The Mississippi Bar v. Maurice Joseph Barry, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Serial: 115560
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
No. 2003-BD-02339-SCT
THE MISSISSIPPI BAR
v.
MAURICE JOSEPH BARRY, JR.
ORDER
¶1.
This matter is before the Court on the Complaint of the Mississippi Bar seeking disciplinary action
against Maurice Joseph Barry, Jr., 301 South Center Street, Bloomington, Illinois 61701-5101, Mississippi
Bar Number 2078, based on the Supreme Court of Illinois' imposition of a nine-month suspension from
the practice of law.
¶2.
On September 19, 2003, the Supreme Court of Illinois suspended Barry from the practice of law
in the State of Illinois for nine months. Attached to the Bar's complaint against Barry is a certified copy of
the Supreme Court of Illinois' order of suspension, as well as certified copies of other pleadings in that
matter.
¶3.
The Illinois Supreme Court took action against Barry after he represented to his clients and to the
court that he had acquired expert opinions as to causation in a medical malpractice suit when he in fact had
not. The medical malpractice case was dismissed. He then sued his clients for breach of contract, alleging
that they did not permit him to file an appeal after the case was dismissed, when in fact he had filed an
appeal.
¶4.
In a second medical malpractice case, Barry made the same misrepresentations as to having
acquired expert opinions when in fact he had not. In a third case based on legal malpractice, Barry's
misrepresentations were repeated as to expert opinions.
¶5.
The Illinois Court found that Barry engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation, brought an action without a good faith basis for doing so, made statements of material
facts or law to a tribunal which he knew or reasonably should have known was violation, engaged in
conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, engaged in conduct which tended to defeat the
administration of justice or to bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute, asserted a position on
behalf of a client when he knew or reasonably should have known that such action would serve merely to
harass or maliciously injure another, and made a statement of material fact to a third person which he knew
or reasonably should have known was false.
¶6.
The documents from the Illinois Supreme Court constitute conclusive evidence of Barry's guilt of
the unprofessional conduct cited by that Court. Moreover, Barry does not contest the findings of the Illinois
2
Court.1 Rule 13 of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline2 provides that if an attorney licensed to practice law
in the State of Mississippi is disciplined in another jurisdiction, this Court will impose discipline.
¶7.
Having considered the premises herein, we find that a nine-month suspension from the practice of
law is appropriate.
¶8.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that, based on Rule 13 of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline,
Maurice Joseph Barry, Jr., is suspended from the practice of law in the State of Mississippi for nine months.
The nine-month suspension shall begin on the date of the entry of this order.
¶9.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that subsequent to the time of eligibility for reinstatement, Maurice
Joseph Barry, Jr., shall take the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam as prepared by the National
Conference of Bar Examiners, and achieve a scaled score of not less than 80, and shall be reinstated to
the privilege of practicing law only upon petition to the Court, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Mississippi Rules
of Discipline.
On April 28, 2004, Barry signed a sworn statement that he had received a copy of the summons
and an attested copy of the Bar's Formal Complaint. Barry has filed no other pleading.
1
2
Rule 13 provides as follows:
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.
3
¶10.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send, via certified mail, copies of
this Order to Barry and to the Mississippi Bar.
¶11.
SO ORDERED, this the 28th
day of July, 2004.
/s/ William L. Waller, Jr.
WILLIAM L. WALLER, JR.
Presiding Justice
For the Court
RANDOLPH, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE
WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY COBB, P.J. DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
RANDOLPH, JUSTICE, CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART:
¶12.
I agree with the majority opinion wherein it repeats the reciprocal finding that the Barry was
involved in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, brought an action without a
good faith basis for doing so, made statements of material facts or law to a tribunal which he knew or
reasonably should have known were violations, engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the
administration of justice, engaged in conduct which tended to defeat the administration of justice or to bring
the courts or legal profession into disrepute, asserted a position on behalf of a client when he knew or
reasonably should have know that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another,
and made a statement of material fact to a third person which he knew or reasonably should have known
was false.
¶13.
Based on these findings by the Illinois Court, it is my opinion that the nine-month suspension from
the practice of law is insufficient. At a minimum, Barry should be suspended for a period of eighteen
4
months. Likewise, per Rule 12 of the Rules of Discipline, good cause exists to require that Barry take the
Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam before being reinstated. See Rules of Discipline (12.5).
¶14.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
COBB, P.J., JOINS THIS OPINION.
5
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.
