Raymond L. Wong v. The Mississippi Bar
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-BR-00014-SCT
RAYMOND L. WONG
v.
THE MISSISSIPPI BAR
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
RAYMOND L. WONG, PRO SE
ADAM B. KILGORE
CIVIL - BAR MATTERS
REINSTATEMENT CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED - 12/11/2008
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
EN BANC.
GRAVES, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
This case is before the Court upon the petition of Raymond L. Wong, who seeks
reinstatement to the Mississippi Bar following a six-month suspension.
Wong was
suspended for failure to respond to his clients, failure to pursue his clients’ criminal appeals,
failure to respond to informal complaints from the Mississippi Bar (the “Bar”), and noncooperation with the Bar complaint process.
FACTS
¶2.
Prior to his suspension, Wong had been a solo practitioner in multiple practice areas
since 1983 and a public defender since 1984. On June 28, 2007, Wong was suspended by
the complaint tribunal for a period of six months for violating Rules of Professional Conduct
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b), and 8.4(a), (d). M.R.P.C. 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b), and 8.4(a), (d). These
violations stem from four of Wong’s cases.
¶3.
In the first case, Wong’s client was Darryl Hawkins, whom Wong was appointed by
the court to represent on a criminal matter. Hawkins had three prior convictions, including
one for a violent crime. Wong represented him for a burglary charge. The prosecution
offered Hawkins a plea bargain wherein Hawkins would be sentenced to seven years in
prison. Hawkins refused the plea offer and proceeded to trial. At trial, Hawkins’ codefendant testified against him, and the jury convicted Hawkins. He was then sentenced to
life without parole. After reviewing the trial transcript, Wong could not find a viable claim
for appeal and did not file an appellate brief on Hawkins’ behalf. Wong claims that he
informed either Hawkins or Hawkins’ mother that he was unable to find any issues on which
to base an appeal. When asked why he did not respond to Hawkins’ attempts to contact him,
Wong stated that Hawkins had called him collect and that Wong did not accept collect calls.
Hawkins’ appeal was dismissed.
¶4.
When asked why he did not respond to the Bar complaint, Wong said that he received
it but he “just put it in the corner,” and he did not respond “[b]ecause I knew I screwed up.”
Wong said that he did not file a brief as required by the tribunal because “I knew I was going
to get punished for what I did, so I’d just take the punishment.” The complaint tribunal
suspended Wong for six months for his violations in this case.
¶5.
In the second case, Wong represented Timothy Scribner, who was also charged with
burglary. Wong stated that he only appeared in court on Scribner’s behalf one time – at the
bail hearing. He stated that Scribner was also charged with another felony in Cleveland,
2
Mississippi, and that Scribner told Wong that he could hire his own attorney. Wong
explained that he did not respond to Scribner’s attempts to contact him because he was under
the impression that Scribner had hired his own attorney.
¶6.
When asked why he did not respond to the Bar complaint, Wong said that he was “in
the middle of court term. I pushed it aside. When we’re in court term for six weeks, we’re
on a rocket docket. We have to be instantaneous [sic] ready with all our cases and all our
witnesses. . . . We have no continuances.” Wong said that he failed to respond to the formal
complaint because by the time he was prepared to respond, the deadline had expired. He
admitted that his failure to respond to the formal complaints in both the Scribner and
Hawkins cases was his fault. Wong was suspended by the tribunal for six months for the
Scribner case, to run concurrently with the Hawkins suspension.
¶7.
In the third case, Wong represented Clarence Bennett, who was on lifetime parole
because of a murder conviction. While on parole, Bennett was accused of shooting at a
neighbor during a dispute. Police officers subsequently found a firearm in Bennett’s
residence. As a result, Bennett was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon and aggravated assault, and his parole was revoked.
¶8.
