Court. And, he converted estate funds and
enabled his client to convert Estate assets to her personal use. The nature of the conduct
making his client understand that "she could not just spend the money", therefore
Estate. Knowing that he was having this problem of making his client understand that
she could not just spend the money, on November 18, 2013 despite such knowledge he
wrote a check payable to "Feletha Watson" personally instead of ''The Estate of Aubrey
Watson". Doing so permitted "Feletha Watson" to "just spend the money" and convert
the Estate assets to her own use. The very next day after writing a $43 ,000.?0 check
payable to "Feletha Watson" personally rather than the Estate, Mr. Winfield appeared
before the Chancery Judge and obtained an order allowing him to withdraw. Mr. Winfield
and the Chancellor testified that the stated reason for withdrawing was his inability to
communicate with his client, Feletha Watson. Mr. Winfield did not advise the Chancery
Judge that the day before (November 18, 2013) he had, in fact, communicated with his
client and had delivered to her a check payable to "Feletha Watson" personally rather
than the Estate. On same day his trust account shows he also wrote a check to himself
for $2,000.00 "For: Aubrey Watson". He also opened a trust account that did not comply
Aubrey Watson were deprive of their inheritance by Mr. Winfield's actions and inactions.
The Chancery Court found Mr. Winfield in contempt and ordered him to repay the Estate
$40,000.00 lost to the heirs. Mr. Winfield made no attempt to comply with the Chancery
Court's order until faced with the tribunal trial. Public confidence in the legal system is
greatly impacted by lawyers who act contrary to the interests of their client and the Court
itself. Here Mr. Winfield represented an Estate, which included the lawful heirs of Aubrey
and her brother were heirs of Aubrey Watson, as grandchildren , he did little, if anything,
to verify such. Worse he received the settlement funds on behalf of the Estate, and
immediately disbursed a portion to himself as a ''fee" without any approval of the Chancery
Court or the Estate. According to his testimony, he began to have a dispute with Feletha
Watson , because he couldn 't get her to understand she could not just "spend the money".
Yet when he decided to withdraw, he a wrote check directly to Feletha Watson personally
which enabled her to do exactly that "spend the money" which didn't belong to her. He
also wrote another check in the _amount $2,000.00 to himself. On the same day he wrote
the $2,000.00 check to himself, he requested leave to withdraw citing his inability to
communicate with "Feletha Watson ". He failed to inform the Court he had received
$50,000.00 on behalf of the Estate, he had dispersed funds to himself without Court
approval on two occasions (a total of $7,000.00) , and had, in fact, been in communication
with "Feletha Watson " the very day before he appeared before the Chancery Court asking
to withdraw because he could not "communicate" with his client. Mr. Winfield clearly failed
to advise the Chancery Court of information critical to the Court's ability to make an
informed decision in a case and to protect the innocent and true "heirs at law". Likewise,
public confidence in the legal system is eroded when lawyers ignore routine rules of court
designed to protect the public from lawyers who distribute estate funds without court
approval. In this case, Mr. Winfield's misconduct failed to protect the heirs of the estate.
Mr. Winfield's misconduct caused actual injury to the Estate. The true heirs of the
estate have been without the benefit of funds Mr. Winfield improperly and unlawfully
distributed to himself and Feletha Watson for a period of over three years. Despite an
Order requiring him to repay $40,000.00 lost to the Estate into the registry of the Court,
Not even a single minor ($50 a month even) payment or attempt to comply with the
Chancery Court order was made by Winfield until he was faced with the tribunal trial.
The Supreme Court has traditionally either disbarred or suspended lawyers for a
period of three years when they convert client funds. Even if the lawyer had no intention
to permanently convert the funds, he or she violates Rule 1.15, M RCP. See Mcintyre v.
Miss. Bar, 38 So.3d 617, 622 (Miss. 2010). In that case, Mr. Mcintyre contended that no
client ever lost a dime from his trust account from which he routinely took funds for his
own use and paid the account back later. The Supreme Court stated in Mcintyre that
"[r]egardless of whether Mcintyre eventually replaced the money, he violated the Rules
of Professional Conduct at the time he initially misused money from the account -- no
matter how briefly he kept it. This Court has said, "Restitution by an attorney of funds
previously misappropriated does not mitigate the offense." Cotton v. Miss. Bar, 809 So.
