c30309ce-ec80-46ff-8a1f-cb40fed27f56.pdf (2021)
Note: This document was published in 2021. Information in older documents may not reflect current board procedures or policies.
Need help? Please use the Assistance Request Form below.
Original PDF Document
Download Official Record (meek-3186-order-of-enforcement-and-exhibit-a.pdf)
Alternative Accessible HTML
Accessible Alternative: This HTML version is an automatically processed accessible alternative. While it provides a searchable format, the text extraction may contain formatting or character errors. The original PDF remains the authoritative official record.
Need a different format? Use the Request Assistance Form.
08/31/2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
IN RE: PHILLIP GREGORY MEEK, BPR #015852
An Attorney Licensed to Practice Law in Tennessee
(Olive Branch, Mississippi)
BOPR No. 2021-3186-0-AW-25
_____________________________
No. M2021-00756-SC-BAR-BP
_____________________________
ORDER OF RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 25, upon a Notice
of Submission filed by the Board of Professional Responsibility consisting of a certified
copy of the Opinion and Judgment entered by the Complaint Tribunal for the Supreme Court
of Mississippi on July 12, 2013, in the matter of The Mississippi Bar v. Phillip Gregory
Meek, Case No. 2012-B-1894.
On July 7, 2021, this Court entered a Notice of Reciprocal Discipline requiring Mr.
Meek to inform this Court within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice why reciprocal
discipline should not be imposed in Tennessee pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 25.4. The
Notice further provided that in the absence of a response demonstrating the grounds set
forth in Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 25.4, this Court would impose a discipline with identical
terms and conditions based upon the Opinion and Judgment entered by the Complaint
Tribunal for the Supreme Court of Mississippi. This Court received no response from Mr.
Meek.
After careful and full consideration of the entire record, the Court finds, based upon
the particular facts of this case, that none of the elements in Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 25.4
exist. As a result, it is appropriate to enter an Order of Reciprocal Discipline.
IT IS THEREFORE CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED
BY THE COURT THAT:
(1) Phillip Gregory Meek is permanently disbarred, pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct.,
R. 9, § 12.1 and Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 25.4.
(2) Additionally, Mr. Meek shall comply in all respects with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R.
9, § 28 regarding the obligations and responsibilities of permanently disbarred attorneys.
(3) Pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 28.1, this Order shall be effective upon
entry.
(4) The Board of Professional Responsibility shall cause notice of this
permanent disbarment to be published in accordance with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 28.11.
PER CURIAM
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
(BEFORE A COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL)
THE MISSISSIPPI BAR FI LED COMPLAINANT
V. JUL'12 2013 CAUSE NO.2012-B-1894
OFRCE OF THE CLERK
PHILLIP GREGORY MEEK SUPREME COURT RIESPONDENT
COURT OF APPEALS
OPINION AND JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER, having come before this duly appointed Complaint Tribunal, and the
Tribunal having reviewed the pleadings, evidence, and briefs filed in this matter, finds that the
Respondent PHILLIP GREGORY MEEK, should be DISI3ARRED from the practice of law in
the State of Mississippi for the following reasons:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND JURISDICTION
The Mississippi Bar filed a Formal Complaint against Mississippi attorney Phillip Gregory
Meek of Olive Branch, Mississippi, on November 26, 2012. Mr, Meek was personally served with
process in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar ("MRD")
and the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure("MRCP")on December 15, 2012.
When Mr. Meek failed to answer the Formal Complaint within the time allowed by the
MRD,the Bar properly applied for default. The Clerk of the Supreme Court entered default against
Mr. Meek on January 18, 2013. The Bar also filed a Motion for Default judgment on the same day.
Mr. Meek has failed to answer or respond to any pleading or motion filed in this cause by the
Mississippi Bar. As a result, the Complaint Tribunal entered a Defaultjudgment in favor of the Bar
and against Mr. Roberts on July 8, 2013.