Bennett wished to proceed to trial on the charges, and he was convicted on both
charges. As with Hawkins, Bennett wished to pursue an appeal, but Wong was unable to
find a viable issue to raise on appeal. Wong could not remember at the deposition whether
or not he informed Bennett that he was not going to file an appellate brief. Bennett’s appeal
was dismissed.
3
¶9.
Wong had no explanation as to why he did not respond to the Bar complaint for the
Bennett case. He said he was aware that he was required to respond, but he did not.
However, Wong did respond to the formal Bar complaint, which also involved Wong’s client
Jimmy Giles. Wong was suspended by the tribunal for thirty days for the Bennett case, to
run concurrently with the six-month suspension.
¶10.
In the Giles case, Wong represented Giles in a multiple-defendant capital murder case.
The tribunal found no violations related to the attorney-client relationship in the Giles case.
However, the tribunal found that Wong had not responded to the informal Bar complaint, and
Wong could not give an explanation for his failure to respond. Wong was suspended by the
tribunal for thirty days for the Giles case, also to run concurrently with the six-month
suspension.
¶11.
Following the decision of the complaint tribunal, Wong notified his clients, adverse
parties, and courts and agencies of his suspension in writing pursuant to Mississippi Rule of
Discipline 11(c). Miss. R. Disc. 11(c). During his suspension, Wong has been supporting
himself primarily with his savings, although he acted as a notary for two real estate closings
and earned modest fees for doing so. After his suspension, but during the time in which he
sought reinstatement, Wong conducted another closing as a notary. Wong stated that he
informed the parties involved in the closings that he was not acting as an attorney. Wong
stated that he had not engaged in any unauthorized practice of law or held himself out to be
a lawyer in any way. He spent most of his time during his suspension organizing his office
papers.
4
¶12.
Following his six-month suspension, Wong filed a Petition for Reinstatement on
January 2, 2008, and an Amended Petition for Reinstatement on January 22, 2008. The Bar
deposed Wong and submitted an answer to Wong’s petition.
Wong also submitted
certificates of completion for his continuing legal education hours.
ANALYSIS
¶13.
It is well-established that this Court has “exclusive and inherent jurisdiction of matters
pertaining to attorney discipline, reinstatement, and appointment of receivers for suspended
and disbarred attorneys.” In re Kelly, 987 So. 2d 925, 928 (Miss. 2008) (quoting In re
Morrison, 819 So. 2d 1181, 1183 (Miss. 2001)). This Court conducts a de novo review of
the evidence in disciplinary matters, acting as triers of fact on a case-by-case basis. In re
Kelly, 987 So. 2d at 928 (citing In re Morrison, 819 So. 2d at 1183)). The main inquiry in
determining whether or not to grant reinstatement is whether the petitioner has rehabilitated
himself. In re Kelly, 987 So. 2d at 929 (citing In re Steele, 722 So. 2d 662, 664 (Miss.
1998)). The petitioner bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
reinstatement is warranted based on the petitioner’s rehabilitation and requisite moral
character. In re Kelly, 987 So. 2d at 929 (quoting Burgin v. Miss. State Bar, 453 So. 2d 689,
691 (Miss. 1984)).
¶14.
Mississippi Rule of Discipline 12 requires that “[r]einstatement to the practice of law
following any other discipline shall be only upon proof of compliance with any such
sanctions.” Miss. R. Disc. 12. This Court in In re Benson, 890 So. 2d 888, 890 (Miss. 2004)
set out five jurisdictional requirements for Rule 12 reinstatements:
5
The petitioner must: (1) state the cause or causes for suspension or disbarment;
(2) give the name and current address of all persons, parties, firms, or legal
entities who suffered pecuniary loss due to the improper conduct; (3) make full
amends and restitution, (4) show that he has the necessary moral character for
the practice of law; and (5) demonstrate the requisite legal education to be
reinstated to the privilege of practicing law.
