folo

The AP reports:

The Mississippi Supreme Court has been asked to accept the termination the law licenses of Joey Langston and Timothy Balducci, both tied to federal investigations of powerful plaintiffs attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs.

The Mississippi Bar petitioned the Supreme Court in January to accept the disciplinary action against the two men. The petitions were included on the Supreme Court’s March-April docket.

Neither Langston nor Balducci are opposing the Bar’s petition. …

Since this will be purest pro forma, some of the other bits of this article are more interesting, to wit:

In other cases involving attorneys, the Supreme Court will hear:

- Azki Shah’s request for reinstatement to the practice of law. Shah was suspended in 2007 by the Mississippi Supreme Court for three years.

It was the seventh time in less than eight years that Shah has been accused of misconduct. Shah had previously been suspended from the practice of law on two occasions, once for two years and again for six months. Shah had received three private reprimands and one informal admonition.

In the most recent incident, Shah was suspended for failing to file a complaint on behalf of a client and follow up with that client on the status of the complaint.

- The Bar’s petition calling for the indefinite suspension of the license of lawyer Robert Arledge of Vicksburg, while Arledge appeals his 2007 conviction related to an investigation of false diet drug settlement claims in Mississippi.

Arledge was convicted in federal court of seven counts of conspiracy and wire fraud in a scam bilking the drug company Wyeth out of more than $6.7 million. He was sentenced to 6-1/2 years in prison.

Arledge had been charged with knowingly allowing clients to make fen-phen claims of about $250,000 each even though they had no legitimate reason.

GEE-minny, stop horsing around, get rid of these mopes, and give Keith Shelton back his license, willya, SCOM?

Meanwhile, over ta the DJournal, Patsy Brumfield’s churning out such stories as Judge wants to hear how case may have affected Jones lawsuit and Judge cuts Scruggses, Backstrom no slack. The former account, of yesterday’s Jones v. Scruggs hearing before Judge Coleman, covers developments that we’ve masticated somewhat less than the U.S. v. Scruggs morsels. For instance:

… The question Tuesday morning was: What power does the court have to issue sanctions in this matter?

In his opening remarks, [Grady] Tollison gave an impassioned pitch to Coleman for the expanded consideration.

“It is very important that a message be sent to the public, in particular to lawyers and the judiciary, that this type of conduct will not be tolerated,” said Tollison about allegations of attempting to bribe a judge.

“The honor and dignity of the profession has suffered a blow,” he insisted. “It can only be righted by the jurisdiction where it happened.”

[Cal] Mayo’s argument lay with the question of whether the court had the authority as a sanction to withhold arbitration. He contended such action would conflict with federal arbitration standards.

In the end, Coleman said his ruling had nothing to do with any preconceived ideas about the criminal charges against some of the defendants.

“This court has the authority to take action to punish misconduct,” he noted.

To ignore the misconduct allegations or to proceed with arbitration would be a “win-win” for the defendants, Coleman observed.

An evidentiary hearing will seek to determine where the truth lies, he said.