Azki Shah v. The Mississippi Bar
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-BR-00408-SCT
RE: PETITION OF AZKI SHAH FOR THE
REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
PRO SE
JAMES R. CLARK
CIVIL - BAR MATTERS
REINSTATEMENT DENIED - 10/02/2008
EN BANC.
RANDOLPH, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
This matter is before the Court upon Azki Shah’s Petition for Reinstatement to the
Practice of Law. In response, the Mississippi Bar (“the Bar”) has filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Petition, averring that (a) Shah’s petition has been filed prematurely, and (b) that Shah
has not complied with the conditions for reinstatement which were imposed by this Court
when suspending Shah.
¶2.
The Bar initiated a Formal Complaint against Shah, alleging he violated Mississippi
Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b) and 8.4(a). A hearing was held on the
Formal Complaint, and the Complaint Tribunal found by clear and convincing evidence that
Shah had violated Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(a), 8.4(a)
and 8.4(c). The Complaint Tribunal found that “due to Shah’s prior violations, pattern of
misconduct, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his misconduct, his substantial
experience in the practice of law and the fact that there were no mitigating factors,” that Shah
should be immediately disbarred and pay all costs of the proceedings. Id.
¶3.
Shah appealed the decision of the tribunal to this Court. The Court agreed with the
tribunal’s findings that Shah violated Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a), 1.3,
1.4, 8.1(a), 8.4(a) and 8.4(c). However, this Court ruled that the “leap between private
reprimand and disbarment is too great.” Id. at 517. This Court suspended Shah from the
practice of law for three years and ordered that “upon completion of this suspension, and
preceding his application for reinstatement pursuant to M.R.D.12.2, Shah shall be required
to take and pass the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam, consistent with the
guidelines set forth in M.R.D. 12.5. . .[and] shall pay the costs of these proceedings.” Id. at
525.
¶4.
Shah files his Petition for Reinstatement from the suspension issued on January 4,
2007.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5.
“This Court has ‘exclusive and inherent jurisdiction of matters pertaining to attorney
discipline [and] reinstatement. . . .’ M.R.D. 1(a). This Court reviews “petitions for
reinstatement de novo. We also sit as trier of fact and therefore are not bound by substantial
evidence or manifest error rules.” In re Prisock, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 287, *8 (Miss. June 5,
2008) (citations omitted).
2
ANALYSIS
¶6.
Rule 12(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline states that “[n]o person disbarred or
suspended for a period of six months or longer shall be reinstated to the privilege of
practicing law except upon petition to the Court.” The procedure for reinstatement, as set
forth in Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12, is as follows:
(12.2) Suspensions. A petition for reinstatement shall be required in all cases
of suspension for a period of six months or more. In cases of suspension
pending satisfaction of conditions precedent, reinstatement shall not be
permitted except upon proof that the conditions have been met.
(12.4) Suspensions - Time for Filing Petitions for Reinstatement. A suspended
attorney shall not file a petition for reinstatement until the expiration of the
period of suspension. In cases of suspension of six months or longer pending
satisfaction of conditions precedent, the petition for reinstatement may be filed
immediately upon the attorney's meeting these conditions.
(12.5) Examination Requirements. Subsequent to the time of eligibility for
reinstatement of an attorney suspended for six months or longer, the
petitioning attorney 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, if the Complaint Tribunal determines, on a
case-by-case basis, that good cause exists to require the applicant for
reinstatement to take such test. A disbarred attorney, prior to reinstatement,
shall be required to take and pass the complete bar examination administered
by the Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions and achieve the score then
required for admission to the bar of new attorneys as well as passing the MultiState Professional Responsibility Exam with the score required for admission
of new lawyers.
(12.7) Contents of Reinstatement Petitions - Jurisdictional Matters. 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. Upon filing, the petition shall be
served on, and an investigatory fee of $ 500.00 shall be paid to the Bar, same
to be in addition to any other sum due the Bar, or persons injured by the
3
petitioner's improper conduct. The matters set out in this paragraph shall be
jurisdictional.
¶7.