2d 582, 587 (Miss. 2000) (quoting Clark v. Miss. State Bar Ass'n, 471 So. 2d 352, 357
(Miss. 1985)). Mr. Winfield's conduct here is more egregious than in Mcintyre and his
response to the Chancery Court adjudging him in "contempt" and ordering him to pay
Here, Mr. Winfield converted $7,000 of estate funds for his own use and assisted
his client in converting another $43,000.00. Mr. Winfield did not reimburse the estate for
almost three years after being ordered to do so by Judge Ward (literally the week and day
before the disciplinary trial). The reimbursement has no mitigating effect for purposes of
imposing discipline for conversion, as there was no attempt to even partially comply with
a Court Order for almost three years and then only when facing a tribunal trial.
trust account." Reid v. Miss. Bar, 586 So. 2d 786, 788 (Miss. 1991 ). Furthermore, "[t]here
may be worse sins, but the ultimate wrong of a lawyer to his profession is to divert clients'
and third parties' funds entrusted to him to an unauthorized use." Id. This Court has said
that an attorney who misuses his client's money "exhibits a character trait totally at odds
with the purposes, ideals and objectives of our profession." Id. Mr. Winfield had no
authority to accept the settlement funds and deposit them into his "trust" account in the
first place. There was no court order authorizing such. By improperly depositing the
funds into his ''trust" account, it permitted Mr. Winfield to then use his trust account to take
funds ($7,000.00 and $43,000.00) from the Estate without Court approval and ultimately
inflict loss on the heirs. Attorneys have been disbarred or have received long suspensions
numerous times for commingling and misappropriation of client funds. See Miss. Bar v.
Sweeney, 849 So. 2d 884 (Miss. 2003) (three-year suspension for one instance of
misappropriating the funds of an estate); Miss. Bar v. Coleman, 849 So. 2d 867 (Miss.
conversion of client funds); Cotton v. Miss. Bar, 809 So. 2d 582 (Miss. 2000) (attorney
disbarred for misappropriating funds, failing to pay client's medical bills with said funds,
resulting in client being sued); Haimes v. Miss. Bar, 601 So. 2d 851 (Miss. 1992) (attorney
disbarred for one instance of mishandling and misappropriating guardianship funds); Reid
v. Miss. Bar, 586 So. 2d 786, 788 (Miss. 1991) (attorney disbarred for converting funds
for "unauthorized and unlawful use"); Miss. State Bar v. Odom, 566 So. 2d 712 (three-
year suspension for misappropriating funds belonging to the executrix of an estate); Foote
disciplinary record disbarred for misappropriation of client funds , although restitution was
made and the attorney cooperated with the proceedings); and Clark v. Miss. State Bar
Ass'n, 471 So. 2d 352 (Miss. 1985) (attorney disbarred after misappropriating the funds
of a conservatorship and misrepresenting his actions to his client and the trial court).
There are also aggravating factors to be considered. Mr. Winfield had 13 years of
determined who the heirs of Aubrey Watson were is incomprehensible. He knew that
Feletha and her brother were the maternal grandchildren of Aubrey Watson . He did not
even asked if their mother was still alive which she was. Of course, such would have
eliminated "his" clients as heirs provided there was no Will. He received funds on behalf
of the Estate without a Court order authorizing such. He deposited the Estate funds into
his trust account, which then permitted him to control the disbursement of the Estate
couldn't get his client, Feletha Watson, to understand "she could not just spend the
money", yet he dispersed $1,000.00 cash to her (according to his testimony) and issued
a check payable to her personally for $43,000.00 which enabled her to do exactly that
"just spend the money". The day after he issued a check payable to her personally and
withdraw from representing the Estate because he could not "communicate" with his
client, Feletha Watson. He did not tell the Court what had occurred just the day before
and that he had received a dispersed over $48,000.00 ($5,000.00 and $43,000.00) to
himself and Ms Watson. He also dispersed another $2,000.00 to himself on the very
Chancery Judge. He violated multiple rules of professional conduct. Mr. Winfield has
demonstrated ambivalence to the Chancery Court's Order requiring him to repay the lost
funds of $40,000.00 into the Estate, not even attempt to make a single payment until
faced with the hearing before this tribunal. Further, he has shown great indifference to
these bar proceedings by not answering discovery, not responding to Request for
Admissions, not producing documents requested by the Bar and not making any attempt
at repaying the purloined funds until facee with this tribunal trial.
lawyer for a period of one year for his failure to advise the Court of material facts in a
case, Mr. Parsons was suspended for his failure to inform the Circuit Court that the
Chancery proceeding wherein the judgment provided for monthly payments without
interest. Mr. Parsons also failed to inform the Circuit Court the judgment debtor was
current on his payments. Mr. Parsons appealed the one year suspension imposed by the
Complaint Tribunal and the Bar cross-appealed. Mr. Parsons subsequently filed a notice
of irrevocable resignation which stayed the proceedings by rule. The Bar's motion to have
the Supreme Court accept Mr. Parsons' resignation is currently pending before the
MRPC. Here, Mr. Winfield's failure to candidly advise the Chancery Court of material
facts of the case is what allowed Mr. Winfield and his client to convert estate assets from
the estate for his personal benefit as well as the personal benefit of Feletha Watson.
