A reader has sent this excerpt from the Mississippi Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct, along with a couple of questions:
RULE 8.3 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
(a) A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
(b) A lawyer having knowledge that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
[Amended June 23, 1994.]
Comment
Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense.If a lawyer were obliged to report every violation of the Rules, the failure to report any violation would itself be a professional offense. Such a requirement existed in many jurisdictions but proved to be unenforceable. This Rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that a self-regulating profession must vigorously endeavor to prevent. A measure of judgment is, therefore, required in complying with the provisions of this Rule. The term “substantial” refers to the seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware. A report should be made to the bar disciplinary agency unless some other agency, such as a peer review agency, is more appropriate in the circumstances. Similar considerations apply to the reporting of judicial misconduct. The duty to report professional misconduct does not apply to a lawyer retained to represent a lawyer whose professional conduct is in question. Such a situation is governed by the rules applicable to the client-lawyer relationship.
[Amended June 23, 1994.]
Okay, now for the reader’s questions:
1. Could Jim Hood be brought up on this one in that he didn’t report Balducci and Patterson’s “inappropriate comments”?
2. Does this Rule mean that now every lawyer with a Mississippi Bar license has the duty to file a complaint against Hood?
Discuss.
Once evidence of an ethical rules violation is reported or otherwise appears in the public domain (media report, criminal prosecution, etc.), then the MS Bar does not have to have a specific complaint filed by anyone in order to initiate an investigation and take appropriate action. This is my understanding after conferring with the full time personnel with the MSBar re this exact question.
no. all balducci and patterson did was report to hood that scruggs was unhappy. to balducci and patters that would be like “don corleone” sending a message he was unhappy but i doubt hood took it that way.
why should hood be reported? what did he do wrong?
Did some actual evidence emerge as to what was said in the meeting between Balducci, Patterson, and Hood? All I know is they brought up the Katrina settlement, they talked about the new law firm, and P-B may have whined about Langston.
I know that everyone suspects that something more conspiratorial happened, but if there is actual evidence of “inappropriate comments” I’ve not seen it and I’m paying pretty close attention.
Further– is saying “Do Dickie Scruggs’s will in the State Farm suits or he will finance opposition against you” a comment that is inappropriate in the sense of bar complaint material?
I’m not sure it would be bar complaint material even if it was “Drop the grand jury to help Dickie or he’ll run someone against you.”
NMC, Baducci has got a new profession in your post #4..My whining has never got me anything except maybe being called a BITT-ECH. He can teach whining lessons showing the $500K he got for whining at dinner.
I’m going to ask the last question in a different way:
How close would a prosecution have to prove the quid pro quo? If P-B said “Big money goes elsewhere if you don’t do what SKG wants,” then Hood does what SKG wants and gets the big money, is that enough to prove quid pro quo? I’d say probable pretty close, but not quite.
Scruggs does quid pro quo with winks and nods. Here’s a loan, “wink,” remember me when I need a favor. OR “do this thing for me and later (wink) we’ll see what we can do to make everyone happy.” And later comes a campaign contribution. (this last strategy always leaving open the option of stiffing the influencee). Final version: “tell him brother Trent’ll call him about that judgeship” and then has the call made.
mag 7, I do declare, in this roomful of creative imaginations, yours may be the most creative of all.
Deep respect.
The $500K is the elephant in the room. Scruggs couldn’t send Langston it would have been a million dollars . He couldn’t send Moore because Moore has as much money as Scruggs and couldn’t be bothered. So Scrugg’s goes the cheapest route.
mag: i don’t get it.
i’m confounded too
Having nowhere else to put this thought, I’m going to share it here:
In regular rotation on my desktop stereo is Doc Watson doing “Browns Ferry Blues,” which, every time it plays, makes me think of Balducci and the corn being on the ground, in this verse:
“Hard luck poppa standing in the rain
If the world was corn, he couldn’t buy grain”
Got those Browns Ferry blues.
Again I might be wrong, but wouldn’t the incident with the State Farm documents and then his intervention with the Alabama AG indicate some knowledge of inappropriateness of Scruggs on Hood’s part?
The odd thing about that, Seacrest, is Courtney Schloemer’s emails where she’s trying to draw lines to keep from getting sucked into contempt of court herself. There are 2 letters right at the time Scruggs is doing the document hand-off where she says she’ll do that as long as Judge Acker signs off on it. I think those MUST have been ass-covering comments, because she did nothing to make sure Scruggs or anyone else actually got Acker to sign off on it.
I’m about to post a new post that will be a shock to everyone: I am actually going to suggest that Hood may have made one smart self-interested move this week.
Go right ahead on, NMC. This seems to be Be (Comparatively) Kind to Jim Hood Day at folo.
Just heard from reliable sources that Jim Hood will be at this event in April.
http://www.florabama.com/Special%20Events/Mullet%20Toss/mullet_toss_faq.htm
1) The Balducci statements about the “influential” dinner were actually in a summarized version… not his actual verbatim statements, so I assume we will get more clarification after that is made public.
2) Patterson’s side of the dinner has yet to be revealed… he may have more information about the “influence” that was attempted and their results, and the understanding that all three left the dinner with….
3) Knowing how tough it is for Dickie to part with money… and knowing that, at least from Balducci’s summarized testimony, he eventually DID pay the $500K to their firm, my question is this: If the errand he sent Patterson and Balducci on was not successful, do you think he would have paid them $500K?
Just my thoughts until we get more info
Woohoo, they got Florabama back up and roaring? Last I heard, it was still flitters. (Me, I prefer fried mullet to tossed, howsomevah.)
oh, i wasn’t being kind. I think he was saying specific facts (unusual for him, no?) to suggest the quid-pro-quo linkage wasn’t there on the grand jury drop.
But trying to explain Jim Hood’s thinking is making my head hurt. I’m not sure I can pull it off.
Lotus, it isn’t hard to rebuild when all you consist of is a few sheets of plywood!
I submit that a blind hog can find an occasional acorn, just as Hood can sometimes be correct in his thinking.
a stopped clock, correct twice a day, Ocam?
NMC
My grasp of the details are nowhere near many of you, so forgive me if I goof up.
The odd thing about that, Seacrest, is Courtney Schloemer’s emails where she’s trying to draw lines to keep from getting sucked into contempt of court herself.
If I recall correctly there was also a phone conversation between Scruggs and Hood on the friday that order (injunction?) came out about the order.
I am not a lawyer (and don’t even play one on TV) but doesn’t that make 2 people in Hood’s office (Hood himself!) on notice of the order, and so isn’t it incumbent on them to verify Acker signed off on their plan as stated in the email?
Hood and his people are agreeing to take custody of documents in defiance of a court order and their condition is to get the judge to basically change his order (which is odd), then it’s not only their responsibility (AG, hello!) to ensure that took place, it’s in their interest to and they didn’t. Courtney’s email may have been an attempt to CYA, but in my opinion it actually makes it worse because it shows she was aware of the order and set forth conditions that were not followed.
At least as much as I know so far. And this situation shows Hood was on notice of a lawyer who was in “violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects”
Good comments, Seacrest.
Another aside: maybe we are looking under the wrong rock for the quid pro quo. Maybe the quid for the campaign contributions was the “confidential informant” letter Hood wrote to try to help stop the contempt proceeding.
One of my problems with being more definitive here is this really requires a solid timeline and can’t dig out the dates right now.
Perbatin no, there was no wire. If the General keeps talking about the DINNER/OFFICE meeting we may damn well be able to figure it out. Patterson and Balducci whine about cash flow yet Patterson donates 10K to Hood in March out of the first 100K. There’s a paper trail one must always watch out far that never goes away.
NMC_ The postulate of “If a million monkeys were given a piano and enough time ….” would also apply if restated to reflect, “If Jim Hood were given enough time….”
Beginnings of a timeline… remind me of specific dates to fill in please…
ï– šÂ§12/15/06–Meeting with Scruggs, Insurance Commissioner Dale, Deputy Commissioner David Lee Harrell. Harrell testified that at this meeting, Scruggs represented he had insiders from State Farm that he was going to work the way he did in the tobacco litigation.
