The Mississippi Bar v. Darnell Felton
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 97-BD-00517-SCT
THE MISSISSIPPI BAR
v.
DARNELL FELTON
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
04/25/97
COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL
MICHAEL B. MARTZ
DARNELL FELTON
CIVIL - BAR MATTERS
180 DAY SUSPENSION - 9/25/97
EN BANC.
SMITH, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Darnell Felton is accused of unprofessional and unethical conduct and conduct evincing unfitness
for the practice of law which constitutes legal grounds for the imposition of discipline. Felton has
failed to comply with every order in this case entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi. The Mississippi Bar brings before this Court a formal complaint filed
pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar.
FACTS
¶2. Darnell Felton is the attorney of record for the debtor in the Chapter 7 case styled In Re: Jones
Memorial Day Care Center. On May 9, 1996, the United States trustee filed a motion to examine
fees and for other relief. On July 23, 1996, an examination of fees was ordered, directing Felton to
file a Chapter 11 final report and any application for compensation and reimbursement of expenses
for the Chapter 11 aspect of this case within thirty days from the date of the order. The order also
directed Felton to file all Chapter 7 schedules within fifteen days from the date of the order unless the
schedules had been previously filed. The order further specified that Felton receive $750 pre-petition
from the debtor as retainer, as well as $300 post-petition from estate property.
¶3. Felton failed to comply with this order, and on October 2, 1996, Felton was ordered to disgorge
interim fees. The bankruptcy court found that Felton failed to file any application for compensation or
reimbursement of expenses and that the final deadline for filing such applications had expired. Felton
was ordered to pay $1,050 to Alex B. Gates, the Chapter 7 case trustee, by November 1, 1996.
¶4. On January 22, 1997, the court denied Felton's motion to dismiss and allowed him until February
1, 1997, to pay the sum, file any application and otherwise comply with the terms of the orders of
July 23, 1996, and October 2, 1996.
¶5. Felton failed to take any actions whatsoever to comply with any of the court orders. The sum of
$1,050 was not paid to the trustee until March 12, 1997. In his answer to the Bar's Formal
Complaint, however, Felton does explain why he failed to file the requisite forms. Felton states that
he encountered difficulty in obtaining the necessary information from the debtor and that the
information he did receive he believed to be incomplete and inaccurate.
¶6. On March 19, 1997, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Mississippi
issued a Consent Order and Injunction under which Felton was enjoined from the following activities
commencing on April 1, 1997: (1) the practice of law before any bankruptcy court in the United
States; (2) representing or giving legal advice to any entity concerning the bankruptcy laws of the
United States; and (3) any and all acts that could constitute the practice of law on a bankruptcy issue.
This injunction does not apply to Felton's representation of himself and does not apply to any case
filed prior to April 1, 1997. Felton also agreed to complete eighteen hours of continuing legal
education in the area of bankruptcy law. He further agreed to do the following by March 21, 1997:
(1) pay to Alex B. Gates, trustee, as disgorgement of attorney's fees paid by the debtor in this case,
$1,050; (2) file a final Chapter 11 report in the form previously ordered; (3) file all required schedules
for the Chapter 7 aspect of this case; and (4) waive any claim for any money from this estate. The
injunction was to continue to March 31, 1999, and terminate on that date provided Felton had
complied with the order.
¶7. The Mississippi Bar now requests that Felton be disciplined by this Court as a result of his
conduct.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶8. This Court conducts a de novo review in bar disciplinary matters. Attorney U v. The Mississippi
Bar, 678 So. 2d 963, 969 (Miss. 1996); The Mississippi Bar v. Alexander, 669 So. 2d 40, 41
(Miss.1996); Mississippi Rules of Discipline Rule 9.4 (1997).
¶9. Generally, the burden is on the Bar to show "by clear and convincing evidence that an attorney's
actions constitute professional misconduct." Alexander, 669 So. 2d at 41 (citing Goodsell v. The
Mississippi Bar, 667 So. 2d 7 (Miss. 1996)). However, the Bar filed its complaint under the purview
of Rule 13 of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar, which provides:
When an attorney should be subjected to disciplinary sanctions in another jurisdiction, such
sanction shall be grounds for disciplinary action in this state, and certification of such sanction
by the appropriate authority of such jurisdiction to the Executive Director of the Bar or to the
Court, shall be conclusive evidence of the guilt of the offense or unprofessional conduct on
which said sanction was ordered, and it will not be necessary to prove the grounds for such
offense in the disciplinary proceeding in this state. The sole issue to be determined in the
disciplinary proceeding in this state shall be the extent of the final discipline to be imposed on
the attorney, which may be less or more severe than the discipline imposed by the other
jurisdiction.
Mississippi Rules of Discipline, Rule 13 (1997) (emphasis added). See Miss.Code Ann. § 73-3-341
(1995); Alexander, 669 So. 2d at 41; Mississippi State Bar v. Edwins, 534 So. 2d 218, 219 (Miss.
1988).
DISCUSSION OF LAW
I. WHETHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION IS TO BE IMPOSED BY THIS COURT
AND, IF SO, THE EXTENT OF SUCH DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
¶10. This Court contemplates two sets of criteria when determining sanctions for misconduct. See
Alexander, 669 So. 2d at 42. The first set of criteria considers: "(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) the protection of the public; and, (5) the sanctions imposed in similar cases." Id.