FACTS OF THE CASE
By virtue of Mr. Meeles failure to answer the Formal Complaint and the Complaint Tribunal
having granted the Bar's Motion for Default Judgtnent, the Tribunal finds as follows:
The Bar received infortnation indicating Mr. Meek represented Lawrence Scott Kenneth in
Bankruptcy Case 10-12424-DWH in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District
1
Exhibit A
of Mississippi at a time that Mr. Meek was suspended from the practice of law in Mississippi for
non-payment of mandatory Bar dues. On January 20, 2012, Mr. Meek was suspended for non-
payment of mandatory Bar dues. In order to be an active member of the Mississippi Bar, a duly
admitted lawyer must pay active dues on the first day of August on an annual basis. Putsuant to
state law, a lawyer's failure to pay dues in a timely fashion subjects the lawyer to administrative
suspension. In addition to the administrative suspension, Mr. Meek was also suspended from the
practice of law for disciplinary reasons on June 4, 2012. Mr. Meek is currently suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one year. A lawyer engages in the unauthorized practice of law when
he practices law during the tune his license to practice law is suspended.
The Bar sent Mr. Meek a total of four demands that he file a response to the Bar complaint.
The fourth demand confirms an agreement between Mr. Meek and the Bar's investigator that he
would respond by July 18, 2012. In spite of the demands and the agreement, Mr. Meek either failed
or refused to comply with the demands to file a response. Additionally, Mr. Meek failed to answer
the Formal Complaint in this tnatter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Mr. Meek has violated the following provisions of the MRPC,as adopted by the Mississippi
Supreme Court:
A. Rule 5.5, which provides that a lawyer may not practice law in a jurisdiction
in which he is not permitted to do so;
B. Rule 8.1 (b), MRPC, which provides that a lawyer shall fail to disclose
a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have
arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for
information by a disciplinary authority;
C. Rule 8.4(a) and (d), MRPC, which provides that it is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt violate the rules of professional
conduct or engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice.
2
In separate and unrelated matters Mr. Meek has been the subject of prior discipline. This
prior discipline in an aggravating factor in determining the appropriate discipline for Mr. Meek's
misconduct in the instant case. MeInbire v. Miss. Bar, 38 So. 3d 617, 627 (Miss. 2010); Haimes v. .Miss.
Bar, 601 So. 2d 851, 853 (Miss. 1992). On jun_e 25, 2008, a Complaint Tribunal issued a Public
Reprimand in Cause No. 2007-B-1227 for violations of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(b) and
8.4(a) and (d), MRPC. On October 30, 2009, the Committee on Professional Responsibility issued
Mr. Meek an Informal Admonition in Docket No. 08-393-2 for his violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4,
and 1.16(d), MRPC. October 8, 2010, a Complaint Tribunal issued Mr. Meek a Private Reprimand
in Cause No. 2010-13-194 for his violations of Ru1es1.2(a), 1.3 and 1.4(a), MRPC. On June 4, 2012,
this Complaint Tribunal suspended Mr. Meek in Cause No. 2012-B-110 for violations of Rules
1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a) and (d).
The Complaint Tribunal considered the nine factors outlined in Liebling P. Miss. Bar to
determine the appropriate level of discipline to be imposed. The nine factors are:
A) Nature of the misconduct involved;
B) The need to deter similar misconduct;
C) Preservation of dignity and reputation of the legal profession;
D) Protection of the public;
E) Sanctions itnposed in similar cases;
F) The duty violated;
G) The lawyer's mental state;
H) Actual or potential injury resulting frotn the misconduct; and
I) Existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.
Liebling v. The Miss. Bar,929 So. 2d 911 (Miss. 2006).
Additionally, the Complaint Tribunal considered the American 13ar Association Standards
for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions("ABA Standards") to determine the appropriate sanction to be used
in this case. These standards include the following:
A) the duty violated;
3
B) the lawyer's mental state;
C) the actual or potential injury resulting from the misconduct; and
D) the existence of aavating or mitigating factors.
(Miss. 1996).
L.S. v. Miss. Bar,649 So. 2d 810,815 (Miss. 1997); Goodsellv. Miss. Bar, 667 So. 2d 7
ly engages
ABA Standard 7.1 provides that disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer knowing
to obtain a benefit for
in conduct that is a violation of his duty as professional with the intent
the public or the legal
himself or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client,
the legal profession
system. In this case, Mr. Meek violated his ethical obligations to the public and
both his adtninistrative and
by practicing law at a time that he was not eligible to do so due to
not presently licensed to
disciplinary suspension. The public should be protected from those
to cooperate with
practice law . Mr. Meek also failed in his obligations to the profession by failing
the Office of General Counsel investigating the informal complaints.
