IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2020-BR-01310-SCT
PETER A. C. STEWART, III
v.
THE MISSISSIPPI BAR
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER: MARK A. NELSON ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: ADAM BRADLEY KILGORE MELISSA SELMAN SCOTT NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - BAR MATTERS DISPOSITION: REINSTATEMENT GRANTED - 12/02/2021 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:
EN BANC.
ISHEE, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Peter A.C. Stewart, III, was admitted to the practice of law in the state of Mississippi
in 1997 and actively practiced until his one-year suspension by this Court in 2007. Stewart
is now seeking reinstatement, alleging that he has rehabilitated himself and has met the
requirements for reinstatement. This Court concludes that he has met the requirements to be
reinstated to the practice of law.
FACTS
¶2. Stewart is a 54-year-old 1992 graduate of the University of Mississippi School of
Law. He was suspended from practice by this Court in 2007. The Complaint Tribunal found
that Stewart should be suspended for a period of ninety days after failing to appear at his
disciplinary hearing and after his sixth violation of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. Stewart appealed those findings to this Court, alleging that the ninety-day
suspension was too harsh. This Court in Stewart v. Mississippi Bar, 969 So. 2d 6 (Miss.
2007), suspended Stewart for six separate matters. The Court found that the ninety-day
suspension was too lenient given Stewart’s history of violations and that a one-year
suspension was more appropriate. Id. at 11. Stewart was suspended from practice for a
period of one year by the Court and “thereafter until such time as he passed the Multi-State
Professional Responsibility Exam.” Id. at 14.
¶3. After Stewart’s suspension, he shut down his practice, and his cases were assigned to
other attorneys. Stewart stated he experienced depression and continued his lifelong abuse
of alcohol and drugs until September 2017 when he sought the help of the Bar’s Lawyer and
Judges Assistance Program (LJAP). He then executed a five-year substance-abuse
monitoring contract with LJAP. Stewart attached his monitoring contract with LJAP to his
petition along with his correspondence with the director of LJAP regarding his compliance
with this contract.
¶4. Further, Stewart communicated his apologies to his former clients, Marvin and
Penelope Ann Bruce, in compliance with this Court’s 2007 opinion. In compliance with this
Court’s opinion, Stewart has reimbursed the Mississippi Bar and has paid the filing fees for
this case. Stewart has also volunteered with civic and charitable organizations and is active
in working with recovering alcoholics and addicts. Stewart is now asking to be reinstated
to the practice of law.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
2 ¶5. This Court has “exclusive and inherent jurisdiction of matters pertaining to attorney
discipline, reinstatement, and appointment of receivers for suspended and disbarred
attorneys.” In re Morrison, 819 So. 2d 1181, 1183 (Miss. 2001) (quoting In re Smith, 758
So. 2d 396, 397 (Miss. 1999)). “This Court reviews the evidence in disciplinary matters de
novo, on a case-by-case basis sitting as triers of fact.” In re Smith, 758 So. 2d at 397
(quoting In re Pace, 699 So. 2d 593, 595 (Miss. 1997)).
DISCUSSION
¶6. This Court finds that Stewart’s Petition for Reinstatement satisfies the requirements
of Rule 12 of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline. Rule 12 governs the reinstatement of
suspended attorneys:
(a) No person disbarred or suspended for a period of six months or longer shall be reinstated to the privilege of practicing law except upon petition to the Court.
(b) Reinstatement to the practice of law following any discipline shall be only upon proof of compliance with any such sanctions.
M.R.D. 12(a)-(b). This Court’s fundamental inquiry in determining whether to grant a
reinstatement is “whether [the attorney] has rehabilitated himself in conduct and character
since the suspension was imposed.” Derivaux v. Miss. State Bar, 226 So. 3d 97, 99
(alteration in original) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting In re Steele, 722 So. 2d
662, 664 (Miss. 1998)). The burden rests on the petitioner to prove that “he has rehabilitated
himself and re-established the requisite moral character sufficient to entitle him to
reinstatement is upon the Petitioner.” Burgin v. Miss. State Bar, 453 So. 2d 689, 691 (Miss.
1984) (citing Ex Parte Marshall, 165 Miss. 523, 147 So. 791 (1933)). Suspended attorneys
3 must comply with the requirements of Rule 12 in order to demonstrate entitlement to
reinstatement. Derivaux, 226 So. 3d at 99 (citing In re Benson, 890 So. 2d 888, 890 (Miss.
2004)).
¶7. The petitioner must:
(1) state the cause or causes for suspension or disbarment; (2) give the name and current address of all persons, parties, firms, or legal entities who suffered pecuniary loss due to the improper conduct; (3) make full amends and restitution; (4) show that he has the necessary moral character for the practice of law; and (5) demonstrate the requisite legal education to be reinstated to the privilege of practicing law.
In re Benson, 890 So. 2d at 890. This Court considers the Bar’s position when determining
whether to reinstate a suspended attorney. Derivaux, 226 So. 3d at 99 (citing In re Benson,
890 So. 2d at 890).
A. Cause for Suspension
¶8. Stewart’s Petition stated that he was suspended for six separate matters that are set
forth in this Court’s opinion in Stewart v. Miss. Bar, 969 So. 2d 6 (Miss. 2007). The
Complaint Tribunal found that:
A. Stewart violated Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(a) by failing to abide by the Bruces’ objectives in the representation, that Mr. Bruce be represented in the child support modification case brought by the Mississippi Department of Human Services.
B. Stewart violated Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing Mr. Bruce in the child support modification matter for which he was hired.
C. Stewart violated Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 by failing to communicate with the Bruces after undertaking Mr. Bruce’s representation and by failing to respond to the Bruces’ requests for
4 information about the case to the point that the Bruces terminated his representation.
D. Stewart violated Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(d) by failing to return unearned fees to the Bruces when they terminated his representation.
E. Stewart violated Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b), when he failed to answer the informal complaints of the Bruces and James, even though the Office of General Counsel for the Bar demand that he respond.
F.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2020-BR-01310-SCT
PETER A. C. STEWART, III
v.
THE MISSISSIPPI BAR
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER: MARK A. NELSON ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: ADAM BRADLEY KILGORE MELISSA SELMAN SCOTT NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - BAR MATTERS DISPOSITION: REINSTATEMENT GRANTED - 12/02/2021 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:
EN BANC.
ISHEE, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Peter A.C. Stewart, III, was admitted to the practice of law in the state of Mississippi
in 1997 and actively practiced until his one-year suspension by this Court in 2007. Stewart
is now seeking reinstatement, alleging that he has rehabilitated himself and has met the
requirements for reinstatement. This Court concludes that he has met the requirements to be
reinstated to the practice of law.
FACTS
¶2. Stewart is a 54-year-old 1992 graduate of the University of Mississippi School of
Law. He was suspended from practice by this Court in 2007. The Complaint Tribunal found
that Stewart should be suspended for a period of ninety days after failing to appear at his
disciplinary hearing and after his sixth violation of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. Stewart appealed those findings to this Court, alleging that the ninety-day
suspension was too harsh. This Court in Stewart v. Mississippi Bar, 969 So. 2d 6 (Miss.
2007), suspended Stewart for six separate matters. The Court found that the ninety-day
suspension was too lenient given Stewart’s history of violations and that a one-year
suspension was more appropriate. Id. at 11. Stewart was suspended from practice for a
period of one year by the Court and “thereafter until such time as he passed the Multi-State
Professional Responsibility Exam.” Id. at 14.
¶3. After Stewart’s suspension, he shut down his practice, and his cases were assigned to
other attorneys. Stewart stated he experienced depression and continued his lifelong abuse
of alcohol and drugs until September 2017 when he sought the help of the Bar’s Lawyer and
Judges Assistance Program (LJAP). He then executed a five-year substance-abuse
monitoring contract with LJAP. Stewart attached his monitoring contract with LJAP to his
petition along with his correspondence with the director of LJAP regarding his compliance
with this contract.
¶4. Further, Stewart communicated his apologies to his former clients, Marvin and
Penelope Ann Bruce, in compliance with this Court’s 2007 opinion. In compliance with this
Court’s opinion, Stewart has reimbursed the Mississippi Bar and has paid the filing fees for
this case. Stewart has also volunteered with civic and charitable organizations and is active
in working with recovering alcoholics and addicts. Stewart is now asking to be reinstated
to the practice of law.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
2 ¶5. This Court has “exclusive and inherent jurisdiction of matters pertaining to attorney
discipline, reinstatement, and appointment of receivers for suspended and disbarred
attorneys.” In re Morrison, 819 So. 2d 1181, 1183 (Miss. 2001) (quoting In re Smith, 758
So. 2d 396, 397 (Miss. 1999)). “This Court reviews the evidence in disciplinary matters de
novo, on a case-by-case basis sitting as triers of fact.” In re Smith, 758 So. 2d at 397
(quoting In re Pace, 699 So. 2d 593, 595 (Miss. 1997)).
DISCUSSION
¶6. This Court finds that Stewart’s Petition for Reinstatement satisfies the requirements
of Rule 12 of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline. Rule 12 governs the reinstatement of
suspended attorneys:
(a) No person disbarred or suspended for a period of six months or longer shall be reinstated to the privilege of practicing law except upon petition to the Court.
(b) Reinstatement to the practice of law following any discipline shall be only upon proof of compliance with any such sanctions.
M.R.D. 12(a)-(b). This Court’s fundamental inquiry in determining whether to grant a
reinstatement is “whether [the attorney] has rehabilitated himself in conduct and character
since the suspension was imposed.” Derivaux v. Miss. State Bar, 226 So. 3d 97, 99
(alteration in original) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting In re Steele, 722 So. 2d
662, 664 (Miss. 1998)). The burden rests on the petitioner to prove that “he has rehabilitated
himself and re-established the requisite moral character sufficient to entitle him to
reinstatement is upon the Petitioner.” Burgin v. Miss. State Bar, 453 So. 2d 689, 691 (Miss.