Id. at 890 (citation omitted). This Court also stated that the recommendation of the Bar
should also be taken into account. In re Kelly, 987 So. 2d at 929 (citing In re Holleman, 826
So. 2d 1243, 1248 (Miss. 2002)).
1.
Cause or Causes for Suspension
¶15.
In his Petition for Reinstatement of January 22, 2008, Wong set out the bases on
which he was found to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. During his
deposition, he demonstrated his knowledge of the underlying facts of the cases and informed
the Bar of the circumstances under which he violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2.
Names and Current Addresses of All Persons, Parties, Firms, or Legal Entities
Who Suffered Pecuniary Loss Due to the Improper Conduct
¶16.
Wong stated in his Petition for Reinstatement and at the deposition by the Mississippi
Bar that no individuals suffered a pecuniary loss as a result of his misconduct and
suspension. However, he acknowledged that he caused some of his clients harm because
they were forced to find other attorneys to represent them.
3.
Making of Full Amends and Restitution
¶17.
Wong stated that, in addition to notifying his clients of his suspension in writing, he
returned all case files, papers, money and unused attorney’s fees, and other property
belonging to his clients within fourteen days of the complaint tribunal’s decision. He further
6
notified all courts, agencies, and adverse parties in his cases of his suspension. Wong has
paid $1,080.54 in costs and expenses associated with the investigation of his violations.
4.
Requisite Moral Character
¶18.
Wong testified that he has been a member of the Exchange Club, a service
organization that advocates against child abuse. Three letters of recommendation were
submitted with the Petition for Reinstatement. One of the letters was written by a judge,
before whom Wong regularly appeared. The other two letters were written by lawyers. All
three letters that were submitted urged that Wong be reinstated.
¶19.
The letter from the judge stated that he “anxiously awaits Mr. Wong’s return to the
practice of law because he was one of three court-appointed attorneys who handled felony
criminal cases in Bolivar County. Mr. Wong performed excellently until the time of his
infractions which led to his suspension.”
One of the letters from the attorneys was
unsolicited by Wong. This lawyer stated that Wong “served diligently” on the Mississippi
Public Defender’s Association and had always been a competent lawyer. The third letter
described Wong as a “valuable and tireless member of our Bolivar County Bar Association”
and said that Wong is “always willing to tackle the more difficult criminal cases that many
others chose not to handle.” This lawyer also stated that Wong “worked many long hours
striving to improve the quality of our Bolivar County Law Library.” At the deposition,
Wong appeared to be under the impression that other individuals would submit letters on his
behalf by sending letters directly to the Bar, although none of these letters are included in the
evidence before this Court.
7
¶20.
Wong stated that he has spent much of his time during his suspension taking care of
his elderly parents. His ninety-two-year-old father suffers from dementia, so Wong assisted
his eighty-two-year-old mother in taking care of his father. Wong stated that he does not
have any mental health problems. Wong has not been charged with any crimes during his
suspension.
5.
Requisite Legal Education
¶21.
Wong was not required by the complaint tribunal to take the Multi-State Professional
Responsibility Exam. He stated in his Petition for Reinstatement and at his deposition that
for the August 2007 period, he had completed more than twelve hours of continuing legal
education. Wong submitted certificates of completion for 1) “So Little Time, So Much
Paper: Time Management,” for which he earned six hours toward his continuing legal
education requirements; 2) “The Essentials of Law Office Management: Business Skills for
Attorneys,” for which he earned seven-and-a-half hours toward his continuing legal
education requirements; and 3) the Mississippi Public Defenders Spring 2008 Conference,
for which he earned seven hours toward his continuing legal education requirements. The
first two courses concerned law office management. Wong stated that he also attended the
“2008 Summary of Recent Mississippi Law” on March 21, 2008, for which he earned six
hours toward his continuing legal education requirements, but stated that documentation of
the credits would be sent to the Mississippi Commission on Continuing Legal Education by
the presenters.
¶22.
