Opinion
2021-BD-00268-SCT
03-27-2024
THE MISSISSIPPI BAR Petitioner v. URURA W. MAYERS Respondent
ORDER OF DISBARMENT
DAVID MICHAEL ISHEE, JUSTICE
¶ 1. This matter is before the Court, en banc, on a complaint for reciprocal discipline filed by the Mississippi Bar against attorney Urura W. Mayers. Mayers was disbarred in Tennessee after she withdrew funds from her client trust account at casinos in Mississippi on several occasions, then altered bank statements in an attempt to conceal the transactions from the Tennessee Bar's investigators. Mayers also continued to practice law in Tennessee after being temporarily suspended and ignored an order to appear for a public reprimand in Mississippi.
¶2. Mayers stopped defending herself during the Tennessee proceedings, and she has not entered an appearance with this Court or filed a response to the petition for reciprocal discipline. We impose reciprocal discipline and permanently disbar Mayers in Mississippi.
I.
¶3. Urura Mayers has been a member of the Mississippi Bar since 2002 and the Tennessee Bar since 2004. At the relevant times, Mayers was a resident of Tennessee. The Supreme Court of Tennessee adopted the findings and conclusions of its hearing board, which, in a twenty-five-page order, laid out the facts and procedural history in detail. The Tennessee Bar became aware of Mayers's withdrawing client trust account funds at casinos in Tunica, Mississippi, after the Tennessee Bar received a notice from Mayers's bank that her trust account had been overdrawn. Then, "in an attempt to hide these facts from [Tennessee Bar] investigators, [Mayers], on at least one[] occasion, intentionally altered bank records, then submitted those falsified records to the [Tennessee Bar]." Mayers later admitted she had altered the records, had given false and misleading statements to Tennessee Bar investigators, and had used client trust account funds at casinos an unspecified number of times. She claimed to have deposited money back in the trust account the next day or soon thereafter. Mayers stated she suffered from gambling addiction and averred that she would address it. Mayers then sought help from the Mississippi Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program and its analogue in Tennessee, the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program.
¶4. There were four supplemental petitions against Mayers in Tennessee, all of which were ultimately deemed admitted by Mayers's failure to answer.
¶5. The first supplemental petition alleged that after Mayers was temporarily suspended in Tennessee, she repeatedly violated the suspension by drafting documents for clients and appearing at hearings. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that Mayers had willfully violated the terms of her suspension and monitoring agreements. It further found that Mayers had falsely sworn under oath that she had complied with the suspension and monitoring agreements when seeking to terminate her temporary suspension.
¶6. In the second, Mayers was found to have taken new clients in violation of the temporary suspension order, and, in one case, she accepted payment but did not provide the services or refund the fee to the client.
¶7. In the third supplemental petition, Mayers was again found to have appeared as an attorney in hearings, filed complaints, drafted documents, and so forth while suspended. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that Mayers's "false statements of fact under oath before the Panel in an official proceeding . . . constitute the crime of perjury."
¶8. In the fourth petition, Mayers was found to have prepared documents for a client and instructed the client to file them herself. In a separate case, Mayers prepared documents for a divorce, emailed them to the Tennessee divorce referee, and informed the referee that the client would be appearing pro se.
¶9. The morning of the final hearing before the Tennessee Board, Mayers emailed the panel members stating that she was "not going to waste the Board or anyone else's time appearing" and would voluntarily surrender her license. Mayers did not appear at the final hearing. The Board later found that Mayers had not, in fact, taken the required steps to formally surrender her license; but she did stop defending herself in the disciplinary proceedings.
¶10. In addition, the Mississippi Bar charges in its amended complaint that the Professional Responsibility Committee for the Mississippi Bar issued a Public Reprimand to Mayers on November 24, 2022, and that Mayers did not appear for the public reprimand, nor did she respond to the circuit court's attempts to contact her. Mayers also failed to present a certified copy of the Tennessee disbarment order to the Mississippi Bar as required by Rule 14(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline.
¶11. Mayers has previously been publicly reprimanded by this Court as reciprocal discipline for misconduct in Tennessee in a case in which the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee found that Mayers had failed to properly supervise a legal assistant who had used Mayers's trust account to pay personal expenses. See Miss. Bar v. Mayers, 294 So.3d 617 (Miss. 2020).
II.
¶12. Rule 14(b) of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar provides that "[a] final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney admitted to practice in the State of Mississippi has been guilty of misconduct shall establish conclusively the misconduct for purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in the State of Mississippi." All that remains for this Court is to determine "the extent of the final discipline to be imposed upon the attorney in this State, which may be more or less severe than the discipline imposed by the other jurisdiction." Id.
¶13. "Under the reciprocity doctrine, 'the sanction imposed in this State generally mirrors the sanction imposed in the sister state, absent extraordinary circumstances which compel, justify or support variance from the foreign jurisdiction's sanction.'" Miss. Bar v. Hughes, 268 So.3d 1283, 1288 (Miss. 2018) (quoting Miss. Bar v. Gilmer, 949 So.2d 689, 690 (Miss. 2006)).
¶14. The Supreme Court of Tennessee undertook an extensive and detailed analysis of Mayers's misconduct. It found that she had violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 (fees), 1.15 (safekeeping property and funds), 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel), 5.5(b) (unauthorized practice of law), 8.1 (bar admission and disciplinary matters), and 8.4(a), (b), (c), (d), and (g) (misconduct).
¶ 15. The Tennessee Supreme Court then reviewed the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and found the following mitigating factors: absence of a prior significant disciplinary record, the presence of personal or emotional problems (gambling addiction), prior good character or reputation, and (for a period of time) full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board. Aggravating factors included multiple offenses, dishonest or selfish motives, substantial experience in the practice of law, a pattern of similar misconduct, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings, and submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices. The Tennessee Supreme Court concluded that, on the balance, the surrounding circumstances warranted an increase from the baseline punishment; but the baseline punishment was already permanent disbarment. ¶16. Mayers has not responded to the Mississippi Bar's petitions for reciprocal discipline. Procedure 14.1 of the Rules of Discipline permits, but does not require, an attorney to file a response; but an attorney who does not respond to the petition for reciprocal discipline "has presented no mitigating factors for our consideration." Hughes, 268 So.3d at 1288.
¶17. "In this Court's application of the reciprocity doctrine, the sanction imposed in this State generally mirrors the sanction imposed in the sister state, absent extraordinary circumstances which compel, justify or support variance from the foreign jurisdiction's sanction." Miss. Bar v. Hodges, 949 So.2d 683, 686 (Miss. 2006). "We may impose sanctions less than or greater than those imposed by another jurisdiction." Id. This Court considers the following nine criteria:
(1) the nature of the misconduct involved; (2) the need to deter similar misconduct; (3) the preservation of the dignity and reputation of the profession; (4) protection of the public; (5) the sanctions imposed in similar cases; (6) the duty violated; (7) the lawyer's mental state; (8) the actual or potential injury resulting from the misconduct; and (9) the existence of aggravating and/or mitigating factors.Id. "Each criterion need not be addressed separately, 'so long as each is taken into consideration.'" Miss. Barv. Beal, 167 So.3d 180,186 (Miss. 2014) (quoting Hodges, 949 So.2d at 686)).
¶18. In disbarring Mayers, the Supreme Court of Tennessee "explicitly or implicitly considered all nine criteria utilized by this Court to determine an appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct." Hughes, 268 So.3d at 1288. Mayers's misconduct was egregious, and disbarment is plainly warranted. We find "no extraordinary circumstances which compel, justify or support variance from the foreign jurisdiction's sanction." Hodges, 949 So.2d at 686. We therefore permanently disbar Mayers.
¶19. Also before the Court is the Mississippi Bar's motion for reimbursement of actual costs and expenses incurred for filing and serving its complaints in this matter. Mayers shall reimburse the Mississippi Bar for the actual costs and expenses of this proceeding.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:
1. Urura W. Mayers is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Mississippi;
2. This order shall constitute notice of Mayers's permanent disbarment;
3. The Clerk of this Court shall forward an attested copy of this order to the executive director of the Mississippi Bar and shall transmit Mayers's copy to her by certified mail, return receipt requested;
4. The Clerk immediately shall forward an attested copy of this order to the Clerks of the United States District Court, Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi, to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States;
5. The Clerk immediately shall forward attested copies of this order to the judges of the trial courts of the districts in which Mayers resided and practiced law, with instructions to spread a copy of this judgment upon the minutes of their respective courts;
6. Urura W. Mayers shall, within thirty days following entry of this order, notify her clients and affected courts, if any, of her removal from the Mississippi Bar, properly disburse all funds she may hold in trust, and comply with all other requirements applicable under Rule 12 of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar;
7. Urura W. Mayers shall, within forty-five days following the entry of this order, file an affidavit with the Court stating that all of her clients have been notified of her disbarment and consequent inability to practice law in Mississippi and that she has fully complied with all applicable requirements set forth in Rule 12 of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar, as well as the requirements of this order;
8. Failure to comply with this order may be punished as contempt and may constitute a separate ground for disciplinary action;
9. Costs and expenses of this proceeding are assessed to Urura W. Mayers.
SO ORDERED.