In Re Jones

Utah Supreme Court

In Re Jones

696 P.2d 1215, 1985 Utah LEXIS 771

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1985

Docket19095

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 696 P.2d 1215 (In Re Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Jones, 696 P.2d 1215, 1985 Utah LEXIS 771 (Utah 1985).

Pincite

Opinions

HOWE, Justice:

Petitioner James Murrell Jones appeals from a recommendation of the Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar to this Court that he be disbarred from the practice of law in this state.

After a jury trial, Jones was convicted of two felony counts of theft by deception. We affirmed the convictions, State v. Jones, Utah, 657 P.2d 1263 (1982), and denied his petition for rehearing. We denied a subsequent motion for disbarment filed by the Board of Commissioners and instructed the Board to afford petitioner a hearing and to make recommendations to this Court based upon that hearing. After a hearing before a panel of the Board of Commissioners, the Board recommended that Jones be disbarred by this Court. Petitioner raises two issues on appeal. First, he was not allowed an opportunity to offer to the hearing panel evidence mitigating his felony convictions. Second, Rule 32 of the Rules of Integration and Management of the Utah State Bar, which requires mandatory disbarment upon a felony conviction, violates constitutional due process requirements.

Although Rule 32 mandates that Jones be automatically disbarred, the Board afforded Jones the procedural protections and rights found in Rule 11(A) of the Rules of Discipline of the Utah State Bar and Rule II, section 4 and Canon 1, DR 1-102(A)(4) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct of the Utah State Bar. Under the latter rule, the Board must exercise its discretion whether to recommend disbarment of an offending attorney. It did so by holding a hearing and affording Jones the opportunity to present mitigating evidence that would justify discipline short of disbarment. The record clearly demonstrates that the hearing panel gave petitioner’s attorney the opportunity to present mitigating evidence. Petitioner declined to personally appear at the hearing, and his counsel chose to present no evidence. Inasmuch as petitioner was afforded this opportunity but chose not to exercise it, he was not denied due process. In re Gud-mundson, Utah, 556 P.2d 212 (1976). We adopt the Board of Bar Commissioners’ recommendation that he be disbarred.

It is ordered that James Murrell Jones be disbarred from the practice of law in the courts of this state effective upon the issuance of the remittitur.

HALL, C.J., and DURHAM, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOWE, Justice:

Petitioner James Murrell Jones appeals from a recommendation of the Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar to this Court that he be disbarred from the practice of law in this state.

After a jury trial, Jones was convicted of two felony counts of theft by deception. We affirmed the convictions, State v. Jones, Utah, 657 P.2d 1263 (1982), and denied his petition for rehearing. We denied a subsequent motion for disbarment filed by the Board of Commissioners and instructed the Board to afford petitioner a hearing and to make recommendations to this Court based upon that hearing. After a hearing before a panel of the Board of Commissioners, the Board recommended that Jones be disbarred by this Court. Petitioner raises two issues on appeal. First, he was not allowed an opportunity to offer to the hearing panel evidence mitigating his felony convictions. Second, Rule 32 of the Rules of Integration and Management of the Utah State Bar, which requires mandatory disbarment upon a felony conviction, violates constitutional due process requirements.

Although Rule 32 mandates that Jones be automatically disbarred, the Board afforded Jones the procedural protections and rights found in Rule 11(A) of the Rules of Discipline of the Utah State Bar and Rule II, section 4 and Canon 1, DR 1-102(A)(4) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct of the Utah State Bar. Under the latter rule, the Board must exercise its discretion whether to recommend disbarment of an offending attorney. It did so by holding a hearing and affording Jones the opportunity to present mitigating evidence that would justify discipline short of disbarment. The record clearly demonstrates that the hearing panel gave petitioner’s attorney the opportunity to present mitigating evidence. Petitioner declined to personally appear at the hearing, and his counsel chose to present no evidence. Inasmuch as petitioner was afforded this opportunity but chose not to exercise it, he was not denied due process. In re Gud-mundson, Utah, 556 P.2d 212 (1976). We adopt the Board of Bar Commissioners’ recommendation that he be disbarred.

It is ordered that James Murrell Jones be disbarred from the practice of law in the courts of this state effective upon the issuance of the remittitur.

HALL, C.J., and DURHAM, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 P.2d 1215, 1985 Utah LEXIS 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jones-utah-1985.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack