IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

'FILED COMPLAINANT

V. SEP 10 2024 CAUSE NO. 2024-B-00570

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
VANESSA J JONES SUPREME COURT RESPONDENT
COURT OF APPEALS

RESPONDENT VANESSA J JONES'

MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

COMES NOW, Vanessa J Jones and files this Motion for Interlocutory Appeal from the

Complaint Tribunal }uling denying Respondent's Motion to Dismiss pursuant! to Mississippi

Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 5 and in support thereof, would show unto the Supreme Court

the following, to wit:

I. Respondent's Motion Presents a Controlling Issue of Law or Policy as to Which

There Exists a Substantial Ground for a Difference of Opinion
Respondent respectfully requests interlocutory review of the Complaint Tribunal's

August 28, 2024 Order denying Respondents' Motion to Dismiss. Respondent submits that the

legal and policy implications of Due Process and strict compliance with Mississippi Code

Sections 73-3-301 through 73-3-331 are substantial and should be reviewed and resolved by the

Supreme Court of Mississippi. The Complaint Tribunal ruled that the Bar's service of the

Hearing Report on Jones' attorney was proper under the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi

State Bar and consistent with the duties required of Bar Counsel under the Mississippi Rules of

Professional Conduct.

Jones' Motion to Dismiss was based on several Procedural Due Process requirements

which impart that a person must be given notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a Neutral

decision-maker. The Complaint Tribunal's Order ruled on the issue of service of the Complaint

1
MOTION#
Attorney's Investigative Report. The Complaint Tribunal did not rule whether the Due Process

procedural requirements of Mississippi Code Sections 73-3-301 through 73-3-331 were

complied. See Exhibit 1 Order Denying Respondent Vanessa J Jones' Motion to Dismiss

II. An Immediate Appeal Will Materially Advance the Termination of the Litigation
Whereas Subsequent Review is Inadequate
Respondent further submits that an immediate review of the Complaint Tribunal's ruling

will materially advance the litigation. If the Supreme Court takes this appeal much time, money

and judicial resources will be saved and this will materially advance the termination of the

litigation. It will protect Jones from substantia!l and irreparable injury. It will resolve an issue of
l
general importance in the administration of justice.

The proceedings were conducted under Mississippi Code Annotated Sections

73-3-301 through 73-3-319 which specify how complaints shall be received and filed,

investigations begun, hearings conducted, reports submitted by Complaint Counsel, and

dispositions made by the Committee on Complaints. The procedures specified by the laws of the

State of Mississippi, the Constitution of Mississippi and the United States Constitution have not

been complied.

Vanessa J Jones was her counsel of record during the Mississippi Bar's investigation.

No attorney had the authority to accept the Investigative Report ~n her behalf. Jones was denied

due process when The Mississippi Bar failed to give Ms. Jones a copy of the Complainant

Attorney's Investigative Report pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 73-3-315. Ms. Jones had a

constitutional right to make a statement refuting or admitting the alleged misconduct and to offer

any matter in mitigation or extenuation. Additionally, Ms. Jones had a right to document her

statement and submit affidavits in exoneration. Ms. Jones had a right to be heard prior to the

neutral complaint committee making a decision. The requirements of due process, as well as

2
traditional Anglo-American notions of fair play and substantial justice, are violated by this one-

sided procedure. All of this occurred under color of State law. All of this violated Ms. Jones'

constitutional right to both substantive and procedural due process. This deprived her of her

liberty interest. This deprived her of her equal protection rights pursuant to the United States

Constitution. This deprived her 1st Amendment Rights. The procedures used against Ms. Jones

violated the rules established by Netterville v. Mississippi State Bar, 397 So.2d 878 (Miss.1981).

In Mississippi Bar v. Attorney-Respondent, Etc., 367 So. 2d 179 (Miss. 1979) this Court

said in discussing In Re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S. Ct.1222, 20 L.