The Tribunal also considered the aggravating factors found in the ABA Standards;
A) prior disciplinary offenses;
B) dishonest or selfish motive;
C) a pattern of misconduct;
D) multiple offenses;
E) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings;
F) submission of false evidence or other deceptive practices;
G) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;
H) vulnerability of victim;
I) Substantial experience in practicing law;
J) indifference to making restitution; and,
K) illegal conduct (including the use of controlled substances).
4
Mr. Meek's case demonstrates prior
Of these aggravating factors, six apply to Mr. Meek.
n of misconduct, bad faith obstruction of the
disciplinary history, multiple offenses, a patter
and substantial experience in practicing law.'
disciplinary proceedings, vulnerability of the victims,
B-1227, a Complaint Tribunal issued a
With regard to prior discipline, in Cause No. 2007-
, 1.16(d), 8.1(b) and 8.4(a) and (d), MRPC. Mr.
Public Reprimand for violating Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1,4(a)
the Committee on Professional Responsibility in
Meek was also issued an Informal Admonition by
and 1.16(d), MRPC. In Cause No. 2010-B-
Docket No. 08-393-2, for violating Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4,
for Mr. Meek's violation of Rules 1.2(a), 1.3,
194, a Complaint Tribunal issued a Private Reprimand
Tribunal suspended Mr. Meek for one year for
and 1.4(a). In Cause No. 2012-B-110, this Complaint
and 8.4(a) and (d). The instant case is a
violating Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(b)
in by Mr. Meek over the course of the past
continuation of the pattern of misconduct engaged
affects vulnerable people. In the instant case,
several years, involves multiple offenses, and adversely
linary agencies of the Supreme Court, the
Mr. Meek failed entirely to cooperate with two discip
nal.
Office of General Counsel and this Complaint Tribu
found in the ABA Standards and find
The Tribunal further considered the mitigating factors
that none apply.
JUDGMENT
S that Phillip Gregory Meek
THEREFORE, THE COMPLAINT TRIBUNAL FIND
ce of law in the State of Mississippi. Pursuant
should be and is hereby DISBARRED from the practi
Court shall immediately forward an attested
to Rule 8.6, MRD,the Clerk of the Mississippi Supreme
of the Circuit, Chancery, and County Courts of
copy of this Opinion and Judgment to the judges
judges of each of these courts to include
DeSoto County, Mississippi, with instructions to the senior
a copy in the minutes of each respective Court.
iately forward an attested copy of
The Clerk of the Mississippi Supreme Court shall immed
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
this Opinion and Judgment to the Clerks of the
Mr. Meek has been practicing law since 1993.
5
District Court for the
and Southern Districts of Mississippi, to the Clerks of the United States
Court of Appeals
Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi, to the Clerk of the United States
States.
for the Fifth Circuit, and to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United
in the State of
The Complaint Tribunal hereby 'enjoins Mr. Meek from practicing law
ing any legal services for
Mississippi; from holding himself out as an attorney at law; from perform
appearing in any
others; from directly or indirectly accepting any fee for legal services; from
ppi; from holding
representative capacity in any legal proceeding or Court of the State of Mississi
"attorney at law,"
himself out to others or using his name, in any manner, with the phrases
"attorney," "counselor at law," "counsel," or "lawyer."
inform
Mr. Meek shall immediately notify each of his clients in writing of his disbarment,
each client to promptly
each client of his consequent inability to act as an attorney, and advise
of any client, Mr. Meek
substitute another attorney or seek legal advice elsewhere. At the request
possession belonging to his
shall promptly return all files, papers, money, or other property in his
clients.
the Supreme Court
The Complaint Tribunal further orders Mr. Meek to file an affidavit with
ent and his consequent
of Mississippi stating that he has notified in writing all clients of his disbarm
he returned all files, papers,
inability to act as an attorney. The affidavit shall further state that
the same consistent with
money, or other property in his possession belonging to clients requesting
such clients or return their files,
this Opinion and Judgment. In the event he was unable to notify
to do so, Mr. Meek shall
papers, money, or other property, he shall state that due diligence was used
t and send a copy
submit such affidavit within thirty (30) days of the date of this Opinion and Judgmen
a condition precedent to
of the affidavit to The Mississippi Bar. The submission of this affidavit is
Mr. Meek being reinstated to the practice of law.
parties (or their
Mr. Meek shall immediately notify all courts, agencies, and adverse
his disbarment and of his
respective attorneys) in any proceeding in which he is involved of
affidavit to that effect with the
consequent inability to act as an attorney. Mr. Meek shall submit an
of the date of this Opinion and
Clerk of the Supreme Court of Mississippi within thirty (30) days
6
sippi Bar. The submission of this affidavit is
Judgment and send a copy of such affidavit to The Missis
practice of law.
a condition precedent to Mr, Meek being reinstated to the
Bar the costs and expenses
The Complaint Tribunal orders Mr. Meek to reimburse the
ints the amounts of $30.00. Payment of the
incurred in the investigation of the informal compla
s reinstatement to the practice of law.
