Robert Charles Robb, III v. The Mississippi Bar
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 97-BR-00032-SCT
IN RE: PETITION OF ROBERT CHARLES ROBB, III,
FOR REINSTATEMENT TO PRACTICE LAW
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
06/20/96
MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT
ROBERT CHARLES ROBB, III
MICHAEL B. MARTZ
CIVIL - BAR MATTERS
REMANDED - 11/26/97
EN BANC.
MILLS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
¶1. On June 20, 1996, the Mississippi Supreme Court suspended Robert Charles Robb III from the
practice of law in the State of Mississippi for six months, effective July 1, 1996. See Mississippi Bar
v. Robb, 684 So.2d 615 (Miss. 1996). The Court found Robb to be in violation of Uniform Chancery
Court Rule 5.04 and Rules 3.4(c), 4.1(a), 4.4, and 8.4(a),(c)&(d) of the Mississippi Rules of
Professional Conduct. The suspension stemmed from an incident where Robb obtained a civil
contempt order against the opposing party in a property settlement matter. Robb failed to notify
opposing counsel of the order and "ambushed" the opposition at a deposition by prearranging for the
deputy sheriff to arrive and arrest the opposing party.
¶2. After a bar complaint was filed, the Complaint Tribunal ordered a public reprimand. Aggrieved,
the Mississippi Bar appealed the case to the Mississippi Supreme Court. The Court ordered a sixmonth suspension for Robb. Following his suspension, Robb petitioned the United States Supreme
Court for Writ of Certiorari challenging this Court's order. On January 21, 1997, Robb filed a
Petition for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law in this State pursuant to Rule 12 of the Rules of
Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar. On February 18, 1997, the Mississippi Bar filed an answer
recommending that the Court deny Robb's Petition for Reinstatement.
ANALYSIS
¶3. "Rule 12 of the Rules of Discipline governs the reinstatement of attorneys who have been
disbarred or suspended." See In re Petition of Medley, 687 So.2d 1219 (Miss. 1997);see also
Burgin v. Mississippi State Bar, 453 So.2d 689, 690 (Miss. 1984). Rule 12.7 requires:
All reinstatement petitions shall be addressed to the Court, shall state the cause or causes for
suspension or disbarment, give the names and current addresses of all persons, parties, firms, or
legal entities who suffered pecuniary loss due to the improper conduct, the making of full
amends and restitution, the reasons justifying reinstatement, and requisite moral character and
legal learning to be reinstated to the privilege of practicing law.
Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar, Rule 12.7.
¶4. The fundamental issue posed by a petition for reinstatement is the attorney's rehabilitation in
conduct and character since disbarment or suspension. Burgin, 453 So.2d at 691. The burden is on
the Petitioner to prove that he has been rehabilitated sufficiently to entitle him to reinstatement. Id.
The burden of proof of a suspended attorney petitioning for reinstatement is not the same or as great
as that demanded of one who has been disbarred. Haimes v. Mississippi State Bar, 551 So.2d 910,
912 (Miss. 1989).
FULL RESTITUTION AND AMENDS TO THOSE SUFFERING PECUNIARY LOSS
¶5. In support of his petition, Robb submits that all civil suits arising from his unprofessional conduct
have been settled or dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, he contends that he has made full
restitution and amends to all parties experiencing a pecuniary loss arising from his actions. The
Mississippi Bar neither admits nor denies this assertion. However, the Bar does state that Robb "has
probably satisfied the requirements."
REQUISITE LEGAL LEARNING
¶6. Robb contends that he possesses the requisite legal learning to be reinstated. Robb graduated
from the University of Mississippi School of Law in 1979. Before the suspension, Robb was licensed
in all courts of the State of Mississippi. He has maintained two offices for the past fifteen years
working primarily in the fields of bankruptcy, personal injury and worker's compensation. Since his
suspension, Robb asserts that he has updated his computer system to conform to new rules and case
law, read monthly supplements of bankruptcy cases, continued his membership in the Mississippi
Bankruptcy Conference and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Bar, attended a bankruptcy seminar
for CLE credit and obtained a passing score of 114 after he voluntarily sat for the Multistate
Professional Responsibility Exam.
¶7. For the most part, the Mississippi Bar neither admits nor denies Robb's statements. However, the
Bar submits that Robb's MPRE score was neither certified nor attested. In addition, the Bar contends
that Robb did not attach a proof of attendance form from the CLE seminar. The Bar does admit that
Robb "probably has satisfied the requirements."
REASONS JUSTIFYING REINSTATEMENT
¶8. To further justify his reinstatement, Robb admits in the filing presently before this Court that the
actions that resulted in his suspension were wrong and he promises not to repeat such actions. He
also now recognizes the power of this Court to supervise and discipline his future practice of law.
Robb also points to his actions following the suspension to notify all clients, courts and opposing
parties regarding his suspension in strict compliance with Rule 11 of the Rules of Discipline to allow
for an efficient transition in his absence. Finally, Robb argues that the public and the Mississippi Bar
have been fully vindicated by the punishment, and the resulting negative publicity, that he received.