Wong stated at his deposition that he stays current on the law by thinking of ways to
attack Mississippi Rule of Evidence 803(25), the child hearsay rule, in future cases. In
8
addition, he has been studying Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158
L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), as well as keeping up with new United States Supreme Court and
Mississippi Supreme Court cases through two briefing services.
Recommendation of Bar
¶23.
After conducting a deposition of Wong and an investigation into the merits of his
Petition for Reinstatement, the Bar recommends that Wong be reinstated to the practice of
law, on the condition that he certify to the Court that he completed twelve hours of
continuing legal education hours in law office management, twelve hours of continuing legal
education hours in professional responsibility, and twelve hours of continuing legal education
required by the Bar to maintain his law license.1 The Bar was, however, concerned that
Wong did not provide satisfactory explanations of his failure to communicate with clients,
to cooperate with the Bar disciplinary process, and to file appellate briefs for his clients. The
Bar was also concerned that Wong was unable to demonstrate more peer or community
support for his rehabilitation, character, and fitness to practice law.
¶24.
It is the opinion of this Court that Wong has learned his lesson and has concrete plans
to comply with Bar complaints and to communicate better with his clients in the future. If
reinstated, Wong plans to return to being a court-appointed criminal defense attorney and
return to his solo practice. He stated at the deposition and in his Petition for Reinstatement
that he will be sure to answer all Bar complaints that he may receive in the future and refer
1
It appears that Wong has certified that he completed the twelve hours of
continuing legal education to maintain his law license and the twelve hours of continuing
legal education in law office management, but has not certified that he completed twelve
hours of continuing legal education in professional responsibility.
9
his criminal appeals to the Office of Indigent Appeals, which had not been accepting cases
at the time of Wong’s violations. He added that in criminal appeals in which he can find no
arguable issues, he will file a Lindsey brief with this Court. Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743
(Miss. 2005). He also said that since Hawkins’ appeal was reassigned to the Office of
Indigent Appeals, he would stay informed and see what issues are presented to the Court on
appeal. He explained that, in the future, if he is assigned to represent someone at a court
appearance, he will ensure that he continues to represent them as long as they sign an
affidavit of indigency. He also said that he would be more organized in terms of keeping
track of all his clients. He emphasized that he learned his lesson and that he completed the
complaint tribunal’s requirements of him. He stated that he will respond to any future Bar
complaints to avoid being suspended again. Wong said that his suspension has had a great
personal effect on him because he is accustomed to being very active in his work, but his
suspension has limited him to merely reading and organizing his papers at his office.
¶25.
After a de novo review of the papers before this Court, we conclude that Wong should
be reinstated. Although he may not have given the impression at his deposition that he has
taken his suspension and the underlying reasons for his suspension seriously, he has shown
that he put significant thought into improving his conduct in the future. He has also
completed the requirements set out by Rule of Discipline 12. Furthermore, the Bar ultimately
recommends that he be reinstated. The letters of recommendation submitted strongly urge
Wong’s reinstatement. Both the letters of recommendation and the deposition transcript
demonstrate that Wong is a competent and knowledgeable attorney and public defender.
10
¶26.
This Court finds that Wong has proven by clear and convincing evidence that he has
rehabilitated himself and is worthy of reinstatement. However, we hope that he is indeed
able to communicate better with his clients in the future. This Court understands that
although public defenders are often overworked because of their high caseloads, and
although they are undercompensated for their work, the law still demands that attorneys keep
their clients, indigent or not, informed of the developments in their cases, especially ones as
important as the status of their appeals.
CONCLUSION
¶27.
This Court holds that Wong’s Petition for Reinstatement should be granted on the
condition that he certify to this Court and to the Mississippi Bar within thirty days of the
hand-down of this opinion that he has completed twelve hours of continuing legal education
in professional responsibility.
¶28. PETITION OF RAYMOND L. WONG FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE
PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IS CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED.
SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON,
RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ., CONCUR.
11
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.