Ed. 2d 117 (1968):

Similarly in In Re Ruffalo, where the United States Supreme Court classified disciplinary

proceedings as quasi-criminal, there was no intent to equate them with criminal trial for all

purposes. In Re Ruffalo was a due process case and the Court simply reiterated what it had held

on previous occasions; that in any proceeding where there is the possibility of deprivation of

property or liberty, due process demands notice, and the opportunity to be heard. Thus, neither

Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 87 S. Ct. 625, 17 L.Ed. 2d 574 (1967) nor In Re Ruffalo held

that a disciplinary hearing is the equivalent of a criminal trial. Both, however, recognized that

due · to the severity of possible punishment due process demands that the proceedings be

conducted with regard to the attorney's rights of notice and opportunity to be heard. [367 So. 2d

at 185].

II. PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION

I. Vanessa J Jones ("Ms. Jones") was admitted to the Mississippi Bar on or about

April 23, 1996. Ms. Jones has been actively engaged in the practice of law in Mississippi for

3
almost thirty (30) years. Ms. Jones has never been sanctioned, reprimanded or disciplined by the

Mississippi Bar.

2. On or about May 24, 2018, Candise Hill (hereinafter "Ms. Hill") retained Ms.

Jones to represent her _in a personal injury matter arising from a May 15, 2018, one car

automobile accident which she was a passenger. The driver hit a tree and Ms. Hill received

broken arm, fractured her collar bone, other injuries and was unable to work. The claim was

deemed underinsured. Ms. Hill authorized Jones Law Firm to only withhold attorney fees.

Pursuant to the Retainer Agreement, only subrogated claims that her insurance company

demanded reimbursement were to bei withheld. Additionally, Pursuant to Rule l .2(a) of the 1

Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct which states "A lawyer shall abide by a client's

decision concerning the objectives of representation." Jones Law Firm only withheld attorney

fees. See Exhibit 1.

3. On or about June 14, 2018, Ms. Hill and High Rise Financial, LLC ("High Rise

Financial") entered into a "Nonrecourse Purchase Agreement" ("Purchase Agreement"). Under

the terms of the Purchase Agreement, High Rise Financial loaned Ms. Hill $2,000.00 in

exchange for a contingent right to repayment. The Nonrecourse Purchase Agreement stated that

"all disputes arising out of this transaction involving me and my law firm will be resolved via

arbitration with Arbitration Resolution Services based on their rules at www.arbresolutions.com.

The prevailing party will be entitled to all legal fees and costs. "

4. On or about March 16, 2022, almost four (4) years after Ms. Hill and High Rise

Financial entered into a "Nonrecourse Purchase Agreement", Mike Mackie, an agent, of High

Rise Financial filed an informal [Bar] complaint ("Informal Complaint") against Ms. Jones

alleging that Jones failed to safe keep property and properly pay liens regarding settlement

4
proceeds from a client's personal injury claim. Mississippi Code Section 15-1-29, 15-1-31 and

15-1-49 (1) sets a three (3) years statute oflimitations.

5. On or about June 1, 2022, Ms. Jones responded to this Informal Complaint. On or

about December 2022, Complaint Counsel requested additional documents. On or about January

2023, Ms. Jones provided additional documents to Complaint Counsel.

6. On January 6, 2023, Ms. Jones filed a Complaint In the United States District

Court For The Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division against High Rise Financial,

LLC and Michael Mackie, Individually for breach of contract.

7. On March 6, 2023, Ms. Jones met with the Mississippi Bar's Complaint Counsel

at the Office of General Counsel, The Mississippi Bar, 543 North State Street, Jackson,

Mississippi 39202 to discuss the Informal Complaint and procedures pursuant to Mississippi

Code Annotated Sections 73-3-309 through 73-3-319.

8. At the conclusion of the meeting on March 6, 2023, Complaint Counsel advised

Ms. Jones that she would complete her investigative report and mail the investigative report to

Ms. Jones within seven (7) days. Upon receipt of the Investigative Report, Ms. Jones would

have ten (10) days to make a statement refuting or admitting the alleged misconduct and to offer

any matter in mitigation or extenuation. Additionally, Ms. Jones had a right to submit affidavits

in exoneration. Ms. Jones was not mailed a copy of Complaint Counsel's investigative report.

As of July 29, 2024, Ms. Jones has never seen this Investigative Report.

9. Ms. Jones applied for a vacancy on April 23, 2024 that was created by the

retirement of Judge Jon Mark Weathers, 12th Circuit Court District, Post 2, Forrest/Perry County

Mississippi.

5
 10. On May 10, 2024, a Formal Complaint was filed by the Mississippi Bar. Ms.

Jones was personally served with the Formal ~omplaint on June 6, 2024.

11. From March 16, 2022, the filing of the Informal Complaint until May 10, 2024,

the filing of the Formal Complaint more than seven hundred and sixty (760) days had elapsed.

Mississippi Code Section 73-3-317 mandates a time of not more than sixty (60) days to make a

certification to the committee on complaints.

Section 73-3-317. Complaint counsel-investigatory hearings-report of testimony and

findings-response by accused attorney.

(1) Complaint counsel will cause the testimony of any witnesses at an investigatory hearing to be taken

and transcribed and shall certify the same to the committee on complaints, along with his written findings, within thirty

(30) days from and after the date on which the complaint was received by him, except that, for good cause shown, upon

application to the chairman of said committee, complaint counsel may be granted a total of not more than thirty (30)

additional days in which to make said certification.

(2) A copy of complaint counsel's report shall be sent to the accused attorney by certified mail, and the

accused attorney shall have ten (10) days after the receipt by him of complaint counsel's report to file a written response

thereto with the committee on complaints. Upon application to the chairman of the said committee, the accused attorney

may be granted such additional time as circumstances warrant.

Section 73-3-319. Committee on complaints; action to be taken upon receipt of

complaint counsel's report.

Within thirty (30) days of its receipt of complaint counsel's report, the committee on

complaints shall take the following action:

(a) If upon review of the record, complaint counsel's report and any written response by the accused attorney, the

committee determines that there is not reasonable ground to believe that the accused attorney has been guilty of

unprofessional conduct or conduct evincing unfitness for the practice of law, the committee may eith·er re-refer the matter

to complaint counsel for further investigation or may dismiss the complaint and retire the file. In this latter event, the

person filing the complaint, the accused attorney and the Executive Director of the Mississippi Bar shall be given written

notice of the committee's determination.

6
 (b) If upon review of the record, complaint counsel's report and any written response by the accused attorney, the

committee determines that there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused attorney has been guilty of unprofessional

conduct or conduct evincing unfitness for the practice of law, and is of the further opinion that a reprimand of the

accused attorney is all tl_lat justice requires and will adequately afford the disciplinary sanctions required by the

particular circumstances, the committee may administer a private reprimand, or it may, in its discretion, make public the

fact of the reprimand by having the same delivered in open court by the chancery or circuit court of the county of the

accused attorney. However, such action shall not be taken except upon proper notice and hearing, such notice and

hearing to upon the same formal requirements and assuring the accused attorney the same rights and privileges as

provided in Section 73-3-321 et seq. for hearings upon complaints which, if proven, would warrant suspension or

disbarment. The committee, in its discretion, may require the accused attorney to appear before it for delivery of the

reprimand or may forward it to him by registered mail. In any event, written notice of the delivery of such reprimand

shall be given to the person

(c) If the committee determines there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused attorney has been guilty

of unprofessional conduct, which, if proven, would warrant suspension for a definite or an indefinite period or permanent

disbarment, the committee shall direct complaint counsel in writing to prepare and file a formal complaint against the

accused attorney. Complaint counsel shall prosecute the case to conclusion, unless the president of the Mississippi State

Bar, in his sole discretion, shall appoint one or more active members of the state bar to either assist complaint counsel or

to serve independently as trial attorney or attorneys in the prosecution of the proceeding to conclusion.

