Mississippi Bar v. Collins, 119 So. 3d 1039

Bar filed Formal Complaint in 2012 seeking disbarment for Collins’s 1989 aggravated‑assault felony conviction.
Collins admitted the conviction but argued disbarment was improper and that his license was on inactive status at the time.
Collins was reinstated to active status in 2000 and has since held leadership and practice roles.
Rule 6 provides automatic disbarment after conviction when appeal rights lapse, subject to recusal in appropriate circumstances.
Court conducted de novo review, acknowledged exclusive jurisdiction over discipline matters, and declined to disbar Collins as a harsh punishment inconsistent with the purposes of the Rules of Discipline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether automatic disbarment applies after long passage of time	Bar asserts Rule 6(d) automatic disbarment upon finality of conviction	Collins maintains discretion should temper punishment given time and reinstatement	Disbarment denied; automatic disbarment not enforced under these facts
Whether disbarring after 24 years serves disciplinary purposes	Discipline should protect public and deter misconduct	Harshness of punishment outweighs benefits given maturation and time since incident	Disbarment inappropriate; not consistent with disciplinary goals
Whether Bar proved ongoing misconduct or misrepresentation in reinstatement	Bar would rely on past conviction; no misconduct since reinstatement	Collins truthful in reinstatement application; no evidence of misrepresentation	Bar failed to demonstrate misconduct or misrepresentation; no grounds for disbarment

Broome v. Mississippi Bar, 603 So.2d 349 (Miss. 1992) (exclusive and inherent jurisdiction over discipline matters; automatic reinstatement issue noted)
Mississippi Bar v. Shelton, 855 So.2d 444 (Miss. 2003) (reinstatement and discipline principles cited in Mississippi Bar matters)
Miss. State Bar v. A Miss. Attorney, 489 So.2d 1081 (Miss. 1986) (discipline standards and outcomes cited in analysis)