Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves the disbarment of an attorney following his guilty plea to conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right, a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The attorney, having pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, was sentenced to a $100 special assessment, a $20,000 fine, and three years of probation. In response, the Mississippi Bar commenced disciplinary proceedings, asserting that the felony conviction warranted disbarment under Rule 6 of the Rules of Discipline. A certified copy of the federal judgment was submitted as conclusive evidence of the attorney's guilt, and, despite being served and acknowledging the formal complaint, the attorney did not contest the proceedings. Consequently, the court determined disbarment to be fitting, ordering that a certified copy of the disbarment be sent to relevant judicial bodies. The decision was rendered with the endorsement of Presiding Justice William L. Waller, Jr., with Justice Diaz abstaining from participation.
Legal Issues Addressed
Conclusive Evidence of Guiltsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A certified copy of a federal judgment serves as conclusive evidence of an attorney's guilt in disciplinary proceedings.
Reasoning: The Bar provided a certified copy of the federal judgment, which serves as conclusive evidence of Stewart's guilt according to Rule 6(a).
Disbarment Following Felony Convictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An attorney is subject to disbarment if convicted of a felony, as this constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under the applicable state rules.
Reasoning: The Mississippi Bar initiated disciplinary action based on this conviction, as such a crime warrants disbarment under Rule 6 of the Rules of Discipline.
Failure to Contest Disciplinary Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Failure by an attorney to respond or contest disciplinary proceedings may be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the charges and intent not to dispute the disciplinary action.
Reasoning: Stewart was served with process, acknowledged receipt of the summons and formal complaint, but did not file any response or pleadings, indicating his intent not to contest the disciplinary action.