In re Edward A. Williamson and Michael J. Miller

Summary

The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the denial of Michael J. Miller’s motion for admission pro hac vice after concluding that his activities constituted unauthorized practice of law and that he had exceeded the applicable appearance limit. The court reversed and remanded the contempt judgments against Miller and Edward A. Williamson because Williamson lacked adequate notice and the trial judge should have recused himself due to personal involvement in the contempt proceedings.

Holdings

1. A foreign attorney is deemed to have made an appearance in a Mississippi lawsuit if the attorney signs pleadings or allows the attorney's name to be listed on pleadings. A foreign attorney may also appear by physically participating in a docket call, trial, hearing, deposition, arbitration, mediation, or other proceeding while representing or being introduced as a representative of a party.
2. Miller engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Mississippi. The combination of soliciting clients, investigating and evaluating claims, advising local counsel, maintaining a financial interest, placing his name on pleadings, and participating in litigation went beyond merely referring clients or providing limited technical advice.
3. For criminal contempt, the reviewing court proceeds ab initio and determines from the record whether the alleged contemnor is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. The contempt judgments against Williamson and Miller had to be reversed because Williamson was not given notice that his conduct would be considered at the contempt hearing, and because the trial judge had substantial personal involvement in prosecuting the constructive criminal contempt charges and should have recused himself.

Questions Presented

1. Whether listing a foreign attorney's name and address on pleadings constitutes an appearance under M.R.A.P. 46(b)(6).
2. Whether Miller's solicitation of Mississippi clients, investigation and evaluation of their claims, advice to local counsel, financial interest, appearance on pleadings, and participation in litigation constituted the unauthorized practice of law.
3. What standard governs appellate review of the criminal contempt judgments.
4. Whether the contempt judgments could stand when Williamson lacked notice that his conduct would be addressed at the contempt hearing and the trial judge had substantial personal involvement in the prosecution.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded