There’s a Jerry Mitchell story in the Clarion Ledger about the Supreme Court’s reversal in the case involving Gene Tullos. The story makes two statements; reading the second, I made a dubious noise and opened up Westlaw:
DeLaughter’s decisions have come under increased scrutiny since he pleaded guilty in July to obstruction of justice charges …. Since that plea, the high court has upheld nearly all of DeLaughter’s rulings in criminal and civil cases.
Since the first of August, the Mississippi Supreme Court has published opinions in four cases appealed from rulings by Judge DeLaughter. All four were reversed; it’s a small sample size, but the court hasn’t upheld a single one of DeLaughter’s rulings since the plea. His rulings have faired better in the Court of Appeals– three affirmances, two in civil cases (one of the affirmances was a pro se criminal appeal). Going back to when the cloud first formed over his head in December of 2007, there were two reversals and six affirmances by the Supreme Court, which is more what you’d expect.
I’m having trouble counting four reversals, no affirmances as “upholding nearly all of DeLaugher’s rulings…” since the plea.
The reversals are the Tullos case, the Fairfield Inn case, the Stuart v. UMC case (about notice and the tort claims act), Arceo v. Tolliver (medical malpractice notice case).
Getting past these sentences, it’s an interesting story, in part because the “straw man” in the Tullos property transfer, Crymes Pittman, talks to Mitchell about the transfer, and makes a couple of interesting statements:
But in this case, the heirs of Jeff Wooley are accusing Tullos, the attorney for the estate’s administratrix, of fraud by telling them in 2000 that bids had been secured on 420 acres at $750 an acre and that the best bid had been made by Jackson lawyer Crymes Pittman.
“However, the record contains no evidence that bids were taken on the property,” wrote Justice Randy Pierce.
As a result, the heirs say they sold the property, marking the memo line of their checks as a sale to Pittman, who in 2002 deeded the property to Tullos.
“Gene Tullos is a longtime friend of mine who buys a lot of land,” Pittman said Friday. “He told me, ‘I’m buying some land and want to put it in your name.’ Straw man is what it’s called.”
Under the law, Pittman said Tullos owed no fiduciary duty to the heirs – only to the administratrix.
Pittman said he knew nothing of the arrangement other than what Tullos told him at the time.
The heirs say if the property actually had been put up for bid, they would have received far more money.
Tullos said an assessment of the property valued it at $500 an acre, and “we paid $210 more than the appraisal. They had a lawyer, and they sure didn’t have to sign the deed.”
He said it’s obvious he paid a fair amount for the property because he bought land next to this property and paid $600 an acre. …
“I think DeLaughter was correct, but this opinion by the Mississippi Supreme Court doesn’t bother me,” Pittman said.He doesn’t like to see himself or Tullos falsely accused of fraud, he said. “It’s aggravating more than anything else.”
To think I used to rely on the MSM to provide facts; it’s a sad day when you can’t even trust a Pulitzer prize winning reporter.
I think the lawyer for the administratrix has at least an indirect duty to the heirs, as he has a duty to advise the administratrix to fulfill her duty to the heirs. I believe there is even some authority that the attorney for an administratrix/executrix has some direct duty to the heirs, but I don’t have time to look that up at the moment.
I thought the Adminstratix was one of the heirs. How do you differentiate when he was talking to her as an “heir” or as an adminstratix? If she was in the room when Tullos was talking, then her position is as the administratix.
One would like to imagine that a lawyer would be a bit less eager to distinguish his fellow men into “clients” and “chumps I can take advantage of,” and to draw that line very finely.
The administrator is a fiduciary for the estate. The lawyer owes his obligation to that fiduciary to assure that the fiduciary obligations are carried out.
As I read the Supreme Court opinion, the lawyer for the administrator is accused of skinning the estate– and it’s clear that lying about whether an auction had been held and then hiding his involvement through a straw man is fraud, and that’s what is alleged– which, if so, means either he did skinned the state with the collusion of his client, the fiduciary, or that he skinned both his client and the estate (to which his client owewd a serious duty to not skin) at the same time.
So I’m not very convinced by Pittman’s remark about who Tullos owed a duty to.
I do suspect Pittman would want the focus to be on his remark that, while he agreed to be a straw man, he didn’t know any details about the transaction.
I have a lot of respect for Crymes Pittman, he’s a good person and a very good lawyer but if my very best friend called me up and said I’m buying some property and want to put it in your name, I would be heading for the exit and advising him to find a new friend.
Surely he meant “reversed” instead of “upheld.” Is he a lawyer as well as a journalist? I bet not. Sometimes even Pulitzer prizewinners get legal terms mixed up. And then there’s the age factor, Like when I type “squash” and mean “quash” or “jealous” and mean “envious.”
By the way, I think Mitchell has been a finalist for the Pulitzer, not a winner. However, he won the McCarthur grant that’s commonly called the “genius” award.
A deliberate effort to conceal the ultimate purchaser reveals the true intention to fool the client, the fiduciary to the heirs. Regardless they may have demanded a higher price if they knew he desired to purchase the property, as counsel, he deliberately misled his own client. He utilized his position and knowledge as counsel to secure the property for himself. If that isn’t a breach of the ethics code, it sure as hell is offensive to this lawyer. Having defended cases filed by Mr. Tullos, I am not surprised.