Stewart v. Mississippi Bar
84 So. 3d 9
Miss.2011Background
- Stewart was disbarred in 2004 after pleading guilty to conspiracy to extort under color of official right.
- In 1998 he paid a Tunica County deputy to absent himself as a witness in five DUI matters, leading to dismissal of those cases.
- He self-reported illegal activity to the FBI and received three years of probation with fines and assessments.
- This Court denied his first petition for reinstatement due to insufficient demonstrated rehabilitation.
- Stewart’s second petition is opposed by the Bar on multiple grounds, including lack of full restitution, incomplete history disclosure, alleged deception about military service, and misstatements about seeking a National Guard waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Bar inquire about expunged records in reinstatement? | Stewart | Stewart | Bar may inquire; expungement evidence admissible |
| Does false response about expunged offense bar reinstatement? | Stewart | Bar | Yes; false candor supports denial |
| Does rehabilitation evidence overcome other concerns? | Stewart | Bar | Insufficient; petition denied |
| Can barriers regarding military service and waivers affect reinstatement? | Stewart | Bar | Neutral impact; denial unaffected |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. Miss. Bar, 5 So.3d 344 (Miss. 2008) (custody of rehabilitation and reinstatement standards)
- In re Morrison, 819 So.2d 1181 (Miss. 2001) (exclusive and inherent jurisdiction over reinstatement; de novo review)
- In re Smith, 758 So.2d 396 (Miss. 1999) (standards for reinstate/deny admission)
- In re Holleman, 826 So.2d 1243 (Miss. 2002) (rehabilitation and moral-character requirements)
- Miss. Bar v. McGuire, 647 So.2d 706 (Miss. 1994) (Rule of Discipline vs. statute conflict; authority to discipline)
- In re Benson, 890 So.2d 888 (Miss. 2004) (Rule 12 considerations; restitution and disclosure duties)
- Mississippi Bar v. Gibson, 883 So.2d 1158 (Miss. 2004) (pecuniary loss concept in disciplinary context)
- Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Hartzog, 904 So.2d 981 (Miss. 2004) (disciplinary financial-loss considerations)