(citing Mississippi Bar v. Attorney R., 649 So. 2d 820, 824-25 (Miss. 1995)). The second set of
criteria considers: "(a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the actual or potential
injury resulting from the misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors."
Alexander, 669 So. 2d at 42 (citing ABA Guidelines, Standard 3.0.)
¶11. Because the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Mississippi has
ordered sanctions against Felton, these orders are "conclusive evidence" of his guilt, and the only
misconduct this Court is concerned with is Felton's failure to obey three court orders. See Mississippi
Rules of Discipline Rule 13 (1997). As this Court noted in Mississippi Bar v. Strauss, 601 So. 2d
840, 844 (Miss. 1992), the sole issue to be determined is the extent of final discipline. "There is no
need for additional fact-finding." Alexander, 669 So. 2d at 42. In Alexander, this Court accepted the
district court's suspension of Alexander as "conclusive proof of his guilt of failure to follow court
orders and protect his clients' interest" and held that "reciprocal sanctions are in order under Rule
13." Id. The purpose of discipline "is not to punish the guilty attorney, but to protect the public, the
administration of justice, to maintain appropriate professional standards, and to deter similar
conduct." Mississippi State Bar Ass'n v. A Mississippi Attorney, 489 So. 2d 1081, 1084 (Miss.
1986).
¶12. The facts in Alexander are similar to those in the case sub judice. Alexander received a twoyear suspension by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi for failure
to comply with court orders to pay sanctions. Alexander, 669 So. 2d at 41. The federal suspension
was conditional, permitting the conclusion of pending cases, as does the federal suspension in the
case at bar. When the Bar filed a formal complaint against Alexander, this Court noted the nature of
the federal suspension and, nevertheless, imposed an unconditional six-month suspension from the
practice of law in any court in the state. Id. at 42.
¶13. A more indefinite suspension was ordered by this Court in In re Lewis , 654 So. 2d 1379, 1381
(Miss. 1995). In that case, the public defender in Neshoba County was charged with neglect and
inattention to his clients. He was ordered to file briefs and pay fines, which he failed to do. He, like
Felton, repeatedly failed to obey court orders. This Court noted that its "present concern is the
protection of the citizenry and the dignity of the legal system . . ." Id. at 1383. Clayton was
suspended from practicing law in the state until further ordered, and his misconduct was referred to
the duly-appointed complaints tribunal to be punished according to the Rules of Discipline. Id. at
1385.
¶14. Though the sole issue before this Court in cases under Rule 13 is the extent of disciplinary
action, this Court has considered the nature of the misconduct in determining its action. In Mathes v.
Mississippi Bar, 637 So. 2d 840 (Miss. 1994), the Mississippi Bar filed a complaint against Mathes
for accepting compensation from bankruptcy clients without having first petitioned the court for
approval of the fees as he was required to do by bankruptcy law. Mathes was ordered to return the
funds to the trustee. He failed to do so, and the Bar filed a formal complaint against him. Mathes was
suspended from practice for one year and appealed that suspension. This Court reduced the
suspension to six months, noting the necessity of having attorneys follow court orders and give
credence to the dignity of the judicial system. Id. at 847-49. However, this Court explained that
because Mathes' misconduct did not victimize his clients, but only the legal system, the one-year
suspension was too harsh. Id.
¶15. In the case at bar, the misconduct of Felton apparently did "victimize" his clients, as he failed to
file the required schedules and to disgorge fees to the trustee. Felton seems to offer, however, in his
answer, some explanation of his failure to comply with the court orders, likely in an effort to mitigate
his conduct. This Court has held that an attorney "who is subject to reciprocal discipline may . . .
offer any mitigating factors which he thinks serve to diminish his culpability and therefore diminish
the necessity for, or severity of, sanctions to be imposed by this Court." Mississippi Bar v. Strauss,
601 So. 2d 840, 844 (Miss. 1992). Felton states that he had difficulty in obtaining the necessary
information from the debtor and that he believed the information eventually obtained from the debtor
was incomplete and inaccurate. Furthermore, Felton states that he made an ore tenus request to
withdraw as counsel of the debtor, which was denied. He also explains that because he was under the
impression that the Bankruptcy Court was more interested in the immediate filing of the reports, he
did not pay the funds immediately.
¶16. The Bar, however, offers as aggravation a copy of a letter dated January 3, 1997, imposing an
informal admonition on Felton for his misconduct in another case. This Court finds that Felton's
repeated disregard of the bankruptcy court's orders, three orders, to be exact, outweighs the
mitigating evidence, especially when coupled with the former admonition by the Bar.
CONCLUSION
¶17. In accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar, this Court
accepts the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Mississippi's suspension of
Felton as conclusive proof of his guilt of failure to follow court orders and protect his clients'
interests. This Court holds that reciprocal sanctions under Rule 13 are in order. For that reason, this
Court imposes an 180 day suspension of Felton from the practice of law in all courts in the State of
Mississippi. Additionally, this Court holds that all costs and expenses be taxed against Felton. See
Matter of Mississippi State Bar, 361 So. 2d 503, 506 (Miss. 1978).
¶18. DARNELL FELTON IS HEREBY SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN
ALL COURTS IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI FOR 180 DAYS.
LEE, C.J., PRATHER AND SULLIVAN, P.JJ., PITTMAN, BANKS, McRAE, ROBERTS
AND MILLS, JJ., CONCUR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