Section 73-3-319, it is not until the Committee has determined that it has "reasonable cause to believe the

accused attorney is guilty of such conduct, which, if proven, would warrant suspension for a definite or indefinite period

or permanent disbarment," the Committee is required to file a formal complaint. Only then is there a provision for the

appointment of a com plaint tribunal, to hear and determine the matter.

By not giving Jones a copy of the investigative report, so that she could be heard prior to

the Investigative Hearing, Jones was denied her Due Process Rights pursuant to Mississippi

Code Annotated Section 73-3-319, The Mississippi Constitution, and the United States

Constitution.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Respondent respectfully request that the Mississippi Supreme

Court grant Respondent's application for review by certifying to the Mississippi Supreme Court,

7
in writing, that (1) its ruling involves a controlling question of law and policy as to which there

exists a substantial ground for a difference of opinion; (ii) an immediate appeal from the ruling

will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation and/or subsequent review of its

ruling will be an inadequate remedy. That this matter be stayed pending a ruling on this

application.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this the 5th day of September, A.D., 2024.

By:
Vanessa J Jones
Respondent

VANESSA J JONES, MSB#10236

JONES LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 1554
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39403
(601) 582-9177
vjjlawoffice@gmail.com

8
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Vanessa J Jones, certify that I have caused to be delivered to counsel of record for the

Mississippi Bar, Jeremy L. Birdsall and the Complaint Tribunal a copy of Respondent's Motion

to Dismiss via Email.

THIS the 5';J,day of September 2024.

VA

VANESSA J JONES, MSB#10236

JONES LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 1554
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39403
(601) 582-9177
vjjlawoffice@gmail.com

9
 ·FILED
AUG 29 2024 1

• i
IN THE SUPREME COURT O MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE CLER!<
(BEFORE A COMPLAINT fRIBUNAL) SUPREME COURT :
COURT OF APPEALS
THE MISSISSIPPI BAR ri COMPLAINANT

V. IIJ CAUSE NO.: 2024-B-00570

VANESSA J. JONES I RESPONDENT

~
I
ORDER DENYING RESONDENT VANESSA JONES' MOTION TO DISMISS

TIDS MATTER COMES BEFORE THE cpURT on Respondent Vanessa Jones'

. Motion to Dismiss filed on August I, 2024. In her motitn, Jones' argued her due process rights

were violated as the result of an alleged "[failure] to proviipe a copy of the Complainant Attorney's

Investigation Report pursuant to Mississippi Code SectiJ 73--3-3.15" and, further, argued her F~t

Amendment Rights were v10lated under Netterville v. M]sissipp1 State Bar, 397 So. 2d 878 (Miss.

1981). The Court finds no merit to these arguments, as thl response shows the Bar's service of its

Hearing Report on fones' ~ttomey was prope~ under th~ Rules of Discipline ~or _the Mississippi

State Bar and consistent with the duties reqmred of Ba11 counsel under the Miss1Ssipp1 Rules of

Professional Conduct.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this a::ugust,

IT IS, HEREBY, ORDERED that Respondent', Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

2024.

cmtcuIT COURT JUDGE

HONORABLE E. FAYE PETERSON
Hattiesburg Office JONES LAW FIRM, P. A. Prentiss Office
6088 U.S. Highway 49 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2219 N. Columbia Avenue
Post Office Box 15 54 Prentiss. MS 39474
Hattiesburg, 1v1S 39403 Email: ,jj lawoffice@gmail.com
(601) 582-9177 Phone
(601) 582~5340 Fax

September 5, 2024

D. Jeremy Whitmire Clerk

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Post Office Box 117
Jackson, MS 39205-0117

Re: The Mississippi Bar v. Vanessa J Jones, Cause No. 2024-B-00570

Mr. Whitmire:

Please find enclosed a Respondenf s Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. Thank you for
your attention in this matter.

cc: Jeremy Birdsall, Esquire

The Mississippi Bar