1984) (citing Ex Parte Marshall, 165 Miss. 523, 147 So. 791 (1933)). Suspended attorneys
3 must comply with the requirements of Rule 12 in order to demonstrate entitlement to
reinstatement. Derivaux, 226 So. 3d at 99 (citing In re Benson, 890 So. 2d 888, 890 (Miss.
2004)).
¶7. The petitioner must:
(1) state the cause or causes for suspension or disbarment; (2) give the name and current address of all persons, parties, firms, or legal entities who suffered pecuniary loss due to the improper conduct; (3) make full amends and restitution; (4) show that he has the necessary moral character for the practice of law; and (5) demonstrate the requisite legal education to be reinstated to the privilege of practicing law.
In re Benson, 890 So. 2d at 890. This Court considers the Bar’s position when determining
whether to reinstate a suspended attorney. Derivaux, 226 So. 3d at 99 (citing In re Benson,
890 So. 2d at 890).
A. Cause for Suspension
¶8. Stewart’s Petition stated that he was suspended for six separate matters that are set
forth in this Court’s opinion in Stewart v. Miss. Bar, 969 So. 2d 6 (Miss. 2007). The
Complaint Tribunal found that:
A. Stewart violated Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(a) by failing to abide by the Bruces’ objectives in the representation, that Mr. Bruce be represented in the child support modification case brought by the Mississippi Department of Human Services.
B. Stewart violated Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing Mr. Bruce in the child support modification matter for which he was hired.
C. Stewart violated Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 by failing to communicate with the Bruces after undertaking Mr. Bruce’s representation and by failing to respond to the Bruces’ requests for
4 information about the case to the point that the Bruces terminated his representation.
D. Stewart violated Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(d) by failing to return unearned fees to the Bruces when they terminated his representation.
E. Stewart violated Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b), when he failed to answer the informal complaints of the Bruces and James, even though the Office of General Counsel for the Bar demand that he respond.
F. Stewart violated Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a) and 8.4(d) by violating the aforementioned Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct and by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by causing the Bruces to hire another attorney to complete the child support modification matter in Mississippi, by causing the matter in Illinois to be delayed and by failing to appear before this Tribunal.
Id. at 10-11.
B. Pecuniary Loss
¶9. Stewart’s petition states that Penelope Ann Bruce was the only former client that
suffered any pecuniary loss. In compliance with this Court’s 2007 opinion, Stewart
communicated his apologies to the Bruces and also returned the fees paid by the Bruces.
Stewart’s petition included an email from Penelope Ann Bruce that contained her current
address. Therefore, Stewart has satisfied the requirement to give the name and current
address of all persons, parties, firms, or legal entities who suffered pecuniary loss due to his
improper conduct.
C. Full Amends and Restitution
5 ¶10. Stewart’s petition states that he reimbursed the Mississippi Bar the sum of $531 for
expenses incurred in the proceedings. Stewart has also paid the filing fees for this case and
stated in his petition for reinstatement that he is willing to pay the Bar’s expenses.
D. Moral Character
¶11. Stewart has shown that he has rehabilitated himself and has the requisite moral
character sufficient to entitle him to reinstatement. Stewart executed a five-year substance-
abuse monitoring contract with LJAP and has complied in all respects with his LJAP
contract. He has done everything required or recommended by treatment providers, and all
drug screens submitted have been negative for substance abuse. Stewart attached his
monitoring contract with LJAP to his petition along with his correspondence with the director
of LJAP regarding his compliance with the contract. Stewart also attached a letter from his
LJAP monitor recommending readmission. Stewart has the full support of his supervisor
from his job at the Human Resources Department at Ellisville State School and attached to
his petition for reinstatement a letter from his supervisor.
¶12. Stewart has further shown that he has the necessary moral character for the practice
of law by volunteering for numerous civic and charitable organizations. He is active in
working with recovering alcoholics and addicts. Stewart avers that he is now sober and
believes that his suspension ultimately led to his sobriety. He states that he feels he owes a
debt to the Bar and the public to “pay it forward.” Stewart claims that he has dedicated
himself to determining and understanding all the factors that contributed to his lapse of
character and conduct.
6 E. Legal Learning
¶13. Stewart’s petition includes sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he has the requisite
legal education to be reinstated to the privilege of practicing law. Stewart has actively
continued his legal education since his suspension. In compliance with this Court’s opinion,
he has taken and passed the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam. He states that he
regularly reads the decisions of this Court as well as federal court opinions. Further, he has
attended Continuing Legal Education programs sponsored by LJAP and other entities.
CONCLUSION
¶14. Stewart has satisfied the requirements of Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12 for
reinstatement. Additionally, he has shown that he has rehabilitated himself in conduct and
character. Stewart is reinstated to practice law in the state of Mississippi.
¶15. REINSTATEMENT GRANTED.
RANDOLPH, C.J., KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, CHAMBERLIN AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR. BEAM, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.