ï– šÂ§02/06–By this time according to Scruggs he was representing the Rigsbys and continually represented them at least through the contempt hearing. Kerri Rigsby testified in her deposition in Renfroe to signing a representation with Scruggs at this time. Scruggs testified that this is when they first met. According to the special prosecutors, Scruggs provided cell phones to the Rigbys in the name of a relative of a legal assistant to hide communications between Scruggs and the Rigsbys.
ï– šÂ§06/06–The Rigsby data dump, which they testify that Scruggs knew about beforehand. Scruggs denies this.
ï– šÂ§12/8/06–Scruggs formally served with the Renfroe injunction (he admits to this in testimony in the contempt hearing). According to Hood’s testimony in State Farm v. Hood, Scruggs calls Hood on his cell phone to tell him about the injunction on this date.
ï– šÂ§12/11/06. The Renfroe injunction goes into effect when a bond is filed; Scruggs acknowledged in the contempt hearing his office was sent notice of this on this date. When the judge asked whether Hood or Scruggs had the idea of Scruggs giving a set of the documents to Hood to avoid turning them over to Renfroe, the judge asked: "Did you put the bee in his bonnet or did he put the bee in your bonnet? " Scruggs at the contempt hearing answered, "I did not put the bee in his bonnet, but we shared the same bee, that is fair. "
ï– šÂ§12/12/06 email. Asst A.G. Courtney Schloemer to Scruggs (Ex2): "I am not comfortable that the protective measures put in place by the Court will be effective in keeping these documents out of the grasp of State Farm. I would appreciate if you would provide us with your copy of the documents from Cori and Kerri, and we can return them to you at a time when our investigation is not in jeopardy by the possibility of disclosure of those documents to the wrong party. "
ï– šÂ§12/13/06. Schloemer emails Scruggs saying, "Upon reviewing my letter, I see that I was not clear that I propose taking custody of your documents with the permission of Judge Acker. I don’t want to thwart him and wind up in an Alabama jail. I don’t see how Renfroe could object to that arrangement, but see what they say and let me know if you need me to contact any of them to verify my end of it. " Scruggs did not contact Renfroe about this or do anything about getting the court’s permission to give the documents to Hood.
ï– šÂ§12/15/06. Rigsbys file a motion to stay enforcement of the injunction, nowhere suggesting they do not have the documents.
ï– šÂ§12/15/06. Doug Jones (separate counsel retained by Renfroe on the subpoenas) writes Asst A.G. Schloemer raising that the A.G. "may have requested that the Scruggs firm give the documents, not copies of the documents, to your office. I hope that is not the case because I am afraid that Judge Acker would hit the roof since you intervened and received the order. I do not want to see the intensity level of that case raised beyond what it already is. "
ï– šÂ§12/17/06 email. Asst A.G. Courtney Schloemer to Doug Jones (Ex4): "I did make a request for the documents, but it was conditioned on Judge Acker’s agreement to such an arrangement. These documents will be kept out of Scruggs’ hands until my criminal investigation is over, an arrangement which benefits us both. Judge Acker already trashed this office in his order so we are turning our attention to the 11th Circuit’s opinion. If, after considering these points you agree this arrangement is a good one after all, I would be amenable to drafting an agreement between this office and Renfroe to confirm that our custody of the documents is not a sham and that we will not return them to Scruggs until our efforts in our criminal case are exhausted. "
ï– šÂ§12/18/06. Motion to stay denied.
€¢?? First/Second weeks in January 2007: Balducci, Patterson, Hood meeting?
ï– šÂ§1/5/07. Renfroe files motion to show cause why the Rigbys should not be found in contempt.
ï– šÂ§1/11/07. Rigbys for the first time say they do not have the documents.
ï– šÂ§1/17/07. State Farm grand jury hearings throughout the week; the Rigsbys testifying.