¶9. The Mississippi Bar neither admits nor denies most of the assertions offered by Robb. However,
the Bar "denies that it and the public have been fully vindicated."
REHABILITATION AND REQUISITE MORAL CHARACTER
¶10. Finally, Robb addresses the requisite moral character to be reinstated. In support, Robb cites
several examples of his moral character: his stable family situation, his reliance on the income from
his law practice(1), no criminal convictions, no drug or tobacco use, volunteer readings for Public
Radio of Mississippi and participation in the campaigns of Martin Pace and Gerald Hosemann. Robb
also submits eight (8) letters of recommendation from members of the Mississippi Bar. The letters of
recommendation were submitted by Honorable Charles Brewer, Honorable James Cothren, Judge
Gerald Hosemann, Honorable John Paxton, Honorable Eugene Perrier, Honorable Selene Maddox,
Honorable Roy Perilloux and Honorable Marcie Southerland.(2) This Court considers letters of
recommendation to be admissible evidence of character. Ex Parte Marshall, 165 Miss. 523, 551,
147 So. 791, 796 (1933).
¶11. The Mississippi Bar contends that Robb does not have the requisite moral character to be
reinstated and submits four (4) incidents for the Court to consider.
FIRST INCIDENT
¶12. The first incident involves charges of simple assault and possession of a concealed weapon filed
against Robb. On September 25, 1996, Gloria Fisher, a Delchamps grocery store employee, filed a
"Citizen Complaint Report" with the Vicksburg Police Department. The report states:
Charles (Robb) walked in the deli and asked: "Was there stale donuts?" I said "yes" and I said
to him I don't fool with you. He walked behind the deli counter and I turned around. He had a
gun pointed at me. He said "I will shoot you."
¶13. Based on this statement, Robb was charged with simple assault and possession of a concealed
weapon without a permit. The charges were dismissed when Fisher decided not to testify against
Robb. Robb indicated that he probably paid the $50.00 in court costs.
¶14. Michael Martz, the Bar's General Counsel, interviewed Fisher on February 5, 1997. He also
interviewed two Delchamps store managers, Ricky Bourg and Delbert Crooks, and another witness
known only as Cheryl. Fisher reiterated the contents of her complaint and admitted that she knew
Robb prior to the incident. When questioned about her decision not to testify, Fisher stated that she
"prayed about it and decided that he really didn't mean (me) any harm; that he was just fooling
around and that she didn't want to cause him or his family any trouble." She also described the gun in
Robb's possession as "a big gun."
¶15. Crooks stated that Robb was "banned" from the store immediately after the incident and remains
"banned" from the store. Bourg considered the dismissal of the charges to be "fishy."
¶16. Robb portrays the situation in a different light. First, he denies pointing the gun at Fisher or
saying that he "was going to shoot her." Second, he claims that prior to entering the store, he had
removed the clip and barrel from the Model 1911 Colt .45 automatic. This assertion appears to be in
direct opposition to the statement of Fisher that it was a "big gun." Robb also contends that Fisher
approached his attorney, Eugene Perrier, and asked for $5,000 in exchange for not testifying. Robb
denies paying the "hush money" but failed to notify any law enforcement official regarding the
attempted extortion.
¶17. In his deposition, Robb contends that the whole matter was in retaliation to some comments that
he had jokingly made the previous week regarding Fisher's tardiness, and he offers the following
account of the event. On the date in question while waiting for his wife's Explorer to be fixed, Robb
decided to go to Delchamps to get some donuts. Wary of potential theft at the repair shop, Robb
disassembled his wife's pistol and removed it from the vehicle. Naturally, he carried the disassembled
pistol with him to the grocery store. When the pistol began to slip from his belt, Fisher noticed the
weapon and asked to see it. Robb protested for safety reasons and proceeded to buy his donuts.
Robb also contends that he was questioned by an unidentified assistant manager who was quickly put
at ease because of the gun's inoperative nature. After leaving the store at 8:30, Robb was informed
that the police were looking for him around 10:00. Robb contends that Fisher admitted to his wife as
well as a "yard lady" that she concocted the charges in retaliation to Robb's comment about her
tardiness. After originally seeking a car, Fisher decided that $5,000 would buy her silence and relayed
this message to Robb's attorney. Robb did not comply and did not notify any law enforcement
personnel. Following the incident, Robb was banned from the Delchamps on Indiana Avenue in
Vicksburg to which he responded: "its not that big of an issue. There's plenty of grocery stores to
shop in."
¶18. Robb contends that no complaint has been filed with the Mississippi Bar regarding the preceding
incident, that it is irrelevant and that he is afforded the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, Robb
has submitted a sworn statement from Gloria Fisher describing her own actions as an "overreaction."