Bar's costs and expenses is a condition precedent to Mr. Meek'
expenses associated with the filing and
Mr. Meek shall also be liable to the Bar for the costs and
and expenses shall be determined by the
prosecution of the Formal Complaint herein. Such costs
sion of a proper motion by the 13ar.
Presiding Judge of the Complaint Tribunal upon the submis
it shall become a matter of public
When this Opinion and Judgment is filed with the Clerk
likewise in all respects be a public record.
record, and the contents of Cause No. 2012-B-1894 shall
effect until further Order of the
This Opinion and Judgment shall remain in full force and
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
considered as contempt of this
The violation of any term of this Opinion andJudgment may be
Tribunal. 41
the day of
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this
ed his or her approval of this Opinion and
2013. Each member of the Tiibunal has demonstrat
original final pages of this Opinion and
Judgment by affixing his or her signature to duplicate
VJAh t Kati
Judgment.
WINSTON L. KIDD
Presiding Judge
7
ippi Bar, The submission of this affidavit is
Judgment and send a copy of such affidavit to The, Mississ
the practice of law,
a condition precedent to Mr. Meek being reinstated to
the Bar the costs and expenses
The Complaint Tribunal orders Mr. Meek to reimburse
thc amounts of $30.00, Payment of the
incurred in the investigation of the informal complaints
Meek's reinstatement to the practice of law.
Bar's costs and expenses is a condition precedent to Mr.
expenses associated with thc filing and
Mr. Meek shall also be liable to the Bar for the costs and
es shall be determined by the
prosecution of the Formal Complaint herein, Such costs and expens
sion of a proper motion by the Bar.
PresidingJudge of the Complaint Tribunal upon the submis
shall become a matter of public
When this Opinion and JudAment is filed with the Clerk it
likewis e in all respects be a public record,
record, and the contents of Cause No. 2012-B-1894 shall
until further Order of the
This Opinion and Judgment shall remain in full force and effect
Supreme Court of Mississippi,
considered as contempt of this
The violation of any term of this Opinion and Judgment may be
Tribunal.
the day of
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this
trated his or her approval of this Opinion and
2013. Each member of the Tribunal has demons
te original final pages of this Opinion and
Judgment by affixing his or her signature to duplica
J udgment.
ARY .JON Cilr
Tribunal Member
8
judgment and send a copy of such affidavit to The Mississippi Bar. The submission of this affidavit is
a condition precedent to Mr. Meek being reinstated to the practice of law.
The Complaint Tribunal orders Mr. Meek to reimburse the Bar the costs and expenses
incurred in the investigation of the informal complaints the amounts of $30,00. Payment of the
Bar's costs and expenses is a condition precedent to Mr, Meek's reinstatement to the practice of law.
Mr. Meek shall also be liable to the Bar for the costs and expenses associated with the filing and
prosecution of the Formal Complaint herein. Such costs and expenes shall be determined by the
Presiding .) udge of the Complaint Tribunal upon the submission of a proper motion by the Bar.
When this Opinion and Judgment is filed with the Clerk it shall become a matter of public
record, and the contents of Cause No. 2012-B-1894 shall likewise in all respects be a public record.
This Opinion and Judgment shall remain in full force and effect until further Order of the
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
The violation of any term of this Opinion andjudgment may be c.onsidered as contempt of this
Tribunal.
1
5:71
2:
11
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this the day of
2013. Each member of the Tribunal has demonstrated his or her approval of this Opinion and
judgment by affixing his or her signature to duplicate original final pages of this Opinion and
J udgment.
E NELSON tVA.f.KER
Tribunal Member
ATTEST
A True Copy
the_11â..â..._day ot
This
Offioa of the Clerk
9 Supreme CAHrit end Court of Appeals
Stlite of MiSsissippi
....