Therefore, the sanction in this case should exceed that of Mr. Parsons' one year
suspension.
American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline state that
understanding of the most fundamental legal doctrines or procedures and it causes injury
or potential injury to the client. ABA Standard 4.51. ABA Standard 6.11 states that
a legal proceeding. First, Mr. Winfield paid himself $5,000.00 on the same day he
deposited the settlement funds in his account again without Court approval. Such
demonstrates Mr. Winfield was placing his interests before the Estate and its heirs.
Additionally Mr. Winfield's testimony that he was having a problem making his client
understand that she could not just spend the money, therefore, because of his
to reconcile with his actions. Knowing that he was having a problem making his client
understand that she could not just spend the money, on November 18, 2013 he still wrote
a check payable to "Feletha Watson" for $43,000.00 personally instead of "The Estate of
Aubrey Watson". Doing so allowed "Feletha Watson" to "just spend the money" and
convert the Estate assets to her own use. The very next day after writing a $43,000.00
appeared before the Chancery Judge and obtained an order allowing him to withdraw.
Mr. Winfield and the Chancellor testified that the stated reason for withdrawing was his
inability to communicate with his client, Feletha Watson. Mr. Winfield did not advise the
Chancery Judge that the day before (November 18, 2013) he had, in fact, communicated
with his client and had delivered to her a check payable to "Feletha Watson" personally
rather than the Estate in the amount of $43,000.00. On same day his trust account shows
he also wrote a check to himself for $2,000.00 "For: Aubrey Watson". Neither Rule 1.15
nor Rule 3.3(d) include a provision for intent. Rule 1.15 simply states that a lawyer must
keep his funds separate from funds belonging to the client. Rule 3.3(d) states that in an
ex parte proceeding, the lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the
After considering the testimony of the witnesses, including the learned Chancellor
and Mr. Winfield, the evidence presented, both during and subsequent to the tribunal trial,
the Tribunal finds that Michael E. Winfield violated the Mississippi Rules of Professional
Conduct as set forth above and as he admits. Discipline is now appropriate. Having
considered the Uebling factors and Catlege, the aggravating and mitigating factors, a
majority of the Complaint Tribunal finds that Mr. Winfield should be disbarred from the
practice of law for a minimum period of three (3) years from the date that the Opinion and
Final Judgment is entered according to the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State
Bar; prior to applying for readmission Mr. Winfield should be required to take and pass
the entire Mississippi Bar examination including the ethics portion as a precondition to his
being eligible for readmission. Additionally, his readmission should be further conditioned
Within thirty (30) days, of the entry of the Opinion and Final Judgment Mr. Winfield
should notify in writing all of his clients with active matters pending that he has been
disbarred from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years effective (30) days after
the date the Opinion and Final Judgment is entered and advise each of them that he is
unable to act as an attorney on their behalf during said disbarment. He shall further return
all files to such clients or the counsel for such clients upon request. Mr. Winfield shall
also notify in writing all parties opposite as well as courts and agencies in which he has
active cases that he has been disbarred effective (30) days after the date the Opinion and
Final Judgment is entered. Mr. Winfield shall file a certificate with the Clerk of the
Supreme Court that he has complied with these provisions of the Opinion and Final
Judgment within thirty days of the date of entry of the Opinion and Final Judgment.
Mr. Winfield must apply for readmission pursuant to the Rules of Discipline for the
Mississippi State Bar. In order for Mr. Winfield to be eligible for readmission he must have
The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall forward copies of the Opinion and Final
Judgment to each member of the Complaint Tribunal ; to counsel for all parties; to the
Executive Director of the Mississippi Bar; to all Circuit, Chancery, and County Court
judges in Hinds County, Mississippi and Warren County, Mississippi; to the Clerks of the
United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi; to the
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; to the Clerk of the United
of these Opinion and Final Judgment by affixing his/her signature to the herein below.
Ti C. Holleman, Esquire
Tr-ibunal--Member
While I agree that discipline is warranted I disagree with the other members of
the Tribunal that disbarment is warranted, therefore I vote for a 1 year suspension