ï– šÂ§1/18/07. Barrett of SKG writes Birnbaum of State Farm saying, " "Today is the day. I think he (Hood) will take the deal….Your proposal to Hood is fair ".If Hood lacks the wisdom to go through with this deal, it would be in State Farm’s best interest to proceed just with us, and we offer to do that. " He notes a settlement without Hood "vastly reduces the change Hood will go forward with an indictment. " "It may well be that Hood has become wary of ethics issues and has decided he has to put some distance between the civil litigation and the criminal investigation. Going forward with us now solves that problem. " "That Hood may fail his state is not your fault or ours. "
ï– šÂ§1/19/07. Renfroe files a motion to show cause with a pleading that says in footnote 14: "Scruggs fought surrender of the documents until the day the settlements were announced. " In the contempt hearing, the Rigsbys’ lawyer stated that "the only inference I can draw from this explanation of Scruggs arguably not complying with this order in order to increase his settlement value of the State Farm settlement is that somehow State Farm would see them. "
ï– šÂ§1/23/07. The global settlement is announced in Woullard.
ï– šÂ§2/19/07. Scruggs writes State Farm demanding that the Renfroe case be dismissed as a part of the Woullard settelment.
ï– šÂ§3/19/07. Contempt Hearing: Scruggs testifies.
ï– šÂ§05/06/07–Patterson to Hood $10,000
ï– šÂ§05/06/07–Langston to Hood $15,000
ï– šÂ§05/14/07–Langston to Hood $5,250 In Kind
ï– šÂ§06/06/07–Patterson to Hood $10,000
ï– šÂ§07/06/07–DAGA to Hood contribution of $300K.
ï– šÂ§07/09/07–Dickie to Hood In Kind contribution of $33,000
ï– šÂ§07/16/07–Hood letter to Alice Martin naming Scruggs as "confidential informant "
ï– šÂ§08/03/07–Hood refunded DAGA $300K reported as "return contribution. "
ï– šÂ§10/02/07–Dickie to DAGA $100,000
ï– šÂ§10/03/07–Langston to DAGA $100,000
ï– šÂ§10/17/07–Dickie to DAGA $250,000
ï– šÂ§10/19/07–DAGA to Hood $250,000
ï– šÂ§10/24/07–DAGA to Hood $150,000
ï– šÂ§12/07/07–Langston to Hood $5000
ï– šÂ§12/10/07–Langston office searched by Feds
There are some key dates in this post
I’ve been so curious about that $300K donation to Hood from DAGA on 07/06… then the letter he wrote on behalf of Dickie to Martin was 07/16… then he refunds the $300K to DAGA… think they may have been worried that the two would be tied together easily once the letter was made public in the media and the DAGA reports would eventually show that Dickie donated $300K only 10 days prior to the letter?
Thanks NMC… I’ll merge
Pretty interesting, My Thoughts. When I get time this weekend, I’ll look through the Pacer dockets for the contempt case and Renfroe and see what they should about the timing of Hood’s letter.
I remember writing something about the DAGA contributions and the timing of all that, but I can’t remember what the deal was on that $300k payment/return in July-August.
I’ve never seen anything at all other than Hood’s own contributions report showing the donation being made to him and then the refund to DAGA.
With reguards to the original post, isn’t that how Shelton lost his license?
Punished for following the rules! HUMMMMMM
Appears to be a clear message, report and risk your license!
From what I understand , that could include any professional license! Supremes rule!
Guess I’ll just keep decoratin’ (AKA interior designing) without a license!
They can kiss my grits!
Here’s a big bleg–
I’m going through the docket in Renfroe v. the Rigsbys and I’ve hit a VERY strange event– the U.S. Attorney (that would be Lotus’s bud Alice Martin) requesting an ex parte conference with Acker right as the shit is hitting the fan.
Who put her up to that? What is the story? Can ANYONE find anything out there in all the internets that sheds some light on this? E.g. check with Rossmiller or the like? I’m still pulling pleadings and thar’s gold in them thar hills
This would be in the January-February ‘07 timeframe
oh, and the judge entered an order that amounts to saying “you’re out of your mind, no!”
First, let me say I am so sorry if this has been rehashed many times. I know it’s annoying when someone tries to jump in half way and discuss much covered ground, and does so in a very long comment.
Hood says April of 07 he received new information from a Confidential Informant. Issued one supeona in August of ‘07 in re to new matter.In my reading he doesn’t confirm or deny this new CI was developed through Scruggs, though says he doesn’t recall it (taps dances all around about this mysterious new CI) and seems to be conflating the new CI as a reason to have intervened with the letter in the Alabama matter having excepted the documents in the previous matter. He can’t say Scruggs was the conduit for the new CI but eludes it might be in an effort to have accepted the docs and intervened on Scruggs behalf.