In his Petition, Shah asserts the following:
a) That the client who filed the informal complaint against Shah was fully
reimbursed before the client filed the complaint with the Bar. 1
b) That Shah has completed more than thirty hours of Continuing Legal
Education.2
c) That in his Petition for Reinstatement filed in his previous disciplinary case,
In re Shah, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 253 (May 22, 2008), Shah included a petition
signed by more than sixty people who supported his reinstatement.
d) That Shah paid the $500 investigatory fee required by the Bar in his
previous cause, In re Shah, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 253 (May 22, 2008), and that
he should not be required to do so in this cause.
e) That the Bar has been reimbursed $341.56, which were the costs of the
proceedings.
f) That this Court should consolidate this cause with the previous matter, In
re Shah, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 253 (May 22, 2008).3
h) That this Court should require Shah to take only one exam, the complete
Mississippi Bar Exam.
¶8.
In its Motion to Dismiss Shah’s Petition, the Bar states that Shah should be allowed
to petition for reinstatement on January 4, 2010, at the earliest. The Bar further contends that
Shah has not complied with the requirements of Mississippi Rules of Discipline 12.2 or 12.5.
The Bar requests that this Court dismiss Shah’s petition with prejudice.
1
Shah produced no receipt or check which evidenced that his client was reimbursed.
2
On September 8, 2008, Shah filed with this Court a supplement to his petition which
stated he has completed 37.2 hours of continuing legal education.
3
This request to consolidate was denied, and an opinion in this matter was issued by
Presiding Justice Waller on May 22, 2008. See In Re Shah, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 253 (May
22, 2008).
4
¶9.
It is clear from the limited record with which we are provided that Shah has, in fact,
not complied with the requirements set forth by this Court in Shah, 962 So. 2d at 525, nor
with the requirements of Mississippi Rules of Discipline 12.2 or 12.5.4
¶10.
Additionally, the Bar is correct in its assertion that Shah has filed his petition
prematurely pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12.4. The opinion suspending Shah
was issued on January 4, 2007, and rehearing was denied on April 19, 2007, effectively
suspending Shah on April 26, 2007.5
¶11.
Shah’s reinstatement was addressed in a recent opinion authored by Presiding Justice
Waller, wherein Shah’s Petition for Reinstatement from a previous disbarment was dismissed
without prejudice, as it was prematurely filed. See In Re Shah, 2008 Miss. LEXIS at *6.
That opinion additionally addressed Shah’s suspension in the case sub judice. The Court
ruled:
Shah’s suspension . . . extends the period he is prohibited from petitioning this
Court for reinstatement to April 19, 2010. . . . Any petition to have Shah
reinstated to the practice of law filed on or before this date will be dismissed
as premature. . . . Furthermore, any petition which does not provide proof that
Shah satisfied the conditions precedent to his reinstatement under his
suspension . . . will be dismissed, as this Court would lack jurisdiction.
Id. at *6-7.
4
On September 19, 2008, Shah filed with this Court a supplement showing proof he
sat for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination. However, Shah did not
achieve the scaled score required by Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12.5.
5
Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(a), the mandate of the
Supreme Court shall issue seven days after entry of the order denying the motion for
rehearing.
5
¶12.
Shah has prematurely filed this Petition for Reinstatement, and it is clear he has made
no attempt to comply with Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12, nor with the mandate of this
Court in Shah, 962 So. 2d at 525. Shah’s petition is hereby denied. See In re Petition ex rel.
Baldwin, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 256 (Miss. May 22, 2008).
CONCLUSION
¶13.
Shah’s Petition for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law is denied. Consistent with
this Court’s opinions in Shah, 962 So. 2d at 525, and Shah, 2008 Miss. LEXIS at *7, Shah
is prohibited from petitioning this Court for reinstatement until April 19, 2010. Shah may
only petition for reinstatement after he submits proof of satisfaction of all conditions
precedent pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12.2 and after completion and passage
of the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam pursuant to Mississippi Rule of
Discipline 12.5.
¶14. SHAH’S PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW
IS DENIED.
SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON
AND LAMAR, JJ., CONCUR. EASLEY, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
6
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.