This case concerned the Mississippi Bar's motion to disbar attorney Walter W. Teel following his federal felony convictions in the Southern District of Mississippi. Teel had been indefinitely suspended pending appeal, during which the Fifth Circuit reversed one conviction for federal program bribery but affirmed the others, and the U.S. Supreme Court later denied certiorari. The Bar then sought permanent disbarment under Rule 6 of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline, which the court granted after finding the appeals concluded. The court ordered Teel permanently disbarred, required him to notify clients and courts, and assessed costs against him based on the final convictions.
In Foxworth v. State, Weldon Foxworth pleaded guilty in the trial court and was sentenced on August 21, 2007. He filed a notice of appeal with the Mississippi Supreme Court on August 12, 2008. The court dismissed the appeal because it was untimely under Rule 4 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which requires the notice to be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Foxworth to pursue post-conviction collateral relief as an original civil action in the trial court.
This case involves the Mississippi Bar's petition to the Mississippi Supreme Court to accept the irrevocable resignation of attorney Edward J. Peters pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Discipline 10. The court decided to accept the resignation and permanently disbar Peters from practicing law in the state. Peters had submitted a notice acknowledging a pending disciplinary matter, indicating he did not wish to defend against it, and requesting to resign with prejudice. The core reasoning is that all procedural requirements under Rule 10.5 were satisfied, granting the court authority to terminate the proceedings and enter an order of disbarment, which is considered tantamount to proof of guilt on the charged matters.
The case involved the Mississippi Bar seeking reciprocal discipline against attorney Rodney E. Rexrode, who had been disbarred in Pennsylvania for engaging in improper business transactions with clients that harmed their interests and failing to fulfill professional obligations. The Supreme Court of Mississippi, applying Rule 13 of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline, determined that the Pennsylvania disbarment conclusively established Rexrode's misconduct, including violations of rules on conflicts of interest and diligence in two client matters involving a payroll advance and a limousine business venture. The court decided to disbar Rexrode from practicing law in Mississippi, require him to notify clients and courts, and pay costs, reasoning that the extreme sanction was appropriate given the circumstances.
This case involves multiple petitions for writs of mandamus filed by attorney Stuart Robinson, Jr., and his clients requesting that Circuit Judge Tomie T. Green be recused from seven pending civil cases and all future cases involving Robinson, based on allegations of bias and lack of impartiality. The claims arose from events in one underlying trial concerning the availability and live testimony of an expert witness, where the judge and Robinson engaged in pointed exchanges about the attorney's knowledge and representations regarding the witness's schedule. The court reviewed the factual record of these interactions, including the judge's statements questioning Robinson's handling of the matter, and analyzed whether they established grounds for recusal under applicable standards. The petitions were consolidated for decision by the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
This case involves Sherwood Brown, who was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of capital murder and sentenced to death. Brown filed a successive application for post-conviction relief claiming he is mentally retarded and therefore exempt from execution under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted Brown leave to seek relief in the trial court, finding that Atkins constituted an intervening decision and that Brown had submitted a qualifying expert affidavit stating his IQ was in the lower 70s with a reasonable basis to conclude he is mentally retarded. The ruling applied the standards from the court's recent decision in Chase v. State for evaluating such claims on post-conviction review.