2 Q. Did you issue any grand jury subpoenas on this new
3 investigation until you sued State Farm in civil court for
4 breach of contract?
5 A. There again, I don’t want to even get close to making a
6 mistake. Lord knows, I make plenty of them. But Courtney can
7 tell you if there was one issued. I don’t recall her issuing
8 one.
9 Q. Well, there’s only been one on this new investigation.
10 Isn’t that a fact?
11 A. Well, I’m not — you’re asking me subpoenas which could
12 have gone to other people, and I don’t know the answer to that
13 question.
14 Q. I’m only asking about subpoenas to State Farm.
15 A. Well, if you — okay. If you’re asking about subpoenas to
16 State Farm, as far as I know, this subpoena that y’all filed
17 this suit over is the one subpoena issued to State Farm.
18 Q. And how long after you sued State Farm in civil court for
19 breach of contract was it that you issued this grand jury
20 subpoena that we’re talking about here in this case?
21 A. I’m not sure of the date when the grand jury subpoena in
22 this case — I think y’all attached it in the complaint — went
23 out. I don’t issue grand jury subpoenas. That’s the court
24 that issues the subpoenas when the prosecutor requests them.
25 Q. Is your answer you don’t know?
But in this case we got those documents. And the federal
2 court was about to turn them over to State Farm and their
3 engineering firm. And I was trying to protect our confidential
4 informants, those women in that suit. This — our — as far as
5 the Alabama litigation goes, our grand jury was something like
6 mid January of ‘07; and we were getting ready to interview in
7 the grand jury State Farm witnesses, State Farm employees. And
8 we were — we had feared that if the federal court turned them
9 over to State Farm, then they would know what questions we
10 would ask. So we were doing two things. We were — we were
11 concerned about them.
12 Now, there’s absolutely no way that I would ever try to in
13 any way circumvent an order of a federal district judge or a
14 state court or a justice court judge or any judge. If the
15 court’s ordered it, I can appeal it or whatever.
16 But this letter was written in an attempt to let a fellow
17 prosecutor, Ms. Martin, who is the U.S. Attorney over there,
18 realize that in matters of comity, if I’m in a prosecution —
19 Dunn Lampton has these documents as well. It hurts our case if
20 it’s given to the other side. And as a matter of comity, the
21 court should give some consideration to our people that are
22 providing us that information. I’m trying to protect my
23 witness.
24 So if I’ve got a witness that’s a witness in a dope case,
25 I’ve got a duty to try to protect them if somebody is trying to
Now, he says on the one hand HE did not want those document to get into State Farms hands so they would not know what questions HOOD Ag would ask – it’s been established SF had reconstructed the documents themselves (right?) – but on the other hand would NEVER and in no way try and circumvent a order of a federal judge – if a court ordered it he could appeal.
He didn’t so that, he circumvented a court order issued in Dec 06.
Then he wrote a letter to let a fellow prosecutor 6 months latter admitting to circumventing a court order saying giving those docs on the previous matter to the other side hurts HIS case and Scruggs is a CI on matters — insinuated CI on NEW matter.
Is that about right?
I find it inexplicable that an AG would not ensure taking custody of documents was in compliance with a court order in the first place (he was aware of the order) and not appealed the order like he acknowledges would be the proper avenue.
and then knowing they weren’t compliant and he didn’t properly appeal, write a letter admitting as much as an attempt to let Alabama know they didn’t want the docs to get into SF hands as it would hurt HIS case in a matter resolved as he was in a new matter.
if this long comment is tolerated I’ll speculate to Alice Waters.
Alice Matin, not Waters the Che Panisse restaurant owner as I wrote. Ooops.
I was puzzled for a moment there, Seacrest.
Maybe someone can help me with something.
The global settlement was announced 1/23/07
There is so much information to wade through, but did this settlement agreement generally remain in effect?
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner… in the category of Best Description of a Blogger Gone Wild, the Hoodie goes to….David Rossmiller of Insurance Law Blog re: Belle…
” Only someone truly infatuated with Beezlebub would spend the effort you are spending to Liquid Paper over his horns in all the pictures. “