Derivaux v. Mississippi Bar
144 So. 3d 1246
Miss.2014Background
- John Allen Derivame Jr. was originally disbarred by a Mississippi Bar Complaint Tribunal on November 18, 2011; after reconsideration the discipline was modified to a two-year suspension starting November 18, 2011, which this Court later affirmed.
- After completing the two-year suspension, Derivame filed a one-and-a-half page Petition for Reinstatement to the practice of law.
- The Mississippi Bar moved to dismiss the Petition, arguing it failed to comply with Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12(7) and controlling caselaw governing reinstatement.
- Rule 12(7) requires a petitioner to: state causes for suspension, identify persons who suffered pecuniary loss, make full amends and restitution, show requisite moral character, and demonstrate legal learning during suspension.
- The Petition was deficient: it listed violated professional conduct rules but did not describe causes; it omitted names/addresses of pecuniary-loss victims; provided no documentation of restitution; offered only a single LJAP contract as proof of rehabilitation; and showed no evidence of legal education during suspension.
- The Court granted the Bar’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Petition for failing to meet Rule 12(7) requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petition states cause(s) for suspension | Derivame listed the Rules of Professional Conduct violated | Bar: Petition lacks factual description of causes | Court: Petition insufficient; did not satisfy requirement |
| Whether Petition identifies persons who suffered pecuniary loss | Derivame silent on victims' names/addresses | Bar: omission prevents restitution verification and interpleaded funds | Court: Requirement unmet; Petition deficient |
| Whether full amends and restitution shown | Derivame claimed he deposited funds with the Bar | Bar: no documentation; funds were interpleaded due to missing victim info | Court: Unclear if full restitution made; requirement unmet |
| Whether moral character and legal learning demonstrated | Derivame pointed to LJAP contract and asserted underlying issues resolved | Bar: single contract is inadequate evidence of rehabilitation and character | Court: Evidence insufficient; moral character and legal learning requirements unmet |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Morrison, 819 So.2d 1181 (Miss. 2001) (Court has exclusive jurisdiction over attorney discipline and reviews de novo)
- Burgin v. Miss. State Bar, 453 So.2d 689 (Miss. 1984) (petitioner bears burden to prove rehabilitation and moral character)
- In re Steele, 722 So.2d 662 (Miss. 1998) (fundamental inquiry is whether attorney has rehabilitated conduct and character)
- In re Benson, 890 So.2d 888 (Miss. 2004) (Rule 12(7) requirements for reinstatement summarized)
- In re Holleman, 826 So.2d 1243 (Miss. 2002) (Court considers Bar's position in reinstatement decisions)
- In re Kelly, 987 So.2d 925 (Miss. 2008) (rehabilitation must be shown by clear and convincing evidence)