¶19. The Mississippi Bar recommends that an evidentiary hearing be held to unearth the true facts of
this situation. Since the charges filed against Robb are serious and the descriptions of the incident
vary greatly, we feel that an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
SECOND INCIDENT
¶20. On December 18, 1996, Robb filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States
Supreme Court challenging the Mississippi Supreme Court's Order suspending him for six (6)
months. The Mississippi Bar contends that Robb accused the Mississippi Supreme Court of departing
from accepted procedural due process standards and exhibiting a "retaliatory motive" against him.
¶21. Robb argues that his statements were taken out of context and asserts no challenge to this
Court's power. He urges the Court to distinguish his appeal, arguing procedural and jurisdictional
questions, from an appeal challenging the power of the Court.
¶22. Despite Robb's contentions, the fact remains that his petition contained the following statement:
"The consistent denial of due process supports the existence of a retaliatory motive within the court
and the need for this Honorable Court (U.S. Supreme Court) to apply the safeguards of Pearce."
THIRD INCIDENT
¶23. The third incident presented by the Mississippi Bar concerns Robb's possible involvement in a
civil case while on suspension. The Bar submits that Robb was co-counsel for Lewis Wallace, and
possibly others, in a law suit filed in the Hinds County Circuit Court, First Judicial District, Cause
No. 251-95-475 CIV styled Lewis Wallace, et al. v. The University of Mississippi Medical Center, et
al. According to the Mississippi Bar, a paralegal in the firm of Page, Kruger & Holland, P.A., Lissa
Galloway, received a telephone call from Robb. He indicated that he had been suspended from the
practice of law, but he could continue to work on this case since he already had it before the
suspension began. According to Galloway, Robb advised her that the natural mother had
disappeared, and he was trying to find her. He also wanted Stephen Kruger to get the guardianship
papers ready as soon as possible because "he was broke and needed money." The Bar spoke to Karla
Pierce, Robb's co-counsel on this matter, who indicated that, to her knowledge, Robb did not work
on the case following his suspension.
¶24. Robb denies the allegation and suggests that the Bar has no proof that he did work on the case.
The Bar admits that, with the exception of the statements of Galloway, it has no direct proof that
Robb was involved in the case.
FOURTH INCIDENT
¶25. The Bar raises its fourth argument in its Second Supplement to the Answer of the Mississippi
State Bar. On April 30, 1997, the Mississippi State Bar received a letter from James Chaney, Jr., who
was Robb's opposing counsel in a will contest matter. The letter suggests that Chaney waited a
considerable length of time to allow Robb's clients to seek new counsel. When this didn't happen,
Chaney served the clients with process. In a motion attached to Chaney's letter, Robb's former clients
contend that they found out about his suspension from the newspaper and that they repeatedly tried
to contact him to no avail. The Bar contends that, if true, the allegations constitute a violation of
Rule 11 of the Rules of Discipline.
¶26. Robb answers this allegation with a purported copy of a letter sent to his former clients. Robb
also contends that the motion was not taken under oath and that his phones in each office were
operational at all times following the suspension. He also maintained post office boxes for both
offices. Robb also attaches the affidavit of John Price, the attorney who replaced Robb in the matter.
Robb claims that the affidavit proves that his former clients waited three weeks before finding new
counsel. Finally, Robb offers the Final Decree from the Chancery Court to show that his former
clients suffered no harm from the delay.
¶27. The Mississippi Bar makes no findings from the preceding statements and offers this incident
only for the Court's consideration.
CONCLUSION
¶28. The Mississippi Bar contends that Robb has not met the required burden of proof that he has
been fully rehabilitated with regard to his character. Therefore, the Bar opposes Robb's reinstatement
to the Mississippi Bar. We agree.
¶29. Robb's involvement in an alleged assault is a serious matter at least deserving of an evidentiary
hearing. His possession of a handgun in a grocery indicates questionable judgment, at best. The
circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the case are suspicious in nature and deserving of further
explanation. We therefore deny the application for reinstatement and remand this proceeding to the
Complaint Tribunal for a full evidentiary hearing on all issues pertaining to Robb's fitness to practice
law, including the facts surrounding the handgun incident.
¶30. APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT DENIED AND THIS CAUSE REMANDED
FOR FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
PRATHER AND SULLIVAN, P.JJ., PITTMAN, BANKS, McRAE, ROBERTS AND SMITH,
JJ., CONCUR. LEE, C.J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
1. Since the suspension, Robb has relied on fees earned in cases that were filed prior to July 1, 1996.
Mrs. Robb works full-time, but Mr. Robb has not held a paying job since the suspension.
2. Mr. Robb indicated at his deposition that with the possible exception of Mr. Brewer and Mr.
Perilloux all of the other individuals who provided him with letters of recommendation were aware,
at the time they prepared their letters of recommendation, that Robb had been charged with simple
assault and carrying a concealed weapon. The record is unclear regarding Marcie Southerland's
knowledge of the alleged event.
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.